We cited a recent trend in Congress and a variety of courts increasing the parameters of what constitutes sex discrimination and note that in the majority of cases neither traditional underwriting standards nor economic cost have been overriding considerations. We believe that Vermont law does not permit discrimination in the provision of maternity-related coverages based on an insured's or covered dependent's marital status. In other words, if maternity coverage is provided, it must be provided equally to married and unmarried persons. We do not believe that current Vermont law requires all policies of health insurance to include maternity benefits inasmuch as pregnancy is distinct from illness or injury. Insurance deals with the pooling of similar risks of loss while the individual claim is the result of an occurrence of a fortuitous event.
Pregnancy is a voluntarily entered condition which results in some disability.
However, the vast majority of pregnant females are well persons. We conclude that existing Vermont statute does not specifically require the coverage of medical expenses attendant upon the normally well condition of pregnancy. We believe that failure to do so constitutes unfair discrimination based upon sex. We note with special concern that the medical expenses resulting from normal pregnancy occurring in the case of children is generally fortuitous and, therefore, insurable.