The lawsuit, which has not been decided yet, was filed by a pharmacist against her employer. Erickson's standpoint is that it is sexual discrimination for a woman to be denied coverage. Because prescription contraceptives are excluded by Bartell's non-union employee health plan, Ms. Erickson must pay out of pocket for her prescription contraceptives or risk the physical, emotional and financial costs of an unplanned pregnancy. It is her choice to use an expensive preventive measure, and it is her choice to be sexually active. It is not the responsibility of health insurance providers to cover an individual's private, personal choices.
Many people choose to use condoms or simply abstain from sex.
These people would be helping to foot the bill for their sisters who choose to use contraceptives such as birth control pills. If insurance companies are required by law to provide for this, the cost will be transferred from the insurance companies to the woman's employer. It would only be a matter of time, then, until employers wouldn't want to foot the higher bills and instead would decide to cancel health insurance for their employees altogether. I hardly think it's worth possibly losing health insurance completely, just so certain contraceptives cost less out of pocket. We should also examine the message being sent to young women if contraceptive coverage were mandatory.