Where To Stick That Warning Label

In July of 2005, US District Judge Laurie Smith Camp, ruled that Union Pacific Railroad had discriminated against its female employees by not covering contraception in its health plan. While this judge did not order the company to cover contraceptives, she did say that Union Pacific's policy ran afoul of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employers with 15 or more employees from discrimination based on gender or pregnancy. It's intersting to note that the lawsuit was funded largely by Planned Parenthood. Part of their argument included that the Union Pacific plan covered men who had erectile dysfunction so women would be getting the short end of the stick (sorry, couldn't resist) if they too didn't get some kind of coverage for thier own sex needs.

Union Pacific, no doubt feeling railroaded, appealed the decision and presented their case this week before the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. I was struck by the plaintiff's lead attorney's statement that described that men received coverage that protected them from health risks; so why shouldn't women receive the same coverage?

Pregnancy is a health risk?

So my first question is where do we put the warning labels? We have warning labels on cigarette packs warning that smoking is a health risk especially for pregant women. Similar warning labels are on bottles of booze. Should we afix labels now on men's underwear warning women that removing and using its contents could seriously put their health at risk?

Clearly this is just another sad attempt by Planned Parenthood to reinforce their position that a baby in the womb is a parasite to its host mother. By getting said baby classified as a health risk then it makes it far easier to make the case that such a risk should be allowed to be aborted at will.

Appeals Court Judge Pasco Bowman didn't seem to buy the argument that pregnancy was a health risk in and of itself. Union Pacific's attorney made the case that the policy didn’t discriminate against women at all since all employees were denied contraception coverage. Apparently the plan doesn't cover the men's purchase of codoms either. What is more, the railroad's health-care plan does offer contraceptive coverage for women who face higher health risks from pregnancy, such as those with high blood pressure or other conditions.

It will be very telling for our culture to see if this Appeals Court rules that fertility itself is a health risk. A ruling for the plaintiff could open the door for many other more grave activities. For example, if fertility is considered a health risk, then shouldn't the government fund contraceptive programs and even sterilization for the poor? Talk about potential for social engineering.

And the feminists howled when Pope Paul VI warned about the dangers the pill would bring to humanity. Pray for a sensible ruling from this court.