Only lawyers could be so stupid...

Another new collection begins here: judicial decisions preposterous on their face.

A March 17 New York Times article by Tamar Lewin,"Court Says Health Coverage May Bar Birth-Control Pills" (link to come), reports on a federal appellate decision that "the Union Pacific Railroad Company did not discriminate against its female employees because its insurance did not cover contraception used by men either..."

The court apparently "found that Union Pacific’s health plans did not violate the Pregnancy Discrimination Act because contraception is not related to pregnancy...."
"Contraception is a treatment that is only indicated prior to pregnancy,” the majority opinion said. “Contraception is not a medical treatment that occurs when or if a woman becomes pregnant; instead contraception prevents pregnancy from even occurring.”"

The dissent notes that “When one looks at the medical effect of Union Pacific’s failure to provide insurance coverage for prescription contraception, the inequality of coverage is clear...[Duh!] This failure only medically affects females, as they bear all of the health consequences of unplanned pregnancies.”

"The Planned Parenthood lawyer who represented the plaintiffs, Roberta Riley, said, 'It’s shocking that this court says that contraception isn’t related to pregnancy, since if it weren’t for pregnancy, contraception wouldn’t exist.'"

"'It’s also shocking that the plan covers Rogaine, for men’s baldness, and Viagra, for impotence, but not birth control pills,' Ms. Riley said. 'And it’s disturbing, because millions of women throughout the country depend on contraceptive coverage through their health plans.'"
***************

TWB: Some decisions are so stupid that they defy parody.

N.B. Please forgive the awkwardness of formatting of the excerpted material, and any possible excess in the extent of quoting from the Times story, which is worth reading in full on the Times site. Still getting my act together on how to do this.