These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
2. The EPICC quest for prescription contraceptive insurance coverage. Vargas C Am J Law Med; 2002; 28(4):455-71. PubMed ID: 12516176 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Lack of insurance coverage for prescription contraception by an otherwise comprehensive plan as a violation of Title VII as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act--stretching the statute too far. Backmeyer ER Indiana Law Rev; 2004; 37(2):437-66. PubMed ID: 16211763 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. In good conscience: the legal trend to include prescription contraceptives in employer insurance plans and Catholic charities' "conscience clause" objection. Spota K Cathol Univers Law Rev; 2003; 52(4):1081-113. PubMed ID: 15732206 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Employment law--Title VII--Eighth Circuit holds that benefits plans excluding all contraceptives do not discriminate based on sex.--In re Union Pacific Railroad Employment Practices Litigation, 479 F.3d 936 (8th Cir. 2007), reh'g and reh'g en banc denied, No. 06-1706 (8th Cir. May 23, 2007). Harv Law Rev; 2008 Mar; 121(5):1447-54. PubMed ID: 18441613 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Catholic Charities v. Superior Court. California. Court of Appeal, Third District Wests Calif Report; 2001; 109():176-206. PubMed ID: 16479701 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. A battle over birth "control": legal and legislative employer prescription contraception benefit mandates. Loomis CK William Mary Bill Rights J; 2002 Dec; 11(1):463-94. PubMed ID: 16389684 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Insurance: exclusion of contraception found discriminatory by EEOC. Netter W J Law Med Ethics; 2001; 29(1):104-6. PubMed ID: 11521259 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Catholic Charities of Sacramento County v. Superior Court of Sacramento County. California. Supreme Court Wests Pac Report; 2004; 85():67-108. PubMed ID: 17225342 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Sex discrimination or a hard pill for employers to swallow: examining the denial of contraceptive benefits in the wake of Erickson v. Bartell Drug Co. Korland L Case West Reserve Law Rev; 2002; 53(2):531-67. PubMed ID: 16506335 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act: employer health insurance plans must cover prescription contraceptives. Kurtz JM; Mehoves C Empl Benefits J; 2001 Sep; 26(3):29-31. PubMed ID: 11534218 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Drafting a "sensible" conscience clause: a proposal for meaningful conscience protections for religious employers objecting to the mandated coverage of prescription contraceptives. Rudary DJ Health Matrix Clevel; 2013; 23(1):353-94. PubMed ID: 23808105 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. How federal discrimination laws affect health/welfare and pension benefit plans. Weiss FK Empl Benefits J; 1981 Mar; 6(1):12-7. PubMed ID: 10249983 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. The pregnant worker: who bears the burden? Bunch PL; McFarlane DR; Dowben C Women Health; 1979; 4(4):333-44. PubMed ID: 532181 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. An employer's exclusion of coverage for contraceptive drugs is not per se sex discrimination. Lidge EF Temple Law Rev; 2003; 76(3):533-77. PubMed ID: 16514770 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Contraceptive coverage laws: eliminating gender discrimination or infringing on religious liberties? Chettiar IM Univ Chic Law Rev; 2002; 69(4):1867-99. PubMed ID: 15164744 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Sex discrimination and insurance for contraception. Law SA Wash Law Rev; 1998 Apr; 73(2):363-402. PubMed ID: 12465638 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. US judge condemns health plan for not covering contraception. Josefson D BMJ; 2001 Jun; 322(7301):1507. PubMed ID: 11420265 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]