Search

Many public schools since the 1980s have made condoms available to high school students. The purpose of these programs is to reduce unwanted pregnancies and the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS. However, some conservative groups and parents objected to these programs as an unconstitutional infringement on parental and religious rights. To date, most courts have upheld the programs and struck down requirements for parental consent or notification.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in Curtis v. School Committee that a voluntary condom distribution program did not violate parents' due process and free exercise of religion rights. While mandatory programs and programs that preclude the exercise of a right are constitutionally suspect, this program merely made condoms available to students who wanted them. Parental rights are often limited by the state in instances where the state's or child's interest outweighs that of the parent.

Contraceptives policy not discriminatory: Court Union Pacific Railroad's former policy of not paying for contraceptives did not discriminate against women and therefore did not violate the federal Civil Rights Act [...]

Without admitting guilt, Dow Jones & Co. Inc. settled discrimination charges filed with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by a worker for The Wall Street Journal and two other [...]

If pharmacies want to hire and retain female workers, more of them should include coverage of prescription contraception in their health plans, suggested the pharmacist who won a sexual discrimination [...]

A federal court in Seattle ruled that Bartell Drug Co., the Seattle-based drug store chain, discriminated against female employees by not covering contraceptives in its employee health plan. The class-action [...]

CalPERS to strengthen two ailing health plans SACRAMENTO, Calif.--The California Public Employees Retirement System will increase premiums, copayments and deductibles as part of a financial recovery strategy for two self-funded [...]

What started out as a quiet effort to persuade her employer to add contraceptives to its prescription plan ended with a Seattle pharmacist's being the lead plaintiff in a landmark [...]

Physicians don't need to worry about losing access to Norplant in the wake of last month's $50 million, settlement between the manufacturer and thousands of women who claimed they were [...]

The Contraceptive-Coverage Cases and Politicized Free-Exercise Lawsuits Gregory M. Upper, University of Illinois Law Review, Vol. 2016 No. 4 This article examines the history and context of opposition to the [...]

IN MARCH, A FEDERAL judge ruled in favor of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in a lawsuit filed against the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for awarding [...]

EARLY 40 YEARS AFTER THE US Supreme Court's Griswold v. Connecticut decision legalized birth control for married couples, a New York appellate court in a predominantly Catholic upstate county was [...]

SACRAMENTO BISHOP WILLIAM K. Weigand has announced that the diocese will take a California court decision to the US Supreme Court. The ruling stated that Catholic Charities of Sacramento is [...]

The United States Supreme Court ruled at the beginning of July that employers are required to provide health insurance covering contraceptives. In the case, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the court [...]

IN A DECISION SIMILAR TO a 2004 California ruling involving Catholic Charities, the New York state Court of Appeals--the state's highest court--ruled 6-0 that religious and other health-insurance providers that [...]

AS THE BUSH White House vigorously resisted a Center for Reproductive Rights subpoena demanding internal documents that might show its involvement in the FDA's review of the emergency contraceptive Plan [...]

Wyeth-Ayerst laboratories used to revel in stories like Stephen Heartwell's. When the company introduced the contraceptive Norplant to the U.S. market in 1991, the nine community clinics Heartwell runs in [...]