Cutting Funding for Oral Contraceptives: Violation of Equal Protection Rights and the Disparate Impact on Women's Healthcare

rachel v. rose, Stetson University

Abstract

Cutting funding for oral contraceptives has far reaching implications for women, which include adverse impacts on women’s health, negative economic impacts on society, and constitutional violations. In a country whose governmental health plans (Medicare and Medicaid) reimburse men’s costs for Viagra® , it is hardly appropriate to deny women access to prescribed oral contraceptives that have traditionally been defined as supplementary services falling under the umbrella of primary care. Because of the wording of a provision, some contend that non-profit clinics and campus health centers can no longer offer oral contraceptives at reduced rates. This article will show how decreasing funding for oral contraceptives violates equal protection and embodies a disparate impact in relation to women’s health for Medicaid and Title X recipients. Thus, culminating in a violation of the Constitutional right to equal protection.