This paper will attempt to answer those questions in relation to the results of the Bragdon v Abbot case.
According to Bragdon v Abbot there is a right to reproduce, similar to the right to breathe. The case is saying that reproduction is a major life function just like any other bodily function and a disability related to reproduction is as important as a disability related to asthma (Walker , 2010). Further, the Code of Federal Regulations according to Walker (2001) states that "any physiological disorder, or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more of the following body systems: Neurological, musculoskeletal, special sense organs, respiratory (including speech organs), cardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, genital-urinary, hemi and lymphatic, skin, and endocrine." As is noted, reproductive is listed.
There is a lot of disagreement at the moment as to whether or not infertility is a disability, in fact, it appears that all of the states supreme courts cannot seem to agree. However, in this particular case, it was determined to be a disability and unless another case comes along and determines the results of this one to be incorrect, it will be considered by insurance companies and employers to be so.
Certainly insurance companies must respond by assuring that insurance cover infertility treatment. This writer does not believe this will last long. There will be another supreme court case to come along. It is not that this writer disagrees but certainly at the cost of such treatments insurance companies will either need to raise cost or find a way not to cover the treatment. It is thought that certainly most states will go for the attempt to get insurance companies to pay for infertility treatment, with the exception, possibly of self-insured cases.
In some ways, mandating insurance to pay for infertility treatment