Employers may benefit from the pill
Interesting article - one thing that springs to mind is that it may be in the employers interests to not have members of staff taking maternity leave! :o)
I maybe could understand if the argument was that as a personal lifestyle choice to aid sexual activities the company wasn't prepared to pay, but even then it's a grey area. Could this lead to a minor class divide of sorts between the have-and-have-not's where preventing unplanned pregnancies becomes the reserve of the better-paid employed elite?
Using the pill to regulate heavy periods may result in fewer sick days for the organisation, so again despite the cost of the medication, there may be financial benefits to employers. Maybe a converse study of the cost of employee pregnancy would show that it is in the business's interests to get MORE female employees in the pill (and what about the male pill?).
However. Using religion as a control mechanism is ridiculous. I can imagine a new blame and claim culture emerging for employees suing employers for unplanned pregnancies.
What a can of worms!
