April #58 : Supremes Reunion - by Shana Naomi Krochmal

POZ - Health, Life and HIV
Subscribe to:
POZ magazine
Join POZ: Facebook MySpace Twitter Pinterest
Tumblr Google+ Flickr MySpace
POZ Personals
Sign In / Join

Back to home » Archives » POZ Magazine issues

Table of Contents

Proud of Our Blood

The Most Dangerous AIDS Reporter



Give a Dame

Mom's Needle Point

Shout Out


Gays Need Not Apply

Ana Gets Analyzed

Shout Out

Supremes Reunion

Mom’s Needle Point


Catching Up With...

You’ve Got AIDS

Bookmark This

Bookmark This

Letter From Dreamland

Battle At Immunesburg

The Tools Of The Trade


Cheap Veep

On The Runs

Alternatives 2000

Choose Me

The Case of Missing Cofactors

Don’t Buy The HIV Lie

Like A Prayer

Comfort Zone

You Are What You Eat

Curb The Herb

Herb Of The Month

Organ Grinders

What’s The Alternative?

No Roman Holiday

4.20.90: Proud Of Our Blood

No Roman Holiday

Most Popular Lessons

The HIV Life Cycle


Herpes Simplex Virus

Syphilis & Neurosyphilis

Treatments for Opportunistic Infections (OIs)

What is AIDS & HIV?

Hepatitis & HIV

email print

April 2000

Supremes Reunion

by Shana Naomi Krochmal

The nation’s highest court kicked off the New Year with two rulings that limit the rights of HIVers. But because the decisions were not accompanied by any comment from the justices, neither sets a legal precedent for other cases or blocks the court from hearing similar claims in the future.

In the case of Doe v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company, the court upheld limits on health care policies bought by two men (named Doe to protect their identities) to lifetime caps on AIDS-related claims—$25,000 for one, $100,000 for the other, as opposed to the $1 million caps for other diseases. They charged that Mutual of Omaha had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by offering more restrictive coverage because they were HIV positive.

Mutual of Omaha’s lawyers argued that the company did not refuse policies to HIVers and that it similarly limited claims for conditions such as alcoholism, drug addiction and mental illness.

The second suit, Davis v. Hopper, was filed in 1985 on behalf of hundreds of HIV positive Alabama prisoners who were isolated and banned from participation in group programs, including some religious services, through which they might have come into contact with HIV negative prisoners. Prison officials justified the policy by pointing to significantly lower transmission rates than that of other states’ prisons—in eight years, only two out of 30,000 prisoners seroconverted, they said.

Though advocates argued that segregation should be allowed only on a case-by-case basis—under the ADA, people who are a “direct threat to the health and safety of others” can legally be barred from activities—the court once again ruled in favor of the prison officials. A 1998 Supreme Court ruling required that “objective, scientific information” be used to determine whether there was enough risk to justify such separation.

[Go to top]

Facebook Twitter Google+ MySpace YouTube Tumblr Flickr Instagram
Quick Links
Current Issue

HIV Testing
Safer Sex
Find a Date
Newly Diagnosed
HIV 101
Disclosing Your Status
Starting Treatment
Help Paying for Meds
Search for the Cure
POZ Stories
POZ Opinion
POZ Exclusives
Read the Blogs
Visit the Forums
Job Listings
Events Calendar
POZ on Twitter

Ask POZ Pharmacist

Talk to Us
Did you participate in an event for National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day 2016?


more surveys
Contact Us
We welcome your comments!
[ about Smart + Strong | about POZ | POZ advisory board | partner links | advertising policy | advertise/contact us | site map]
© 2016 Smart + Strong. All Rights Reserved. Terms of use and Your privacy.
Smart + Strong® is a registered trademark of CDM Publishing, LLC.