April #58 : Supremes Reunion - by Shana Naomi Krochmal

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

Back to home » Archives » POZ Magazine issues




Table of Contents

Proud of Our Blood

The Most Dangerous AIDS Reporter

Careers

Trials

Give a Dame

Mom's Needle Point

Shout Out

Mailbox

Gays Need Not Apply

Ana Gets Analyzed

Shout Out

Supremes Reunion

Mom’s Needle Point

NEG/POS

Catching Up With...

You’ve Got AIDS

Bookmark This

Bookmark This

Letter From Dreamland

Battle At Immunesburg

The Tools Of The Trade

Milestones

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

Shingles

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


    dversescott
    Baltimore
    Maryland


    soy_Ric
    Rochester
    New York


    usuallyhappy
    Palm Springs
    California


    donnyp
    liberty
    Kentucky
Click here to join POZ Personals!
Ask POZ Pharmacist

Talk to Us
Poll
Are you a regular coffee drinker?
Yes
No

Survey
Pop Watch

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]
© 2014 Smart + Strong. All Rights Reserved. Terms of use and Your privacy.
Smart + Strong® is a registered trademark of CDM Publishing, LLC.