There's a good deal of paradoxical logic floating around the courts of this nation.

Frankly, I've thought so for years, but a recent verdict decided by a federal appellate court made my jaw drop.

The case involved a class action lawsuit brought by female employees of the Union Pacific Railroad Company. It stated that the company discriminated against its female employees by excluding birth control pills from its health insurance coverage.

The first federal ruling on the issue from the 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that because the railroad's health insurance plan did not cover any types of contraception — for women or men — it did not violate the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, part of the federal law forbidding discrimination in employment, according to the New York Times.

"Union Pacific's health plans do not cover any contraception used by women, such as birth control, sponges, diaphragms, intrauterine devices, tubal ligations or any contraception used by men such as condoms and vasectomies," the opinions said. "Therefore, the coverage provided to women is not less favorable than it is to men."

Okay, no preferential treatment for one gender over the other. We get it. But let's take a look at what the insurance plans do cover:

Viagra, for impotence.

Rogaine, for baldness.

What?

And yet, the insurance plan doesn't cover birth control even if it's taken for non-contraceptive uses (many women use forms of birth control to regulate conditions such as ovarian cysts or endometriosis).

"When one looks at the medical effect of Union Pacific's failure to provide insurance coverage for prescription contraception, the inequality in coverage is clear," said Judge Kermit E. Bye, in his lone opinion of dissent. "This failure only medically affects females, as they bear all the health consequences of unplanned pregnancies."

This decision not only frightens me due to it's clear injustice, but also makes me worry that, after years of fighting for the acceptance of birth control in our nation, women may witness their hard work vanish at the whims of preferential courts.

"This ruling is an outrageous step backwards for women's health," said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, in a recent statement. "Birth control is basic health care, and health insurance should cover it."

Not that any of this should be surprising. The number of pregnancy-related discrimination disputes in this country is staggering.

In 2006, Equal Employment Opportunity Commision (EEOC) — which regulates the Pregnancy Discrimination Act — received 4,901 charges of pregnancy-based discrimination. The EEOC also resolved 4,629 pregnancy discrimination charges and recovered $10.4 million in monetary benefits for charging parties and other aggrieved individuals.

And, as Planned Parenthood lawyer Roberta Riley told the New York Times, "It's shocking that this court says that contraception isn't related to pregnancy, since if it weren't for pregnancy, contraception wouldn't exist."

Though Union Pacific — the nation's largest railroad company — employs only 50,000 individuals, I wonder what decisions like this will mean for other companies who already severely limit or restrict the compensation they offer their female employees for birth control.

Even more disheartening is that due to recent funding cuts, Take Charge — the program by which Planned Parenthood offers birth control free of charge to individuals who cannot afford it — has become increasingly selective and restrictive in its coverage.

I hope that other companies and courts will see the violation of rights present in the federal court's opinion and look beyond what may seem like a way to "cut costs" by neglecting to cover birth control for female employees.

Because if they do not, it seems that more egregious infringements on the liberties of a group that represents 46 percent of the nation's work force are right around the corner.

Reach columnist Maureen Trantham at opinion@thedaily.washington.edu.