Expecting and I just found out I don't qualify for short term disability. America is not pro-life/pro-birth

[Anonymous]

You should have signed up for STD. It’s not just for pregnancy. OP messed up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If that timing is true, and I would encourage you to write a justification and ask your doctor to send it to the short-term disability insurance company. If what you’re saying is true then there is no way you could have known you were pregnant until the enrollment window began.

Why should that matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm trying to follow but I don't understand. Open enrollment in Oct/Nov would have been for 2026. OP found out she was pregnant in Nov 2025. She did not have STD at the time she found out she was pregnant. Why would insurance cover her now?

Open enrollment started 10/27/25.
Took a pregnancy test 11/1/25.
Due 7/4/26.

STD was denied even though she didn’t know she was pregnant when open enrollment started.

That doesn't matter. Why should it? Based on the timeline, if she's have signed up the minute open enrollment opened, she still would not be eligible to have the pregnancy covered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am missing something - why didn't OP just sign up for it if annually if she knew there was a possibility of getting pregnant? It ended up taking me 3 years of ivf to get pregnant, but I had signed up for a std policy each year with the hopes I would need it. I must be missing something here?

See page 2

She wanted to save a few bucks and not pay for STD when she didn't think she would need it. When she changed her mind, she had a preexisting condition, the pregnancy, that wasn't covered.

It's a perfectly reasonable approach, one that many people take. But the risk is that you may turn out to need the coverage before you think you do. It stinks, but there's no basis to appeal the decision.

[Anonymous]

The lesson for others is to sign up for STD as soon as you become eligible for benefits so there’s no gap in enrollment. Don’t wait until you think you might need it. Or wait to try for a pregnancy until you know you’re covered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm trying to follow but I don't understand. Open enrollment in Oct/Nov would have been for 2026. OP found out she was pregnant in Nov 2025. She did not have STD at the time she found out she was pregnant. Why would insurance cover her now?

Open enrollment started 10/27/25.
Took a pregnancy test 11/1/25.
Due 7/4/26.

STD was denied even though she didn’t know she was pregnant when open enrollment started.

She should’ve signed up when first eligible. Her first mistake was right there. The next mistake is thinking that very black and white contract terms don’t apply to her. A late entrant onto a voluntary STD Plan is going to have some sort of pre-ex clause assessed on them. The way that the insurance is written to avoid people joining when they only need it and then dropping it at the first opportunity.

The bigger issue here how little care women receive. Please stop.

Then go vote, call your senators, start protesting…

The crux of the matter is than OP didn’t want to pay for the coverage, now wants it, and can’t get it, and we have people like you trying to make it seem like the mean old insurance company is somehow wrongfully denying her claim.

[Anonymous]

First, as a PP wrote, "What you're describing is bad and the US should offer more." Absolutely true.

That said, within the confines of the system that the OP describes, she isn't entitled to coverage. Consider this hypothetical:

A family doesn't have homeowners insurance. They are on vacation from March 1 through March 31. While on vacation, they decide to purchase homeowners insurance, and do so effective March 15. However, unbeknownst to them, their house burned down on March 10. Are they entitled to coverage for the fire?

Of course not. Insurance companies don't insure retroactive risks, other than in extremely unusual circumstances.

It stinks, for sure. But all of you complaining that OP has been treated unfairly don't know what the eff you are talking about.

[Anonymous]

The bigger issue here how little care women receive.

There are those of us who can address what the future ought to be, and the immediate issues resulting from our current situation.

Please stop.

It's not helpful to ignore what reality is now and what it means in terms of family planning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm trying to follow but I don't understand. Open enrollment in Oct/Nov would have been for 2026. OP found out she was pregnant in Nov 2025. She did not have STD at the time she found out she was pregnant. Why would insurance cover her now?

Open enrollment started 10/27/25.
Took a pregnancy test 11/1/25.
Due 7/4/26.

STD was denied even though she didn’t know she was pregnant when open enrollment started.

That doesn't matter. Why should it? Based on the timeline, if she's have signed up the minute open enrollment opened, she still would not be eligible to have the pregnancy covered.

+1. In order to be covered, OP would have had to have signed up for STD during open enrollment Oct/Nov 2024 for the 2025 calendar year. Then when she found out she was pregnant in Oct/Nov 2025, she would have been covered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:is it either STD *or* maternity leave? Will you not be eligible for ML at all as a contractor? I'm having a truly hard time understanding.

While I understand that some people impeccably plan expanding their families, other people just "turn up pregnant." When the time comes, they have maternity leave or create something from leave / unpaid/ whatever.

Has no contractor at your company ever been pregnant? Is there anyone you can ask about their experience? I hope you get it all sorted.

I WFH on a specific assignment for a large company, so I have no colleagues to consult with, however, I’m trying to work with my HR now. My contract was only supposed to be 3 months but now it’s going on two years.

When I enrolled/started in July 2024 I wasn’t even dating my fiance, we had just been friends for many years. Given my age (34 at the time I first enrolled), the short duration of my contract, single with 0 prospects, and no desire for a relationship because of grief I didn’t even
think getting pregnant was a possibility… Heck I didn’t even see the point in enrolling period because I thought I wouldn’t be there long

I get it. However, pregnancy is not the only reason to pay into short term disability. Consider that things in life could change at any moment and then plan accordingly.

Right. That’s why I said because my contract was only supposed to be 3 months I didn’t see the need.

So what was your plan to cover your salary if something happened to you during those 3 months and you were not able to work? Whatever that plan was---now is the time to implement it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The lesson for others is to sign up for STD as soon as you become eligible for benefits so there’s no gap in enrollment. Don’t wait until you think you might need it. Or wait to try for a pregnancy until you know you’re covered.

This is really the lesson.

I am sorry OP, it is a tough lesson to learn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:First, as a PP wrote, "What you're describing is bad and the US should offer more." Absolutely true.

That said, within the confines of the system that the OP describes, she isn't entitled to coverage. Consider this hypothetical:

A family doesn't have homeowners insurance. They are on vacation from March 1 through March 31. While on vacation, they decide to purchase homeowners insurance, and do so effective March 15. However, unbeknownst to them, their house burned down on March 10. Are they entitled to coverage for the fire?

Of course not. Insurance companies don't insure retroactive risks, other than in extremely unusual circumstances.

It stinks, for sure. But all of you complaining that OP has been treated unfairly don't know what the eff you are talking about.

Pregnancy shouldn’t be a “risk”. The fathers who get to take paternity leave don’t have to wonder if their period can potentially affect their coverage. Maternal healthcare in the US is absolute crap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First, as a PP wrote, "What you're describing is bad and the US should offer more." Absolutely true.

That said, within the confines of the system that the OP describes, she isn't entitled to coverage. Consider this hypothetical:

A family doesn't have homeowners insurance. They are on vacation from March 1 through March 31. While on vacation, they decide to purchase homeowners insurance, and do so effective March 15. However, unbeknownst to them, their house burned down on March 10. Are they entitled to coverage for the fire?

Of course not. Insurance companies don't insure retroactive risks, other than in extremely unusual circumstances.

It stinks, for sure. But all of you complaining that OP has been treated unfairly don't know what the eff you are talking about.

Pregnancy shouldn’t be a “risk”. The fathers who get to take paternity leave don’t have to wonder if their period can potentially affect their coverage. Maternal healthcare in the US is absolute crap.

It’s 2026 and you live in the US. It’s not narnia. Are you new here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First, as a PP wrote, "What you're describing is bad and the US should offer more." Absolutely true.

That said, within the confines of the system that the OP describes, she isn't entitled to coverage. Consider this hypothetical:

A family doesn't have homeowners insurance. They are on vacation from March 1 through March 31. While on vacation, they decide to purchase homeowners insurance, and do so effective March 15. However, unbeknownst to them, their house burned down on March 10. Are they entitled to coverage for the fire?

Of course not. Insurance companies don't insure retroactive risks, other than in extremely unusual circumstances.

It stinks, for sure. But all of you complaining that OP has been treated unfairly don't know what the eff you are talking about.

Pregnancy shouldn’t be a “risk”. The fathers who get to take paternity leave don’t have to wonder if their period can potentially affect their coverage. Maternal healthcare in the US is absolute crap.

DP Agreed.

Family planning is even more critical in these circumstances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First, as a PP wrote, "What you're describing is bad and the US should offer more." Absolutely true.

That said, within the confines of the system that the OP describes, she isn't entitled to coverage. Consider this hypothetical:

A family doesn't have homeowners insurance. They are on vacation from March 1 through March 31. While on vacation, they decide to purchase homeowners insurance, and do so effective March 15. However, unbeknownst to them, their house burned down on March 10. Are they entitled to coverage for the fire?

Of course not. Insurance companies don't insure retroactive risks, other than in extremely unusual circumstances.

It stinks, for sure. But all of you complaining that OP has been treated unfairly don't know what the eff you are talking about.

Pregnancy shouldn’t be a “risk”. The fathers who get to take paternity leave don’t have to wonder if their period can potentially affect their coverage. Maternal healthcare in the US is absolute crap.

Do men get short term disability for pregnancy/birth?