of infertility. See Pacourek v. Inland Steel Co., 858 F.Supp. 1393, 1402 (N.D.Ill.1994) (“ ‘Related’ is a generous choice of wording, suggesting that interpretation should favor inclusion rather than exclusion in the close cases.”)- However, for reasons discussed below, this court finds that infertility is not encompassed by the phrase “related medical conditions.” The PDA is a remedial statute, and as such, it should be liberally construed. Monell v. N.Y.C. Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 684, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 2032-33, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). Nevertheless, the word “relates” should not be interpreted to be without bounds. See New York State Conference of Blue Cross and Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Insurance Company, — U.S. -, -, 115 S.Ct. 1671, 1682, 131 L.Ed.2d 695 (1995) (<HOLDING>). Under the rules of statutory construction,
holding that a phrase should be interpreted consistent with the context of the statute in which it is contained holding that contracts should be interpreted to give effect to all provisions holding that the phrase relates to should be interpreted to limit the breadth of erisa holding that the phrase statement respecting the debtors  financial condition should be narrowly interpreted holding that contracts should be interpreted to avoid absurd results