- Nov 26, 2011
- 123,586
- 55,363
- 2,290
Peach while I respect your point, I don't see how we need a bill here on the state level that protects the 1st Amendment which already does protect Religious rights. It would seem to me that those who wish to take the "the pill" are in fact exercising a right to do so and it is a fully regulated drug by the FDA. Further, for those who have a moral objection to it, there is no obligation for them to take it, nor is there an obligation for them to purchase it.
Are you being deliberately blind?
The moral objection issue arises when a faith-based employer is forced to supply birth control coverage. This bill exempts such employers from violating their faith. They must supply birth control coverage for actual medical issues like ovarian cysts and whatnot. They do not have to provide it for the prevention of pregnancy.
It is as simple as that. Everything else is just a lot of smoke and misdirection from the anti-religious harpies.
Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 20-2329 (2002) requires all health insurance plans providing coverage for prescription medications to also provide coverage for all FDA-approved prescription methods of contraception. Religious employers may request exclusion from this requirement
Theres the law in question, it would seem to me , again if an employer has an objection on moral grounds to this issue, then apply for an exclusion. It's not an anit-religious issue what it is , is our legislature wasting time on an already settled issue.
The Arizona law which is the subject of this thread amends 20-2329.
Bill Text: AZ House Bill 2625 - Fiftieth Legislature - Second Regular Session (2012) | LegiScan