Arizona Birth Control Bill Penalizes Women For Using Contraception


I did and thanks for catching that, I linked the wrong one i meant this link Format Document

I read it, doesn't change my initial comment.

So there it is, folks.

Someone please quote the part of the law which permits an employer to fire an employee who uses the Pill.
 
Last edited:
>


I know you are on the right track, just a couple of technical corrections.


This law mandates employers must provide health insurance. And it describes what minimum requirements that insurance must have. Contraception coverage is just one of many things it mandates.

It does not give employers a choice. I am very much opposed to that. In fact, I am very much opposed to the State mandating an employer must provide health insurance itself. That benefit should be left to the employer to decide.

All that aside, the part I think is fair is the part I quoted. It allows employers who have religious objections to contraception a means of opting out. Forcing someone to engage in a behavior that violates their faith is about as intolerant of others' values as it gets.


The first paragraph and the last paragraph are not consistent. First employers must provide contraception coverage, they are not given a choice. Then we have employers having an opt out for contraception coverage as long as they claim it is because of a religious objection.

If they had no choice, there would not be an opt out clause. If there is an opt out clause then they have a choice.

:eusa_angel:

submit a claim to the corporation along with evidence that the prescription is not in whole or in part for a purpose covered by the objection.However, if a woman needs the Pill for medical reasons, I don't think anyone can argue it is immoral to give her medication that just happens to also be contraception.

So the law directs that a religious objector must provide coverage for the Pill's medical uses.


Not quite, it does not require coverage for contraceptives used for non-contraceptive purposes. The employer can exclude any coverage of contraceptives under the insurance policy.

What the law provides is that the employee can make a claim to the employer for reimbursement of expenses and then pay an additional administrative fee determined by the employer for filing the claim.

At no time does the law require payment of contraceptives are part of the insurance coverage.



>>>>
 
Last edited:
yep you don't get it. no one has ever said to do away with contraception.. what has been said though is if you're an adult you should not ask others to pay for your sexual drive. do you get that now or is you head still in the dark damp place?

I fully concur.

But if you 're an adult you should not ask other to bomb the fuck out of your least favorite countries.

Capisce?

.

This drivel you just posted has nothing to do with the topic at hand clown.:cuckoo:

Mr Cocksucker, Sir:

The US has no CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to pay for birth control nor to bomb the "terrorist country " du jour.

.
 
I fully concur.

But if you 're an adult you should not ask other to bomb the fuck out of your least favorite countries.

Capisce?

.

This drivel you just posted has nothing to do with the topic at hand clown.:cuckoo:

Mr Cocksucker, Sir:

The US has no CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to pay for birth control nor to bomb the "terrorist country " du jour.

.

This thread is about birth control and heres your dumb ass talking about countries being bombed:cuckoo: go back to the conspiracy theory board you fucking half wit.:badgrin:
 

I did and thanks for catching that, I linked the wrong one i meant this link Format Document

I read it, doesn't change my initial comment.

So there it is, folks.

Someone please quote the part of the law which permits an employer to fire an employee who uses the Pill.

I would if I could ;)
 
>

Interesting, I've reviewed the text of the law here -->> Bill Text: AZ House Bill 2625 - Fiftieth Legislature - Second Regular Session (2012) | eLobbyist


This is what is seems like to me:

1. Any employer can not cover contraceptives, all they have to do is claim it's based on religious beliefs. Even if that employer is a non-religious entity.

2. If an employer makes such a claim, then they can obtain an insurance policy which excludes "contraceptive, abortifacient, abortion or sterilization purposes" (from here on out I'll just use "contraceptives" for brevity) and not be in violation of the law.

3. If an employee needs hormonal (or other treatments) that would normally be used as a contraceptive, then the employee will not be covered by insurance for such a prescribed health care treatment and must pay out of pocket, regardless.

4. However, if (**IF**) the prescription or procedure was for NON-contraceptive purposes, then the employee can submit a claim with the employer who will then be required to reimburse the employee for the health care.

5. The employer would be able to charge an administrative fee to the employee for the privilege of getting something covered by their health care insurance which would have been covered anyway as long as it wasn't used for contraception. Basically the employee is paying an additional administrative fee for non-contraceptive items just because it can be used for contraception.​


As someone who works in Human Resources, I can see a couple of problems with the law.

1. It states that the employee may "submit a claim to the corporation along with evidence that the prescription is not in whole or in part for a purpose covered by the objection", but it does not define the content of the claim. IF the supporting evidence is a doctors official statement that the individual needs the medication for non-contraceptive reasons - and that is it - then there will likely not be an issue about the claim. However, IF the employer does not want to accept the medical opinion of the doctor and then requires that the doctors affidavit include specifics of the medical condition THEN there will a whole bunch of lawsuits based on the employer requiring the employee to disclose medical history information that has no bearing on their job performance.

2. Secondly, you will have cases of employers who have a religious objection to pre-marital sex. By requiring females only to provide written confirmation they are taking a prescribed medication which can be used for contraception, even though it's officially for other purposes, then you are going to see a slew of lawsuits based on (a) employer requiring non-work related medical history, and (b) wrongful termination suits because the impact of the law will be discriminatory against females since males are not required to provide information which might provide insight into their sex life.

3. Finally I see claims of unequal employer treatment, which have a certain validity to them, based on the fact that males would (pretty much) never have a claim where they had to pay out of pocket for expenses, then submit a claim, and then have to pay an administrative fee on top of that to have covered health care items processed. Only females would have that additional hurtle.




>>>>
Is it normal to ask your employer if your insurance will cover a claim? I have never had to ask an employer such a question. On the other hand, I have had to ask the insurance provider if they covered a claim.
 
>

Interesting, I've reviewed the text of the law here -->> Bill Text: AZ House Bill 2625 - Fiftieth Legislature - Second Regular Session (2012) | eLobbyist


This is what is seems like to me:

1. Any employer can not cover contraceptives, all they have to do is claim it's based on religious beliefs. Even if that employer is a non-religious entity.

2. If an employer makes such a claim, then they can obtain an insurance policy which excludes "contraceptive, abortifacient, abortion or sterilization purposes" (from here on out I'll just use "contraceptives" for brevity) and not be in violation of the law.

3. If an employee needs hormonal (or other treatments) that would normally be used as a contraceptive, then the employee will not be covered by insurance for such a prescribed health care treatment and must pay out of pocket, regardless.

4. However, if (**IF**) the prescription or procedure was for NON-contraceptive purposes, then the employee can submit a claim with the employer who will then be required to reimburse the employee for the health care.

5. The employer would be able to charge an administrative fee to the employee for the privilege of getting something covered by their health care insurance which would have been covered anyway as long as it wasn't used for contraception. Basically the employee is paying an additional administrative fee for non-contraceptive items just because it can be used for contraception.​


As someone who works in Human Resources, I can see a couple of problems with the law.

1. It states that the employee may "submit a claim to the corporation along with evidence that the prescription is not in whole or in part for a purpose covered by the objection", but it does not define the content of the claim. IF the supporting evidence is a doctors official statement that the individual needs the medication for non-contraceptive reasons - and that is it - then there will likely not be an issue about the claim. However, IF the employer does not want to accept the medical opinion of the doctor and then requires that the doctors affidavit include specifics of the medical condition THEN there will a whole bunch of lawsuits based on the employer requiring the employee to disclose medical history information that has no bearing on their job performance.

2. Secondly, you will have cases of employers who have a religious objection to pre-marital sex. By requiring females only to provide written confirmation they are taking a prescribed medication which can be used for contraception, even though it's officially for other purposes, then you are going to see a slew of lawsuits based on (a) employer requiring non-work related medical history, and (b) wrongful termination suits because the impact of the law will be discriminatory against females since males are not required to provide information which might provide insight into their sex life.

3. Finally I see claims of unequal employer treatment, which have a certain validity to them, based on the fact that males would (pretty much) never have a claim where they had to pay out of pocket for expenses, then submit a claim, and then have to pay an administrative fee on top of that to have covered health care items processed. Only females would have that additional hurtle.




>>>>
Is it normal to ask your employer if your insurance will cover a claim? I have never had to ask an employer such a question. On the other hand, I have had to ask the insurance provider if they covered a claim.

You could ask your employer but if I was your employer and you asked me I'd tell you to check your insurance book or call the insurance company ;).
 
>

Interesting, I've reviewed the text of the law here -->> Bill Text: AZ House Bill 2625 - Fiftieth Legislature - Second Regular Session (2012) | eLobbyist


This is what is seems like to me:

1. Any employer can not cover contraceptives, all they have to do is claim it's based on religious beliefs. Even if that employer is a non-religious entity.

2. If an employer makes such a claim, then they can obtain an insurance policy which excludes "contraceptive, abortifacient, abortion or sterilization purposes" (from here on out I'll just use "contraceptives" for brevity) and not be in violation of the law.

3. If an employee needs hormonal (or other treatments) that would normally be used as a contraceptive, then the employee will not be covered by insurance for such a prescribed health care treatment and must pay out of pocket, regardless.

4. However, if (**IF**) the prescription or procedure was for NON-contraceptive purposes, then the employee can submit a claim with the employer who will then be required to reimburse the employee for the health care.

5. The employer would be able to charge an administrative fee to the employee for the privilege of getting something covered by their health care insurance which would have been covered anyway as long as it wasn't used for contraception. Basically the employee is paying an additional administrative fee for non-contraceptive items just because it can be used for contraception.​


As someone who works in Human Resources, I can see a couple of problems with the law.

1. It states that the employee may "submit a claim to the corporation along with evidence that the prescription is not in whole or in part for a purpose covered by the objection", but it does not define the content of the claim. IF the supporting evidence is a doctors official statement that the individual needs the medication for non-contraceptive reasons - and that is it - then there will likely not be an issue about the claim. However, IF the employer does not want to accept the medical opinion of the doctor and then requires that the doctors affidavit include specifics of the medical condition THEN there will a whole bunch of lawsuits based on the employer requiring the employee to disclose medical history information that has no bearing on their job performance.

2. Secondly, you will have cases of employers who have a religious objection to pre-marital sex. By requiring females only to provide written confirmation they are taking a prescribed medication which can be used for contraception, even though it's officially for other purposes, then you are going to see a slew of lawsuits based on (a) employer requiring non-work related medical history, and (b) wrongful termination suits because the impact of the law will be discriminatory against females since males are not required to provide information which might provide insight into their sex life.

3. Finally I see claims of unequal employer treatment, which have a certain validity to them, based on the fact that males would (pretty much) never have a claim where they had to pay out of pocket for expenses, then submit a claim, and then have to pay an administrative fee on top of that to have covered health care items processed. Only females would have that additional hurtle.




>>>>
Is it normal to ask your employer if your insurance will cover a claim? I have never had to ask an employer such a question. On the other hand, I have had to ask the insurance provider if they covered a claim.


No it's normal for an employer to provide, at time of hire, a benefits guide (usually provided "free" of charge by the insurance company) which provides the details of coverage, deductibles, co-payments, network access, etc., etc., etc. This same type of information in normally also provided to existing employees if there are major changes in the plan coverage and/or if the policy carrier is changed.

I've been employed at the same place about 11-years now (before that I was military so it didn't matter). We've changed health care carriers at least twice and dental carrier at least once that I can remember off the top of my head. For all new employees we provide benefit information at time of hire. For existing employees we mail to their home a benefits package each summer containing all that information and providing them will upcoming open enrollment information if they wish to make new elections.

Most employees who have a lick of sense :)D) will call the insurance carrier with their insurance card handy and ask such questions, I find it's typically the older employees that will tend to call us directly. We help them when we can, but if we are not sure of the answer, we direct them to the insurance carrier.


>>>>
 
Show me where in the bill it states that women can be fired for using contraceptives.

I'll wait.
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/50leg/1r/bills/hb2565s.pdf

i'll wait too.....the bill seems to only apply to employers with religious objections....we do have a seperation of church and stated do we not?

Uh. That's a student's rights bill. Nothing to do with this subject.

So I think we can ascertain that there is absolutely no penalization of women for contraceptive use, despite the lying op.
 
>


I know you are on the right track, just a couple of technical corrections.


This law mandates employers must provide health insurance. And it describes what minimum requirements that insurance must have. Contraception coverage is just one of many things it mandates.

It does not give employers a choice. I am very much opposed to that. In fact, I am very much opposed to the State mandating an employer must provide health insurance itself. That benefit should be left to the employer to decide.

All that aside, the part I think is fair is the part I quoted. It allows employers who have religious objections to contraception a means of opting out. Forcing someone to engage in a behavior that violates their faith is about as intolerant of others' values as it gets.


The first paragraph and the last paragraph are not consistent. First employers must provide contraception coverage, they are not given a choice. Then we have employers having an opt out for contraception coverage as long as they claim it is because of a religious objection.

If they had no choice, there would not be an opt out clause. If there is an opt out clause then they have a choice.

:eusa_angel:


You are not following. The fact that ANY employer is being directed by the government as to what benefits they must provide is grossly unsatisfactory. It is tyrannical.



However, if a woman needs the Pill for medical reasons, I don't think anyone can argue it is immoral to give her medication that just happens to also be contraception.

So the law directs that a religious objector must provide coverage for the Pill's medical uses.


Not quite, it does not require coverage for contraceptives used for non-contraceptive purposes. The employer can exclude any coverage of contraceptives under the insurance policy.

No they cannot.



At no time does the law require payment of contraceptives are part of the insurance coverage.

From the law:

If the contract provides coverage for prescription drugs, the contract shall provide coverage for any prescribed drug or device that is approved by the United States food and drug administration for use as a contraceptive.

If the contract provides coverage for outpatient health care services, the contract shall provide coverage for outpatient contraceptive services. For the purposes of this paragraph, "outpatient contraceptive services" means consultations, examinations, procedures and medical services provided on an outpatient basis and related to the use of approved United States food and drug administration prescription contraceptive methods to prevent unintended pregnancies.
 
Last edited:
You could ask your employer but if I was your employer and you asked me I'd tell you to check your insurance book or call the insurance company ;).

Depends things like cosmetic surgery (beautification, not medically required), laser/LASIK eye correction, stomach bands (weight loss), liposuction, etc. - ya we answer those.

If the question sounds like a remotely Latin term - then ya - call the carrier. ;)



>>>>
 
>

Interesting, I've reviewed the text of the law here -->> Bill Text: AZ House Bill 2625 - Fiftieth Legislature - Second Regular Session (2012) | eLobbyist


This is what is seems like to me:

1. Any employer can not cover contraceptives, all they have to do is claim it's based on religious beliefs. Even if that employer is a non-religious entity.

2. If an employer makes such a claim, then they can obtain an insurance policy which excludes "contraceptive, abortifacient, abortion or sterilization purposes" (from here on out I'll just use "contraceptives" for brevity) and not be in violation of the law.

3. If an employee needs hormonal (or other treatments) that would normally be used as a contraceptive, then the employee will not be covered by insurance for such a prescribed health care treatment and must pay out of pocket, regardless.

4. However, if (**IF**) the prescription or procedure was for NON-contraceptive purposes, then the employee can submit a claim with the employer who will then be required to reimburse the employee for the health care.

5. The employer would be able to charge an administrative fee to the employee for the privilege of getting something covered by their health care insurance which would have been covered anyway as long as it wasn't used for contraception. Basically the employee is paying an additional administrative fee for non-contraceptive items just because it can be used for contraception.​


As someone who works in Human Resources, I can see a couple of problems with the law.

1. It states that the employee may "submit a claim to the corporation along with evidence that the prescription is not in whole or in part for a purpose covered by the objection", but it does not define the content of the claim. IF the supporting evidence is a doctors official statement that the individual needs the medication for non-contraceptive reasons - and that is it - then there will likely not be an issue about the claim. However, IF the employer does not want to accept the medical opinion of the doctor and then requires that the doctors affidavit include specifics of the medical condition THEN there will a whole bunch of lawsuits based on the employer requiring the employee to disclose medical history information that has no bearing on their job performance.

2. Secondly, you will have cases of employers who have a religious objection to pre-marital sex. By requiring females only to provide written confirmation they are taking a prescribed medication which can be used for contraception, even though it's officially for other purposes, then you are going to see a slew of lawsuits based on (a) employer requiring non-work related medical history, and (b) wrongful termination suits because the impact of the law will be discriminatory against females since males are not required to provide information which might provide insight into their sex life.

3. Finally I see claims of unequal employer treatment, which have a certain validity to them, based on the fact that males would (pretty much) never have a claim where they had to pay out of pocket for expenses, then submit a claim, and then have to pay an administrative fee on top of that to have covered health care items processed. Only females would have that additional hurtle.




>>>>
Is it normal to ask your employer if your insurance will cover a claim? I have never had to ask an employer such a question. On the other hand, I have had to ask the insurance provider if they covered a claim.


No it's normal for an employer to provide, at time of hire, a benefits guide (usually provided "free" of charge by the insurance company) which provides the details of coverage, deductibles, co-payments, network access, etc., etc., etc. This same type of information in normally also provided to existing employees if there are major changes in the plan coverage and/or if the policy carrier is changed.

I've been employed at the same place about 11-years now (before that I was military so it didn't matter). We've changed health care carriers at least twice and dental carrier at least once that I can remember off the top of my head. For all new employees we provide benefit information at time of hire. For existing employees we mail to their home a benefits package each summer containing all that information and providing them will upcoming open enrollment information if they wish to make new elections.

Most employees who have a lick of sense :)D) will call the insurance carrier with their insurance card handy and ask such questions, I find it's typically the older employees that will tend to call us directly. We help them when we can, but if we are not sure of the answer, we direct them to the insurance carrier.


>>>>
Okay. I'm not seeing how the employer would be able to interfere with the woman's relationship with her doctor or her insurance company. It would seem to violate privacy laws to have to get a note from your boss to use birth control.

:confused:
 
Arizona legislators have advanced an unprecedented bill that would require women who wish to have their contraception covered by their health insurance plans to prove to their employers that they are taking it to treat medical conditions. The bill now moves to the state Senate for a full vote.

Apparently, the conservative agenda to take away a women's right choice now includes birth control.

Arizona Birth Control Bill Penalizes Women For Using Contraception For Non-Medical Reasons

TREAT a Medical condition is the KEY WORD here. Some women do require birth control pills to treat medical conditions associated with menstruation--cramps, etc.

IOW--if birth control contraceptives are used to prevent a pregnancy then the employer would not have to cover the cost of them.

Would your employer also be responsible for the cost of condoms?
 
Is it normal to ask your employer if your insurance will cover a claim? I have never had to ask an employer such a question. On the other hand, I have had to ask the insurance provider if they covered a claim.


No it's normal for an employer to provide, at time of hire, a benefits guide (usually provided "free" of charge by the insurance company) which provides the details of coverage, deductibles, co-payments, network access, etc., etc., etc. This same type of information in normally also provided to existing employees if there are major changes in the plan coverage and/or if the policy carrier is changed.

I've been employed at the same place about 11-years now (before that I was military so it didn't matter). We've changed health care carriers at least twice and dental carrier at least once that I can remember off the top of my head. For all new employees we provide benefit information at time of hire. For existing employees we mail to their home a benefits package each summer containing all that information and providing them will upcoming open enrollment information if they wish to make new elections.

Most employees who have a lick of sense :)D) will call the insurance carrier with their insurance card handy and ask such questions, I find it's typically the older employees that will tend to call us directly. We help them when we can, but if we are not sure of the answer, we direct them to the insurance carrier.


>>>>
Okay. I'm not seeing how the employer would be able to interfere with the woman's relationship with her doctor or her insurance company. It would seem to violate privacy laws to have to get a note from your boss to use birth control.

:confused:

Agreed here--why is it anyone's business why a woman take birth control contraceptives?

You have to deliver a note from your doctor to your employer that says you need them not for the prevention of pregnancy but for a medical condition is a little over the top.

To men on this board--birth control pills have estrogen in them--which is very good for female HEARTS. They have their side effects--but the loss of estrogen in women--can lead to heart problems.
 
>


I know you are on the right track, just a couple of technical corrections.


This law mandates employers must provide health insurance. And it describes what minimum requirements that insurance must have. Contraception coverage is just one of many things it mandates.

It does not give employers a choice. I am very much opposed to that. In fact, I am very much opposed to the State mandating an employer must provide health insurance itself. That benefit should be left to the employer to decide.

All that aside, the part I think is fair is the part I quoted. It allows employers who have religious objections to contraception a means of opting out. Forcing someone to engage in a behavior that violates their faith is about as intolerant of others' values as it gets.


The first paragraph and the last paragraph are not consistent. First employers must provide contraception coverage, they are not given a choice. Then we have employers having an opt out for contraception coverage as long as they claim it is because of a religious objection.

If they had no choice, there would not be an opt out clause. If there is an opt out clause then they have a choice.

:eusa_angel:


You are not following. The fact that ANY employer is being directed by the government as to what benefits they must provide is grossly unsatisfactory. It is tyrannical.


I am following and agree, but what a discussion of what a law should do and what a law does say are two different things.

I'm against the mandate myself.


No they cannot.

Yes they can, that is what paragraph "Z" does. Any employer can exclude contraceptives, all they have to do is file an affidavit stating they have religious objections. BAM - they can then stop covering contraceptives.


From the law:

If the contract provides coverage for prescription drugs, the contract shall provide coverage for any prescribed drug or device that is approved by the United States food and drug administration for use as a contraceptive.

If the contract provides coverage for outpatient health care services, the contract shall provide coverage for outpatient contraceptive services. For the purposes of this paragraph, "outpatient contraceptive services" means consultations, examinations, procedures and medical services provided on an outpatient basis and related to the use of approved United States food and drug administration prescription contraceptive methods to prevent unintended pregnancies.


Correct.

Then go to the new paragraph "Y" that says:

"Notwithstanding subsection y of this section, a contract does not fail to meet the requirements of subsection Y of this section if the contract's failure to provide coverage of specific items or services required under subsection Y of this section is because providing or paying for coverage of the specific items or services is contrary to the religious beliefs of the employer, sponsor, issuer, corporation or other entity offering the plan or is because the coverage is contrary to the religious beliefs of the purchaser or beneficiary of the coverage.� If an objection triggers this subsection, a written affidavit shall be filed with the corporation stating the objection."​


If the employer (sectarian or secular) files the affidavit stating they have religious objections, and maintain that affidavit with the their copy of the contract, then they do not have to provide contraceptive coverage at all. (Although they will be required to reimburse employees for contraceptives used for non-contraceptive reasons.)


>>>>
 
Why do we even accept the premise that our private health insurance needs to be tied to our employment? :dunno:
 
Is it normal to ask your employer if your insurance will cover a claim? I have never had to ask an employer such a question. On the other hand, I have had to ask the insurance provider if they covered a claim.


No it's normal for an employer to provide, at time of hire, a benefits guide (usually provided "free" of charge by the insurance company) which provides the details of coverage, deductibles, co-payments, network access, etc., etc., etc. This same type of information in normally also provided to existing employees if there are major changes in the plan coverage and/or if the policy carrier is changed.

I've been employed at the same place about 11-years now (before that I was military so it didn't matter). We've changed health care carriers at least twice and dental carrier at least once that I can remember off the top of my head. For all new employees we provide benefit information at time of hire. For existing employees we mail to their home a benefits package each summer containing all that information and providing them will upcoming open enrollment information if they wish to make new elections.

Most employees who have a lick of sense :)D) will call the insurance carrier with their insurance card handy and ask such questions, I find it's typically the older employees that will tend to call us directly. We help them when we can, but if we are not sure of the answer, we direct them to the insurance carrier.


>>>>
Okay. I'm not seeing how the employer would be able to interfere with the woman's relationship with her doctor or her insurance company. It would seem to violate privacy laws to have to get a note from your boss to use birth control.

:confused:


Because you don't have to have a note from your boss to use birth control. You have to have a note from your doctor that the use of birth control is for none pregnancy prevention reasons.


I think this will be very dangerous territory from an employment law situation and requiring them to disclose private medical information will cause many lawsuits.



>>>>
 

Forum List

Back
Top