Arizona Birth Control Bill Penalizes Women For Using Contraception

[g5000]

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

 

[Navy1960]

What is so wrong with wanting to protect the 1st amendment on Religious rights? This is exactly why we have the 1st amendment.
That is what some of the bill is about.
If you take contraception for medical reasons your health care insurance will pay for it.
If you use birth control to prevent pregnancy then you pay for yourself or get it from any clinic that pays for for it. Just about anyone can afford 9 dollars a month for their own birth control.
Title Ten pays for contraception for anyone who is poor.

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. However, one can argue that as part of an overall insurance plan it for those with moral objections it somehow raises their costs. If that were the case, then it would seem to me an easy enough task to make "contraceptives" in general an optional item in one's insurance plan, so that those with moral objections do not need to take part and likewise the other is true is well. I personally don't see this as a matter our legislature should be spending its time on when we have other more pressing matters here in our state that need to be looked after.

The Feds under the new health care bill said first, that all insurance must put contraception, including sterilization, abortifacients to be included in virtually all health plans. Then they moved it to employers' of which religious groups are the employers. This did nothing and still forced religious health insurance to accept the morning after pill and things of this type. This is a violation of the 1st amendment.

RELIGIOUS CONSCIENCE EXEMPTION. – Such term shall not include any individual for any month if such individual has in effect an exemption under section 1311(d)(4)(H) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which certifies that such individual is a member of a recognized religious sect of division thereof described in section 1402(g)(l) and an adherent of established tenets or teachings of such sect or division as described in such section.

Health Plans Cannot Be Required to Cover Abortion. Health plans cannot be required to cover abortions as part of its essential health benefits package. Health plans can choose to cover: no abortions, only those abortions allowed by the Hyde amendment (rape, incest and life endangerment), or abortions beyond those allowed by Hyde.

 Conscience Protections for Providers and Facilities. Individual health care providers and health care facilities may not be discriminated against because of a willingness or unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.
http://dpc.senate.gov/healthreformbill/healthbill18.pdf

While I do respect those that have a position that wishes to protect the unborn, the laws are already in place that do that and also respect those that see this an issue of Govt. intrusion into the lives of Americans as well. The facts are here in Arizona there is no need for a law when there is one already on the books that allows for anyone to object to it on moral grounds and respects the 1st Amendment.

 

[peach174]

It doesn't address the morning after pill, and this is what is some of the issues.
It's about the contraceptions offered not abortions.

 

[Navy1960]

It doesn't address the morning after pill, and this is what is some of the issues.
It's about the contraceptions offered not abortions.

Some people get confused and think that emergency contraceptive pills, or morning after pills, are the same as “abortion pills”. They aren’t. Emergency contraception is used to prevent pregnancy before it begins, and works primarily or perhaps exclusively by delaying or inhibiting ovulation; it does not cause an abortion. (Find out more about how the “morning after pill” differs from the abortion pill here.)

Emergency contraception: Morning after pill and day after pill

•For starters, all churches—or any other type of house of worship— are expressly exempted from the requirement that they offer health insurance to their employees that includes any provision for contraception. The issue under discussion involves whether other entities owned and operated by a church should be obligated to do so under the law.

•Nobody is, in any way, obligated to acquire or use contraceptive devices. The regulation applies only to what insurance companies must offer-not to who must take advantage of the benefit. Thus, if your religious belief bars you from using contraception, then nothing will get in the way of you and your religious beliefs. You may have the benefit available to you in your insurance coverage, but nothing is going to require you to take advantage of the benefit.

Celia Muñoz, Director of the White House Domestic Policy

One more thing too Peach, and this is just a sidebar issue here. it would seem to me that any church who operated in the public space, meaning hiring outside their own religious beliefs in order to operate, should have to comply with the same laws that every other employer does. If they wished to object on religious grounds on this issue then as a suggestion perhaps hiring outside one's belief structure is not such a good idea.

 

[peach174]

You do realize don't you, that they can get birth control for 9 dollars at walmarts and target stores?
They work and can easily afford to buy it on their own.
They can get it anywhere, other than working for Church based employer insurance. They all accepted this, before they were hired.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You do realize don't you, that they can get birth control for 9 dollars at walmarts and target stores?
They work and can easily afford to buy it on their own.
They can get it anywhere, other than working for Church based employer insurance. They all accepted this, before they were hired.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to peach174 again.

 

[Navy1960]

You do realize don't you, that they can get birth control for 9 dollars at walmarts and target stores?
They work and can easily afford to buy it on their own.
They can get it anywhere, other than working for Church based employer insurance. They all accepted this, before they were hired.

Wal Mart also offer's anti-biotics for 4 dollars, so your advocating that any medicine that can be had cheaply should not be offered to employee's by insurance companies as part of a healtcare plan based on moral grounds simply because an employee knows they are working for a religious based group? The Church is not being harmed here, its the insurance companies that are offering it, again those that have objections are not required to have it nor are they required to buy it. As for the Church based employer, its a matter of operating under the same set of laws that every other employer does, they choose to hire, and accept that as part of offering goods and services in the public space then they should hold to the same laws as every other employer. If they choose to hold onto a
1st Amendment privledge which is their right to do so, then I suggest they not be in the business of hiring outside the Church, but both you and I know thats not practical when it comes to hospitals, and the number of other businesses that these groups run.

 

[g5000]

You do realize don't you, that they can get birth control for 9 dollars at walmarts and target stores?
They work and can easily afford to buy it on their own.
They can get it anywhere, other than working for Church based employer insurance. They all accepted this, before they were hired.

Wal Mart also offer's anti-biotics for 4 dollars, so your advocating that any medicine that can be had cheaply should not be offered to employee's by insurance companies as part of a healtcare plan based on moral grounds simply because an employee knows they are working for a religious based group? The Church is not being harmed here, its the insurance companies that are offering it, again those that have objections are not required to have it nor are they required to buy it. As for the Church based employer, its a matter of operating under the same set of laws that every other employer does, they choose to hire, and accept that as part of offering goods and services in the public space then they should hold to the same laws as every other employer. If they choose to hold onto a
1st Amendment privledge which is their right to do so, then I suggest they not be in the business of hiring outside the Church, but both you and I know thats not practical when it comes to hospitals, and the number of other businesses that these groups run.

You seem to be forgetting that providing a fringe benefit like health insurance has never been a legal requirement. It was not until ObamaCare that employer-provided health insurance became mandatory. Faith-based employers have been around a long time. The idea of government mandating what must be included in a fringe benefit is the new element. Obama is also the new element, and he has declared war on religion by mandating them to engage in a behavior which is against their faith.

You can't move the goalposts and then blame the players for not being in the right place. But that is exactly what you have just argued.

 

[Navy1960]

You do realize don't you, that they can get birth control for 9 dollars at walmarts and target stores?
They work and can easily afford to buy it on their own.
They can get it anywhere, other than working for Church based employer insurance. They all accepted this, before they were hired.

Wal Mart also offer's anti-biotics for 4 dollars, so your advocating that any medicine that can be had cheaply should not be offered to employee's by insurance companies as part of a healtcare plan based on moral grounds simply because an employee knows they are working for a religious based group? The Church is not being harmed here, its the insurance companies that are offering it, again those that have objections are not required to have it nor are they required to buy it. As for the Church based employer, its a matter of operating under the same set of laws that every other employer does, they choose to hire, and accept that as part of offering goods and services in the public space then they should hold to the same laws as every other employer. If they choose to hold onto a
1st Amendment privledge which is their right to do so, then I suggest they not be in the business of hiring outside the Church, but both you and I know thats not practical when it comes to hospitals, and the number of other businesses that these groups run.

You seem to be forgetting that providing a fringe benefit like health insurance has never been a legal requirement. It was not until ObamaCare that employer-provided health insurance became mandatory.

So your argument fails.

Since when is making the choice to take advantage of a medicine provided under a plan a fringe benefit? As to mandated Health Insurance, I don't think I ever mentioned that in any posting I've put in here, in fact, if you had cared to ask, you would have found out that I am in complete disagreement with the healthcare mandate in the ACA and believe it is unconstitutional beyond belief and have made that point on this board many times. I will go back to my point, making the choice as to what drug you choose to take or not too is not a fringe benefit. be it from Wal Mart or from your employer based insurance, nor did I suggest that, and as to your last statement your also entitled to believe what you wish, however, there is nothing I've said here thats been proven otherwise. So my argument stands.

 

[g5000]

Wal Mart also offer's anti-biotics for 4 dollars, so your advocating that any medicine that can be had cheaply should not be offered to employee's by insurance companies as part of a healtcare plan based on moral grounds simply because an employee knows they are working for a religious based group? The Church is not being harmed here, its the insurance companies that are offering it, again those that have objections are not required to have it nor are they required to buy it. As for the Church based employer, its a matter of operating under the same set of laws that every other employer does, they choose to hire, and accept that as part of offering goods and services in the public space then they should hold to the same laws as every other employer. If they choose to hold onto a
1st Amendment privledge which is their right to do so, then I suggest they not be in the business of hiring outside the Church, but both you and I know thats not practical when it comes to hospitals, and the number of other businesses that these groups run.

You seem to be forgetting that providing a fringe benefit like health insurance has never been a legal requirement. It was not until ObamaCare that employer-provided health insurance became mandatory.

So your argument fails.

Since when is making the choice to take advantage of a medicine provided under a plan a fringe benefit? As to mandated Health Insurance, I don't think I ever mentioned that in any posting I've put in here, in fact, if you had cared to ask, you would have found out that I am in complete disagreement with the healthcare mandate in the ACA and believe it is unconstitutional beyond belief and have made that point on this board many times. I will go back to my point, making the choice as to what drug you choose to take or not too is not a fringe benefit. be it from Wal Mart or from your employer based insurance, nor did I suggest that, and as to your last statement your also entitled to believe what you wish, however, there is nothing I've said here thats been proven otherwise. So my argument stands.

Your argument was that the Church entered the marketplace knowing what the laws of the marketplace were. This is not so. The Church entered the marketplace first, and then the laws were changed.

The goalposts have been moved.

 

[g5000]

Since when is making the choice to take advantage of a medicine provided under a plan a fringe benefit? As to mandated Health Insurance, I don't think I ever mentioned that in any posting I've put in here, in fact, if you had cared to ask, you would have found out that I am in complete disagreement with the healthcare mandate in the ACA and believe it is unconstitutional beyond belief and have made that point on this board many times.

If you are against the insurance mandate, how can you be for a mandate which dictates what an employer must include in their benefits, such as a law which says if an employer offers health insurance that insurance must include contraception?

The law also dictates other benefits which must be included in employer provided health insurance, not just contraception.

It would be like your employer offering you auto insurance and then the government dicates that offer must include free road maps. Why is the government getting involved on that level?

 

[Navy1960]

You seem to be forgetting that providing a fringe benefit like health insurance has never been a legal requirement. It was not until ObamaCare that employer-provided health insurance became mandatory.

So your argument fails.

Since when is making the choice to take advantage of a medicine provided under a plan a fringe benefit? As to mandated Health Insurance, I don't think I ever mentioned that in any posting I've put in here, in fact, if you had cared to ask, you would have found out that I am in complete disagreement with the healthcare mandate in the ACA and believe it is unconstitutional beyond belief and have made that point on this board many times. I will go back to my point, making the choice as to what drug you choose to take or not too is not a fringe benefit. be it from Wal Mart or from your employer based insurance, nor did I suggest that, and as to your last statement your also entitled to believe what you wish, however, there is nothing I've said here thats been proven otherwise. So my argument stands.

Your argument was that the Church entered the marketplace knowing what the laws of the marketplace were. This is not so. The Church entered the marketplace first, and then the laws were changed.

The goalposts have been moved.

No my argument is that the Church operates in the marketplace like any other business are subject to the same laws that every other business is subject too regardless of what law happens to be passed now or in the future. My suggestion was that if being in the public marketplace where a business is subject to those laws is against the teachings of that Church then they have two choices , one is they can seek to change the law which our form of Govt. allows them to do, through any number of means, or they can seek not to operate as an employer subject to those laws. The other thing I suggested is that even still it's not the Church that is being forced to offer contraceptives, it is the Insurance companies that are being forced under the ACA to offer them. It is up to the individual working in those organizations to choose to exercise that choice, no one is forcing the person to violate their
1st Amendment rights.

 

[peach174]

You do realize don't you, that they can get birth control for 9 dollars at walmarts and target stores?
They work and can easily afford to buy it on their own.
They can get it anywhere, other than working for Church based employer insurance. They all accepted this, before they were hired.

Wal Mart also offer's anti-biotics for 4 dollars, so your advocating that any medicine that can be had cheaply should not be offered to employee's by insurance companies as part of a healthcare plan based on moral grounds simply because an employee knows they are working for a religious based group? The Church is not being harmed here, its the insurance companies that are offering it, again those that have objections are not required to have it nor are they required to buy it. As for the Church based employer, its a matter of operating under the same set of laws that every other employer does, they choose to hire, and accept that as part of offering goods and services in the public space then they should hold to the same laws as every other employer. If they choose to hold onto a
1st Amendment privilege which is their right to do so, then I suggest they not be in the business of hiring outside the Church, but both you and I know thats not practical when it comes to hospitals, and the number of other businesses that these groups run.

No I am not advocating that any medicine that can be bought cheaply should not be offered by insuance..
I am saying that the morning after pill is against church doctrine and any one who is hired by them understands this and they buy it on their own. They should not be forced by the government to include something that is against the Church doctrine.

 

[g5000]

Since when is making the choice to take advantage of a medicine provided under a plan a fringe benefit? As to mandated Health Insurance, I don't think I ever mentioned that in any posting I've put in here, in fact, if you had cared to ask, you would have found out that I am in complete disagreement with the healthcare mandate in the ACA and believe it is unconstitutional beyond belief and have made that point on this board many times. I will go back to my point, making the choice as to what drug you choose to take or not too is not a fringe benefit. be it from Wal Mart or from your employer based insurance, nor did I suggest that, and as to your last statement your also entitled to believe what you wish, however, there is nothing I've said here thats been proven otherwise. So my argument stands.

Your argument was that the Church entered the marketplace knowing what the laws of the marketplace were. This is not so. The Church entered the marketplace first, and then the laws were changed.

The goalposts have been moved.

No my argument is that the Church operates in the marketplace like any other business are subject to the same laws that every other business is subject too regardless of what law happens to be passed now or in the future. My suggestion was that if being in the public marketplace where a business is subject to those laws is against the teachings of that Church then they have two choices , one is they can seek to change the law which our form of Govt. allows them to do, through any number of means, or they can seek not to operate as an employer subject to those laws. The other thing I suggested is that even still it's not the Church that is being forced to offer contraceptives, it is the Insurance companies that are being forced under the ACA to offer them. It is up to the individual working in those organizations to choose to exercise that choice, no one is forcing the person to violate their
1st Amendment rights.

Faith-based employers who provide medical insurance pay the bulk of the insurance premiums. That means they are paying for the abortifacients and contraception in these medical plans against their will.

Not only that, some faith-based employers self-insure. The Church IS the insurer.

These new rules are plainly a violation of the First Amendment.

And I hope you remember your weak argument some day when the goalposts move to a place you don't like. These are people being forced to violate their faith. Telling them, "You can just go out of business if you don't like it", is disingenuous in the extreme.

You don't like the health insurance mandate? Well, you can just leave America if you don't like it.

 

[peach174]

The Church is also the insurer.
The Church offers health insurance to their employees and it is their plan.
It forces them to insure the morning after pill and that is a violation of the 1st amendment.

 

[Navy1960]

Since when is making the choice to take advantage of a medicine provided under a plan a fringe benefit? As to mandated Health Insurance, I don't think I ever mentioned that in any posting I've put in here, in fact, if you had cared to ask, you would have found out that I am in complete disagreement with the healthcare mandate in the ACA and believe it is unconstitutional beyond belief and have made that point on this board many times.

If you are against the insurance mandate, how can you be for a mandate which dictates what an employer must include in their benefits, such as a law which says if an employer offers health insurance that insurance must include contraception?

The law also dictates other benefits which must be included in employer provided health insurance, not just contraception.

It would be like your employer offering you auto insurance and then the government dicates that offer must include free road maps. Why is the government getting involved on that level?

Beginning in 2014, employers with at least 50 full-time employees are required to offer
minimum essential coverage that satisfies the individual mandate and to report to the Secretary
of the Treasury (“Treasury”) their compliance with the requirement. Employers that do not
comply and whose employees receive a premium credit or cost-sharing subsidy will be subject
to a penalty. (PPACA §§ 1513, 1514 and 10106 adding §§ 4980H and 6056 to the Internal
Revenue Code (IRC); § 1003 of Reconciliation Bill).

https://www.bcbsri.com/BCBSRIWeb/pdf/Employer_Mandate_Fact_Sheet.pdf

It is my humble opinion that any mandate that does not comply with the Constitution in that its not subject under the Interstate Commerce Clause, or subject to Federal Employer Guidelines as it applies to Employers should be tossed out as well. However having said that, this case is a case of Insurance companies who are subject to that clause being mandated to coverage types, i.e. in this case offering Contraceptives and the employers do have several options as to the employee's , one more thing, if a religious group has that big of an objection again, don't offer coverage and use the money saved to let your employee's seek coverage in the open market which they are perfectly able to do, then as now. Don't get me wrong here, I am not for the Govt. mandating individuals at any level have or purchase any health insurance, but in this case it's my humble opinion that objecting on contraceptives as a religious employer and the Arizona legislation is a huge waste of effort , time and resources when there is already enough things in place to address that, and with the Arizona economy as it is, this type of legislation along with a whole host of others doesn't help our economy much.

 

[Navy1960]

Your argument was that the Church entered the marketplace knowing what the laws of the marketplace were. This is not so. The Church entered the marketplace first, and then the laws were changed.

The goalposts have been moved.

No my argument is that the Church operates in the marketplace like any other business are subject to the same laws that every other business is subject too regardless of what law happens to be passed now or in the future. My suggestion was that if being in the public marketplace where a business is subject to those laws is against the teachings of that Church then they have two choices , one is they can seek to change the law which our form of Govt. allows them to do, through any number of means, or they can seek not to operate as an employer subject to those laws. The other thing I suggested is that even still it's not the Church that is being forced to offer contraceptives, it is the Insurance companies that are being forced under the ACA to offer them. It is up to the individual working in those organizations to choose to exercise that choice, no one is forcing the person to violate their
1st Amendment rights.

Faith-based employers who provide medical insurance pay the bulk of the insurance premiums. That means they are paying for the abortifacients and contraception in these medical plans against their will.

Not only that, some faith-based employers self-insure. The Church IS the insurer.

These new rules are plainly a violation of the First Amendment.

And I hope you remember your weak argument some day when the goalposts move to a place you don't like. These are people being forced to violate their faith. Telling them, "You can just go out of business if you don't like it", is disingenuous in the extreme.

You don't like the health insurance mandate? Well, you can just leave America if you don't like it.

“Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius said Wednesday that self-insuring religious employers will be exempted from a contraception coverage mandate, clearing up a question raised by Catholic groups and other opponents who continued protesting the rule this week.

No one is being forced to violate their faith and I suggest to you if this were such a big issue then all these organizations would have made it one, in the 28 states where it was one prior to the ACA being passed. I'm sorry you don't like the idea that churches and faith based groups should be subject to the same constitution that everyone else is, but so be it. I tend to think that your upset here not because my argument is weak, because there is nothing here that has been disproven yet, but more so because what has been said is true and it hurts sometimes to hear the truth.

Here is the thing, this nation is made up not just of those who are members of church groups of believe as others do, but of many faiths and many beliefs. We all live in the same nation and are ALL entitled to the same dignity and respect that ever American should be entitled to and to voice our opinion as well. While I respect yours as much as I do everyone's here, I on the other hand who spent my life defending this nation would never advocate for someone who I had a simple disagreement with on this nations laws. to leave it as they are just as much American as I am.

 

[Newby]

Since when is making the choice to take advantage of a medicine provided under a plan a fringe benefit? As to mandated Health Insurance, I don't think I ever mentioned that in any posting I've put in here, in fact, if you had cared to ask, you would have found out that I am in complete disagreement with the healthcare mandate in the ACA and believe it is unconstitutional beyond belief and have made that point on this board many times. I will go back to my point, making the choice as to what drug you choose to take or not too is not a fringe benefit. be it from Wal Mart or from your employer based insurance, nor did I suggest that, and as to your last statement your also entitled to believe what you wish, however, there is nothing I've said here thats been proven otherwise. So my argument stands.

Your argument was that the Church entered the marketplace knowing what the laws of the marketplace were. This is not so. The Church entered the marketplace first, and then the laws were changed.

The goalposts have been moved.

No my argument is that the Church operates in the marketplace like any other business are subject to the same laws that every other business is subject too regardless of what law happens to be passed now or in the future. My suggestion was that if being in the public marketplace where a business is subject to those laws is against the teachings of that Church then they have two choices , one is they can seek to change the law which our form of Govt. allows them to do, through any number of means, or they can seek not to operate as an employer subject to those laws. The other thing I suggested is that even still it's not the Church that is being forced to offer contraceptives, it is the Insurance companies that are being forced under the ACA to offer them. It is up to the individual working in those organizations to choose to exercise that choice, no one is forcing the person to violate their
1st Amendment rights.

They have three options actually, they can also challenge the law as being unconstitutional, which it is, and have it thrown out.

 

[Navy1960]

Your argument was that the Church entered the marketplace knowing what the laws of the marketplace were. This is not so. The Church entered the marketplace first, and then the laws were changed.

The goalposts have been moved.

No my argument is that the Church operates in the marketplace like any other business are subject to the same laws that every other business is subject too regardless of what law happens to be passed now or in the future. My suggestion was that if being in the public marketplace where a business is subject to those laws is against the teachings of that Church then they have two choices , one is they can seek to change the law which our form of Govt. allows them to do, through any number of means, or they can seek not to operate as an employer subject to those laws. The other thing I suggested is that even still it's not the Church that is being forced to offer contraceptives, it is the Insurance companies that are being forced under the ACA to offer them. It is up to the individual working in those organizations to choose to exercise that choice, no one is forcing the person to violate their
1st Amendment rights.

They have three options actually, they can also challenge the law as being unconstitutional, which it is, and have it thrown out.

I put in bold that as an option, and as both you an I know the law is being at this very moment considered by the SCOTUS. In my humble opinion, I tend to think the court will more than likely overturn all or part of it anyway because of the individual mandate and the inability to unwind the rest of it after doing so. However, for those religious groups in states that have the same laws and there are more than a few, the same question arises. I am somewhat curious as to why this question has become one since the passage of the ACA when many states have had laws on the books making it a requirement for insurance providers to offer contraceptives. If thats the case one would think a 1st Amendment casse would have been brought before the court by now. I could of course be wrong that this issue is an ongoing one in some states but have heard little here in Arizona on this issue up and until the passage of the ACA and we have had the laws since 2002 with an opt out clause which by the way they are seeking to change based on the fact that it forces people to violate their religious beliefs which it clearly does not, because of that opt out clause.