Arizona Birth Control Bill Penalizes Women For Using Contraception

[Ravi]

It all comes down to conservatives believing sex is dirty

Yep.

 

[koshergrl]

Thank you, I accept your concession that the thread title is a complete fabrication and has nothing to do with anything at all.

 

[Conservative]

I don't find the "not in whole or in part" piece ambiguous at all, if the doctors evidence of condition contains even a hint that it might be for birth control, then the claim will be denied.


For example, if the doctor were to say the hormones were required to control cysts which appear on the ovaries. Then there would be no problem. However if the doctor were to say that the hormones prevent cysts on the ovaries and could cause problems if the woman became pregnant. Then the employer has grounds to deny the claim because in part the doctor indicated that the prevention of pregnancy was a "part" of the reason for the prescription.



>>>>

Where does it say the 'evidence' has to come from a doctor?

...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

Who else would submit evidence concerning a medical condition?


>>>>

the evidence in question is 'is not in whole or in part for a purpose covered by the objection'. Doesn't say medical evidence either. It could be medical evidence, but nothing in the language says it MUST be. It's ambiguous enough that the 'evidence' could simply be a statement from the employee.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

Aww, you're lying through your fucking teeth, as leftists tend to do.

The bill REPEALS a requirement the employers cover contraception.

Nothing more. It adds a provision that not covering can be challenged if there is a medical need.

If you thugs had a point, you wouldn't need to lie.

 

[rightwinger]

It all comes down to conservatives believing sex is dirty

...and liberals trying to convice everyone that male on male sex is clean.

What's It to you?

 

[Uncensored2008]

For the sake of fairness under the law we need a bill bill that forces men to pay for their own hard on pills and vasectomies.

What's good for the goose....

Look, you're an Obama voter, which means you have a sub-70 IQ.

But the bill doesn't force anything - it STOPS the state from FORCING employers to provide contraception. They are still free to do so if they wish.

No one is forced to provide viagra, so it will do what you stupidly demanded - though you lacked the intellect to understand it....

 

[Uncensored2008]

It certainly isn't a company's right to demand that women don't have sex except for procreation.

Nor is it the right of Obama to demand that men have their penis cut off.

It's outrageous that Obama demand men have their penis cut off.

Standard Disclaimer: As long as lying through your fucking teeth is the rule, might as well expand on it.

 

[uscitizen]

It amazes me that some haere are against group health insurance policies.

Never worked for a company that provided them?
Still getting cheap student insurance?
Or young and healthy and just have no home to lose if you get sick and cannot work and have large medical bills? Mommy and daddy will take you in.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It all comes down to conservatives believing sex is dirty

It all comes down to leftists being lying demagogues.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What's It to you?

Why do you support Obama in his bid to require men to have their penis cut off?

Standard Disclaimer: Lying demagoguery good for the goose, is good for the fucknut democrats....

 

[Ravi]

Where does it say the 'evidence' has to come from a doctor?

Who else would submit evidence concerning a medical condition?


>>>>

the evidence in question is 'is not in whole or in part for a purpose covered by the objection'. Doesn't say medical evidence either. It could be medical evidence, but nothing in the language says it MUST be. It's ambiguous enough that the 'evidence' could simply be a statement from the employee.

So you're okay with the employee swearing that she isn't a slut?

 

[Ravi]

It certainly isn't a company's right to demand that women don't have sex except for procreation.

Nor is it the right of Obama to demand that men have their penis cut off.

It's outrageous that Obama demand men have their penis cut off.

Standard Disclaimer: As long as lying through your fucking teeth is the rule, might as well expand on it.

It's just too bad that someone fooled you into thinking there was a law requiring that you had to cut your penis off.

Well, too bad for you. I hope it means you can't reproduce....net gain for the USA.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So you're okay with the employee swearing that she isn't a slut?

So you're okay with Obama requiring that all men have their penis cut off?

 

[Conservative]

I don't find the "not in whole or in part" piece ambiguous at all, if the doctors evidence of condition contains even a hint that it might be for birth control, then the claim will be denied.


For example, if the doctor were to say the hormones were required to control cysts which appear on the ovaries. Then there would be no problem. However if the doctor were to say that the hormones prevent cysts on the ovaries and could cause problems if the woman became pregnant. Then the employer has grounds to deny the claim because in part the doctor indicated that the prevention of pregnancy was a "part" of the reason for the prescription.



>>>>

Where does it say the 'evidence' has to come from a doctor?

...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

Who else would submit evidence concerning a medical condition?


>>>>

exactly my point. You don't really know, because ti is ambiguous. ANYONE could supply the 'evidence'.

 

[Ravi]

Where does it say the 'evidence' has to come from a doctor?

Who else would submit evidence concerning a medical condition?


>>>>

exactly my point. You don't really know, because ti is ambiguous. ANYONE could supply the 'evidence'.

Yeah, maybe a witch doctor could.

 

[Syphon]

So you're okay with the employee swearing that she isn't a slut?

So you're okay with Obama requiring that all men have their penis cut off?

id like to see that requirement

 

[WorldWatcher]

Where does it say the 'evidence' has to come from a doctor?

Who else would submit evidence concerning a medical condition?


>>>>

exactly my point. You don't really know, because ti is ambiguous. ANYONE could supply the 'evidence'.

Well believe as you wish, but I'd bet you any amount that that 99 times out of 100 that any organization that takes advantage of the religious exemption to deny contraceptive coverage for any diagnosis in "whole or part" as to have nothing to do with preventing pregnancy would want such evidence based on a doctors diagnosis.


>>>>

 

[Uncensored2008]

It's just too bad that someone fooled you into thinking there was a law requiring that you had to cut your penis off.

Since we're doing the "outrageous fucking lie" thing, just figured I'd join in.

You are lying through your fucking teeth, claiming that there is a law or proposal that has women being required to "swear they aren't sluts."

I figure if lying is so cool that the fucking liar (formerly democrat) party engages in it full time, who am I to argue.

SO - why does Obama require that all men in the nation have their penis cut off?

Hey, we're doing "BIG LIE," let's keep it going.

Well, too bad for you. I hope it means you can't reproduce....net gain for the USA.

Did you ever tell the truth once, just to see what it was like?

You're a valuable member of the fucking liar party.

 

[Uncensored2008]

id like to see that requirement

You can't, it's a fucking lie - just like what you claim.

Clearly, the discourse is now based on fucking lies - it's what you of the fucking liar party use, so that's the new norm.

 

[Ravi]

It's just too bad that someone fooled you into thinking there was a law requiring that you had to cut your penis off.

Since we're doing the "outrageous fucking lie" thing, just figured I'd join in.

You are lying through your fucking teeth, claiming that there is a law or proposal that has women being required to "swear they aren't sluts."

I figure if lying is so cool that the fucking liar (formerly democrat) party engages in it full time, who am I to argue.

SO - why does Obama require that all men in the nation have their penis cut off?

Hey, we're doing "BIG LIE," let's keep it going.

Well, too bad for you. I hope it means you can't reproduce....net gain for the USA.

Did you ever tell the truth once, just to see what it was like?

You're a valuable member of the fucking liar party.

You should change your name to Eunuch_2008.