Fired for Being on the Pill

[boilermaker55]

First of all, the bill doesn't state that a woman can be fired for being on the pill. It simply gives employers the right to require a woman to sign a statement that the pill is not being used for sexual purposes.

The article then points out that Arizona is a right to work state which means that if the woman claims it is for sexual purposes she could be fired for it and there would be nothing she or anyone else can do about it.

That being said, this is one mother f'ing stupid bill. The state has no business interfereing in this.

Immie

PS Please excuse the French.

WOW! If you are willing to go along with this bill you and your ilk are ready to take anything shoved down your throat.
Whose f*cking business is it anyway why a woman is taking BC. And especially my employer. I work for my money and they have zilch right in telling me how to spend it or live my life.
Yours always bitches about communism. This is the ground work for just that type of life.
Get a clue.

Are you addressing me?

Did you even read my post or any of my posts in this thread? Obviously you didn't, because I am opposed to this bill.

And, since, you may not have read it, or been able to read it, let me point out that I simply made some clarifications as to what the bill actually said then I denounced it.

Before you make an ass out of yourself, I think you should actually read the post you are condemning in full!

Immie

No, I was not adressing it was my error on clicking on the wrong name.
I apologize for my quick click.

 

[Uncensored2008]

A state doesn't have the right to give an employer the say so over contraception.

Romney will not get my vote.

Your goal is to crush liberty wherever you find it, eh Rati?

Despite what you fucking liars (formerly democrats) claim, the Arizona bill simply REMOVES the mandate FORCING employers to provide contraception.

It doesn't give them say over contraception.

You know this, but the party demands the Big Lie be used, and as a mindless drone, use it you will.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Are you addressing me?

Did you even read my post or any of my posts in this thread? Obviously you didn't, because I am opposed to this bill.

So you think the state SHOULD force employers to provide birth control?

All this bill does is remove this mandate, what the left claims is simply use of the Big Lie technique.

And, since, you may not have read it, or been able to read it, let me point out that I simply made some clarifications as to what the bill actually said then I denounced it.

Before you make an ass out of yourself, I think you should actually read the post you are condemning in full!

Immie

Should the state also decide what I will have for dinner?

 

[Immanuel]

WOW! If you are willing to go along with this bill you and your ilk are ready to take anything shoved down your throat.
Whose f*cking business is it anyway why a woman is taking BC. And especially my employer. I work for my money and they have zilch right in telling me how to spend it or live my life.
Yours always bitches about communism. This is the ground work for just that type of life.
Get a clue.

Are you addressing me?

Did you even read my post or any of my posts in this thread? Obviously you didn't, because I am opposed to this bill.

And, since, you may not have read it, or been able to read it, let me point out that I simply made some clarifications as to what the bill actually said then I denounced it.

Before you make an ass out of yourself, I think you should actually read the post you are condemning in full!

Immie

No, I was not adressing it was my error on clicking on the wrong name.
I apologize for my quick click.

Apology accepted... please accept mine for the "make an ass out of yourself" comment.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

Are you addressing me?

Did you even read my post or any of my posts in this thread? Obviously you didn't, because I am opposed to this bill.

So you think the state SHOULD force employers to provide birth control?

All this bill does is remove this mandate, what the left claims is simply use of the Big Lie technique.

And, since, you may not have read it, or been able to read it, let me point out that I simply made some clarifications as to what the bill actually said then I denounced it.

Before you make an ass out of yourself, I think you should actually read the post you are condemning in full!

Immie

Should the state also decide what I will have for dinner?

No, sir, I do not. My objection to this bill is the idea that the state would force a woman to sign an affidavit stating that she is not using the contraceptive device in question for sexual reasons.

In fact, the state has no business what so ever in this process as far as I can see.

If you read the thread, you will see that there is one paragraph that states that the woman must provide evidence to the employer that she is not using the contraceptive device in contradiction to the employer's objections. That, sir, is what I object to. It has been discussed earlier and the poster named Conservative claims it was struck down. It was not, the wording was changed that is all. According to this bill, the woman must still provide evidence that she is not using the contraceptives for sexual reasons. I do not believe the employer has the right to know that nor do I believe the state has the right to compel a woman in this regard.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

Let me clarify one thing here U2008, this thread was started in reference to that one paragraph in the bill forcing a woman to provide evidence about her intentions in regards to the use of the contraceptives. That is what I have been discussing all along.

g5000 and some others took this thread off on a tangent about insurance coverage. I read a bit of that tangent, but quite frankly, unusual for me, I didn't get involved with his tangent and I quit reading g5000's posts in this thread when he started getting obnoxious about people not being smart enough to follow what he was talking about.

Immie

 

[Uncensored2008]

No, sir, I do not. My objection to this bill is the idea that the state would force a woman to sign an affidavit stating that she is not using the contraceptive device in question for sexual reasons.

Except for the fact that the bill in fact does no such thing.

That's just part of the Big Lie campaign.

What DOES the Bill do?

It ends the mandate that employers must provide contraception.

That's all it does - nothing more.

IF a women is on a plan that does not provide contraception - 99.9% still will - then she has the legal right to CHALLENGE the decision to not pay by asserting that the pill is for medical necessity.

In fact, the state has no business what so ever in this process as far as I can see.

All this bill does is end the state's involvement. Current law mandates that ALL employers MUST provide contraception. This law repeals that.

If you read the thread, you will see that there is one paragraph that states that the woman must provide evidence to the employer that she is not using the contraceptive device in contradiction to the employer's objections.

Yes, as remediation to over-rule an employer who does not cover contraception on religious grounds.

Basically

Fluke: Gimmee free birth control.

Church: That's against our religion

Fluke: I must have it because I have a medical condition.

Church: then swear you're not using it to prevent pregnancy.

That, sir, is what I object to.

Why?

Should there be no remediation for medical necessity? Or should the Church simply be mandated to hand out contraception?

It has been discussed earlier and the poster named Conservative claims it was struck down. It was not, the wording was changed that is all. According to this bill, the woman must still provide evidence that she is not using the contraceptives for sexual reasons.

False.

This is only remediation in the extremely rare cases that an employer doesn't provide contraception on religious grounds and the employee seeks to overrule their policy.

I do not believe the employer has the right to know that nor do I believe the state has the right to compel a woman in this regard.

Immie

The employer isn't asking, you are simply repeating Big Lie propaganda. What you reference is remediation in very rare circumstances.

What you are claiming is akin to stating that in order to drive you have to be handcuffed, taken to a hospital and have blood drawn.

Well that isn't true - IF you are arrested for DUI and refuse to take a breath test, then as remediation you can be handcuffed, taken to a hospital and have blood drawn.

 

[Immanuel]

No, sir, I do not. My objection to this bill is the idea that the state would force a woman to sign an affidavit stating that she is not using the contraceptive device in question for sexual reasons.

Except for the fact that the bill in fact does no such thing.

That's just part of the Big Lie campaign.

What DOES the Bill do?

It ends the mandate that employers must provide contraception.

That's all it does - nothing more.

IF a women is on a plan that does not provide contraception - 99.9% still will - then she has the legal right to CHALLENGE the decision to not pay by asserting that the pill is for medical necessity.

In fact, the state has no business what so ever in this process as far as I can see.

All this bill does is end the state's involvement. Current law mandates that ALL employers MUST provide contraception. This law repeals that.



Yes, as remediation to over-rule an employer who does not cover contraception on religious grounds.

Basically

Fluke: Gimmee free birth control.

Church: That's against our religion

Fluke: I must have it because I have a medical condition.

Church: then swear you're not using it to prevent pregnancy.



Why?

Should there be no remediation for medical necessity? Or should the Church simply be mandated to hand out contraception?

It has been discussed earlier and the poster named Conservative claims it was struck down. It was not, the wording was changed that is all. According to this bill, the woman must still provide evidence that she is not using the contraceptives for sexual reasons.

False.

This is only remediation in the extremely rare cases that an employer doesn't provide contraception on religious grounds and the employee seeks to overrule their policy.

I do not believe the employer has the right to know that nor do I believe the state has the right to compel a woman in this regard.

Immie

The employer isn't asking, you are simply repeating Big Lie propaganda. What you reference is remediation in very rare circumstances.

What you are claiming is akin to stating that in order to drive you have to be handcuffed, taken to a hospital and have blood drawn.

Well that isn't true - IF you are arrested for DUI and refuse to take a breath test, then as remediation you can be handcuffed, taken to a hospital and have blood drawn.

My friend, I believe you are wrong.

True, there will not be all that many employers who object to contraceptives being covered. That is a good thing.

Those organizations who object should be allowed their objections and the plans provided by such an organization should NOT be forced to cover contraceptives. Any one who wants to work for those organizations knows in advance to becoming employees of the organization that contraceptives are not covered by the plan. Take the job or don't take the job. That is their option. There is the possibility that there are woman who would be affected by this decision who currently work for such organizations. It is my opinion that their current coverages (whether they provide contraceptive coverage or not) should be grandfathered in.

The fact is that the way that paragraph was written (deliberately vaguely I suspect), a woman working for an objecting organization either has to pay for her own contraceptives or sign an affidavit stating it is for purposes other than sexual activity. And since Arizona is a right to work state her answer may or may not get her fired. I would hope that it would not, but knowing some of the attitudes of people of my faith, I would not guarantee that it would not happen.

Immie

 

[Conservative]

Romney will not get my vote.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxlhyX-4qKI]Iago, Jafar's parrot, is sarcastically surprised... - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Katzndogz]

Are you addressing me?

Did you even read my post or any of my posts in this thread? Obviously you didn't, because I am opposed to this bill.

So you think the state SHOULD force employers to provide birth control?

All this bill does is remove this mandate, what the left claims is simply use of the Big Lie technique.

And, since, you may not have read it, or been able to read it, let me point out that I simply made some clarifications as to what the bill actually said then I denounced it.

Before you make an ass out of yourself, I think you should actually read the post you are condemning in full!

Immie

Should the state also decide what I will have for dinner?

That's coming, be patient.

 

[Uncensored2008]

My friend, I believe you are wrong.

About what?

I think you've been drawn in by the Big Lie.

True, there will not be all that many employers who object to contraceptives being covered. That is a good thing.

What coverage a customer buys is their own business - not mine, not Obama's.

Those organizations who object should be allowed their objections and the plans provided by such an organization should NOT be forced to cover contraceptives.

Then you support the bill.

Any one who wants to work for those organizations knows in advance to becoming employees of the organization that contraceptives are not covered by the plan. Take the job or don't take the job. That is their option. There is the possibility that there are woman who would be affected by this decision who currently work for such organizations. It is my opinion that their current coverages (whether they provide contraceptive coverage or not) should be grandfathered in.

Then you support the bill.

The fact is that the way that paragraph was written (deliberately vaguely I suspect), a woman working for an objecting organization either has to pay for her own contraceptives or sign an affidavit stating it is for purposes other than sexual activity.

So?

If I want free food from the Catholic Church, I have to sign an affidavit stating that I don't have the ability to feed myself.

And since Arizona is a right to work state her answer may or may not get her fired.

That's just ACLU Big Lie demagoguery.

There are 50 "at will" employment states in the union. The others are not "at will."

(right to work has to do with union membership.)

I would hope that it would not, but knowing some of the attitudes of people of my faith, I would not guarantee that it would not happen.

Immie

If you work for the Catholic Church, expecting them to pay for abortion or birth control is a bit silly.

Yes, I know Obama is abolishing religious freedom, but until the constitution is completely dead, I think I'll go ahead and support it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

That's coming, be patient.

Yeah, I know.

In the meantime, Obama has a bill of rights to crush....

 

[Valox]

Employers should not have access to employee health records. However, they should be able to pick an insurance policy that does not allow BC to be provided for sexual activities.

I love how all these independent feminists want to make other people subsidize their sexual activities. Feminists are a joke.

Plus, isn't it time to make the pill an OTC drug.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Employers should not have access to employee health records. However, they should be able to pick an insurance policy that does not allow BC to be provided for sexual activities.

I love how all these independent feminists want to make other people subsidize their sexual activities. Feminists are a joke.

Plus, isn't it time to make the pill an OTC drug.

The pill is pretty dangerous. It about quintuples risk of heart attack and stroke, particularly in smokers and those over 30. Not something to hand out without a doctors oversight.

 

[Valox]

Employers should not have access to employee health records. However, they should be able to pick an insurance policy that does not allow BC to be provided for sexual activities.

I love how all these independent feminists want to make other people subsidize their sexual activities. Feminists are a joke.

Plus, isn't it time to make the pill an OTC drug.

The pill is pretty dangerous. It about quintuples risk of heart attack and stroke, particularly in smokers and those over 30. Not something to hand out without a doctors oversight.

Then older women and smokers should be aware. I don't see the problem.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Then older women and smokers should be aware. I don't see the problem.

If the federal government should regulate dangerous drugs, and that's a BIG "if," then the pill is one that absolutely should be regulated.

 

[Valox]

Then older women and smokers should be aware. I don't see the problem.

If the federal government should regulate dangerous drugs, and that's a BIG "if," then the pill is one that absolutely should be regulated.

They are certainly regulating it. Their policies are going to lead to increase use of this dangerous drug.

 

[Ravi]

I wonder what the insurance companies think about this stupid law....and if they will raise the rates on companies that don't allow birth control for birth control purposes. Because all those pregnant women are going to cost the insurance companies a bundle.

 

[Valox]

I wonder what the insurance companies think about this stupid law....and if they will raise the rates on companies that don't allow birth control for birth control purposes. Because all those pregnant women are going to cost the insurance companies a bundle.

If it was so cost effective, then wouldn't insurance companies already be providing the pill in their coverage and this whole fiasco would have never existed?

 

[koshergrl]

No, because it has been proven that free for all contraception in this country does absolutely nothing to reduce the number of pregnancies.

Likewise, legal abortion does nothing to reduce the number of pregnancies, teen pregnancies, or abortion numbers.