Fired for Being on the Pill

[Avatar4321]

The originator of this thread has the most ironic screen name of all time.

My screen name is directed at people like Willow.

Perhps one day you'll take your own advice.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Does this cover married woman, or just single woman?

Is an employer seriously going to deny a married woman the ability to get birth control prescriptions paid for?

"Honey, no sex for you! Evah! My employer, Prober and Dumper, only wants me to have sex if I plan on getting pregnant!"

As far as I can tell, it covers ALL women, married or single.

 

[DontBeStupid]

My screen name is directed at people like Willow.

Hi, you have received -538 reputation points from Warrior102.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
It should be directed at you - you fudge packing little cocksucking beaaaaaaaaaaatch

Regards,
Warrior102

That was quick. You've been spreading around the negatives it seems.

I see we have a new Lakhota.

Every chance he can, Warrior negative reps me. He seems to think it will either get me to change my signature or prevent me from posting.

Either way, I find it pretty funny.

 

[Conservative]

Does this cover married woman, or just single woman?

Is an employer seriously going to deny a married woman the ability to get birth control prescriptions paid for?

"Honey, no sex for you! Evah! My employer, Prober and Dumper, only wants me to have sex if I plan on getting pregnant!"

As far as I can tell, it covers ALL women, married or single.

read post #39. The problem passage was REMOVED from the bill BEFORE it was voted on in the Judiciary Committee.

IT IS A MOOT ARGUMENT NOW.

 

[DontBeStupid]

This thread is a Classic Example of Liberal OP/Attached Article Disconnect Syndrome.

They NEVER read what they link to and this is what happens

What part do you think I missed?

 

[Conservative]

This thread is a Classic Example of Liberal OP/Attached Article Disconnect Syndrome.

They NEVER read what they link to and this is what happens

What part do you think I missed?

The part where the problem passage was REMOVED from the bill BEFORE it was voted on in the Judiciary Committee.

IT IS A MOOT ARGUMENT NOW.

 

[g5000]

The only entity in this law that has to submit something in writing is the one who objects to providing the Pill based on moral objections.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Does this cover married woman, or just single woman?

Is an employer seriously going to deny a married woman the ability to get birth control prescriptions paid for?

"Honey, no sex for you! Evah! My employer, Prober and Dumper, only wants me to have sex if I plan on getting pregnant!"

As far as I can tell, it covers ALL women, married or single.

read post #39. The problem passage was REMOVED from the bill BEFORE it was voted on in the Judiciary Committee.

IT IS A MOOT ARGUMENT NOW.

Ah. Good. Seems there are some sane people out there after all.

 

[Conservative]

As far as I can tell, it covers ALL women, married or single.

read post #39. The problem passage was REMOVED from the bill BEFORE it was voted on in the Judiciary Committee.

IT IS A MOOT ARGUMENT NOW.

Ah. Good. Seems there are some sane people out there after all.

Yes, unlike the moron who started this thread without actually reading the text of the bill to see if his sources were accurate.

 

[g5000]

As far as I can tell, it covers ALL women, married or single.

read post #39. The problem passage was REMOVED from the bill BEFORE it was voted on in the Judiciary Committee.

IT IS A MOOT ARGUMENT NOW.

Ah. Good. Seems there are some sane people out there after all.

You are STILL being stupid.

Explain exactly how a woman could have been fired for being on the Pill, with or without that passage.

The woman would buy the Pill, then submit a claim. The claim would either be approved or disapproved. End of story.

Just like when you claim any other expenses with a company. They are either approved or disapproved, but you are not fired for it.

 

[Immanuel]

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.

No. It does not. Huffington Post and Don'tBeStupid are making shit up.

The law requires employers who do not cover the Pill for religious reasons to provide insurance coverage for women who need the Pill for medical reasons.

So an insurance policy which only covers the Pill for medical reasons will not pay for a prescription which is not for medical reasons. The woman doesn't have to send a note to her boss. The doctor will have to code the prescription as one that is for medical reasons when he bills the insurance company.

I believe you are thinking about two different bills, but I may not be correct in that.

According to the article, which was not Huffpoop, this law allows employers to require their employees to sign a document stating they are using the pill for reasons other than sexual activity. It says nothing about insurance coverage.

I've closed the link, but will go back and check.

Immie

Here's the part that they are talking about... or at least a part that I found in a quick review of the bill.

D. C. Subsection B of this section does not exclude coverage for prescription contraceptive methods ordered by a health care provider with prescriptive authority for medical indications other than to prevent an unintended pregnancy. A health care services organization may require for contraceptive, abortifacient, abortion or sterilization purposes. A health care services organization, employer, sponsor, issuer or other entity offering the plan may state religious beliefs in its affidavit that require the enrollee to first pay for the prescription and then submit a claim to the health care services organization along with evidence that the prescription is for a noncontraceptive purpose not in whole or in part for a purpose covered by the objection. A health care services organization may charge an administrative fee for handling claims under this subsection.

The red part of that quote are parts that were struck out of the bill.

When reading it in the legalease, it doesn't sound as bad as what it seems to be saying. On the other hand, I can see where the orginal article gets the idea that a woman who does not provide the evidence required could in fact be fired.

Immie

 

[grunt11b]

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.

It doesn't fit the lefts narrative on the OP story, so they are more than happy to circumvent to truth in order to sell propaganda. It's how they roll.

 

[DontBeStupid]

read post #39. The problem passage was REMOVED from the bill BEFORE it was voted on in the Judiciary Committee.

IT IS A MOOT ARGUMENT NOW.

Ah. Good. Seems there are some sane people out there after all.

Yes, unlike the moron who started this thread without actually reading the text of the bill to see if his sources were accurate.

Yes. How dare I miss a line in a massive document like that.

Would you prefer my flogging be public or private?

 

[WillowTree]

Ah. Good. Seems there are some sane people out there after all.

Yes, unlike the moron who started this thread without actually reading the text of the bill to see if his sources were accurate.

Yes. How dare I miss a line in a massive document like that.

Would you prefer my flogging be public or private?

who got fired Stupid?

 

[Immanuel]

No. It does not. Huffington Post and Don'tBeStupid are making shit up.

The law requires employers who do not cover the Pill for religious reasons to provide insurance coverage for women who need the Pill for medical reasons.

So an insurance policy which only covers the Pill for medical reasons will not pay for a prescription which is not for medical reasons. The woman doesn't have to send a note to her boss. The doctor will have to code the prescription as one that is for medical reasons when he bills the insurance company.

I believe you are thinking about two different bills, but I may not be correct in that.

According to the article, which was not Huffpoop, this law allows employers to require their employees to sign a document stating they are using the pill for reasons other than sexual activity. It says nothing about insurance coverage.

I've closed the link, but will go back and check.

Immie

I posted a link to the bill text. No such requirement in the bill now.
Bill Text: AZ House Bill 2625 - Fiftieth Legislature - Second Regular Session (2012) | eLobbyist
It does state the following...

for contraceptive, abortifacient, abortion or sterilization purposes.� An insurer, employer, sponsor, issuer or other entity offering the policy may state religious beliefs in its affidavit that require the insured to first pay for the prescription and then submit a claim to the insurer along with evidence that the prescription is (this section removed from bill)for a noncontraceptive purpose (this section removed from bill)not in whole or in part for a purpose covered by the objection.

Looks like it WAS there, but was removed before it was voted on.

No, look at the part that you show as being removed and the wording directly after it.

Instead of saying "for a noncontraceptive purpose", they simply changed the wording to state that the purpose for the pill was not in whole or in part of the objection. It is still in there just worded differently.

Immie

 

[Conservative]

Ah. Good. Seems there are some sane people out there after all.

Yes, unlike the moron who started this thread without actually reading the text of the bill to see if his sources were accurate.

Yes. How dare I miss a line in a massive document like that.

Would you prefer my flogging be public or private?

Missed the line? That is seriously disingenuous, and you know it. If you had bothered to do a little research on your own, instead of taking the first article you pulled up as Gospel, you'd have easily found the text of the bill (took me all of 30 seconds on GOOGLE), read it, seen where the offending sections had been removed (most sites either strike through or highlight removed sections in red), and known that the entire point of this thread was full of shit from the beginning.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Employers should be able to hire and fire anyone they want and for any reason they want.

They do not however have the right to know what their employees do on their off hours

 

[Conservative]

I believe you are thinking about two different bills, but I may not be correct in that.

According to the article, which was not Huffpoop, this law allows employers to require their employees to sign a document stating they are using the pill for reasons other than sexual activity. It says nothing about insurance coverage.

I've closed the link, but will go back and check.

Immie

I posted a link to the bill text. No such requirement in the bill now.
Bill Text: AZ House Bill 2625 - Fiftieth Legislature - Second Regular Session (2012) | eLobbyist
It does state the following...

for contraceptive, abortifacient, abortion or sterilization purposes.� An insurer, employer, sponsor, issuer or other entity offering the policy may state religious beliefs in its affidavit that require the insured to first pay for the prescription and then submit a claim to the insurer along with evidence that the prescription is (this section removed from bill)for a noncontraceptive purpose (this section removed from bill)not in whole or in part for a purpose covered by the objection.

Looks like it WAS there, but was removed before it was voted on.

No, look at the part that you show as being removed and the wording directly after it.

Instead of saying "for a noncontraceptive purpose", they simply changed the wording to state that the purpose for the pill was not in whole or in part of the objection. It is still in there just worded differently.

Immie

I see what you are trying to say. However, the lack of specificity in that statement would seem to me to preclude the ability of the employer to use it against the employee as the OP is claiming they could.

 

[Immanuel]

Employers should be able to hire and fire anyone they want and for any reason they want.

They do not however have the right to know what their employees do on their off hours

Exactly!

Unless, of course, the employee is a star player for a professional team and they sign a contract that says they won't do something stupid, like skateboarding down a metal railing and risking a career ending injury, while they are under contract.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

I posted a link to the bill text. No such requirement in the bill now.
Bill Text: AZ House Bill 2625 - Fiftieth Legislature - Second Regular Session (2012) | eLobbyist
It does state the following...



Looks like it WAS there, but was removed before it was voted on.

No, look at the part that you show as being removed and the wording directly after it.

Instead of saying "for a noncontraceptive purpose", they simply changed the wording to state that the purpose for the pill was not in whole or in part of the objection. It is still in there just worded differently.

Immie

I see what you are trying to say. However, the lack of specificity in that statement would seem to me to preclude the ability of the employer to use it against the employee as the OP is claiming they could.

I don't agree. The lack of specificity only makes it more likely to be used against the woman rather than working in her favor.

Immie