Fired for Being on the Pill

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I think the law is stupid, but an employer should have the right to fire someone for whatever reason they want. You have no right to employment.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I have to ask, what does that matter.

Does her being on the pill have anything at all to do with her ability to perform her job?

I'm sorry, but in this case, the employer has no business knowing this information and the idea that a church would fire someone for being on the pill is absolutely infuriating to me and I am a Christian. That is not how Christ would nor the church should handle such an issue. IMNSHO

Immie

To me personally it doesn't matter one bit if someone is on the pill or not. To someone who thinks birth control is a sin it might matter a lot in their decision to hire and pay them money out of their own pockets to work.

I don't care if an employer wants to fire someone because they don't like their personal life choices, its the employers right in states like AZ to do so.

I take it you want the govt in charge of such decisions instead of individuals....what is next letting the govt tell me what health insurance I can buy or telling me that as a Muslim I must hire people who eat and handle pork?

Where do you get the idea that I want the government in charge of such decisions? I said exactly the opposite of that.

On the other hand, it infuriates me to think that a church would consider firing an individual because that individual is a sinner i.e. on the pill, sexually active and therefore a sinner. I would remind the leadership of such a church that their preacher is a sinner himself and is in direct need of God's Grace just as the woman who happens to be on the pill is too.

This bill requires a woman if asked to sign such a declaration or lose her job for not doing so, the bill should be shot down in committee. It happens to be an insult to the followers of Christ.

Immie

It gives a business a right to do so if they have a religious objection to someone being on the pill. You seem to want the govt to tell businesses they can't do this, that is where my comment came from.

I'm not religious or a church goer so, to me, caring about this stuff is stupid...but I'm a big believer in the first amendment with the freedom of religion and the separation of church and state.

 

[WillowTree]

Law Will Allow Employers to Fire Women for Using Whore Pills

The freedom comment was really the icing on the cake.

And ... cue the "conservatives" saying there is not a war on women.

who go fired?

Hi, you have received -969 reputation points from WillowTree.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
Who got fired?

Regards,
WillowTree

I never said anyone did get fired.

Read your title Stupid.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I think the law is stupid, but an employer should have the right to fire someone for whatever reason they want. You have no right to employment.

now that is a statement I can support 100%.

 

[Immanuel]

I think the law is stupid, but an employer should have the right to fire someone for whatever reason they want. You have no right to employment.

At least not in a right to work state. Funny, how those two ideas clash isn't it.

"Right to work" means the employer can fire you for any reason he wants.

I think this law is stupid and frankly insulting of religious institutions.

Immie

 

[TakeAStepBack]

here is a link to the bill text...
Bill Text: AZ House Bill 2625 - Fiftieth Legislature - Second Regular Session (2012) | eLobbyist

I see nothing in here about birth control at all.

Nada.

ZIP.

I believe it is the right bill, as the session and H number match.... Debbie Lesko is listed as a sponsor... the vote and current status match (Senate Judiciary committee passed, 6-2)

Perhaps the OP was a dumb fuck that failed to read the actual bill?

Dontbestupid?????

 

[WillowTree]

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

My screen name is directed at people like Willow.

well Stupid you've missed yer mark every time.. tough..

 

[g5000]

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.

 

[Immanuel]

To me personally it doesn't matter one bit if someone is on the pill or not. To someone who thinks birth control is a sin it might matter a lot in their decision to hire and pay them money out of their own pockets to work.

I don't care if an employer wants to fire someone because they don't like their personal life choices, its the employers right in states like AZ to do so.

I take it you want the govt in charge of such decisions instead of individuals....what is next letting the govt tell me what health insurance I can buy or telling me that as a Muslim I must hire people who eat and handle pork?

Where do you get the idea that I want the government in charge of such decisions? I said exactly the opposite of that.

On the other hand, it infuriates me to think that a church would consider firing an individual because that individual is a sinner i.e. on the pill, sexually active and therefore a sinner. I would remind the leadership of such a church that their preacher is a sinner himself and is in direct need of God's Grace just as the woman who happens to be on the pill is too.

This bill requires a woman if asked to sign such a declaration or lose her job for not doing so, the bill should be shot down in committee. It happens to be an insult to the followers of Christ.

Immie

It gives a business a right to do so if they have a religious objection to someone being on the pill. You seem to want the govt to tell businesses they can't do this, that is where my comment came from.

I'm not religious or a church goer so, to me, caring about this stuff is stupid...but I'm a big believer in the first amendment with the freedom of religion and the separation of church and state.

No, you misunderstand what I have a problem with. My problem is the state allowing employers to require such a statement. In othe words, forcing a woman to sign a declaration that she is taking the pill for reasons other than sexual activity.

Quite frankly the employer does not in my not so humble opinion have a right to know that.

Immie

 

[Conservative]

I deleted my earlier post, as I did see the following section in the text of the bill...

Bill Text: AZ House Bill 2625 - Fiftieth Legislature - Second Regular Session (2012) | eLobbyist

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.� The corporation shall retain the affidavit for the duration of the contract and any renewals of the contract. This subsection shall not exclude coverage for prescription contraceptive methods ordered by a health care provider WITH prescriptive authority for medical indications other than for contraceptive, abortifacient, abortion or sterilization purposes.� A corporation, employer, sponsor, issuer or other entity offering the plan may state religious beliefs or moral convictions in its affidavit that require the subscriber to first pay for the prescription and then 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.� A corporation may charge an administrative fee for handling these claims.

I still think the OP is a dumb fuck. The affidavit is filed by the corporation, not the insured person, if they object to covering contraceptives.

 

[g5000]

A proposed new law in Arizona would give employers the power to request that women being prescribed birth control pills provide proof that they're using it for non-sexual reasons. And because Arizona's an at-will employment state, that means that bosses critical of their female employees' sex lives could fire them as a result.

Yesterday, a Senate Judiciary Committee endorsed Republican Debbie Lesko's HB2625 by a vote of 6-2, which would allow an employer to request proof that a woman using insurance to buy birth control was being prescribed the birth control for reasons other than not wanting to get pregnant. It's all about freedom, she said

Law Will Allow Employers to Fire Women for Using Whore Pills

The freedom comment was really the icing on the cake.

And ... cue the "conservatives" saying there is not a war on women.

You really need to change your username. The irony of it is just getting to be too much.

The law requires any employer who provides prescription drug coverage to include contraception coverage. It also requires any employer who provides outpatient health care coverage to provide contraception coverage.

An employer cannot exclude contraception coverage under these type plans. Got it?

Now, if contraception is against an employer's religion, they must file an affadavit in order to opt out of the contraception portion of the health care plan.

If contraception is not covered due to religious reasons, NO ONE IS GETTING CHARGED FOR IT in their insurance premiums. Just want that crystal fucking clear since people have demonstrated they believe they are paying for it under these conditions. They aren't.

However, the law still requires that religious employer to provide contraception to women who need it for medical reasons.

So go ahead and roll out the cancer lady. She's covered under this law.

And religious freedom is also covered. So what the fuck is your problem?

 

[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

 

[Conservative]

A proposed new law in Arizona would give employers the power to request that women being prescribed birth control pills provide proof that they're using it for non-sexual reasons. And because Arizona's an at-will employment state, that means that bosses critical of their female employees' sex lives could fire them as a result.

Yesterday, a Senate Judiciary Committee endorsed Republican Debbie Lesko's HB2625 by a vote of 6-2, which would allow an employer to request proof that a woman using insurance to buy birth control was being prescribed the birth control for reasons other than not wanting to get pregnant. It's all about freedom, she said

Law Will Allow Employers to Fire Women for Using Whore Pills

The freedom comment was really the icing on the cake.

And ... cue the "conservatives" saying there is not a war on women.

You really need to change your username. The irony of it is just getting to be too much.

The law requires any employer who provides prescription drug coverage to include contraception coverage. It also requires any employer who provides outpatient health care coverage to provide contraception coverage.

An employer cannot exclude contraception coverage under these type plans. Got it?

Now, if contraception is against an employer's religion, they must file an affadavit in order to opt out of the contraception portion of the health care plan.

However, the law still requires that employer to provide contraception to women who need it for medical reasons.

So go ahead and roll out the cancer lady. She's covered under this law.

And religious freedom is also covered. So what the fuck is your problem?

there in lies the misunderstanding on the part of the OP, and those whining about this bill. THE EMPLOYER files an objection to being forced to cover contraceptives. NO such filing is required of the employee.

 

[DontBeStupid]

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

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.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Law Will Allow Employers to Fire Women for Using Whore Pills

The freedom comment was really the icing on the cake.

And ... cue the "conservatives" saying there is not a war on women.

who go fired?

Hi, you have received -969 reputation points from WillowTree.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
Who got fired?

Regards,
WillowTree

I never said anyone did get fired.

Hi, you have received -574 reputation points from Dr.House.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
neg rep whining...

Regards,
Dr.House

Nope. Just responding to Willow's comment. Just like I'm responding to yours now.

 

[Zoom-boing]

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

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.

 

[Ravi]

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!"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

 

[Conservative]

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

I posted a link to the bill text. No such requirement in the bill now.
http://e-lobbyist.com/gaits/text/596074
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.

 

[Avatar4321]

I am confident that no liberal has ever "proposed" a dumb law....

Obamacare. nuff said.