Arizona Birth Control Bill Penalizes Women For Using Contraception

[High_Gravity]

I would like to observe the HR rep reprimanding the employee:

HR REP: Suzie it has come to our attention that you are always happy and peppy. People suspect you are getting laid. Now we see that your benefits include THE PILL! We were under the impression you were suffering from PMDD, however given your attitude of late we must consider our freedoms and will from today forward deny your access to THE PILL.

Yep, that is gonna fly.

Next they'll be demanding to see the bloody sheets on her wedding night.

Wouldn't surprise me, we are turning into Saudi Arabia more and more by the day.

 

[DontBeStupid]

I'm trying to figure out what the "penalty" is for women who use contraceptives?

What punishment are they slated to receive?

You mean besides being fired?

 

[Contumacious]

I don't get it, people are bitching about poor women having bastard children left and right, and now we want to do away with contraception?

yep you don't get it. no one has ever said to do away with contraception.. what has been said though is if you're an adult you should not ask others to pay for your sexual drive. do you get that now or is you head still in the dark damp place?

I fully concur.

But if you 're an adult you should not ask others to bomb the **** out of your least favorite countries.

Capisce?

.

 

[Newby]

My dear fellow conservatives. Before this topic goes even further off the track, you need to look again at what this Arizona law does.

This law prevents employers from providing full contraception coverage to their employees. This law requires a woman prove to her boss that she has a medical condition in order to get contraception through her employer's health care plan.

And that is pretty fucked up. If you don't like government mandating what benefits an employer MUST provide to their employeess (which I most certainly do not), why would you like government mandating what benefits they MAY NOT provide to their employees?

This law is attempting to force employers to stop providing contraception to their employees, even if they want to.

Government interference with the way someone runs their business is COMPLETELY CONTRARY to conservative principles.

If that's indeed the case, they're saying that employers cannot choose to offer contraceptive coverage in their health care plans, then I completely agree with you. I thought it was saying that if you do choose to not offer contraceptive coverage in your health care plan, there has to be an exception for those who need it for medical reasons. And if so, then their doctor would have to validate that scenario.

Unfortunateley, I was incorrect in this assessment. See my post which follows that one.

The law is actually doing the opposite. It is forcing all employers to provide contraception coverage, with an exception carved out for those who have religious objections.

Okay, so in your original post you say that conservatives should be against the government mandating that employers cannot include contraception in their offered health care plans, but now that it's a mandate that they must offer it, you say it's a 'fair bill'?

 

[High_Gravity]

I don't get it, people are bitching about poor women having bastard children left and right, and now we want to do away with contraception?

yep you don't get it. no one has ever said to do away with contraception.. what has been said though is if you're an adult you should not ask others to pay for your sexual drive. do you get that now or is you head still in the dark damp place?

I fully concur.

But if you 're an adult you should not ask other to bomb the **** out of your least favorite countries.

Capisce?

.

This drivel you just posted has nothing to do with the topic at hand clown.

 

[Newby]

oh my goodness, this is beyond reason....so none of this from the start has to do with the first amendment and making the church pay for insurance that covers birth control? Gosh, you all are just a bunch of liars....

besides the FACT that if an employer offers health care coverage, it has been part of the employee's COMPENSATION for working for their employer....so THE EMPLOYEE has ALWAYS been the payer of their own insurance....

sheesh, you all are NUTS, to the enth degree....

What's next? What else are you going to force down other people's throats? How about we don't want insurance companies to cover pregnancies? r vasectomies? Or breast cancer treatments if the woman has never born a child cuz their risk is much higher?

These people ARE PAYING for their OWN insurance....idiot.

Care, vasectomies are not covered by insurance, just an fyi... There are a great many things not covered by insurance, do you want the government to be mandating what employers must include in their health care plans, i.e. to force it down their throats? Let's be reasonable here, freedom is allowing employers to choose the plans they want to include to offer to their employees, and what those plans will cover. Anyone is capable of going out and buying their own health insurance if they don't like what their company is offering. And guess what? I opt out of my insurance plan because I am covered under my husband's plan? How much do you think my company is compensating me for not taking their health insurance? Absolutely nothing! So, if it's part of everyone's compensation then why aren't I receiving hundreds of dollars more in my paycheck every month for opting out?

According to this link, 70% of insurance companies cover vasectomy:

Vasectomies are covered by about 70 percent of health insurance plans, according to the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals. According to the Arizona Center for Vasectomy & Urology, insurers that regularly cover vasectomies include PacifiCare, BlueCross BlueShield, United Healthcare and Medicare. However, plans vary, so it is important to check with your insurer.

Cost of a Vasectomy - Consumer Information and Prices Paid - CostHelper.com

Where is your outrage?

The 'outrage' isn't about contraception being offered numb nuts, it's about government mandating what an employer must offer in their health care plans.

 

[g5000]

Women are not being penalized for using contraception. HuffPo is lying.

As usual.

The Arizona law requires all employers to provide contraceptoin coverage. It does not give them a choice in the matter. So they must pay for the Pill whether they like it or not.

How that is a penalty toward women is beyond me.

How does that apply to this case? A female employee pays for medical insurance that includes birth control, gets the prescription and then is fired by her employer.

And you think that's fine, why?

This law actually PROTECTS a woman who gets the pill for medical reasons.

If an employers uses the religious freedom clause of the law, that employer must still provide the Pill to an employee who needs it for medical reasons.

And anyone who works for a company that does not provide for the Pill for contraception purposes is NOT paying for medical insurance that includes birth control.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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

Once again, just like in the other thread about this, TRY TO READ THE BILL. Its not for all employers only for employers who have religious objections. http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/50leg/1r/bills/hb2565s.pdf

I thought you believed in the seperation of church and state?

 

[koshergrl]

I'm trying to figure out what the "penalty" is for women who use contraceptives?

What punishment are they slated to receive?

You mean besides being fired?

Show me where in the bill it states that women can be fired for using contraceptives.

I'll wait.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I'm trying to figure out what the "penalty" is for women who use contraceptives?

What punishment are they slated to receive?

You mean besides being fired?

Show me where in the bill it states that women can be fired for using contraceptives.

I'll wait.

http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/50leg/2r/bills/hb2625h.htm&Session_ID=107

i'll wait too.....the bill seems to only apply to employers with religious objections....we do have a seperation of church and stated do we not?

 

[g5000]

Okay, so in your original post you say that conservatives should be against the government mandating that employers cannot include contraception in their offered health care plans, but now that it's a mandate that they must offer it, you say it's a 'fair bill'?

No. I believe it is wrong for the government to mandate what benefits an employer may or may not offer their employees. I am opposed to both.

This law mandates employers must provide health insurance. And it describes what minimum requirements that insurance must have. Contraception coverage is just one of many things it mandates.

It does not give employers a choice. I am very much opposed to that. In fact, I am very much opposed to the State mandating an employer must provide health insurance itself. That benefit should be left to the employer to decide.

All that aside, the part I think is fair is the part I quoted. It allows employers who have religious objections to contraception a means of opting out. Forcing someone to engage in a behavior that violates their faith is about as intolerant of others' values as it gets.

However, if a woman needs the Pill for medical reasons, I don't think anyone can argue it is immoral to give her medication that just happens to also be contraception.

So the law directs that a religious objector must provide coverage for the Pill's medical uses.

Therefore, I think that aspect of the law which I quoted is entirely fair to everyone under the circumstances.

 

[g5000]

You mean besides being fired?

Show me where in the bill it states that women can be fired for using contraceptives.

I'll wait.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/50leg/1r/bills/hb2565s.pdf

i'll wait too.....the bill seems to only apply to employers with religious objections....we do have a seperation of church and stated do we not?

Uh. That's a student's rights bill. Nothing to do with this subject.

 

[g5000]

the bill seems to only apply to employers with religious objections

Not true.

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

Read it.

 

[WorldWatcher]

>

Interesting, I've reviewed the text of the law here -->> Bill Text: AZ House Bill 2625 - Fiftieth Legislature - Second Regular Session (2012) | eLobbyist


This is what is seems like to me:

1. Any employer can not cover contraceptives, all they have to do is claim it's based on religious beliefs. Even if that employer is a non-religious entity.

2. If an employer makes such a claim, then they can obtain an insurance policy which excludes "contraceptive, abortifacient, abortion or sterilization purposes" (from here on out I'll just use "contraceptives" for brevity) and not be in violation of the law.

3. If an employee needs hormonal (or other treatments) that would normally be used as a contraceptive, then the employee will not be covered by insurance for such a prescribed health care treatment and must pay out of pocket, regardless.

4. However, if (**IF**) the prescription or procedure was for NON-contraceptive purposes, then the employee can submit a claim with the employer who will then be required to reimburse the employee for the health care.

5. The employer would be able to charge an administrative fee to the employee for the privilege of getting something covered by their health care insurance which would have been covered anyway as long as it wasn't used for contraception. Basically the employee is paying an additional administrative fee for non-contraceptive items just because it can be used for contraception.​

As someone who works in Human Resources, I can see a couple of problems with the law.

1. It states that the employee may "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", but it does not define the content of the claim. IF the supporting evidence is a doctors official statement that the individual needs the medication for non-contraceptive reasons - and that is it - then there will likely not be an issue about the claim. However, IF the employer does not want to accept the medical opinion of the doctor and then requires that the doctors affidavit include specifics of the medical condition THEN there will a whole bunch of lawsuits based on the employer requiring the employee to disclose medical history information that has no bearing on their job performance.

2. Secondly, you will have cases of employers who have a religious objection to pre-marital sex. By requiring females only to provide written confirmation they are taking a prescribed medication which can be used for contraception, even though it's officially for other purposes, then you are going to see a slew of lawsuits based on (a) employer requiring non-work related medical history, and (b) wrongful termination suits because the impact of the law will be discriminatory against females since males are not required to provide information which might provide insight into their sex life.

3. Finally I see claims of unequal employer treatment, which have a certain validity to them, based on the fact that males would (pretty much) never have a claim where they had to pay out of pocket for expenses, then submit a claim, and then have to pay an administrative fee on top of that to have covered health care items processed. Only females would have that additional hurtle.




>>>>

 

[DontBeStupid]

How does that apply to this case? A female employee pays for medical insurance that includes birth control, gets the prescription and then is fired by her employer.

And you think that's fine, why?

This law actually PROTECTS a woman who gets the pill for medical reasons.

It protects her if she PROVES she got it for medical reasons. If she refuses to show evidence or got it for birth control reasons, then she can be fired.

And you're okay with that, why?

 

[theHawk]

You mean besides being fired?

Show me where in the bill it states that women can be fired for using contraceptives.

I'll wait.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/50leg/1r/bills/hb2565s.pdf

i'll wait too.....the bill seems to only apply to employers with religious objections....we do have a seperation of church and stated do we not?

Libs only believe in "Separation of Church and State" when anyone says the words Jesus or God near a government building or when any type of law with a shred of morality in it is up to vote.

They don't give a damn if the State sticks its nose into the affairs of a church and forces religious institutions to do things against their own religion.

They are perfectly willing to trample on freedom of religion, see Obamacare. The Slutters now want to force religious institutions and taxpayers alike to pay for contraception.

 

[WillowTree]

oh my goodness, this is beyond reason....so none of this from the start has to do with the first amendment and making the church pay for insurance that covers birth control? Gosh, you all are just a bunch of liars....

besides the FACT that if an employer offers health care coverage, it has been part of the employee's COMPENSATION for working for their employer....so THE EMPLOYEE has ALWAYS been the payer of their own insurance....

sheesh, you all are NUTS, to the enth degree....

What's next? What else are you going to force down other people's throats? How about we don't want insurance companies to cover pregnancies? r vasectomies? Or breast cancer treatments if the woman has never born a child cuz their risk is much higher?

These people ARE PAYING for their OWN insurance....idiot.

Yes, fuckwit and now they'll be paying a hella vu lot more.. contrary to libtard wet dreams the insurance companies will not give women free birth control.. they will pay for it..say thank ewe obama.

you got yours so what do you care.....? You didn't pay for it, cuz we the tax payers have to cover medicare shortfalls....eh?

poor old desperaste lying libtard.. I guess I did pay for it.. they forced me to pay for it.. so eat some shit and die. liar

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

the bill seems to only apply to employers with religious objections

Not true.

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

Read it.

I did and thanks for catching that, I linked the wrong one i meant this link Format Document

I read it, doesn't change my initial comment.

 

[g5000]

If the contract provides coverage for prescription drugs, the contract shall provide coverage for any prescribed drug or device that is approved by the United States food and drug administration for use as a contraceptive. A corporation may use a drug formulary, multitiered drug formulary or list but that formulary or list shall include oral, implant and injectable contraceptive drugs, intrauterine devices and prescription barrier methods if the corporation does not impose deductibles, coinsurance, copayments or other cost containment measures for contraceptive drugs that are greater than the deductibles, coinsurance, copayments or other cost containment measures for other drugs on the same level of the formulary or list.

2. If the contract provides coverage for outpatient health care services, the contract shall provide coverage for outpatient contraceptive services. For the purposes of this paragraph, "outpatient contraceptive services" means consultations, examinations, procedures and medical services provided on an outpatient basis and related to the use of approved United States food and drug administration prescription contraceptive methods to prevent unintended pregnancies.

Okay? The law plainly states that if prescription coverage is part of a health plan, then it must cover contraception.

It also plainly states that if outpatient health services are covered, then so is contraception.

You cannot have either of those without covering contraception.

Moving on down the bill:

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.

This is the section which allows someone to opt out of the contraception requirement if contraception is against their religion.

If an objection triggers this subsection, a written affidavit shall be filed with the corporation stating the objection.

The entity which finds contraception to be against their faith must file a written affidavit.

I notice no libbies whined about this particular requirement!

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.

And here is where the contraception must be provided to an employee who needs it for medical reasons, even if contraception is against someone's faith.


So what, exactly, is the Left so up in arms about?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Show me where in the bill it states that women can be fired for using contraceptives.

I'll wait.

Format Document

i'll wait too.....the bill seems to only apply to employers with religious objections....we do have a seperation of church and stated do we not?

Uh. That's a student's rights bill. Nothing to do with this subject.

my bad i grabbed a link from another discussion I was having, i fixed it for you.

Comment still stands Format Document