Fired for Being on the Pill

[Ravi]

"The law protects religious people from violating their faith"

This bill extends the right to deny birth control to any employer if it is being used to keep someone from an unwanted pregnancy. Any employer, not just those with a religious squeamishness.

That is a flat-out lie.

Please quote the exact part of the law which supports this asinine claim.

Seriously, is there an airhorn that goes off in your head when I quote the exact parts of the law which say an employer must provide contraception coverage to prevent unintended pregancy?

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.

 

[Inthemiddle]

So the law allows employers to require people to sign a statement. It's pretty ******* stupid. The government should stay out of it. But I wonder what happens when a woman signs such a statement dishonestly. How can the employer prove it? If the law were to allow employers to invade the privacy of the woman's records, the law will not survive a challenge.

What I most want to know, is what the hell is going on in Arizona? Where are the Arizonians speaking up in outrage about this kind of stupidity from their legislature? If they won't step up, they deserve what's coming to them.

 

[Ravi]

So the law allows employers to require people to sign a statement. It's pretty ******* stupid. The government should stay out of it. But I wonder what happens when a woman signs such a statement dishonestly. How can the employer prove it? If the law were to allow employers to invade the privacy of the woman's records, the law will not survive a challenge.

What I most want to know, is what the hell is going on in Arizona? Where are the Arizonians speaking up in outrage about this kind of stupidity from their legislature? If they won't step up, they deserve what's coming to them.

I guess she'd get fired.

I also wonder, what would happen if the doctor lied? A doctor is ethically bound to treat their patients, not dance to some stupid corporate bullshit. Is it ethical to deny a woman a birth control prescription out of fear of reprisal?

 

[g5000]

"The law protects religious people from violating their faith"

This bill extends the right to deny birth control to any employer if it is being used to keep someone from an unwanted pregnancy. Any employer, not just those with a religious squeamishness.

That is a flat-out lie.

Please quote the exact part of the law which supports this asinine claim.

Seriously, is there an airhorn that goes off in your head when I quote the exact parts of the law which say an employer must provide contraception coverage to prevent unintended pregancy?

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.

Please highlight the part that says "not just those with a religious squeamishness" can be exempt from subsection Y.

 

[Ravi]

You really are stupid.

A corporation, employer, sponsor, issuer or other entity offering the plan may state religious beliefs or moral convictions

 

[jillian]

So the law allows employers to require people to sign a statement. It's pretty ******* stupid. The government should stay out of it. But I wonder what happens when a woman signs such a statement dishonestly. How can the employer prove it? If the law were to allow employers to invade the privacy of the woman's records, the law will not survive a challenge.

What I most want to know, is what the hell is going on in Arizona? Where are the Arizonians speaking up in outrage about this kind of stupidity from their legislature? If they won't step up, they deserve what's coming to them.

if you sign such a statement falsely, your insurance will be terminated for fraud. because insurance companies will do medical audits. they will also have the right to deny coverage if they think the contraceptives are "medically unnecessary".

 

[g5000]

So the law allows employers to require people to sign a statement. It's pretty ******* stupid. The government should stay out of it. But I wonder what happens when a woman signs such a statement dishonestly. How can the employer prove it? If the law were to allow employers to invade the privacy of the woman's records, the law will not survive a challenge.

What I most want to know, is what the hell is going on in Arizona? Where are the Arizonians speaking up in outrage about this kind of stupidity from their legislature? If they won't step up, they deserve what's coming to them.

I guess she'd get fired.

I also wonder, what would happen if the doctor lied? A doctor is ethically bound to treat their patients, not dance to some stupid corporate bullshit. Is it ethical to deny a woman a birth control prescription out of fear of reprisal?

Neither one of you knows how insurance works. If insurance does not cover contraception proscribed to prevent unintended pregnacy, then when the doctor submits the bill to the insurance company for contraception proscribed to prevent unintended pregnancy, it gets rejected by the insurance company.

And then the woman has to pay the full price out of her own pocket.

If the woman then asks her religious boss to pay for her pill, knowing ahead of time it is against her boss's religion to pay for medically unnecessary birth control, then what special kind of idiot employee do you have to be to even do that?

Would you ask a Muslim boss to pay your bar tab?

 

[g5000]

You really are stupid.
A corporation, employer, sponsor, issuer or other entity offering the plan
may state religious beliefs or moral convictions

Like I said. Only those who are religiously opposed are exempt. It does not allow anyone else to be exempt.

So you lied. Again.

 

[jillian]

So the law allows employers to require people to sign a statement. It's pretty ******* stupid. The government should stay out of it. But I wonder what happens when a woman signs such a statement dishonestly. How can the employer prove it? If the law were to allow employers to invade the privacy of the woman's records, the law will not survive a challenge.

What I most want to know, is what the hell is going on in Arizona? Where are the Arizonians speaking up in outrage about this kind of stupidity from their legislature? If they won't step up, they deserve what's coming to them.

I guess she'd get fired.

I also wonder, what would happen if the doctor lied? A doctor is ethically bound to treat their patients, not dance to some stupid corporate bullshit. Is it ethical to deny a woman a birth control prescription out of fear of reprisal?

Neither one of you knows how insurance works. If insurance does not cover contraception proscribed to prevent unintended pregnacy, then when the doctor submits the bill to the insurance company for contraception proscribed to prevent unintended pregnancy, it gets rejected by the insurance company.

And then the woman has to pay the full price out of her own pocket.

If the woman then asks her religious boss to pay for her pill, knowing ahead of time it is against her boss's religion to pay for medically unnecessary birth control, then what special kind of idiot employee do you have to be to even do that?

Would you ask a Muslim boss to pay your bar tab?

interesting that you would tell others that they don't know how "insurance companies work" when you clearly don't have a clue.

the doctor would not submit a bill for a prescription. the prescription would be submitted to the pharmacy when the woman buys the pills. the pharmacist then submits the bill to the insurance company and the woman pays whatever co-pay she might have.

ONE MO' TIME FOR THE STUPID...

the employer does not pay for the pills... the insurance company does.

if she signs a sworn statement as to medical need, she will lose her insurance coverage, which means she is effectively denied coverage for contraception because of some religious nutbar.

 

[Ravi]

So the law allows employers to require people to sign a statement. It's pretty ******* stupid. The government should stay out of it. But I wonder what happens when a woman signs such a statement dishonestly. How can the employer prove it? If the law were to allow employers to invade the privacy of the woman's records, the law will not survive a challenge.

What I most want to know, is what the hell is going on in Arizona? Where are the Arizonians speaking up in outrage about this kind of stupidity from their legislature? If they won't step up, they deserve what's coming to them.

I guess she'd get fired.

I also wonder, what would happen if the doctor lied? A doctor is ethically bound to treat their patients, not dance to some stupid corporate bullshit. Is it ethical to deny a woman a birth control prescription out of fear of reprisal?

Neither one of you knows how insurance works. If insurance does not cover contraception proscribed to prevent unintended pregnacy, then when the doctor submits the bill to the insurance company for contraception proscribed to prevent unintended pregnancy, it gets rejected by the insurance company.

And then the woman has to pay the full price out of her own pocket.

If the woman then asks her religious boss to pay for her pill, knowing ahead of time it is against her boss's religion to pay for medically unnecessary birth control, then what special kind of idiot employee do you have to be to even do that?

Would you ask a Muslim boss to pay your bar tab?

You must be naive enough to not know that a doctor will lie for his or her patient so the patient will be covered by insurance.

Funny you think a bar tab is equivalent to family planning. You must hate women. How sad.

 

[Ravi]

You really are stupid.
A corporation, employer, sponsor, issuer or other entity offering the plan
may state religious beliefs or moral convictions

Like I said. Only those who are religiously opposed are exempt. It does not allow anyone else to be exempt.

So you lied. Again.

Nah, moral convictions aren't necessarily religious.

For instance, my moral convictions lead me to believe that "conservatives" should undergo forced sterilization.

Difference is, I know that would be unconstitutional and I don't want my morals enforced by the government.

 

[g5000]

So a corporation that has no religious objection to the pill being used to prevent pregnancy must cover the pill to prevent pregnancy. The law is unequivocal about that.

Unequivocal.

The law permits an employer who does have a religious objection from having to provide coverage for the pill used to prevent pregnancy.

Despite Ravi's weird repetitive lies, the law does not allow anyone else to be exempt from the requirement to provide coverage for the pill to prevent pregnancy.


Not only that, but even the conscientious objector must provide the pill to women who need it for medical reasons.


So the hysteria from liberals over this can only be explained by one thing, and one thing only. A deep, visceral bigotry toward certain religious people.

 

[Ravi]

So a corporation that has no religious objection to the pill being used to prevent pregnancy must cover the pill to prevent pregnancy. The law is unequivocal about that.

Unequivocal.

The law permits an employer who does have a religious objection from having to provide coverage for the pill used to prevent pregnancy.

Despite Ravi's weird repetitive lies, the law does not allow anyone else to be exempt from the requirement to provide coverage for the pill to prevent pregnancy.


Not only that, but even the conscientious objector must provide the pill to women who need it for medical reasons.


So the hysteria from liberals over this can only be explained by one thing, and one thing only. A deep, visceral bigotry toward certain religious people.

It is sad that you keep lying to yourself.

 

[g5000]

So a corporation that has no religious objection to the pill being used to prevent pregnancy must cover the pill to prevent pregnancy. The law is unequivocal about that.

Unequivocal.

The law permits an employer who does have a religious objection from having to provide coverage for the pill used to prevent pregnancy.

Despite Ravi's weird repetitive lies, the law does not allow anyone else to be exempt from the requirement to provide coverage for the pill to prevent pregnancy.


Not only that, but even the conscientious objector must provide the pill to women who need it for medical reasons.


So the hysteria from liberals over this can only be explained by one thing, and one thing only. A deep, visceral bigotry toward certain religious people.

It is sad that you keep lying to yourself.

With this issue, the Left forevermore can no longer claim to be the standard bearer of tolerance toward other people's values.

 

[Ravi]

So a corporation that has no religious objection to the pill being used to prevent pregnancy must cover the pill to prevent pregnancy. The law is unequivocal about that.

Unequivocal.

The law permits an employer who does have a religious objection from having to provide coverage for the pill used to prevent pregnancy.

Despite Ravi's weird repetitive lies, the law does not allow anyone else to be exempt from the requirement to provide coverage for the pill to prevent pregnancy.


Not only that, but even the conscientious objector must provide the pill to women who need it for medical reasons.


So the hysteria from liberals over this can only be explained by one thing, and one thing only. A deep, visceral bigotry toward certain religious people.

It is sad that you keep lying to yourself.

With this issue, the Left forevermore can no longer claim to be the standard bearer of tolerance toward other people's values.

Thank you for your concession.

The "left" is tolerant of womens reproductive needs. The "conservatives" are not.

 

[koshergrl]

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

I haven't yet seen any evidence that the bill requires a woman to sign a declaration or lose her job?

 

[Conservative]

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

utter nonsense. nothing in the bill even remotely says that. links to the text have been repeatedly posted.

 

[Conservative]

So the law allows employers to require people to sign a statement. It's pretty ******* stupid. The government should stay out of it. But I wonder what happens when a woman signs such a statement dishonestly. How can the employer prove it? If the law were to allow employers to invade the privacy of the woman's records, the law will not survive a challenge.

What I most want to know, is what the hell is going on in Arizona? Where are the Arizonians speaking up in outrage about this kind of stupidity from their legislature? If they won't step up, they deserve what's coming to them.

I guess she'd get fired.

I also wonder, what would happen if the doctor lied? A doctor is ethically bound to treat their patients, not dance to some stupid corporate bullshit. Is it ethical to deny a woman a birth control prescription out of fear of reprisal?

How does the employer KNOW she signed dishonestly? They do not have access to her medical records.

 

[Conservative]

So the law allows employers to require people to sign a statement. It's pretty ******* stupid. The government should stay out of it. But I wonder what happens when a woman signs such a statement dishonestly. How can the employer prove it? If the law were to allow employers to invade the privacy of the woman's records, the law will not survive a challenge.

What I most want to know, is what the hell is going on in Arizona? Where are the Arizonians speaking up in outrage about this kind of stupidity from their legislature? If they won't step up, they deserve what's coming to them.

if you sign such a statement falsely, your insurance will be terminated for fraud. because insurance companies will do medical audits. they will also have the right to deny coverage if they think the contraceptives are "medically unnecessary".

show me in the bill where it states this, dipshit.

 

[Conservative]

the thread title should be changed to

The Official Ravi is full of shit thread