WTF, Arizona? Women's employers can now fire them for buying birth-control pills?

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Revnak:
So they're allowing businesses to decide what contraception they'll cover? So what? This is a dumb thing to do, sure, and the only real lines of argument beyond "well, it's not like it matters that much and freedom of choice and all that" are all absolutely ridiculous, but how is this something we should be getting this pissed off about? People can still buy contraception, which isn't that expensive from the couple of prices I saw just looking it up. I really don't see why this is an issue from either side.

Prices vary greatly and many women can not use some types of birth control because of bad side effects. Also many women use birth control drugs for other health purposes which require them to take specific drugs rather than any old pill and they tend to be more expensive. This law would allow women to still obtain birth control for purposes other than contraception but it would require them to get a prescription, purchase it themselves, and then submit a challenge to the exception for review, a service for which the insurance company is allowed to charge a fee.

TheStatutoryApe:

Revnak:
So they're allowing businesses to decide what contraception they'll cover? So what? This is a dumb thing to do, sure, and the only real lines of argument beyond "well, it's not like it matters that much and freedom of choice and all that" are all absolutely ridiculous, but how is this something we should be getting this pissed off about? People can still buy contraception, which isn't that expensive from the couple of prices I saw just looking it up. I really don't see why this is an issue from either side.

Prices vary greatly and many women can not use some types of birth control because of bad side effects. Also many women use birth control drugs for other health purposes which require them to take specific drugs rather than any old pill and they tend to be more expensive. This law would allow women to still obtain birth control for purposes other than contraception but it would require them to get a prescription, purchase it themselves, and then submit a challenge to the exception for review, a service for which the insurance company is allowed to charge a fee.

Then the fee is bullshit. Fix that issue as it is likely to harm people with even more legitimate of issues. If it isn't an issue on the whole then it likely isn't an issue here. In the long run, this fee you speak of is entirely unimportant to this argument.

Come on people, you've already chewed out other people and mocked anyone one who would ever support this bill (not you specifically Ape, I'm talking about the other individuals here). You have to have a much better reason to be against this than a fee. Clearly you guys are seriously pissed off about this. I'd like to know what logical reason you have.
image

Revnak:
Then the fee is bullshit. Fix that issue as it is likely to harm people with even more legitimate of issues. If it isn't an issue on the whole then it likely isn't an issue here. In the long run, this fee you speak of is entirely unimportant to this argument.

Come on people, you've already chewed out other people and mocked anyone one who would ever support this bill (not you specifically Ape, I'm talking about the other individuals here). You have to have a much better reason to be against this than a fee. Clearly you guys are seriously pissed off about this. I'd like to know what logical reason you have.
image

I was really mainly responding to the cost issue. I was also pointing out that those women who are actually in medical need of birth control can still obtain it through their employee health plan but that the system makes it a hassle and opens a window for providers to deny claims especially with the default for their plan being that it would be denied anyway. I doubt any one in the thread is particularly pissed about the fee, though it is another little poke in the eye, most seem to be more content to bitch about the oppression of women and ignore what the bill actually says.

As far as law and logic goes a persons medical history and needs are generally considered confidential and of a personal nature. The law in question allows persons with no specific legal claim to knowledge or control over a persons medical care to make decisions about that medical care. That one chooses to provide a perk for their employees does not give the right for one to stick their nose where it does not belong. If we go the constitutional route one could say that it violates "Equal Protection" in that it specifically singles out services provided to women and does not treat the subject so broadly as to include services provided to men. As someone else brought up it does not appear to cover things like treatment for erectile dysfunction or vasectomies.

TheStatutoryApe:

Revnak:
Then the fee is bullshit. Fix that issue as it is likely to harm people with even more legitimate of issues. If it isn't an issue on the whole then it likely isn't an issue here. In the long run, this fee you speak of is entirely unimportant to this argument.

Come on people, you've already chewed out other people and mocked anyone one who would ever support this bill (not you specifically Ape, I'm talking about the other individuals here). You have to have a much better reason to be against this than a fee. Clearly you guys are seriously pissed off about this. I'd like to know what logical reason you have.
image

I was really mainly responding to the cost issue. I was also pointing out that those women who are actually in medical need of birth control can still obtain it through their employee health plan but that the system makes it a hassle and opens a window for providers to deny claims especially with the default for their plan being that it would be denied anyway. I doubt any one in the thread is particularly pissed about the fee, though it is another little poke in the eye, most seem to be more content to bitch about the oppression of women and ignore what the bill actually says.

As far as law and logic goes a persons medical history and needs are generally considered confidential and of a personal nature. The law in question allows persons with no specific legal claim to knowledge or control over a persons medical care to make decisions about that medical care. That one chooses to provide a perk for their employees does not give the right for one to stick their nose where it does not belong. If we go the constitutional route one could say that it violates "Equal Protection" in that it specifically singles out services provided to women and does not treat the subject so broadly as to include services provided to men. As someone else brought up it does not appear to cover things like treatment for erectile dysfunction or vasectomies.

If they are in medical need of it and they are being denied it then the fault is with the insurance provider, not the law. Sue them. It really isn't that complicated. And yes, I have noticed how much people here like to make radical statements regarding everything the GOP does. I find it irritating, especially when I also disagree with what the GOP is doing because now I know that my arguments are going to be associated with their crazy ones.

I suppose that is true in many ways, but if you have a specific need you must make such a need clear to your provider, or else how are they supposed to know that they are supposed to cover it? If you have back pains then in some way that must be made known to your insurance provider, I really don't know how having to explain to them that you have issues that you would need birth control to solve suddenly is going too far. Also, the employer should not be the one who hears the complaint about needing the birth control anyway, it should be made known to the provider. I also don't see why it is that odd for an employer to pick and choose what kind of coverage they will pay for as long as they don't get to know who is taking advantage of what parts of the coverage. As for the inherent sexism of denying birth controls but not erectile dysfunction pills and vasectomies, those really aren't the same. Erectile dysfunction is a real major medical condition, and we have already made it clear that if the birth control is being used for medically relevant purposes then they should and likely are paying for it, and vasectomies are major medical operations. If the female equivalent to a vasectomy is not covered then we have a problem that should have been addressed. Either the female equivalent is in or vasectomies are out, end of story.

Revnak:
If they are in medical need of it and they are being denied it then the fault is with the insurance provider, not the law. Sue them. It really isn't that complicated. And yes, I have noticed how much people here like to make radical statements regarding everything the GOP does. I find it irritating, especially when I also disagree with what the GOP is doing because now I know that my arguments are going to be associated with their crazy ones.

I suppose that is true in many ways, but if you have a specific need you must make such a need clear to your provider, or else how are they supposed to know that they are supposed to cover it? If you have back pains then in some way that must be made known to your insurance provider, I really don't know how having to explain to them that you have issues that you would need birth control to solve suddenly is going too far. Also, the employer should not be the one who hears the complaint about needing the birth control anyway, it should be made known to the provider. I also don't see why it is that odd for an employer to pick and choose what kind of coverage they will pay for as long as they don't get to know who is taking advantage of what parts of the coverage. As for the inherent sexism of denying birth controls but not erectile dysfunction pills and vasectomies, those really aren't the same. Erectile dysfunction is a real major medical condition, and we have already made it clear that if the birth control is being used for medically relevant purposes then they should and likely are paying for it, and vasectomies are major medical operations. If the female equivalent to a vasectomy is not covered then we have a problem that should have been addressed. Either the female equivalent is in or vasectomies are out, end of story.

As far as I know employers do not typically decide what sort of procedures and medicines are available through their health plans on a case by case basis, only the extent of the coverage which may or may not cover certain things by virtue of the formulation based on cost. For instance Hooters may offer a plan that covers vision but will not be able to determine that it will cover contact lenses while not covering glasses because they don't want their employees wearing glasses even though they're cheaper than contacts and would generally be covered by the same plan.

While the law as written may still cover "legitimate" medical uses for birth control other than contraception it does place an unnecessary burden on such persons seeking necessary treatment for no other purpose than to apparently salve the conscience of persons who are not in any way involved in the actual medical treatment. While insurance companies may be at fault for denying claims for no good reason this law could enable them to do so more frequently through the added unnecessary formalities. Even on this alone I would consider the relative "pay off" (if you want to call it that) to be far out weighed by the difficulties presented for those classes of persons.

The differences you note are not so big. As far as I am aware there are no medical reasons what ever that a person must seek medical help for erectile dysfunction or to get a vasectomy. General Viagra treatment for erectile dysfunction is only useful to improve ones sex life. Birth control has far greater practical advantages even when for "recreational" use. And vasectomies are for the purpose of having sex without having children. As far as I know there are no other benefits and the effect is the same as birth control if only arrived at differently. Without getting into abortifacients the arguments of "religious conscience" are the same and that is what the law is supposed to be addressing, not simply ones desire to control what one is paying for.

Dear America,

WTF?

Sincerely, the rest of the civilised world.

Revnak:
If they are in medical need of it and they are being denied it then the fault is with the insurance provider, not the law. Sue them. It really isn't that complicated.

Many people can't afford to sue, and while such a procedure is there, they are not getting their healthcare, and if fired for using contraception, they are not paid. How do you propose we avoid those people falling victim of this latest GOP war on women stuff?

If you don't have an airtight answer fit for all situations, the people who made the law are to blame, because they make victimisation possible.

Besides the obvious angle that such a theocratic law is morally wrong under all circumstances, and so are the people passing it.

Why is using birth control for, well, birth control not considered a "legitimate" medical use?

Captcha: dueling banjos
(This thing is getting creepy smart)

the abyss gazes also:
Why is using birth control for, well, birth control not considered a "legitimate" medical use?

Captcha: dueling banjos
(This thing is getting creepy smart)

Because get back in the kitchen and make me a sammitch.

I wish I was joking, but that's essentially the attitude driving the American right to demand these sorts of "reforms", these cretinous fuckwits genuinely believe that having a shag on occasion makes you the Whore of Babylon if you're unmarried, and by removing access to birth control in cases where it's used to..well, control birth...will curb the dangerous promiscuity of them-thar black muslim communist jew-atheist liberal sluts.

Magichead:

the abyss gazes also:
Why is using birth control for, well, birth control not considered a "legitimate" medical use?

Captcha: dueling banjos
(This thing is getting creepy smart)

Because get back in the kitchen and make me a sammitch.

I wish I was joking, but that's essentially the attitude driving the American right to demand these sorts of "reforms", these cretinous fuckwits genuinely believe that having a shag on occasion makes you the Whore of Babylon if you're unmarried, and by removing access to birth control in cases where it's used to..well, control birth...will curb the dangerous promiscuity of them-thar black muslim communist jew-atheist liberal sluts.

Is the line of thinking that the only sex anyone is allowed to have is missionary position sex, under the covers, for the purposes of procreation only? Because as I recall many a "family values" law maker have been caught in many compromising positions.

But more on topic: This whole issue... well wouldn't be an issue if we (those of us in the USA) had some sort of single payer health care. Sure people could throw a fit about tax dollars going to birth control but taxes get spent on things people don't agree with all the time.

Blablahb:
Many people can't afford to sue, and while such a procedure is there, they are not getting their healthcare, and if fired for using contraception, they are not paid. How do you propose we avoid those people falling victim of this latest GOP war on women stuff?

If you don't have an airtight answer fit for all situations, the people who made the law are to blame, because they make victimisation possible.

Besides the obvious angle that such a theocratic law is morally wrong under all circumstances, and so are the people passing it.

There is nothing in the law that allows employers to fire employees for using birth control. There is also nothing in the law that allows employers to prevent employees from obtaining birth control by means other than their employee health plan if they so choose. Nor is there necessarily anything in the law that allows employers to find out if they are using birth control even through their employee plan.

the abyss gazes also:
Why is using birth control for, well, birth control not considered a "legitimate" medical use?

Captcha: dueling banjos
(This thing is getting creepy smart)

Just a note, my use of the terms "legitimate" and "recreational" in post were facetious and the quotes were to indicate the less than strict usage and not to indicate that I was quoting them from somewhere.

The main tenant of this particular brand of Conservatism seems to be "How to control women's private sexlives"...

But then again, employers are going to be employers, and it seems that the less reasonable ones want to own you, even during off hours. Apparently, what you do at home when you're done working is their business...

But what would I know? I'm just a hippie bolshevik from the socialist wastelands of the North. :P

TheStatutoryApe:
There is nothing in the law that allows employers to fire employees for using birth control. There is also nothing in the law that allows employers to prevent employees from obtaining birth control by means other than their employee health plan if they so choose. Nor is there necessarily anything in the law that allows employers to find out if they are using birth control even through their employee plan.

That's a difference that makes no difference, because in Arizone, you don't have to give a reason why you fire someone.

They don't have to legalise firing women for using birth-control, aka sinning against the church, because that was already legal.
What they did do with this law however is hand over privacy-sensitive medical data about people, and create the ability to interogate female employees to see if they've broken the rules of your religion. Before you could fire a woman for religious reasons, but couldn't find out if they were 'guilty'. Brewer has created that possibility now, so it's now legal to check your female employees to see if they're following your religion or not, and fire them if they don't.

Blablahb:
That's a difference that makes no difference, because in Arizone, you don't have to give a reason why you fire someone.

They don't have to legalise firing women for using birth-control, aka sinning against the church, because that was already legal.
What they did do with this law however is hand over privacy-sensitive medical data about people, and create the ability to interogate female employees to see if they've broken the rules of your religion. Before you could fire a woman for religious reasons, but couldn't find out if they were 'guilty'. Brewer has created that possibility now, so it's now legal to check your female employees to see if they're following your religion or not, and fire them if they don't.

The law in question was already linked. Absolutely none of what you have said here is in it.

TheStatutoryApe:

the abyss gazes also:
Why is using birth control for, well, birth control not considered a "legitimate" medical use?

Captcha: dueling banjos
(This thing is getting creepy smart)

Just a note, my use of the terms "legitimate" and "recreational" in post were facetious and the quotes were to indicate the less than strict usage and not to indicate that I was quoting them from somewhere.

I understand that, but in the general sense the arguments often made in favor of birth control are all of the secondary benefits. I find it frustrating because we shouldn't have to defend the basic use of birth control as birth control. People have sex. People don't want to risk conception every time they have sex. I'm not seeing the issue here.

Muspelheim:
The main tenant of this particular brand of Conservatism seems to be "How to control women's private sexlives"...

Yep. As the oft-used (by me) joke goes, they want to shrink government... so they can fit it in every uterus.

arbane:
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer Signs Legislation Permitting Employers to Interrogate Female Employees About Contraception Use

Arizona House Bill 2625, authored by Majority Whip Debbie Lesko, R-Glendale, would permit employers to ask their employees for proof of medical prescription if they seek contraceptives for non-reproductive purposes, such as hormone control or acne treatment.

"I believe we live in America. We don't live in the Soviet Union," Lesko said. "So, government should not be telling the organizations or mom and pop employers to do something against their moral beliefs."

Soviet Union, no. Saudi Arabia, maybe. :-P

I'm sorry, I thought these people were working a JOB, not joining a convent.

(And Our Friend Captcha agrees with me: "over rhe top". Does Captcha have a name yet?)

so you quoted a blog that had excerpt quotes from people who misinterpreted the bill and the poster of the article himself admits he probably interpreted it wrong.

If firing workers who buy contraception wasn't enough, the Governor of Arizona signed a bill (could be the same bill shown in this thread, for all we know) that says that pregnancy begins 2 weeks before conception.

Think about that for a second.

P.S. Being a Nevadan who has visited Arizona before, it makes me sad that the crazies have been making/signing a bunch of dumb bills lately.

keiskay:
so you quoted a blog that had excerpt quotes from people who misinterpreted the bill and the poster of the article himself admits he probably interpreted it wrong.

Yep!

cartooner2008:
If firing workers who buy contraception wasn't enough, the Governor of Arizona signed a bill (could be the same bill shown in this thread, for all we know) that says that pregnancy begins 2 weeks before conception.

Think about that for a second.

"Arizona: The Temporal Paradox State"?

TheStatutoryApe:
The law in question was already linked. Absolutely none of what you have said here is in it.

It doesn't have to be. Those parts were already allowed. If you can fire people without a reason, you can also fire them for religious reasons. Problem for employers who want that untill now, was that contraception use was not their business: doctor-patient confidentiality.

So now they've been working to create a way for religioys misogynic employers to find out. Firing women after that was already legal, and doesn't need separate legalisation.

Apparently there were several amendments which hamper a direct interrogation by moving the form to be submitted to the employer, to sent directly to the insurer, however, as the source here stated in the 3rd update that appeared recently, it's still easily possible indirectly. Neither does it change the intentions of Brewer and her fundamentalistic cronies and the criticism on that.

the abyss gazes also:
Why is using birth control for, well, birth control not considered a "legitimate" medical use?

Captcha: dueling banjos
(This thing is getting creepy smart)

I honestly don't see much wrong with this, sure it's crazy and intrusive, but I'm glad I don't live in Arizona since I don't want such a law. It's not oppressive or anything, it's just saying that if you use birth control pills to have as much sex as you want then you can't get hired. Besides this is only giving employers the option, meaning if you're the type of woman which would use birth control pills for birth control you're probably not going to go to work to places which would use this law anyway.

Warforger:

I honestly don't see much wrong with this, sure it's crazy and intrusive, but I'm glad I don't live in Arizona since I don't want such a law. It's not oppressive or anything, it's just saying that if you use birth control pills to have as much sex as you want then you can't get hired.

*facepalm*

I'm going to take a wild guess here and say that you're unencumbered by a uterus. Am I right?

Warforger:
It's not oppressive or anything, it's just saying that if you use birth control pills to have as much sex as you want then you can't get hired.

You do know that the amount of birth control pills you have to take is not influenced by the amount of sex you're having, right? Once per month, once per week, once per day, all require the same amount, since the pill works by influencing the hormonal cycle of a woman.
The only women that are not covered by this are women who don't have sex for months at a time or ever (and obviously postmenopausal and infertile women, who presumably take the medication for other medical reasons).

Warforger:
I honestly don't see much wrong with this, sure it's crazy and intrusive, but I'm glad I don't live in Arizona since I don't want such a law. It's not oppressive or anything, it's just saying that if you use birth control pills to have as much sex as you want then you can't get hired.

Uhm, you are aware that that is bullshit, since there's no such thing as a right to control all women in your state, country, or whatever political entity, right?
There's no laws that make exceptions in rights to healthcare or insurance which specifically exclude women. Any laws specifically aimed at birt control are of course discriminatory towards women and an establishment of religion and thus twice unconstitutional.

arbane:

Arizona House Bill 2625, authored by Majority Whip Debbie Lesko, R-Glendale, would permit employers to ask their employees for proof of medical prescription if they seek contraceptives for non-reproductive purposes, such as hormone control or acne treatment.

wait if im reading this correctly they are asking for prescriptions for medicines? is this cause the employer or someone related to the employer is paying for the drugs?

are they allowed to ask for prescriptions for other medicines like for other diseases or conditions? MS meds or diabetes?

cause from the sounds of it they dont care if you buy the pill for actual birth control only if you buy it for other reasons.

im just confused why this is a issue

Warforger:

I honestly don't see much wrong with this, sure it's crazy and intrusive, but I'm glad I don't live in Arizona since I don't want such a law. It's not oppressive or anything, it's just saying that if you use birth control pills to have as much sex as you want then you can't get hired. Besides this is only giving employers the option, meaning if you're the type of woman which would use birth control pills for birth control you're probably not going to go to work to places which would use this law anyway.

lol wut

Great, someone else who apparently has no idea how birth control pills work. Also, please explain to me why places should be able to discriminate in hiring based on what medications someone takes. Because BCP is a medication no matter its intent.

Warforger:

the abyss gazes also:
Why is using birth control for, well, birth control not considered a "legitimate" medical use?

Captcha: dueling banjos
(This thing is getting creepy smart)

I honestly don't see much wrong with this, sure it's crazy and intrusive, but I'm glad I don't live in Arizona since I don't want such a law. It's not oppressive or anything, it's just saying that if you use birth control pills to have as much sex as you want then you can't get hired. Besides this is only giving employers the option, meaning if you're the type of woman which would use birth control pills for birth control you're probably not going to go to work to places which would use this law anyway.

Holy mother of God I hope this is some kind of sarcasm...

cartooner2008:
If firing workers who buy contraception wasn't enough, the Governor of Arizona signed a bill (could be the same bill shown in this thread, for all we know) that says that pregnancy begins 2 weeks before conception.

Think about that for a second.

I... I can't even... and here I thought "Republicans believe life begins the moment you even think about fucking somebody" was just a joke but this... I need a stiff drink.

ReservoirAngel:

I... I can't even... and here I thought "Republicans believe life begins the moment you even think about fucking somebody" was just a joke but this... I need a stiff drink.

As long as it isn't Arizona tap-water...

ReservoirAngel:

cartooner2008:
If firing workers who buy contraception wasn't enough, the Governor of Arizona signed a bill (could be the same bill shown in this thread, for all we know) that says that pregnancy begins 2 weeks before conception.

Think about that for a second.

I... I can't even... and here I thought "Republicans believe life begins the moment you even think about fucking somebody" was just a joke but this... I need a stiff drink.

I loathe the stuff them republicans are up to as much as the next guy, but in all honesty, the most common medical practice to determine the duration of a pregnancy is from the first day of the last period, so I'm actually inclined to say that's nothing to be outraged about.

Skeleon:

Warforger:
It's not oppressive or anything, it's just saying that if you use birth control pills to have as much sex as you want then you can't get hired.

You do know that the amount of birth control pills you have to take is not influenced by the amount of sex you're having, right? Once per month, once per week, once per day, all require the same amount, since the pill works by influencing the hormonal cycle of a woman.
The only women that are not covered by this are women who don't have sex for months at a time or ever (and obviously postmenopausal and infertile women, who presumably take the medication for other medical reasons).

Right, all the bill does is let employers know about this, it doesn't say employers have to do anything about it nor does it say employers can't hire them. All it's saying is that if you don't use them for medical reasons people will know about it. Thus you'll probably know if the person whose hiring you is that crazy beforehand anyway and you'd probably not want to work for him/her anyway.

Tyler Perry:

Warforger:

I honestly don't see much wrong with this, sure it's crazy and intrusive, but I'm glad I don't live in Arizona since I don't want such a law. It's not oppressive or anything, it's just saying that if you use birth control pills to have as much sex as you want then you can't get hired. Besides this is only giving employers the option, meaning if you're the type of woman which would use birth control pills for birth control you're probably not going to go to work to places which would use this law anyway.

lol wut

Great, someone else who apparently has no idea how birth control pills work. Also, please explain to me why places should be able to discriminate in hiring based on what medications someone takes. Because BCP is a medication no matter its intent.

Right, did you read the part in the article where they can say it's for medical reasons and they're fine? Because if it's just out of the blue for no medical reason then they're in trouble, which then the employer would now have the freedom to find out. Because somehow I bet half the people flaming me for saying what the article says haven't actually read it. All I'm saying is that it's not a big deal anyway.

Warforger:

Right, did you read the part in the article where they can say it's for medical reasons and they're fine? Because if it's just out of the blue for no medical reason then they're in trouble, which then the employer would now have the freedom to find out. Because somehow I bet half the people flaming me for saying what the article says haven't actually read it. All I'm saying is that it's not a big deal anyway.

Oh, it is a big deal. The big deal is in "How the fuck is the reason for which a woman is taking BC pills other people's business? Why don't they ask what color underwear they're wearing too?"

You know, a woman wearing nothing but plain cotton white is more likely to be more conservative, traditional family values and all that, as opposed to them librul whores who like wearing red or black.

PS: Sarcasm detectors on, people.

Warforger:
[
Right, did you read the part in the article where they can say it's for medical reasons and they're fine? Because if it's just out of the blue for no medical reason then they're in trouble, which then the employer would now have the freedom to find out. Because somehow I bet half the people flaming me for saying what the article says haven't actually read it. All I'm saying is that it's not a big deal anyway.

Why is it the employer's business? The employer now can violate the privacy of the applicant, and that's nothing to be worried about?

America's right wing have been preaching fear to people for quite awhile, telling them that liberals would turn America to a totalitarian dictatorship akin to communist countries like China and North Korea. But the funny thing is that they don't even need liberals to do that. They're doing it themselves.

Jebus Christ, did Arizona's government hit themselves in the head recently?

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked