In yet another blatant attack on female reproductive health, Arizona is on the brink of passing a law in which women could be fired for using contraception. While some women are saying they completely support the anti-contraception movement as a way of ensuring employers' freedom of speech, one cannot sit blindly by and say this is not a violation of women's privacy. It is.
Men, how would you feel if you had to sit at the desk of your female boss and explain why you're taking male enhancement drugs, like Viagra? Try to say this isn't the same thing, because it certainly is. Viagra helps men's little peters stay up longer, allowing them to withhold ejaculation long enough to not be completely embarrassed by their performance. Great.
While some men take it for truly legitimate reasons--they want a family and have erectile dysfunction--a lot of men take it because they just want to have a prolonged erection.
This law that was introduced into the Senate House Judiciary Committee was approved with nary a protest. The most insulting thing about this bill is that it wasn't authored by a man. It was authored by a female state legislator: Majority Whip Debbie Lesko, R-Glendale.
Her explanation as to why she introduced the bill is an obvious one: she doesn't think employers should have to pay their half of insurance for contraceptives if it's against their moral values. So, she wants employers to have the right to fire women for using contraceptives.
She said, "I believe we live in America. We don't live in the Soviet Union." Okay, first off, the Soviet Union was dissolved more than 20 years ago, genius. And yes, it's quite obvious that Arizona is in the United States. Here's where it gets even more interesting. She continued: "So, government should not be telling the organizations or mom and pop employers to do something against their moral beliefs...My whole legislation is about our First Amendment rights and freedom of religion. All my bill does is that an employer can opt out of the mandate if they have any religious objections."
By opting out, she means firing someone for the crime of sinning.
This bill blatantly violates a woman's right to privacy. If an employee consults with her physician and determines she needs contraceptives for whatever reason, it should be no business of the company owner, manager, or anyone else to pry into her life to find out why. Lesko's reference to the Soviet Union was flat-out wrong. In fact, what she wants smacks of fascist regime, where people are afraid to open their mouths for fear of being punished.
Is this the kind of country conservatives want? Where women live in fear of being fired for using contraceptives? Is this the kind of country you want your children to grow up in? One that dictates what women can and cannot do with their bodies? This is downright fascism, and it is scary.
What most sane and intelligent people are asking now is, who handed the asylum keys to the inmates?
Image: Birth Control
©2011 Reno Berkeley for Gather News.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 69 ( 1 removed by Reno Berkeley )
The amendment specifically removes a section that made it illegal for a religious employer to discriminate against an employee who "independently chooses to obtain insurance coverage or prescriptions for contraceptives from another source".
The text of the law, which this amendment strikes out, says:The amendment strikes all parts of the law that pertained specifically to religious employers (defined as nonprofit orgs that primarily employed people who shared the religious beliefs of the org, and that primarily served people who shared the religious beliefs of the org), and changes it to apply to any employer who claims that paying for coverage for certain items or services is against their religious beliefs.
But it doesn't include a statement making it illegal for those employers to discriminate against employees who make independent arrangements for contraceptive coverage, or purchase, that have nothing to do with the employer.
I do have a problem with employers looking at employees health records this should be a matter privacy except for vary specific occupations like say astronauts. Now I also don't agree with say a person with a a religious belief that owns an organization dismissing employees that violate this belief. Say the CEO of Ford or even a Hospital owned by a church that treated patients that weren't of the the same belief. In these cases I disagree with the changes in the amendment.
Now who is messing with who's freedom? I'm quite sure that not providing contraceptives is in the contract when the person signs on for insurance.
Let's leave both parties free to make their own decisions.
How the heck do you get there?
Nope. While "THE BOSS" might like it if all employees thought so, in fact there are numerous federal and state laws that provide employees protection from wrongful termination.
In Arizona, state law made it illegal for a religious employer to discriminate against an employee who paid for their own insurance coverage that included contraceptive coverage, or who paid for their own prescription contraceptives. This amendment (among other things) removes that protection for employees.
to make it simple, was the pills obgtained by committing fraud? or were they obtained under legitimate needs that are covered under the blanket insurance policy.
as usual, many want to turn this to a completely different diversionary explanation.
if you commit FRAUD, by getting birth control pills, under a lie that they are needed for something else, when they are not - you can be fired for insurance fraud.
if you are innocent, and the exact same meds are needed for an actual health problem, you are fine - and they have the rightr to ask for proof of which is true.
this post is an amazing lie about the law, which is merely to prevent fraud. if the med is actually needed for an ailment, it IS covered.
you want it to make life more convenient for you? you can spend the 10 bucks a month for a pill that will do the job.
i swear - so many are so blinded by their outrage at the truth (that there is no free lunch), that any lie will suffice to accentuate the rage.
get a grip
but if indeed the insurer, were to determine fraud - that alone could be basis for firing - same as theft.
and in another article - “My whole legislation is about our First Amendment rights and freedom of religion,” Lesko told the State Press. “All my bill does is [allow] an employer to opt out of the mandate if they have any religious objections.” (speaking about the bill she authored.
Nowhere is fraud mentioned.. As far as firing a person..If they dont agree with an employee they can fire at any time by saying they didnt meet performance standards so this is a nonsense bill in the first place.
you see - your own words "seek contraceptives for non-reproductive purposes, such as hormone control or acne treatment."
in other words - to have benefits paid fromn the insurance company, there must be a medical prescrition.
if they are NOT asking for insurance payment - how would the employer even know they are 'seeking' it?
and if they ask for insrruance to cover it, and it does not meet that criteria, it is insurance fraud - you know fruadulently getting insurance payments for things that are not covered by the policy?
see - if you lie, and have a financial gain from that lie - it is called fraud!
which alsop proves how big a liar fluke is - saying the insurance would not cover it, when it was a medical necessity due to an internalk organ malfunction.
appreciate the help on that research tho!
if you lie to an insurance company to get money, it is fraud - now you have to go to court and file charges, over what - a couple hundred bucks a year? not worth it - but it can be done.
now - a person lying to the insurance company, which is a benefit provided by your employer, should be fired - this law simply clarifies that connection.
so really - think about it - telling a lie, to get money thqt does not belong to you - ummm - thats stealing.
would you want an employee that is a proven liar and thief working for you?
this law has nothing to do with firing someone over their religious beliefs - it has to do with being able to prove the lies, and attempted fraud.
put another reason in - you provide copies of paid receipts for having your tonsils out - you are re-imbursed.
but there was nothing wrong with your tonsils, and they were not taken out.
then replace, you claim to have a defective organ , that needs treatment (pills instead of an operation), yet there IS no abnormality. same thing.
claiming pain to get vicidin ir percoset, when there is no pain,
same thing.
but in this case where the fraud is just as serious, the perp wants to scream religious discrimination.
now - every insurance company, has very very accurate actuarial charts, to show the average cost per employee on any variation of insurance they offer. the less they pay, the cheaper the insurance.
now throw in recurring higher costs - what happens? they raise the rates on everyone.
so telling lies, to 'fool' them, and have financial gain, is never vistimless - we ALL pay for it, and it is stealing - from us.
I think we agree Franklin :) I know we do char.
until they ask the empoyer provided insurance to cover their off the clock activity costs, via fraud.
i suppose next you will say that even that has no effect on the employer ..... but - the less things covered by an insurance, the lower the premium, that in this case is subsidized by the employer .
Agreed!
The employer should not force their employees to comply with the employers beliefs. If you work for a Catholic you should not be fired for using the pill or other birth control device. Just as you should not be fired for eating pork if your employer is Muslim.
The government has no place in this. No "arbiter" is needed.
It is called freedom of choice.
And who is Christie?
the arbiter, is the individual, that accepts employment, at a location, with full knowledge of the benefits package.
dont like it? dont accept the offer!
everyone that looks for a job, either accepts or rejects, the wages and benefits beiong offered.
we have zero indentured servants, no slavery in this country (unless you count the financial slavery the dems force on millions of people - but that is a different issue).
do you really want the governement to tell employers what you will be paid, and what benefits you will get etc?
because after that having full comtrol of all business - they will tell them what to produce, how much to produce, where and when to sell it (which they already have a large part of each of those) - followed by where you work, how you work, what your position is, and how happy you will swear to being in that job!
An employer can legally refuse employment to a female employee for the period of time during which an employee is under the influence of a physician's prescribed drug which may keep such employee from properly and/or safely performing her workplace duties. However, an employer can not fire an employee for being under the influence of such physician prescribed medication.
Even more to the point, regardless of what document an employee is required to sign as being apart of her employment, an employer can not interfer with a physicians right to prescribe a medical proceedure nor a medical aid nor any medication for that employee. Further, under/by federal law, no one can have access to nor the ability to review by any means, an employees medical records without the express written and signed consent. A consent which can not be forced nor coerced as part of the right to employment.
My main question to this proposed Arizona House Bill however, is not whether it is Constitutionally legal, (which is not) but the thought behind the authors reasoning. To me, if the reason was to protect the rights of the Catholic Church to practice it's doctrine, that to me would be totally and embarrassingly nonsensical. Because;
If the Catholic Church, as a part of it's religious beliefs, wants to refuse to provide insurance for their female employees which includes coverage of birth control preventative medicine and/or birth control devises, then why do they employ females workers in the first place.
I ask this because, to eliminate such birth prevention insurance coverage does nothing to prevent a female employee from using a portion of her gross income, earned from employment by the Catholic Church, as a means by which to purchase birth control devises and/or to pay for the cost of the medical proceedure known as an abortion.
It would be my conclusion that the Catholic Church has placed it's self in an impossible conundrum as to it's religious doctrine, of which, on one hand, the church wants to prevent an employee from obtaining birth control by not providing insurance coverage for such, while on the other hand, the Catholic Church through the employment of that female worker provides that employee with the monetary means by which to pay for birth control devises, medical proceedures (birth control by the tying of tubes) to prevent pregnancies and clinical abortions after conceiving.
As I previously stated, this conundrum is without a doubt, a self created enigma of the church's own religious teachings. An enigma from which I can see no logical nor thoughtful reasoning on the part of the church nor those who propose such ignorantly written state house bills in defense of the church's religious beliefs.
My last question would be; Is the Catholic Church attempting to ingratiate it's self in the eyes of God by refusing to provide birth control medicine to it's female employees, while at the same time, providing those same female employees with the means by which to pay for other types of medical birth control proceedures and fetus abortions ?
It would appear to me, that the Catholic Church is at war with it's self.
Scott
"Is the Catholic Church attempting to ingratiate it's self in the eyes of God by refusing to provide birth control medicine to it's female employees, while at the same time, providing those same female employees with the means by which to pay for other types of medical birth control procedures and fetus abortion"
Don't get it.?? Birth control pill are issued for other reasons than birth control. If a woman's hormones are irregular or absent there are a lot of problems. Giving her hormones puts her on the right track again. The Catholic church wouldn't mind giving it as a medicine and not birth control.
Scott "a self created enigma of the church's own religious teachings. An enigma from whichI can see no logical nor thoughtful reasoning on the part of the church ..."
You must ask "Who am I . . .?" to determine the logic of how different people are relating to God? The church has been consistent with that stand for hundreds of years I believe. Are you really feeling ready to stand before the mighty God of the universe and say to the Church, "It is now all right to help people use birth control?" :)
And remember the man stood on the side of the ocean and declared the "The Titanic the boat even God couldn't sink."
I, myself, would not feel comfortable offering to take God's place before the people. President Obama ... not so afraid :) At least I haven't heard it reported yet that he withdraws the part of the plan where People would be obligated to perform the abortion at a participating or non participating hospital. No more personal individual decision by doctors etc on the decision as to whether or not to participate in abortions.
I can't understand why everyone's limited their conversations to birth control. Are they going to let the other part stand? I'm curious. I know all hell will break lose because anybody with my mindset would go to jail before committing an abortion.
Besides there's plenty of people willing to do it for the money. They have no need to push the unwilling.
Just remember it's in his plan and will come up sooner or later.
By this logic the Catholic Church supports murder because it's employee can use their earnings to purchase firearms to commit murder.
That would be true, if the article and the debate were about supporting murder by gun. However, the debate of this article is about murder by birth control, therefore you analogy is flawed, mine is on point and thereby not flawed.
This is one of those times when I am debating apples and you are speaking of oranges, both being fruit, but each being the product of a different tree.
Like I said, those who attempt to come to the aide of the Catholic Church will use any means, flawed or othwerwise, by which to support the church's self created enigma.
the church does not deny contraception to females, nor does it deny a persons right to buy a firearm. it does not get involved in what a doctor prescribes - it gets involved in what things it PAYS FOR!
it simply states that it will not contribute in the purchase of said items.
there is no dilemna, no conundrum involved.
the church offers a job, with a salary and benefits package fully disclosed.
the person accepts, or rejects, it voluntarily.
how the employee spends that money, whether it be for birth control, guns, meals for homeless children, shelter for the injured - they have no control over, as they do recognize the free will of the person. they have, and attempt no, control over the individual - they offer what they offer - take it or leave it.
they do not have a reimbursement program, and no financial aid to buying guns.
they provide no additional aid in buying birth control.
now - if you truly believe that the insurance company, is like the salvation army, dear abby, unicef, hints from heloise, and the united way - you are indeed an incredibly sad dissolutioned person.
the soxts will be rolled into the cost of the policy, which is passed on to the church itself.
forget the fact that many of them are self-insured.
and forget that muslims and amish are exempt from complying at all - because insurance in and of itself are against their religion.......
the truth of your defenses, arguments, and comments at at LEAST 1900 pound shy of a ton.
the employer only knows what you request payment for from the insurance company - if you want the pill, and pay the 9 bucks at wal-mart, it is all yours - you rewuest your employers health insurance to pay, when it is excluded, from the po0licy, that you were well informed about - then it is attempted insurance fruad.
I apologize for the ramblings...just an idea.
Contraceptives were not allowed, and miscarriages or accidents could have ended up in prison time.
So, there is still a long way to total insanity, however it seems that we are on the way there, full speed ahead...
I guess that this is part of the cost of Democracy... Democracy is never free and it is never granted. We have to fight to get it, and to fight to keep it...