Arizona Birth Control Bill Penalizes Women For Using Contraception

[Samael]

Arizona Birth Control Bill Penalizes Women For Using Contraception For Non-Medical Reasons

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 also makes it easier for Arizona employers to fire a woman for using birth control to prevent pregnancy despite the employer's moral objection.

Under current law, health plans in Arizona that cover other prescription medications must also cover contraception. House Bill 2625, which the state House of Representatives passed earlier this month and the Senate Judiciary Committee endorsed on Monday, repeals that law and allows any employer to refuse to cover contraception that will be used "for contraceptive, abortifacient, abortion or sterilization purposes." If a woman wants the cost of her contraception covered, she has to "submit a claim" to her employer providing evidence of a medical condition, such as endometriosis or polycystic ovarian syndrome, that can be treated with birth control.

Moreover, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, the law would give Arizona employers the green light to fire a woman upon finding out that she took birth control for the purpose of preventing pregnancy.

"The bill goes beyond guaranteeing a person's rights to express and practice their faith," Anjali Abraham, a lobbyist for the ACLU, told the Senate panel, "and instead lets employers prioritize their beliefs over the beliefs, the interests, the needs of their employees, in this case, particularly, female employees."

The sponsor of the bill told the committee that it is intended to protect the First Amendment right to religious liberty.

"I believe we live in America," said Majority Whip Debbie Lesko (R-Glendale), who sponsored the bill. "We don’t live in the Soviet Union. So, government should not be telling the organizations or mom-and-pop employers to do something against their moral beliefs."

More at the link.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/14/arizona-birth-control-bill-contraception-medical-reasons_n_1344557.html

I....what?
Where the hell does that make sense?
Why should an employer be able to decide if your employee uses birth control or not?
That's not their business.

And their reasoning is even worse.

This fits the whole thing, I'd think.
The GOP war on women

[Callie Del Noire]

Okay, I have to ask.. Have the GOP lost their ever loving minds? I see a LOT of issues that require attention than medical insurance covering the pill.  Oh, like the ongoing fraud perpetuated by the gents in wall street who even now are committing further fraud and ruining our economy.  Seriously folks, stop drinking the damn koolaid and work on reforming corporate taxes, build a structure where we encourage business to come BACK to our country and rebuild our infrastructure rather than pass around toxic bonds or hide profits overseas.

[Serephino]

But the gents on Wall Street want to keep doing it because it's making them rich, so they paid off the GOP to make a distraction.  Welcome to American Democracy. 

I knew this was going to happen.  Republicans are trying to push 'family values' down all our throats because they have the power.  This isn't going to stop until they lose power.  I'm just hoping people will actually use what power they have and vote out the yahoos supporting this bullshit. 

[Autumn Sativus]

I saw this a few days ago but was too ragey about it to post anything. I'm still too ragey to really comment but I just can't even believe this is happening, honestly. What kind of world do we live in?

[Pumpkin Seeds]

The law, should it pass, will be challenged and appealed.  From my understanding the law goes against the right to privacy already set forth by other laws.  An employer is not considered a member of a person's medical team and so does not have a right or privelege to gain medical information.

[Ortega Maximo]

It's got to be a smokescreen... I refuse to believe that lawmakers care enough to push stuff like this through in good faith.

Also, this is Arizona... aren't they supposed to be infringing on the human rights of Mexican immigrants or something like that instead?

[vtboy]

What I find most disturbing about the Arizona bill and the Blunt amendment is that they seem to mark the opening of a new front in the war for theocracy.

Our government once recognized that religious beliefs do not trump legal obligations. Hence, for example, when children would die because their parents refused them necessary medical treatment out of religious scruple, the parents appropriately got prosecuted for manslaughter.

Assuming for the sake of argument that it is all right to exempt churches from certain legal obligations which conflict with their core teachings (they already get out of paying taxes, though I'm not sure what religious teachings are offended by taxes), the exemption should be strictly limited to situations in which the church is doing exclusively church things (e.g., preaching, terrifying kids with tales of eternal damnation, fleecing the faithful, etc.). I can imagine no justification for extending the exception to secular activities conducted by churches or, more likely, by juridical institutions they may own (e.g., colleges and hospitals). Even less justifiable would be bringing within the exemption's ambit secular actors engaged in entirely secular economic activities (e.g., manufacturing porto-potties and trading in reverse credit default swap derivatives). 

I am not a Christian, and have only the loosest acquaintance with scripture, but didn't Jesus say something about rendering to Caesar what is Caesar's? Perhaps that part of the message was optional.

[Callie Del Noire]

What I find most disturbing about the Arizona bill and the Blunt amendment is that they seem to mark the opening of a new front in the war for theocracy.

Our government once recognized that religious beliefs do not trump legal obligations. Hence, for example, when children would die because their parents refused them necessary medical treatment out of religious scruple, the parents appropriately got prosecuted for manslaughter.

Assuming for the sake of argument that it is all right to exempt churches from certain legal obligations which conflict with their core teachings (they already get out of paying taxes, though I'm not sure what religious teachings are offended by taxes), the exemption should be strictly limited to situations in which the church is doing exclusively church things (e.g., preaching, terrifying kids with tales of eternal damnation, fleecing the faithful, etc.). I can imagine no justification for extending the exception to secular activities conducted by churches or, more likely, by juridical institutions they may own (e.g., colleges and hospitals). Even less justifiable would be bringing within the exemption's ambit secular actors engaged in entirely secular economic activities (e.g., manufacturing porto-potties and trading in reverse credit default swap derivatives). 

I am not a Christian, and have only the loosest acquaintance with scripture, but didn't Jesus say something about rendering to Caesar what is Caesar's? Perhaps that part of the message was optional.

Thing is.. it's not CHURCHS that are listed as benefiting from this.. but EMPLOYERS.. ie.. John Q Bossman can go.. 'I don't want to cover birth control in the company policy because it's offensive to my religious beliefs (which is to maximize my personal profits) so no pill for you! (on the company policy)"

[vtboy]

Thing is.. it's not CHURCHS that are listed as benefiting from this.. but EMPLOYERS.. ie.. John Q Bossman can go.. 'I don't want to cover birth control in the company policy because it's offensive to my religious beliefs (which is to maximize my personal profits) so no pill for you! (on the company policy)"

Precisely. Though I question even giving churches an out here.

[Callie Del Noire]

Precisely. Though I question even giving churches an out here.

Seems to me this year that the GOP is letting the religous conservatives make them jump the shark. I definitely can see the problem with invading a person's medical privacy as part of the way this will be appealed. I do worry about the situation though, religion of the employer vs the employee's medical needs sounds.. out there.

[Trieste]

When Arizona started attacking the rights of immigrant Americans...

When they started supporting racial profiling of citizens...

When Arizona started to attack vulnerable populations with ludicrous laws...

... did people think they were just going to stop?

[Solstice]

When Arizona started attacking the rights of immigrant Americans...

When they started supporting racial profiling of citizens...

When Arizona started to attack vulnerable populations with ludicrous laws...

... did people think they were just going to stop?

I believe that deserves repeating. I won't post that brilliant but over-quoted "they came for the ___ and I did not speak out" ... er, quote, but I'll be thinking it.

I actually find this whole thing funny.

I think that's because if I didn't laugh at it, I might have to cry.

[Callie Del Noire]

I believe that deserves repeating. I won't post that brilliant but over-quoted "they came for the ___ and I did not speak out" ... er, quote, but I'll be thinking it.

I actually find this whole thing funny.

I think that's because if I didn't laugh at it, I might have to cry.

It honestly depresses me. I cannot reconcile how this is sensible and reasoned. I think the GoP is so desperate for voting blocks that they will pander to any nutso faction who can put bodies in the booths.

[HairyHeretic]

And just how many votes is it going to cost them?

[Callie Del Noire]

And just how many votes is it going to cost them?

Given the flavor of laws coming out of Arizona over the last few years? Very few apparently. Last time I heard they still didn't observe the Martin Luther King, Jr federal holiday. (of course that was when my brother lived there).

Remember, this is a state where my sister in law is assume to be an illegal till she proves otherwise because she's of Mexican descent, though her family have been residents of the US longer than some elected officials.

[Trieste]

I believe that deserves repeating. I won't post that brilliant but over-quoted "they came for the ___ and I did not speak out" ... er, quote, but I'll be thinking it.

It was definitely on my mind.

[HairyHeretic]

Given the flavor of laws coming out of Arizona over the last few years? Very few apparently.

And nationally? Because you can be pretty sure that incidents like this are going to influence swing voters elsewhere.

[Callie Del Noire]

And nationally? Because you can be pretty sure that incidents like this are going to influence swing voters elsewhere.

Thing is.. in states like Arizona and Utah, the dynamics are very different than say.. California or New England. The only thing that I can really see a LOT of concern among the moderate republicans like me is the fact that the fundies and conservatives have a 'stick in hand' in several states thanks to the tea party turn over of the last few years.

For example, North Carolina has a republican majority in both houses.. for the first time since... say.. immediately after the civil war? That has already cost municipal fiber optics a chance to expand coverage. (Comcast, ATT and the rest of them have bought a nice little bill).

Other states tend to flip flip more often, but with clear majorities in place you get things like the immigration and birth control laws in Arizona and the reaming that the state of Wisconsin has been giving their unions and their attempt to sell off their public utilities (in closed bids to boot).

Some of said Tea Party Republicans have noted that they are on the way out, and doing what they can like stuff like this. Why? Because it fits with some of their supporters wants (not needs..wants).

What they SHOULD be doing is stuff that is 'not important' to them like fixing spending or such. So the moderate republicans like me (thought of as pinkos by them) are ignored and they continued to cater to the nuts on the far far right.

[Semantics]

I think my brain just liquified and leaked out of my nose.  The worst part is that last paragraph, the quote from the person who sponsored the bill.  I wonder if anyone is actually so stupid as to think, "Yes, this bill would be a great step in fighting for liberty and freedom in America."  I shouldn't even wonder, though; of course there are, there were enough people that think this bill is a good idea to get it this far.

Remember, this is a state where my sister in law is assume to be an illegal till she proves otherwise because she's of Mexican descent, though her family have been residents of the US longer than some elected officials.

A friend of mine has the same issue, despite serving in the Navy.  I like to imagine him going everywhere he needs to in dress whites and raising an eyebrow at anyone who papers him.

[Callie Del Noire]

Interesting thoughts on this 4 part blog post on the possible intents of attacking Birth Control.

Part 1,Part 2,Part 3,Part 4

I can see some of the points in the posts, but I'm a bit leary of going full on paranoid. It's been something folks have been going on for a LONG time. I know Falwell and his ilk would LOVE to run the country by their publicly set up moral code.

[Ortega Maximo]

Falwell's ilk anyways... isn't he dead?

[Callie Del Noire]

http://feminist.org/blog/index.php/2012/03/12/oh-senator-introduces-bill-regulating-prescription-of-viagra/

I like her.. she's got grit!

And to be fair.. there are a LOT of conditions where the 'little blue pill' could potentially endanger a man's life.

[flightzeit]

This is just yet another example of the rise of misogyny from the current Republican party. They don't want to give women access to birth control, access to abortion services, or give them money to help the mother if she is forced to give birth to said child. At a certain point, you have to give in.

The recent revival of super-conservatives has been alarming to me, if only because how many states Santorum has won in the primary. I'm honestly shocked. When I started reading some of the things he was saying, I thought, he has to be kidding. But, instead of laughing him out of candidacy, it appears the whole of the Republican party is embracing this radically conservative ideology (the last couple of months have been host to many bills similar to this one in many different states).

But, sigh, oh well. What are we going to do? I intend to keep fighting the good fight and supporting my feminist roots. I truly doubt any of the potential republican candidates stand a chance against Obama, so I guess that is something to be grateful for.

Some silliness to cheer you up. I'm not even a brony and I want a pony~

[elone]

I personally believe that since the Republican party has absolutely no ideas they are trying to take people away from the important issues facing this country. All this bull about birth control is just a smokescreen to cover up their lack of original thinking.

Just for jollies, I took a look at Santorum's website and saw a quote something to the effect that birth control encourages a lack of morals which is the root of all evil ie. the moral decline of America. I believe the man would outlaw sex between all unmarried persons if he could get away with it. Also, he thinks that if there were more babies being born then we would have more people paying into Social Security to support the baby boomers who are all getting ready to retire. Crazy.

About the only good that will come out of this is that hopefully people will see how nuts this stuff is and vote them all out. At least they are providing the Democrats with a lot of material for the elections.

[Singularity]

This is outrageous, but only in an entertainment sense. There is no way that a law requiring forcible disclosure of health information for any purpose will stand.[/font]

[Callie Del Noire]

This is outrageous, but only in an entertainment sense. There is no way that a law requiring forcible disclosure of health information for any purpose will stand.[/font]

Wanna bet? If the republican majority in Congress stands, and someone like Santorum gets elected? We'd roll everything back to the 90s..the 1890s. You know.. so that we could have 'proper voters' .. ie.. males only.

[Singularity]

Santorum won't get the nomination. His primary value is as someone for liberals to vote for in order to delay resolution to the GOP primary as long as possible.

The Supreme Court has at times proven to be incredibly stupid (we get back to FEC v. CU) but they generally consistently uphold privacy rights.

The reason this will not fly is the same reason Roe v. Wade remains in place and the Court refuses to bring it up again.

[Callie Del Noire]

Santorum won't get the nomination. His primary value is as someone for liberals to vote for in order to delay resolution to the GOP primary as long as possible.
The Supreme Court has at times proven to be incredibly stupid (we get back to FEC v. CU) but they generally consistently uphold privacy rights.
The reason this will not fly is the same reason Roe v. Wade remains in place and the Court refuses to bring it up again.

The leadership of the party.. wants someone like him.. they will OWN him.

[Singularity]

The leadership of the party.. wants someone like him.. they will OWN him.

There's a certain faction of the GOP that wants Santorum. That's why he's still around. But the GOP establishment backs Romney. Groups like the US Chamber of Commerce, the Energy Lobby, AIPAC, etc. have donated handsomely.

They'll own Romney if he wins. Romney will sell himself for the illusion of power in a heartbeat. The only other significant entity that wants Santorum as the GOP's man is Obama.

[Callie Del Noire]

There's a certain faction of the GOP that wants Santorum. That's why he's still around. But the GOP establishment backs Romney. Groups like the US Chamber of Commerce, the Energy Lobby, AIPAC, etc. have donated handsomely.

They'll own Romney if he wins. Romney will sell himself for the illusion of power in a heartbeat. The only other significant entity that wants Santorum as the GOP's man is Obama.

I disagree. There are a LOT of party leaders, not elected officals, who want him. They know he pulls in a strong block of voters.. whereas they seem to think that the moderates aren't reliable enough to support a candidate. Of course given how they are selling out to corporations (thank you Citizen's United) to consider things like giving the tax code a kick. Reform corporate taxes? Never.. better for the corporate dividends to hide overseas than have to work for incentives and tax breaks. (like encourage domestic development, infrastructure development and so on) GASP! Why should we work for our tax breask when we can simply BUY a rep who will do what we demand.

[Singularity]

I disagree. There are a LOT of party leaders, not elected officals, who want him. They know he pulls in a strong block of voters.. whereas they seem to think that the moderates aren't reliable enough to support a candidate. Of course given how they are selling out to corporations (thank you Citizen's United) to consider things like giving the tax code a kick. Reform corporate taxes? Never.. better for the corporate dividends to hide overseas than have to work for incentives and tax breaks. (like encourage domestic development, infrastructure development and so on) GASP! Why should we work for our tax breask when we can simply BUY a rep who will do what we demand.

There's some merit to the point of view that many Republicans would like Santorum if they did not believe that his campaign is DOA in the general election. And it is. There is already so much ammunition that Santorum has generated this year for someone who can attack him from the left that he just doesn't stand a chance. Conservatives have power in this country but not that much power and they know it. Obama is Santorum's biggest (private) supporter for as long as the primaries go on.

[Callie Del Noire]

I'm a, mostly, Reagan era republican. I'm more 'right sized' government than cut, pillage and burn down to the foundations downsizer. I accept that to combat the deficit we'll have to INCREASE taxes. Reagan, and his VP, accepted it when it was needed. Some things by the very nature need to be regulated. I think the subprime mortgage snafu proves that Gingrich and Pelosi made a mistake in repealing the Glass-Steagle Act. I think that some regulations  were put in place to keep a repeat of the stuff that got us into trouble with the Great Depression.

Deregulation for deregulation sake is a mistake.

I don't think it is wise, prudent or smart to regulate social decisions as individual as birth control. In my opinion it's the very antithesis of non-intrusive and small government to do so.

Problem is, because I'm pro-personal choice over mandating a 'one size fits all' legislate it all republican I'm on the outs with my own party. I'm 'psuedo-republican' or a liberal. Face it, my party hasn't had a need of me since around 1998

[Callie Del Noire]

I get the feeling this will be VERY true for some congressmen and senators.

[Oniya]

Some of them are starting to take notice.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/03/22/idaho-house-tables-forced-ultrasound-bill/

I realize this is only setting it aside for the moment, but there's a quote in the article about how one rep noticed that the complaining constituents 'aren’t just Democrats. They’re Republicans, they’re from across the spectrum. '

Yup.  Go figure.

[Serephino]

Gee, Republican women are upset about this too?  What a shocker....  /sarcasm

[The Irishman]

I look to the Democratic Party and ask, "What are you doing?!  This is crazy!"


I look to the Republican Party and ask, "What are you doing?!  This is crazy!"

[Callie Del Noire]

https://www.aclu.org/blog/reproductive-freedom-womens-rights/your-body-your-decisions-means-you-moms

Apparently it's not JUST the GOP who is pushing the decisions out of women's hands.

[Kuroneko]