Satans Mark/Cashless
See other Satans Mark/Cashless Articles
Title: Use Birth Control? You're Fired!
Source:
ACLU
URL Source: http://www.aclu.org/blog/reproducti ... /use-birth-control-youre-fired
Published: Mar 12, 2012
Author: Jennifer Dalven
Post Date: 2012-03-14 11:54:56 by lucysmom
Keywords: None
Views: 40104
Comments: 67
First, a bill that gives immunity to doctors who lie to couples about the results of their prenatal tests in order to prevent them from getting an abortion. Now, a bill that would give your boss the green light to fire you for using birth control. You think I am kidding? I wish. For a decade now, Arizona insurance companies have been required to provide coverage for contraception just like other prescriptions. But, because they saw an opening to score some political points, some politicians there are suddenly moving to take that coverage away from women and their families.
And we aren’t talking here just about exemptions for religiously affiliated employers like Catholic hospitals and universities. We are talking about authorizing secular, for-profit employers to deny a woman coverage for birth control if the employer doesn’t believe that she and her partner should be allowed to have sex without getting pregnant. Yup, that’s right. If the owner of the Taco Bell where you work opposes birth control, Arizona legislators want to give him a legal right to deny you insurance coverage for your pills.
Sadly, that isn’t even the half of it. You may want to sit down for this one. Arizona legislators know that whether or not her insurance covers it, a woman may get the prescription she needs to prevent an unintended pregnancy. They want to give her boss the right to control that too. The bill they are pushing would not only allow employers to take the insurance coverage away, but it would also make it easier for an employer who finds out that his employee uses birth control to fire her. You heard me right . . . to fire her. And I thought Rush Limbaugh’s comments were as low as you could go on this one.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: A K A Stone, Anti-ping to CE, Fred Mertz, Godwinson, go65, war, no gnu taxes, Skip Intro, ferret mike, jwpegler, brian s, mininggold, mcgowanjm (#0)
The bill they are pushing would not only allow employers to take the insurance coverage away, but it would also make it easier for an employer who finds out that his employee uses birth control to fire her.
This is the right-wing nuts version of liberty?
Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady
#2. To: lucysmom, *Liberal Rehab Staff* (#0) (Edited)
a bill that would give your boss the green light to fire you
Here on earth your boss can fire you, and not even give a reason. What planet are you on?
Employers are under no obligation to keep sluts on the payroll.
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
#3. To: hondo68 (#2)
Employers are under no obligation to keep sluts on the payroll.
So then a married woman who uses contraceptives is a slut even when faithful to her husband?
Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady
#4. To: lucysmom (#1)
The bill they are pushing would not only allow employers to take the insurance coverage away, but it would also make it easier for an employer who finds out that his employee uses birth control to fire her.
Of course polls never seems to get around to askin about how birth control makes it easier for men to just fuck and fuck and fuck...;}
And that just about 100% of women use birth control now.
Getting to chaos levels of discrepancy(approaching 100%) on Anything should give one pause.
But not the humans pushing this MEme from K street....;}
#5. To: lucysmom (#3)
a married woman who uses contraceptives is a slut even when faithful to her husband?
She could be lusting in her heart to wash a black mans genitals, like Jimmy Carter.
Obama is studying the issue.
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
#6. To: lucysmom (#0)
First, a bill that gives immunity to doctors who lie to couples about the results of their prenatal tests in order to prevent them from getting an abortion.
That is not what the bill is about. I've read the bill and the talking points.
If the doctor knows something is wrong with the fetus, he is obligated to tell the parents. This bill is to protect the doctor from being sued in the event no anomalies showed up on any of the tests and something was wrong anyway.
"Wrongful life suits endorse the viewpoint that the life of a disabled child is worth less than the life of a healthy child. As a public policy, the state should not allow these types of lawsuits that consider the existence of a life itself to be an injury or harm."
"SB 1359 is an important tort reform measure that helps avoid frivolous lawsuits. This bill protects the medical community against predatory lawsuits filed against a medical provider who did nothing wrong."
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona: Section 1. Title 12, chapter 6, article 12, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding section 12-718, to read:
12-718. Civil liability; wrongful birth, life or conception claims; application A. A PERSON IS NOT LIABLE FOR DAMAGES IN ANY CIVIL ACTION FOR WRONGFUL BIRTH BASED ON A CLAIM THAT, BUT FOR AN ACT OR OMISSION OF THE DEFENDANT, A CHILD OR CHILDREN WOULD NOT OR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN BORN.
B. A PERSON IS NOT LIABLE FOR DAMAGES IN ANY CIVIL ACTION FOR WRONGFUL LIFE BASED ON A CLAIM THAT, BUT FOR THE NEGLIGENT ACT OR OMISSION OF THE DEFENDANT, THE PERSON BRINGING THE ACTION WOULD NOT OR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN BORN.
C. A PERSON IS NOT LIABLE FOR DAMAGES IN ANY CIVIL ACTION FOR DAILY LIVING, MEDICAL, EDUCATIONAL OR OTHER EXPENSES NECESSARY TO RAISE A CHILD TO THE AGE OF MAJORITY, ON A WRONGFUL PREGNANCY OR WRONGFUL CONCEPTION CLAIM THAT, BUT FOR AN ACT OR OMISSION OF THE DEFENDANT, THE CHILD WOULD NOT OR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONCEIVED.
D. THIS SECTION APPLIES TO ANY CLAIM REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE CHILD IS BORN HEALTHY OR WITH A BIRTH DEFECT OR OTHER ADVERSE MEDICAL CONDITION.�
E. THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO ANY CIVIL ACTION FOR DAMAGES FOR AN INTENTIONAL OR GROSSLY NEGLIGENT ACT OR OMISSION, INCLUDING AN ACT OR OMISSION THAT VIOLATES A CRIMINAL LAW.
#7. To: mel (#6)
"Wrongful life suits endorse the viewpoint that the life of a disabled child is worth less than the life of a healthy child. As a public policy, the state should not allow these types of lawsuits that consider the existence of a life itself to be an injury or harm."
Do you think an insurance provider should be able to deny coverage to a child born less than healthy?
Do you support the STATE should determine what lawsuits are legitimate?
Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady
#8. To: hondo68 (#5)
She could be lusting in her heart to wash a black mans genitals, like Jimmy Carter.
Do you think a lot about that?
Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady
#9. To: mcgowanjm (#4)
Of course polls never seems to get around to askin about how birth control makes it easier for men to just fuck and fuck and fuck...;}
Too be fair, an employer should be able to fire a man if his wife or girl friend use birth control.
And that just about 100% of women use birth control now.
As compensation for making it over the hill, some of us no longer need to worry about that.
Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady
#10. To: lucysmom (#7)
Do you think an insurance provider should be able to deny coverage to a child born less than healthy?Do you support the STATE should determine what lawsuits are legitimate?
Do you think the state should be able to tell private insurance companies who and what they can and cannot cover?
Do you know that you can and should get health insurance on your child before it is born?
Are you insinuating that disabled children should be aborted before they are born?
#11. To: lucysmom (#9)
Note the source of your article - Consider the bias - the inaccuracies of the blog report --- This little article is garbage.
#12. To: mel (#10)
Do you think the state should be able to tell private insurance companies who and what they can and cannot cover?
I think we should have single payer health coverage.
Do you know that you can and should get health insurance on your child before it is born?
Until a parent loses a job, or the company raises rates until the parent can no longer pay.
Are you insinuating that disabled children should be aborted before they are born?
I'm saying that if one of the things a parent is suing over is medical care, then maybe that's an issue that should be addressed.
Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady
#13. To: mel (#11)
Note the source of your article - Consider the bias - the inaccuracies of the blog report --- This little article is garbage.
I like the ACLU. I may not always agree with them, however I am grateful they exist.
Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady
#14. To: lucysmom (#12)
Until a parent loses a job, or the company raises rates until the parent can no longer pay.
There's always state supplied health insurance for those that are unemployed and broke.
I'm saying that if one of the things a parent is suing over is medical care, then maybe that's an issue that should be addressed.
Why should a doctor be held financially responsible for anyone's child's medical expenses other than their own? It's not the doctor's fault the child is disabled. I pay cash for all my children's medical needs. That is my job. That is my responsibility. Not yours or any one else's. I don't think a single payer health coverage is the answer. I don't think people should be having kids they can't afford either, but that's neither here nor there.
#15. To: lucysmom (#13)
Actually, I think I just mixed up ACLU with a different org. ;) But, this article is a blog and it's opinion, and although the writer has a right to her opinion, it appears she did not do her research.
#16. To: All (#14)
I mean, really, you want to put out health care in the hands of the Federal Government? Not on your life. I prefer to keep my families health care in my hands. The Feds screw everything up.
#17. To: lucysmom (#1)
The bill they are pushing would not only allow employers to take the insurance coverage away, but it would also make it easier for an employer who finds out that his employee uses birth control to fire her.
Next, "they" will be requiring a pre-employment 'certificate of sterilization'...
Never swear "allegiance" to anything other than the 'right to change your mind'!
#18. To: lucysmom (#13)
In Arizona, employers have the right to fire you without cause.
I am curious about this purported bill though so if you have a bill number, please provide it so I can look into it some more.
I'm sure the contents of the bill are being twisted just like the contents of the other bill are. This has a liberal twist to it that stinks to high heaven and back.
#19. To: All (#18)
#20. To: All (#19)
1. If the contract provides coverage for prescription drugs, the contract shall provide coverage for any prescribed drug or device that is approved by the United States food and drug administration for use as a contraceptive. A corporation may use a drug formulary, multitiered drug formulary or list but that formulary or list shall include oral, implant and injectable contraceptive drugs, intrauterine devices and prescription barrier methods if the corporation does not impose deductibles, coinsurance, copayments or other cost containment measures for contraceptive drugs that are greater than the deductibles, coinsurance, copayments or other cost containment measures for other drugs on the same level of the formulary or list.2. If the contract provides coverage for outpatient health care services, the contract shall provide coverage for outpatient contraceptive services. For the purposes of this paragraph, "outpatient contraceptive services" means consultations, examinations, procedures and medical services provided on an outpatient basis and related to the use of approved United States food and drug administration prescription contraceptive methods to prevent unintended pregnancies.
3. This subsection does not apply to contracts issued to individuals on a nongroup basis.
This is directly from the bill.
#21. To: All (#20)
It's very long.
It appears to extend the same type of exemptions as are extended to religious organizations, but I'd have to read further into it.
#22. To: lucysmom (#1)
This is the right-wing nuts version of liberty?
Any employer can fire an employee for any reason they want to. If they don't like people with red hair they can fire them for that. If they don't want queers working with them. They can fire them for that. If they don't like the fact that their employee listens to Rush Limbaugh in their car at lunch, they can fire them for that.
#23. To: Brian S (#17)
Next, "they" will be requiring a pre-employment 'certificate of sterilization'...
No, they'll just insist on holding the keys to the employee chastity belts.
Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady
#24. To: mel (#21) (Edited)
It appears to extend the same type of exemptions as are extended to religious organizations, but I'd have to read further into it.
According to the Arizona Republic, HB 2625 makes it okay for both religious and secular employers to deny health coverage for contraception if said employers object to birth control for moral reasons.
(Click HERE for full text of the bill)
Worse, the bill eliminates this crucial anti-discrimination provision of current law:
“A religious employer shall not discriminate against an employee who independently chooses to obtain insurance coverage or prescriptions for contraceptives from another source.”
That means that, if passed, Arizona employers could fire women who are using contraception for birth control, not other medical reasons.
“I personally don’t have a moral objection to contraceptives but I respect the people that do,” Rep. Debbie Lesko, the Republican who introduced the measure, told KTVK 3. “House Bill 2625 allows Arizona employers to opt out of the contraceptive mandate if they have a religious or moral objection”
But Arizona already has a law that permits religious employers to deny workers contraception coverage for religious reasons. HB 2625 would expand that prerogative to all employers, and that has got many people alarmed.
morallowground.com/2012/0...ntrol-advances-in-senate/
Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady
#25. To: lucysmom (#0)
A taxpayer that votes for Obama is like a chicken that votes for Col Sanders!!!!
#26. To: lucysmom (#9)
Too be fair, an employer should be able to fire a man if his wife or girl friend use birth control.
too funny you are...8D
#27. To: lucysmom (#9)
And that just about 100% of women use birth control now.As compensation for making it over the hill, some of us no longer need to worry about that.
Of course.
And I have to wear a cap to keep my head from getting sunburned now...;}
#28. To: mcgowanjm (#26)
too funny you are...8D
Thank you.
Some here say I have no sense of humor.
Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady
#29. To: lucysmom (#24)
They either need to remove the exemption from the religious employers or extend it to all employers. I vote for the former.
They should not be mandated to provide any certain type of health insurance nor should the be mandated to deny any type. Whatever the employer offers is generally what you have to go with or turn down and get your own outside of work. Personally, I think the employee should be able to add contraceptive coverage into the health plan and pay the extra costs in including it regardless of the employer's moral beliefs.
#30. To: mel (#29)
They either need to remove the exemption from the religious employers or extend it to all employers. I vote for the former.They should not be mandated to provide any certain type of health insurance nor should the be mandated to deny any type. Whatever the employer offers is generally what you have to go with or turn down and get your own outside of work. Personally, I think the employee should be able to add contraceptive coverage into the health plan and pay the extra costs in including it regardless of the employer's moral beliefs.
I agree. Single payer is the only way to go.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
#31. To: mel (#29)
We should have universal, single payer health insurance.
Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady
#32. To: mininggold (#30)
I agree. Single payer is the only way to go.
You beat me to it.
Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady
#33. To: lucysmom (#32)
You beat me to it.
At this point in my life I figure if it's good enough for the military, then us second class citizens should be able have a go at it too.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
#34. To: mininggold (#33)
At this point in my life I figure if it's good enough for the military, then us second class citizens should be able have a go at it too.
The private sector has had a good long time to get its ducks in a row and has failed to deliver access to affordable health care to the people who actually need it. Time for them to go.
Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady
#35. To: lucysmom (#32)
Only if the only people covered are the people that pay would I even think about considering that, and even then, I don't want the feds in charge of my health care.
#36. To: mel (#35) (Edited)
Only if the only people covered are the people that pay would I even think about considering that, and even then, I don't want the feds in charge of my health care.
They already are and have been since the seventies.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
#37. To: mel (#35)
Only if the only people covered are the people that pay would I even think about considering that...
So then what would happen to people too poor to pay?
I don't want the feds in charge of my health care.
My parents had no problems with Medicare and plenty with private insurance.
Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady
#38. To: lucysmom (#37)
So then what would happen to people too poor to pay?
States already have programs to cover them.
#39. To: lucysmom (#37)
You are proposing bigger government and more government involvement in our private lives. Conservatives are against that. Everyone should be against that.
#40. To: mininggold (#36)
The Feds are NOT in charge of my health care. :)
#41. To: mel (#40)
The Feds are NOT in charge of my health care. :)
They certainly are.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
.
.
.
Comments (42 - 67) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]