Quantcast

Fired For Using Birth Control? It Could Be Possible In Arizona

Hanna 2012/03/13 23:20:57
You may wonder about the real agenda behind all the oppressive anti-women's rights laws being enacted as conservatives wage war against women. It's simple. White, male conservative legislators are hoping one of these oppressive laws will reach the Supreme Court. Why? The answer is they're hoping a now conservative Supreme Court will, eventually, overturn Griswold v. Connecticut. The latest oppressive anti-women's rights law comes to us from that bastion of right wing extremism, Arizona. Can you believe this law, if enacted, would "grants employers the right to ask for proof that contraceptives are being taken for non-contraceptive reasons." Of course, they base all these oppressive laws on the false religious argument. This is about women's health!

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/03/13/fired-for-using-birth...

A proposed law in Arizona could give employers the right to fire women who use birth control. The bill, which sailed right through the state’s Senate Judiciary Committee, grants employers the right to ask for proof that contraceptives are being taken for non-contraceptive reasons.

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.”

Arizona, like nearly half the rest of the country, is an at-will employment state. “At will” simply means that an employee can be fired without cause. Not only would the bill grant employers the right to pry into a woman’s (and only a woman’s) medical history, it would give them opportunity to fire women for simply having a sex life. Imagine this conversation:

EMPLOYER: Um, Lisa, I see here that you have a prescription for a birth control pill.

LISA: What?

EMPLOYER: That’s right, a birth control pill. Why are you on birth control pills?

LISA: Excuse me?

EMPLOYER: Why are you on birth control?

LISA: I’m sorry, sir, but that’s personal.

EMPLOYER: No, it’s not. I believe that birth control is a sin and I’ll need to see proof that you aren’t using it so you can have unlimited sex.

LISA: What?????

EMPLOYER: Lisa, you seem rather tongue tied on the subject. Should I take that to mean that you, an unmarried woman, are using birth control only for sex?

LISA (red-faced and nearly in tears): But…I get really bad cramps. That’s why the doctor gave them to me. Plus, I don’t want to get pregnant.

EMPLOYER: So you’re admitting you have sex.

LISA: No…no. I’m not admitting anything. Isn’t that my business?

EMPLOYER: No. I need to know that I am not paying for sin. I need proof that you are using birth control for non-sexual purposes. Take the rest of the day off and go to your doctor. You can come back when you have a note from him saying that the pills aren’t for sex.

LISA: But it comes out of my insurance. I pay for that out of every paycheck.

EMPLOYER: You only pay for half the insurance. I pay for the other half. I need to make sure that you aren’t violating my First Amendment rights.

Shaking and in tears, Lisa leaves for her doctor. The doctor, also a Catholic, (the largest religious bloc) refuses to write the note. Lisa is never allowed to return to work.

Arizona currently has a law on the books prohibiting insurance companies from this sort of discrimination. HB 2625, if passed, could supersede that law by allowing the employer, and not the insurance company, to discriminate. I am not the only person raising concerns that women could lose their jobs. So is the ACLU.

The original version of the bill, on page 26, made it illegal for an employer to discriminate against women who purchased their own contraception, without employer health coverage. That protection was removed, presumably making it just fine for an employer to fire a woman for simply having pills in her purse.


You!
Add Photos & Videos

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • PhillipDavis 2012/03/14 03:43:27
  • Evil 1 2012/03/13 23:53:55
    Evil 1
    +1
    I think you are being misleading with the premise of this post. Here is some information on the bill:

    "House bill 2625, which would allow employers to opt out of covering contraception in their company's health insurance plans if they are morally or ethically opposed to the use of birth control for whatever reason.

    The bill is patterned after the Blunt Amendment that failed to pass through the U.S. Congress earlier this year. The amendment and HB 2625 both fight the Federal Government mandate for businesses, regardless of their religious affiliation, to provide women with the option to get contraception in health insurance coverage plans.

    For her part, Lesko says she has run the bill by people who understand HIPPA regulations concerning doctor/patient confidentiality, and it has passed muster. She says her bill won't prevent women from getting contraception, it just won't allow them to get it using their company's health plan."

    http://ktar.com/6/1513927/Bil...

    I also read the bill and no where within its language does it give the employer the right to terminate an employee for using birth control. If you can find that specific language within the bill I would like to read it.
  • Hanna Evil 1 2012/03/14 00:50:38
    Hanna
    Does the bill also prohibit using a company's insurance plan to buy Viagra? This is just another step in the conservative war against women. This is a women's health issue and something conservatives don't seem to like very much.
  • Evil 1 Hanna 2012/03/14 00:53:31
    Evil 1
    You didn't mention anything about Viagra. You stated that it could lead to female employees being fired and discriminated against and I addressed the premise of your post. Did you find any language in the bill supporting the premise of your post? Again, I would like to read if you did.
  • Hanna Evil 1 2012/03/14 00:56:03 (edited)
    Hanna
    "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..."

    This is an outrage. Of course, I wouldn't expect you to defend the rights of women. Conservative idiots attempt to use the false religious freedom argument. They're waging war against women and women's rights.

    Again, will the bill prohibit coverage of Viagra?
  • Evil 1 Hanna 2012/03/14 01:19:22
    Evil 1
    And that in no way states that an employee could be terminated for using contraceptives which is the premise of your post. In fact if you read the bill you would see that if the employee needs the contraception for health reasons they will be covered. And essentially that is exactly what the information you posted in your last answer to me says.

    Again, your post did not address Viagra but I will answer you. First off Viagra is not a contrceptive so it has no correlation to the premise of the bill. If it were a contraceptive it would have to be included if the bill passes into law. But considering it is not a contrceptive it is a moot point. Although I do believe that Viagra shouldn't be covered by any health insurance unless it is a medical necessity.
  • Hanna Evil 1 2012/03/14 01:25:14 (edited)
    Hanna
    This bill is just another in a long line of conservative attacks against women and contraception. Not a smart move! Of course, the Republican Party does seem to attract women (Lesko, Bachmann, Palin) who hate other women and minorities (Cain) who hate minorities. It's a shame the GOP has become a party that promotes theocracy, bullying women and minorities and promoting violence.
  • Evil 1 Hanna 2012/03/14 01:38:56
    Evil 1
    You still have not addressed the fact that your post is misleading and really holds no validity. No where in the bill does it state that a female employee will be terminated for using contraceptives or that the individual will not receive contraceptives for medical necessity.
  • Hanna Evil 1 2012/03/14 22:51:38
    Hanna
    You miss the point. This law, like so many enacted by silly anti-women conservatives, is part of the conservative war against women's rights.
  • Evil 1 Hanna 2012/03/14 23:43:20
    Evil 1
    No you miss the point. You said that employees could be fired for using contraceptives and that is totally untrue. The point is you put up a baiting post that has no truth to it.
  • Hanna Evil 1 2012/03/14 23:49:44 (edited)
    Hanna
    "Arizona, like nearly half the rest of the country, is an at-will employment state. “At will” simply means that an employee can be fired without cause. Not only would the bill grant employers the right to pry into a woman’s (and only a woman’s) medical history, it would give them opportunity to fire women for simply having a sex life."

    The proposed law will clearly give employers the right to delve into a woman's medical history. Do you support such laws?
  • Evil 1 Hanna 2012/03/14 23:56:33 (edited)
    Evil 1
    No where in the language of the bill does it state that female employees could be terminated for using brith control. You statement is false and baiting.
  • Hanna Evil 1 2012/03/15 00:01:40
    Hanna
    "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..."
  • Evil 1 Hanna 2012/03/15 00:09:37
    Evil 1
    It doesn't say anything about them being terminated if the use them.
  • Hanna Evil 1 2012/03/15 00:12:36 (edited)
    Hanna
    If an employer can pry into a woman's medical history, he can fire here since employment is "at will." Why should an employer have the right ask a woman about why she buys birth control?

    Do you support the conservative war against women?
  • Evil 1 Hanna 2012/03/15 00:59:18
    Evil 1
    That is your opinion. No where in the language of the bill does it even elude to that. I truly doubt if that would ever happen in todays litigious society.

    I don't think there is a conservative war on women. I think there are certain things that are being debated that have been blown out of prportion for nothing more than political gain. There are some things going on that are totally ridiculous and unacceptable but I think they are coming from both sides of the fence.
  • Hanna Evil 1 2012/03/15 01:03:07 (edited)
    Hanna
    There most certainly is a conservative war against women and their rights. Democrats aren't introducing legislation requiring women be forced to undergo invasive procedures in order to obtain an abortion or forced to wait 72 hours for a medical procedure. Conservatives are waging war against access to contraception.

    I wouldn't expect a conservative man to understand this law can have far-reaching consequences for women.

    By the way, all it takes is one fundamentalist religious idiot employer in Arizona to fire a woman after prying into her medical records. That you don't see the potential for discrimination against women isn't surprising.
  • Evil 1 Hanna 2012/03/15 01:13:53
    Evil 1
    Again everything you stae is opinion and cannot be substantiated. It is purely polically fueled hype and speculation. And as for your statement about my being a conservative man no t understanding how this law effects women, again it is opinion and pure speculation on your part with no proof to back it up. Essentially it is totally wrong.
  • Hanna Evil 1 2012/03/15 01:15:33
    Hanna
    Again, you fail to grasp the intent of the proposed law and it's implications. I wouldn't expect you to understand those implications. If you understood how it might impact women, you'd be opposed to it.
  • Evil 1 Hanna 2012/03/15 01:19:29
    Evil 1
    I fully grasp the intent of the law. But I choose to look at the law itself and its language rather than assume and speculate that it will go beyond its language. No where does the language of the bill support your assumption. And i do understand how it effects women I am just not reading more into it than is there.
  • Hanna Evil 1 2012/03/15 01:23:27
    Hanna
    Unlike you, I understood, immediately, the implications of the bill and one of those implications is that, with the wrong fundamentalist employer, a woman could possibly be fired. The best strategy would be to defeat this bill for what it is, namely another effort in the continuing conservative war against women and their rights.
  • Evil 1 Hanna 2012/03/15 01:36:35
    Evil 1
    I fully understand the bill and what its language states. I just choose to base my understanding on how the bill is written rather than basing it on assumption and speculation. And once again no where in the language of the law does it elude to your assumption and speculation as to a female emloyee being fired for using contraceptives. If that were the language contained within the bill then I would agree that the bill should be defeated and never enacted as a law. But based on the fact that in no way does its language spport you assumption I can't agree with you.
  • Hanna Evil 1 2012/03/15 01:43:07
    Hanna
    The bill doesn't have to elude to any speculation or assumptions; I'm referring to the possible implications and conservatives have proven, in the last year, just how far they'll go to undermine the constitutional rights of women.
  • Evil 1 Hanna 2012/03/15 01:51:27
    Evil 1
    Possible implications are nothing more than speculation and assumption as they are 'possible' as opposed to guaranteed. And the law does not 'guarantee' your possible implications your argument is purely speculation and assumption. And I don't agree with your opinion regarding conservatives undermining womens constitutional rights. But that's my opinion.
  • Hanna Evil 1 2012/03/15 01:55:35 (edited)
    Hanna
    How can you say conservatives aren't undermining women's constitutional rights when, almost daily, we see another anti-abortion law proposed in state legislatures, laws to make it more difficult for women to have access to contraceptives, more laws mandating invasive procedures for women who wish to obtain an abortion? I'm sorry but to reach your conclusion one has to leave reality. The reality is conservatives are waging war against the constitutional right of women to legally obtain an abortion if she makes that very difficult decision. Your position is contradictory to the fact that these types of laws are being proposed and/or enacted by conservatives almost daily.

    I'm happy to continue our discussion but, since I'm pregnant, I must get some rest.
  • Evil 1 Hanna 2012/03/15 02:01:57
    Evil 1
    Because that's my opinion. I'm not saying I agree with everyhing that is going on but no way can I condemn an entire group based on the actions of a few. I look at each case and determine my opinion based on the merit of that specific case. I don't blanket blame all liberals for the stupidity of a select few as doing so would be unrealistic, shallow and naive. Have a good evening and rest well.
  • Rusty Shackleford 2012/03/13 23:27:39
    Rusty Shackleford
    +1
    Employees have a right to choose who they work for.

    Employers have a right to choose who works for them.

    It's called freedom.
  • Hanna Rusty S... 2012/03/13 23:28:21
    Hanna
    +1
    Yes, Rusty, I know you don't like the idea that women have rights.
  • Rusty S... Hanna 2012/03/13 23:31:11
    Rusty Shackleford
    +1
    Are you claiming that you don't have rights?
  • Hanna Rusty S... 2012/03/13 23:32:42
    Hanna
    +1
    As I write, I'm confident another right wing extremist is drafting a law to diminish the rights of women in another state. Conservatives are waging war against women!
  • Rusty S... Hanna 2012/03/13 23:36:06
    Rusty Shackleford
    Are you a U.S. Citizen?
  • Hanna Rusty S... 2012/03/13 23:43:32
    Hanna
    +1
    I don't think you are!
  • Rusty S... Hanna 2012/03/13 23:46:47
    Rusty Shackleford
    +1
    Why can't you answer that question?
  • Hanna Rusty S... 2012/03/13 23:47:20 (edited)
    Hanna
    +1
    I can't help it if you can't read! Besides, the point is that, like most conservatives, stupidity reigns to the point where conservatives think anyone who support immigrant rights is undocumented. Conservatives aren't the brightest crayons in the box.
  • Rusty S... Hanna 2012/03/13 23:48:27
    Rusty Shackleford
    +1
    Are you a U.S. Citizen?

    Does this question offend you?
  • darcie ... Rusty S... 2012/03/13 23:52:10
    darcie lamar
    +3
    She's just stirring the pot as usual.
    witch stirring the pot
  • Hanna darcie ... 2012/03/14 00:51:30
    Hanna
    I supposed you needed another paycheck!
  • Evil 1 Rusty S... 2012/03/13 23:54:58
    Evil 1
    +2
    She can't answer and when you press her she starts hurling insults.
  • darcie ... Evil 1 2012/03/14 00:02:52
    darcie lamar
    +2
    We can't be too hard on her, she still doesn't understand the meaning of ILLEGAL. illegal is not a race
  • Hanna darcie ... 2012/03/14 00:52:34
    Hanna
    +1
    Oh my goodness, another female conservative who hates women!

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/04/25 08:10:54

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals