RE: Arizona law will allow female employees to be fired for using birth control

RE: Arizona law will allow female employees to be fired for using birth control (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

SternSkipper -> RE: Arizona law will allow female employees to be fired for using birth control (3/15/2012 6:42:08 PM)
quote: I was fantastic, I'm sure of it, although I don't remember that much myself Next time you'll mark the glass you dump the ruffies into

Lucylastic -> RE: Arizona law will allow female employees to be fired for using birth control (3/15/2012 6:45:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xssve You don't remember? What do you think the fucking Margarita's is for? I was fantastic, I'm sure of it, although I don't remember that much myself. [:-] Im sure you were:) LMAO But if it had been me, you would have scars:) [:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]

xssve -> RE: Arizona law will allow female employees to be fired for using birth control (3/15/2012 6:45:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel Did you really "look into" this? Did you read the entire bill? http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/50leg/2r/bills/hb2625h.htm&Session_ID=107 It has nothing to do with lying on insurance claims, which is insurance fraud and already illegal and has everything to do with getting around the 2000 mandate that companies that provide health insurance provide contraceptive coverage and the 2012 mandate that said contraceptive coverage is provided with no co-pay. Both mandates, btw, the insurance companies are willing to provide. Contraceptives are cheaper than pregnancy - for insurance companies or employers - but this isn't about ovulatory cycle, it's about the election cycle.

xssve -> RE: Arizona law will allow female employees to be fired for using birth control (3/15/2012 6:46:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: xssve You don't remember? What do you think the fucking Margarita's is for? I was fantastic, I'm sure of it, although I don't remember that much myself. [:-] Im sure you were:) LMAO But if it had been me, you would have scars:) [:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D] Was that you?

DaNewAgeViking -> RE: Arizona law will allow female employees to be fired for using birth control (3/15/2012 6:51:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess We are in crazy times. People need to stand up for their rights, or they will piece by piece, bit by bit, be eroded away, and we will 100 years down the road wonder what exactly happened.... I got news: we're already a hundred years down that road. We haven't seen this sort of all-pervading fear and fanaticism since the McCarthy era, and as I predicted in another post recently, it will only get worse as the Radicals transfer their attack to the state houses in anticipation of big losses in Washington. I have a friend who is peripherally connected to Radical politics, and he told me not long ago that both sides are saying that we're headed for civil war. With this sort of insanity as state politic, I believe him. [sm=couch.gif]

kdsub -> RE: Arizona law will allow female employees to be fired for using birth control (3/15/2012 7:07:20 PM)
Below is the section of the proposed Bill... SUBSECTION Y OF THIS SECTION IF THE CONTRACT'S FAILURE TO PROVIDE COVERAGE 19 OF SPECIFIC ITEMS OR SERVICES REQUIRED UNDER SUBSECTION Y OF THIS SECTION IS 20 BECAUSE PROVIDING OR PAYING FOR COVERAGE OF THE SPECIFIC ITEMS OR SERVICES IS 21 CONTRARY TO THE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OF THE EMPLOYER, SPONSOR, ISSUER, 22 CORPORATION OR OTHER ENTITY OFFERING THE PLAN OR IS BECAUSE THE COVERAGE IS 23 CONTRARY TO THE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OF THE PURCHASER OR BENEFICIARY OF THE 24 COVERAGE. IF AN OBJECTION TRIGGERS THIS SUBSECTION, A WRITTEN AFFIDAVIT 25 SHALL BE FILED WITH THE CORPORATION STATING THE OBJECTION. THE CORPORATION 26 SHALL RETAIN THE AFFIDAVIT FOR THE DURATION OF THE CONTRACT AND ANY RENEWALS 27 OF THE CONTRACT. THIS SUBSECTION SHALL NOT EXCLUDE COVERAGE FOR PRESCRIPTION 28 CONTRACEPTIVE METHODS ORDERED BY A HEALTH CARE PROVIDER PRESCRIPTIVE 29 AUTHORITY FOR MEDICAL INDICATIONS OTHER THAN FOR CONTRACEPTIVE, 30 ABORTIFACIENT, ABORTION OR STERILIZATION PURPOSES. A CORPORATION, EMPLOYER, 31 SPONSOR, ISSUER OR OTHER ENTITY OFFERING THE PLAN MAY STATE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS 32 OR MORAL CONVICTIONS IN ITS AFFIDAVIT THAT REQUIRE THE SUBSCRIBER TO FIRST House Amendments to H.B. 2625 - 13 - 1 PAY FOR THE PRESCRIPTION AND THEN SUBMIT A CLAIM TO THE CORPORATION ALONG 2 WITH EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESCRIPTION IS NOT IN WHOLE OR IN PART FOR A PURPOSE 3 COVERED BY THE OBJECTION. A CORPORATION MAY CHARGE AN ADMINISTRATIVE FEE FOR 4 HANDLING THESE CLAIMS. Where does it say anything about the right to terminate? Don't get me wrong this is a stupid shit bill...but lets get it right. Butch

tazzygirl -> RE: Arizona law will allow female employees to be fired for using birth control (3/15/2012 7:29:38 PM)
Right bill.. wrong area. HERE is what has everyone up in arms... Its not what is in it, its what was stricken from it... E. A religious employer shall not discriminate against an employee who independently chooses to obtain insurance coverage or prescriptions for contraceptives from another source. F. For the purposes of this section, "religious employer" means an entity for which all of the following apply: 1. The entity primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the entity. 2. The entity serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the entity. 3. The entity is a nonprofit organization as described in section 6033(a)(2)(A)i or iii of the internal revenue code of 1986, as amended. http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/50leg/2r/bills/hb2625h.htm&Session_ID=107 This section is at the very bottom of the document... and this part was stricken from the bill. Section E.

kdsub -> RE: Arizona law will allow female employees to be fired for using birth control (3/15/2012 7:44:49 PM)
Thanks tazzy...the bill still does not give the OK to terminate however Butch

Aylee -> RE: Arizona law will allow female employees to be fired for using birth control (3/15/2012 8:01:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Thanks tazzy...the bill still does not give the OK to terminate however Butch This is what has gotten me. The ACLU says that because Arizona is an "at will" state, that companies will now be able to fire because of contraception use. Ummm. . . as an "at will" state, I thought that they could already do that. All this bill seems to do is allow companies to make a conscientious objector status to contraception for the express use for preventing pregnancy. The part that irritates me is that the opposition does not see me as more than my female parts.

Edwynn -> RE: Arizona law will allow female employees to be fired for using birth control (3/15/2012 8:44:30 PM)
"At will" states allow companies to fire an employee with out cause, but they still cannot be fired for sex, race, etc. and so otherwise cannot fire a person when doing so falls outside the law. As long as the reason does not conflict with any law, firing with out cause is allowed. Firing a woman for using contraceptives while not doing likewise for men makes it arguably a XIV amendment issue.

farglebargle -> RE: Arizona law will allow female employees to be fired for using birth control (3/15/2012 10:41:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle ".lying to an employer's insurance representative in order to get contraceptives paid for when they would not normally pay for them" That's called INSURANCE FRAUD via filing a false claim. And it's always been illegal. Why are the people who are screaming about Big Government passing laws which aren't needed because the 'crime' they create is already covered under existing legislation? If I were to GUESS... there's likely no current provision/exemption in the law (for privacy reasons) for an employer to request an employee covered under their health plan provide documentation showing the purpose/need of certain meds -- but again, that's just a guess?!! That's because it's none of the employer's business. The INSURED signs a contract with the INSURER for doctor's services. The cost of the insurance contract is deducted from the employees pretax wages, and part of their total compensation package. Period. End of story. If the government wants to impose a rule on an insurer, well, that's part of the whole insurance business. It's always been regulated. Without the government, there is no Insurance. And if you dispute that, just answer this question: When your insurer and you have a dispute, where do you go to litigate a resolution in accordance with your contract terms? Court. See that flag in the corner of the court. USA! USA! USA!

farglebargle -> RE: Arizona law will allow female employees to be fired for using birth control (3/15/2012 10:43:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Right bill.. wrong area. HERE is what has everyone up in arms... Its not what is in it, its what was stricken from it... E. A religious employer shall not discriminate against an employee who independently chooses to obtain insurance coverage or prescriptions for contraceptives from another source. F. For the purposes of this section, "religious employer" means an entity for which all of the following apply: 1. The entity primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the entity. 2. The entity serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the entity. 3. The entity is a nonprofit organization as described in section 6033(a)(2)(A)i or iii of the internal revenue code of 1986, as amended. http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/50leg/2r/bills/hb2625h.htm&Session_ID=107 This section is at the very bottom of the document... and this part was stricken from the bill. Section E. We need to limit churches to operating just churches. Sorry, but that's all the accommodation you're getting. If you want to operate an business and employ people, that's not a church, so you get to obey all the rules, pay property tax, etc....

GrandPoobah -> RE: Arizona law will allow female employees to be fired for using birth control (3/16/2012 1:43:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas I've looked into this. This bill prevents someone from lying to an employer's insurance representative in order to get contraceptives paid for when they would not normally pay for them just for contraceptive purposes. It requires a prescription supported by a non-contraceptive diagnosis. I also point out this is not a hippa issue since you will be giving this information to the insurance company representative and such information may always be required for any type of insured health care compensaton by a diagnosis and not only just for contraceptives . A diagnosis for "not wanting children" is not exactly what some companies or organizations who do not believe in contraceptives will pay for and so they are protected from misrepresenting the contraceptive purpose, from employees lying (imagine that) to get around policies whose purose is to prevent payments for contraceptives used just to prevent pregnancy. So, no issues exist as presented here or in the article linked to in the OP. Much to-do about absolutely nothing except enforcing truth when filing insurance claims. Well, this should work out just fine then...because in Texas (I think it's Texas but these are getting hard to keep up with) they just specifically create a bill that allows doctors to knowingly lie. Although the bill was designed to prevent abortions by allowing doctors to withhold information such as a birth defect, it isn't all that limited...so...a doctor would be allowed to lie and say "she needs it for hormonal regulation" when that isn't true. Problem solved! </end of sarcasm...in case there was a question about that>

GrandPoobah -> RE: Arizona law will allow female employees to be fired for using birth control (3/16/2012 1:47:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn "At will" states allow companies to fire an employee with out cause, but they still cannot be fired for sex, race, etc. and so otherwise cannot fire a person when doing so falls outside the law. As long as the reason does not conflict with any law, firing with out cause is allowed. Firing a woman for using contraceptives while not doing likewise for men makes it arguably a XIV amendment issue. True, and this law makes about as much sense as saying "I can fire someone for not drinking milk." They're not doing anything illegal. They're not breaking any existing law. The most the employer could say was that "they were doing something I don't approve of," and the SCOTUS would just LOVE to take a case like that. Talk about a classic case for Freedom of Religion...Freedom from Religion. Heck, even Clarence Thomas might join in that opinion. Okay...maybe I was being too extreme. I'm not sure about the Clarence Thomas thing...since I don't know where he stand on drinking milk.

xssve -> RE: Arizona law will allow female employees to be fired for using birth control (3/16/2012 2:07:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SternSkipper quote: I was fantastic, I'm sure of it, although I don't remember that much myself Next time you'll mark the glass you dump the ruffies into Oh that's just cheatin'. I'd lie maybe, beg even, if I thought it would work, but roofies? So uh, you know where I can score somadose?

Aswad -> RE: Arizona law will allow female employees to be fired for using birth control (3/16/2012 12:48:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel I've made no bones about being a die hard liberal bordering on socialist. How do you manage to place those two 'bordering' on each other? Is this one of those things where the term refers to the ones that at some point used the term before departing from the ideology, kind of like how 'conservative' and 'radical' swapped meaning in the double aughts, or how 'Christian' means 'fear-driven hatemonger' now? Health, al-Aswad.

erieangel -> RE: Arizona law will allow female employees to be fired for using birth control (3/16/2012 1:51:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel I've made no bones about being a die hard liberal bordering on socialist. How do you manage to place those two 'bordering' on each other? Is this one of those things where the term refers to the ones that at some point used the term before departing from the ideology, kind of like how 'conservative' and 'radical' swapped meaning in the double aughts, or how 'Christian' means 'fear-driven hatemonger' now? Health, al-Aswad. I'm a social liberal, in that I believe that society, which includes the government, are responsible to care for those who are unable to care for themselves. It also requires that society (government included) protect the environment, freedoms, etc. Socialism, as I was taught, is the social ownership of the means of production, etc. I believe there are times when social ownership is not only necessary, but optimal as in the auto bailout, but usually these necessary steps should be necessary. There are, however, times when I believe the near-total social and/or governmental ownership of certain industries would be optimal--as in health insurance coverage. I am a big proponent of a public option, Medicare-for-All, but that would not preclude the choice for people chose a private insurance. Perhaps you see no distinction in my phrasing, but I see a fine line between liberal and socialist.

hlen5 -> RE: Arizona law will allow female employees to be fired for using birth control (3/16/2012 2:08:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GrandPoobah ...............True, and this law makes about as much sense as saying "I can fire someone for not drinking milk." They're not doing anything illegal. They're not breaking any existing law. The most the employer could say was that "they were doing something I don't approve of," and the SCOTUS would just LOVE to take a case like that. Talk about a classic case for Freedom of Religion...Freedom from Religion. Heck, even Clarence Thomas might join in that opinion. Okay...maybe I was being too extreme. I'm not sure about the Clarence Thomas thing...since I don't know where he stand on drinking milk. Well, we know he DOES drink Coke..........

kalikshama -> RE: Arizona law will allow female employees to be fired for using birth control (3/16/2012 4:24:54 PM)
quote: We need to limit churches to operating just churches. Sorry, but that's all the accommodation you're getting. If you want to operate an business and employ people, that's not a church, so you get to obey all the rules, pay property tax, etc.... [sm=applause.gif]

provfivetine -> RE: Arizona law will allow female employees to be fired for using birth control (3/16/2012 5:05:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel I'm a social liberal, in that I believe that society, which includes the government, are responsible to care for those who are unable to care for themselves. It also requires that society (government included) protect the environment, freedoms, etc. Socialism, as I was taught, is the social ownership of the means of production, etc. I believe there are times when social ownership is not only necessary, but optimal as in the auto bailout, but usually these necessary steps should be necessary. There are, however, times when I believe the near-total social and/or governmental ownership of certain industries would be optimal--as in health insurance coverage. I am a big proponent of a public option, Medicare-for-All, but that would not preclude the choice for people chose a private insurance. Perhaps you see no distinction in my phrasing, but I see a fine line between liberal and socialist If you're in favor of the existence of government then by definition you're a socialist. People have this erroneous belief that socialism = communism. Communism is a type of socialism, as is progressivism and conservatism. And who gives a shit if an employer fires a woman for using birth control. Employers have the right to fire anyone for whatever reason they want to.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.589844E-02