ST Alpha - "I'm assuming you read the 1.5 pages of the bill to see what it does, right? -- (link)" (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Login
Create Account

Search Dr. S. Talk
TT/ST Wiki
How Well Do You Know ...

RSS Feed

Hosting by DigitalOcean

Support ST on Ko-Fi

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 165

In response to "A proposed law in Arizona could give employers the right to fire women who use birth control. -- (link)" by zeitgeist

I'm assuming you read the 1.5 pages of the bill to see what it does, right? -- (link)

Posted by spamlet Mar 13 '12, 14:17

(No message)

Here, I'll help. It just says that health plans can require proof that a contraceptive is for non-reproductive purposes for reimbursement (www.azleg.gov)

Responses:

[deleted] 3
- I just wanted to see how long the bill was at first. Anytime something sounds crazy it probably is. - spamlet Mar 13, 14:29 2
  - [deleted] 1
    - werd -- nm - tRuMaN Mar 13, 14:33
i thought you said this bill was 1.5 pages. - tRuMaN Mar 13, 14:21 5
- Sorry, look at the last 1.5 pages of the bill. That's the part they are screaming about. -- nm - spamlet Mar 13, 14:22 4
  - ok, i am getting there. but this is just stupid, we are going to require proof of medical necessity in one case - tRuMaN Mar 13, 14:25 3
    - just a point of clarification, the objection is not that contraception causes sex. the objection is that they believe contraception is wrong. -- nm - loosilu Mar 13, 14:26 2
      - so if you're married and using contraception, that's wrong. It's not necessarily about unmarried sex. -- nm - loosilu Mar 13, 14:27 1
        
        your reality doesnt negate my justification for the law. -- nm - tRuMaN Mar 13, 14:30
and that is a horrible awful disgusting invasion of privacy. and crazy. and backwards. and insulting. and wtf. -- nm - Diva Mar 13, 14:20
the article says as much. They're taking it further and assuming that an employer will fire you after forcing you to disclose that info. -- nm - loosilu Mar 13, 14:19 20
- "This is a direct violation of my third amendment rights!" -- nm - Beryllium Mar 13, 14:22
- And if the employer has access to your medical information seems to me HIIPA would have something to say about that? -- nm - MojaveMeg Mar 13, 14:21 16
  - yeah,I don't get that. -- nm - loosilu Mar 13, 14:23
  - It's not your employer. It's the medical plan. - spamlet Mar 13, 14:22 14
    - which, also only covers businesses, these sections do not apply to plans sold - tRuMaN Mar 13, 14:33
    - so, actually the employer would never know? -- nm - loosilu Mar 13, 14:23 12
      - Right - which completely negates the argument being made in the article, -- nm - MojaveMeg Mar 13, 14:30
      - It says employers can opt out of coverage for contraceptives if they have religious reasons. - spamlet Mar 13, 14:24 10
        
        I'll try to c&P the actual language - spamlet Mar 13, 14:26 9
        
        there's more.. women could have to pay in advance, then submit a claim with proof of a non-pregnancy-related need; and they can be charged a fee. - b. Mar 13, 14:31 5
        
        Actually, that's pro-woman. They could just say no contraceptive medicine would be paid for no matter the reason. - spamlet Mar 13, 14:32 3
        
        it's pro some women, except for the ridiculousness of the hoop-jumping being required for women with common medical conditions. - b. Mar 13, 14:35
        
        ok, explain this - tRuMaN Mar 13, 14:34
        
        well, they are. The exception is for a noncontraceptive medicine. -- nm - loosilu Mar 13, 14:33
        
        ayup -- nm - tRuMaN Mar 13, 14:32
        
        basically, it says an employer must file an affidavid stating its objection to coverage of contraceptives for - tRuMaN Mar 13, 14:29 2
        
        Yes and that women can submit proof that the contraception medicine is for non-contraceptive purposes to still get reimbursement. -- nm - spamlet Mar 13, 14:30 1
        
        Which is the case in many instances, yes - it can help with acne and other hormone-related issues. -- nm - Beryllium Mar 13, 14:32
- Because it's right to work? - spamlet Mar 13, 14:21 1
  - right, they are just taking it further, because AZ is an at will state. it's a stretch. -- nm - loosilu Mar 13, 14:22

Post a message top

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.