Arizona Birth Control Pill Debate

Wompa1

Hey,

Wondered what people on here think of this. Now the first time I heard about it was from an Irish girl and the way she brought it up was a little misleading. She said an employer could fire women who use the pill. I didn't really go out looking to see if that was true or not. I'm currently in Arizona and a lady dj on the radio this morning brought it up.

The story is here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/14/arizona-birth-control-bill-contraception-medical-reasons_n_1344557.html

The lady DJ this morning said it was crazy and that they wouldn't ask a man what kind of surgery he got when he got a vasectomy. Which I get, it's a privacy thing. But I was thinking myself, when it's an ongoing cost as a form of contraception should an employer be responsible for that? If so, Should condoms also be covered?

Personally, unless it's shown that it's costing a huge amount of money I would cover the expenses.

Lia_lia

Pfft. Like you said, are they going to bring in a bill that asks for proof that men (or even women) buy condoms? Of course not! This is ridiculous.


But on the other hand I'm sure there are many insurance plans around the world that don't include the pill for preventing pregnancy. It's not exactly vital. And it only costs about a tenner a month.

28064212

Lia_lia wrote: »

Pfft. Like you said, are they going to bring in a bill that asks for proof that men (or even women) buy condoms? Of course not! This is ridiculous.

I doubt condoms are covered on many insurance plans. I would be curious about whether vasectomies are covered

Ickle Magoo

I don't know anything about how american health insurance works beyond it covers "medical issues" - if they only cover medical issues then surely vasectomy, tubal ligation, religious circumcision, etc, etc wouldn't be covered...hell, pregnancy isn't a medical issue in itself and is also (usually) a choice but I'd assume that's covered...presume it's more to do with cost than consistency.

Morag

American health cover, covers all trips to the dr and all prescriptions and all hospital visits.

Most drs who work under such schemes won't take cash for an off the scheme visit and if you try and see another dr for a different issue then it can mess up your cover due to the sub clauses in it.

IF you take the pill and it is not covered by your health insurance policy that can be used to render you policy null and void and they can then refuse to pay out.

Most policies in the USA are not just for single employees but for families so can not just render your own policy invalid but that of your parent or that of your spouse/children.

IF you do render it null and void then you have to go and get another scheme rather then your employers, some employers have it in the employment contract that if you violate the health care scheme paid for by the company they can sack you.

It can take some time to get a new one, even more so if you have to pay it all yourself and in the mean time if anything happens then it's considered a pre existing condition and you are not covered for it.

This is a huge issue for women in the usa.

Currently it would be like saying if you have health insurance here which allows you to claim back part of the gp visit fee that those visits for contraception would not be covered and getting any non approved medications would invalidate it as well.

America's health care system is privatised, if you don't have insurance/cover then the medical fees can bankrupt a person/family. The ability to refuse to cover contraception will mean women will have to try and obtain it covertly and hope they are not found out.

Malari

Sharrow wrote: »

IF you take the pill and it is not covered by your health insurance policy that can be used to render you policy null and void and they can then refuse to pay out.

I didn't realise the extent of the seriousness of it until now! I thought it was just that it wasn't covered but it wasn't an issue to just pay yourself. That's absolutely crazy!

Morag

http://jezebel.com/5893011/law-will-allow-employers-to-fire-women-for-using-whore-pills

Law Will Allow Employers to Fire Women for Using Whore Pills

A proposed new law in Arizona would give employers the power to request that women being prescribed birth control pills provide proof that they're using it for non-sexual reasons. And because Arizona's an at-will employment state, that means that bosses critical of their female employees' sex lives could fire them as a result. If we could harness the power of the crappy ideas coming out of the state of Arizona, we could probably power a rocket ship to the moon, where there are no Mexicans or fertile wombs and everyone can be free to be as mean a cranky asshole as they want at all times! Arizona Heaven!

Yesterday, a Senate Judiciary Committee endorsed Republican Debbie Lesko's HB2625 by a vote of 6-2, which would allow an employer to request proof that a woman using insurance to buy birth control was being prescribed the birth control for reasons other than not wanting to get pregnant. It's all about freedom, she said, echoing everyone who thinks there's nothing ironic about claiming that a country that's "free" allows people's bosses to dictate what medical care is available to them through insurance. First amendment. The constitution. Rights of religious people to practice the treasured tenets of their faiths, the tenets that dictate that religious people get to tell everyone who is not of faith how they're supposed to live, and the freedom to have that faith enforced by law. Freedom®.

Further, Lesko states, with a straight face, that this bill is necessary because "we live in America; we don't live in the Soviet Union."

Ah, yes, the Soviet Union. The sort of place where a woman might think about getting birth control through an insurance plan to which she contributes premiums without having to show her boss her prescription in order to prove that she wasn't using it to not get pregnant. The Soviet Union. A hellscape where women don't run the risk of losing their jobs over their sexual practices. What a horrible, awful place where herds of sluts run wild like feral ponies, humping everything in sight. The nightmare of unwilling motherhood evaded is a constant spectre in The Motherland.

Anyway, this bill probably won't get anywhere; it violates all sorts of privacy laws and I can't imagine that female citizens of Arizona would be in favor of having their rights further legislated away by a chamber of mostly dudes trying to win votes from Team Jerk Version of Jesus. But that doesn't make it any less depressing. In fact, it's almost depressing enough to make a lady consider building a time machine so that she can take it back to 1985 and find some job security in the Soviet Union.

Land of the free as long as you conform to a narrow Christian moral view.
And it is not just the southern states in america.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/13/1054561/-Arrested-for-Carrying-Condoms-

Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 05:17 PM PST
Arrested for Carrying Condoms?

There is a disturbing trend happening across the country,and we can now add one more casualty to the list of Things-That-Shouldn’t-Be-Illegal-But-Are: condoms. Though condoms themselves are not illegal,in many cities they can be used as the basis for police harassment and arrest or as evidence of prostitution in court. In New York City, Washington DC and San Francisco, police are using the number of condoms women are carrying to justify profiling them as prostitutes, and even to bolster an arrest on charges of sexual solicitation.

Megan McLemore, Senior Researcher with Human Rights Watch, became interested in the issue while on outreach with the North Carolina Harm Reduction Coalition (NCHRC) in East Durham, North Carolina last spring. Megan has been working on issues related to HIV and human rights in the South for the last two years. Part of her research has focused on harm reduction, pushing to expand access to syringe exchange, medication-assisted treatment (methadone and buprenorphine) and other responses to drug use that are based in public health rather than the criminal law. While visiting with the North Carolina Harm Reduction Coalition, Megan accompanied the outreach workers as they distributed supplies in East Durham and was shocked when a Durham sex worker refused the offer of free condoms over fears of harassment or arrest from local police. Megan began investigating the practice and found the criminalization of condoms to be prevalent in many U.S. cities. She plans to complete a full investigative report for Human Rights Watch by next summer.To date, Megan hasn’t discovered any condom arrests in North Carolina, through there is ample evidence to prove that sex workers think they can get arrested for carrying rubbers, and the perception is just as harmful as the real thing.

The public health consequences of condom criminalization, or even the fear of it, are severe. Taking away condoms won’t put sex workers out of business, but it will put them, their clients and the community at large at greater risk of HIV and STD transmission.

“It’s a public health imperative that sex workers and their clients have access to condoms,” says Megan McLemore.She’s not alone. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) and other public health organizations have also denounced the practice as contributing to the spread of disease.

But, as Megan explains, her research is not all about condoms. “Thisreport will go beyond public health. It’s part of a growing advocacy movement among sex workers to stand up for their human rights. Other people don’t get arrested for protecting their health.”

The Human Rights Watch report on condom criminalization is set to be published in the summer of 2012. Until then, Megan will continue to contact and interview individuals and organizations who have seen or experienced police harassment or arrest for condom possession.

Malari

I can't imagine that the men in Arizona who are in relationships with women who use the pill would be welcoming this law either. It puts a lot more cost and risk of birth control with them, not to mention the hazard of joint health insurance policies being negated.

Morag

Malari wrote: »

I can't imagine that the men in Arizona who are in relationships with women who use the pill would be welcoming this law either. It puts a lot more cost and risk of birth control with them, not to mention the hazard of joint health insurance policies being negated.

You'd think that it would be a big issue for men as well, but it is unfortunately being pushed by men and most men seem to see this as a 'women's issue' when you are right it effects the wifes, mothers, sisters and daughters of men and so should be an issue they are aware of, interested in and lobbying against.

eviltwin

As bad as this country is when I hear stories like this I am so glad I live in Ireland and not the USA :eek:

Jack B. Badd

eviltwin wrote: »

As bad as this country is when I hear stories like this I am so glad I live in Ireland and not the USA :eek:

I'm of the opinion that I'll never move to The States. Given the rubbish that is appearing as a result of the looming election, I'm starting to believe that I'll never want to visit there again either. It's scary stuff!

Ilyana

:eek:

Can you imagine being hauled into HR and being asked why you need to be on the pill?! That's not something that ought to be divulged to your employer in the first place, especially seeing as it's hardly expensive. That's a huge invasion of privacy, and hopefully it will be addressed before more states start introducing such measures.

Wompa1

Jack B. Badd wrote: »

I'm of the opinion that I'll never move to The States. Given the rubbish that is appearing as a result of the looming election, I'm starting to believe that I'll never want to visit there again either. It's scary stuff!

Hold your horses guys it wasn't a law that was passed. It was just proposed, it's also been taken off the agenda to be reworked due to the backlash. Also remember Ireland passed a law making blasphemy illegal and the Irish version of SOPA was not going to go through any democratic processes....

I thought it was pretty strange myself. I just moved to Arizona from Ireland, I'll reserve my judgement for now, on radio here it seems like the residents of Arizona are against it. I would assume companies are pushing for this because from what I understand in America you get a yearly deductable which you can set, you can then claim that on your medication for the year. So if you spend 1,000 on medicine 1 year, you can set that as your deductable for the following year and as long as you've got the receipts you are free to claim that. Something that's even more bizzare to me is if you lose your job and have to stop paying 3 or 4 months into the year and have spent your 1,000 on meds you can still claim it. I like it but you'd imagine with the way the economy is it could be pretty costly if people aren't covering what they are using as a deductable.

I paid for my own insurance back home, had the second highest coverage I could get. Went to physio, accupuncture, got 200 euro injections and had lots of doctor and hospital visits last year, had the coverage for 4 years and it was not a pre-existing condition. Cost me around 1500 euro cash for all the visits, my insurance cost 80 euro a month, I was expecting to get most of my bills back considering the coverage I paid for, I got 114 euro back with no explanation. I'll have to try and find some time to get an explanation..but am pretty pissed off. The care I received sucked from both my GP and my consultant (Physio and Accupuncture ladies were very nice and tried to help, they didn't cost me that much either and but I had looked up and saw that I should have at least got 190 for those visits back alone)

My insurance here is working out as about 200 euro more for the year with better coverage. Dental, Eyes, Life Assurance and medical (with a 1k deductable). I'll see what it's like if I ever have to claim I guess. But 200 more for all the extras seems fair.

Think some of yee might be jumping to conclusions. It doesn't seem all that bad here. People didn't agree with the proposed legislation and it's being taken back to the chopping block

Wompa1

EmilyO wrote: »

:eek:

Can you imagine being hauled into HR and being asked why you need to be on the pill?! That's not something that ought to be divulged to your employer in the first place, especially seeing as it's hardly expensive. That's a huge invasion of privacy, and hopefully it will be addressed before more states start introducing such measures.

It wasn't even passed in Arizona. Advanced doesn't mean passed. It was basically just proposed and got shot down.

Malari

The fact that it got this far is terrifying. The fact that it was even seriously proposed is shocking.

Edit: And I think it's a lot more serious than the blasphemy law, which is ridiculous, but basically a technicality to avoid a referendum and I don't think that will last forever. SOPA is also ridiculous but again I just don't think it's comparable to the effect the proposal in Arizona would have on women.

Jack B. Badd

Wompa1 wrote: »

Hold your horses guys it wasn't a law that was passed. It was just proposed, it's also been taken off the agenda to be reworked due to the backlash. Also remember Ireland passed a law making blasphemy illegal and the Irish version of SOPA was not going to go through any democratic processes....

I know it hasn't been passed but it's not the only bonkers proposition to be seriously propsed in the past year or more & there are a worrying number that seek to remove women's reproductive rights.

There are Irish & UK laws that I don't like either but I've always felt that we were moving generally in the right direction. I don't feel that The States is tbh & while it talks a good talk about personal freedoms, for a "first world country" it has a bad attitude towards progress in that area imo. Why should I support a country like that with my tourist dollars when I'm one of the people whose rights would be impacted if I were a citizen?