Birth control law requires women to show employers medical records?

Have the Taliban infiltrated U.S. politics?

Does the bill include a clause denying coverage for vasectomies?

Sad that I guessed Arizona before clicking this thread. That state is on my do-not-visit list until they start acting sane again.

This is old news. Article is from March. I think we discussed it here back then. Wasn't there a thread? I'm too tired to do a forum search.

I can't even fathom the thinking behind this.

sassandgroove said:

I can't even fathom the thinking behind this.

Click to expand...

I can.

It's a form of thinking called "control."

Perhaps we can call it "birth control control."

How ironic that "birth control" is not allowed to be used to control births.

It's Arizona. What else can I say?

regdog said:

That has got to be challenged in court. State law cannot usurp federal.

Click to expand...

States with rightwing governors and legislatures generally seem to be deciding that the Constitution, which they invoke like they're suffering some form of Tourette's, doesn't matter when it comes to that clause. Arizona is on record already as declaring that they would enforce their offensive nativist anti-Latino law regardless of the federal jurisdiction over immigration enforcement. I don't think they've gotten very far with that little tantrum. I hope they run into the wall on this one, too, preferably head first. It might clear up their thinking.

I believe court challenges have to wait until a suitable case arises. I'm pretty certain this repulsive piece of crap will be challenged.

Monkey said:

always from Republicans, of course.

Click to expand...

Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., who faces re-election in November, sent a letter to Obama complaining that the mandate is a "direct affront to religious freedoms."​

Rep. Dan Lipinski, D-Ill., said in January that the decision "violates the long-standing tradition of protection for conscience rights in federal law."​

​

Tim Kaine, a Catholic seeking the Senate seat in Virginia, said he supports contraceptive coverage but thinks there should be a broader exemption for religious organizations.​

​

Click to expand...

Monkey said:

It's exactly the same as the challenges to the requirement that insurance cover birth control.

A certain segment of the population believes that sex outside of wedlock is wrong, dangerous and should be strongly discouraged. That segment views birth control pills suspiciously: if a woman is single and on birth control, in their opinion, it's likely because she's intent on sleeping around.

That tweaks their morals. They don't like it. And they damn sure don't want any of THEIR money going toward it, be it through taxes, an insurance program, or in some cases, payroll.

That sentiment was spelled out very clearly in Rush Limbaugh's rant against Sandra Fluke. You could hear the same sentiments, albeit in nicer language, in the religious panel convened to discuss the insurance mandate. I see the same sentiments on my facebook feed - always from Republicans, of course.

But it's that sentiment that makes certain people feel a woman's private medical decisions are very much their business and should conform to their morals.

It's still about control.

Click to expand...

Actually, I don't think sex out of wedlock is the central issue. While it is true that there is a segment that believes sex outside of wedlock is wrong, many of these same people use it themselves.

The real issues is that many people, principally Catholics, view contraception equivalent to abortion. In that sense, it's not so much a Republican vs. Democrat division as it is a division in religious beliefs.

I'm still waiting to hear a valid argument that religious employers have a responsibility to pay for someone else's birth control.

This is about control, but it's about a segment of the population feeling forced to do something they do not think is right.They're trying to get some control back, IMO. As an employer, I want to be able to choose what I pay for.

This is a way for them to fight against something that's being forced down their throats. It's a compromise. If a woman can prove she needs the pill for medical purposes, then they'll pay for it. Where's the problem.

Also, where does it say that they have to show medical records to the employer? If you have employee health benefits the insurance company looks at those records and decides what will and won't be covered. Why would this be any different?

The employer sets up the benefits systems with the insurance provider, with the stipulation that medical proof must be provided for the need of birth control, and the provider makes the decision to pay or not pay, not the employer. Currently, the employer isn't involved in these decisions, so why would they be if this bill passes?

I'm pretty sure this will fail a court challenge. The bit about using medical records to prove contraceptives are not being used for contraception was obviously added to counter the argument that contraceptives are also sometimes prescribed for other medical uses. But that will be challenged (and it will lose) on privacy issues. HIPAA if nothing else.

I don't have a problem with employers not covering birth control pills. Back in the day when I was on them, no insurance covered them. But if they are going to force women to pay for birth control, then they shouldn't cover viagra et al either. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

MM

Roger J Carlson said:

Actually, I don't think sex out of wedlock is the central issue. While it is true that there is a segment that believes sex outside of wedlock is wrong, many of these same people use it themselves.

The real issues is that many people, principally Catholics, view contraception equivalent to abortion. In that sense, it's not so much a Republican vs. Democrat division as it is a division in religious beliefs.

Click to expand...

That being the case, it should have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the law.

Gretad08 said:

I'm still waiting to hear a valid argument that religious employers have a responsibility to pay for someone else's birth control.

This is about control, but it's about a segment of the population feeling forced to do something they do not think is right.They're trying to get some control back, IMO. As an employer, I want to be able to choose what I pay for.

This is a way for them to fight against something that's being forced down their throats. It's a compromise. If a woman can prove she needs the pill for medical purposes, then they'll pay for it. Where's the problem.

Also, where does it say that they have to show medical records to the employer? If you have employee health benefits the insurance company looks at those records and decides what will and won't be covered. Why would this be any different?

The employer sets up the benefits systems with the insurance provider, with the stipulation that medical proof must be provided for the need of birth control, and the provider makes the decision to pay or not pay, not the employer. Currently, the employer isn't involved in these decisions, so why would they be if this bill passes?

Click to expand...

I'm still waiting to hear a valid argument for why religious employers should get to impose their religious beliefs on employees who are not members of their church.

I see this as just another of the many examples of the Catholic church trying to have its cake and eat it too. They want to engage in all kinds of non-religious business ventures, but at the same time claim religious exemptions so they don't have to follow the same rules as everyone else. When it comes to adoption services, they want to get public funding but not have to follow laws against discrimination. When it comes to health insurance, they want to hire like a secular business but pay out like a church.

I'm not a member of their church and I say they can shove that noise back up where it came from, and likewise for all the rightwing religious extremists trying to ride the coattails of their special pleadings. If they want to impose their religious beliefs on everyone who works for them, then let them engage only in religious business as a church, and let them employ only members of their church.

To be honest, I don't really care what they do, so long as they leave me the hell out of it. Their failure to leave the rest of us out of their internal dramas is why this is a controversy. In places where the church might be one of the biggest employers for a whole community who are not all members of said church, they should not have the right to violate other people's religious freedom by promoting their own.

muravyets said:

I'm still waiting to hear a valid argument for why religious employers should get to impose their religious beliefs on employees who are not members of their church.

I see this as just another of the many examples of the Catholic church trying to have its cake and eat it too. They want to engage in all kinds of non-religious business ventures, but at the same time claim religious exemptions so they don't have to follow the same rules as everyone else. When it comes to adoption services, they want to get public funding but not have to follow laws against discrimination. When it comes to health insurance, they want to hire like a secular business but pay out like a church.

I'm not a member of their church and I say they can shove that noise back up where it came from, and likewise for all the rightwing religious extremists trying to ride the coattails of their special pleadings. If they want to impose their religious beliefs on everyone who works for them, then let them engage only in religious business as a church, and let them employ only members of their church.

To be honest, I don't really care what they do, so long as they leave me the hell out of it. Their failure to leave the rest of us out of their internal dramas is why this is a controversy. In places where the church might be one of the biggest employers for a whole community who are not all members of said church, they should not have the right to violate other people's religious freedom by promoting their own.

Click to expand...

How is this birth control issue infringing on others' religious freedoms?

Take the religion out of it. Why should any employer have to pay for the birth control of an employee?

Gretad08 said:

How is this birth control issue infringing on others' religious freedoms?

Take the religion out of it. Why should any employer have to pay for the birth control of an employee?

Click to expand...

A couple of points:

1. Why should any employer have to pay for birth control? Well, why should any employer have to pay contributions to health insurance at all? Why should they have to pay for anything? I mean, fine, throw the entire employer-based health insurance system out the window so employers shouldn't have their widdle principles dented by what I do in my private life, ffs. Let's go for it, I have no problem with that. Personally, I don't want those venal mother-effers to have anything to do with my health care in the first place. If they could be trusted not to try to screw me over by nickels and dimes, my paycheck would be bigger anyway, so the hell with them. They can all stfu. Single-payer, NHS, that's what I want, dammit.

But until that great gettin' up day when the USofA finally wakes the eff up and grows the eff up and establishes a system of health care, we are all stuck with the situation as it is.

So you ask why should any employer have to pay for an employee's birth control. I answer with a counter-question: Why should any employer get to know what I use my health insurance for?

I mean, how many more people should be crammed in between me and my doctor? We've got the insurers, and the pharmas, and now the churches, and now you want the owner of the grocery store, too, if I happen to work in said store?

Here, I'll make life simple for Mr. Nosey-Parker Grocery Store Magnate Who Thinks He Has a Right to Know My Business: Let him increase my pay by, oh, guesstimate, 50% instead of providing health insurance, and we'll call it even. Pay me enough to afford my own self-paid insurance, and then I can do what I want and he can do what he wants, and never the twain shall meet. How's that? Nice? Done? Good, let's move on to the next point.

2. Take the religion out of it? The whole point of this is that religion is in it. There is no employer in the country who gives a flying flip about whether their female employees are getting coverage for birth control unless they have a religious objection. Take religion out of it, and the whole controversy vanishes. I'd LOVE to take religion out of it because that would mean religion is being taken out of the law, which it's not supposed to be involved with under the US Constitution.

Which leads me finally to:

3. Here is how this birth control issue is impinging other people's freedom of religion:

I am not a Catholic. I am not a fundamentalist Protestant. My spiritual/religious beliefs not only allow me to use birth control, but in some circumstances strongly encourage it as the moral choice. Now, I would never take a job with an organization owned or controlled by the Catholic church precisely because I don't want to have to live my life or any part of it in conformity with a religion I do not practice, do not believe in, and do not agree with morally.

But what if I didn't know the organization was owned by the church? The Catholic church owns or owns controlling interest in hotels, real estate companies, a host of non-religious businesses. Should they have the right to dupe me into following their rules because I didn't know they owned the company I got hired by until after the fact?

How about if they are the biggest employer in my town or community? Do they get to essentially strong-arm me into violating my own religious principles because my only alternative is crushing poverty?

The First Amendment does not protect the rights of one church over the rights of others, nor does it protect the rights of churches over the rights of atheists. My rights are equal to theirs and they do not have the right to force an entire industry as well as non-believing employees to live by their religion's rules and claim it is their freedom that counts. It does not count more than mine. That's why I say, if they want all their employees to live like Catholics, let them employ only Catholics.