The Right Wing's Idea of "Freedom"

[paft.livejournal.com]

From Statepress:

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.’

Jezebel points out that Arizona is an “at will” state. This means that bosses in Arizona will be able to fire women for being depraved enough to take birth control pills to prevent pregnancy.

As we all know, what made the Soviet Union infamous were not the gulags, its treatment of dissidents, and the rigid control over the press, but the fact that women could take pills for the purpose of contraception without fear of losing their jobs over it.

Yes, here it is -- the right wing's idea of "freedom" is a society where a woman has to ask her boss' permission to use oral contraceptives.

Does anyone else find this more than a little weird?

Crossposted from Thoughtcrimes

Comments

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Well, it seems obvious that the GOP won't be deterred from their whole "Let's tell Wimmin what to do" strategy that is working so well in other places.

NO WHORE PILLS FOR YOU!

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

This is definitely edging past the limits of the "free exercise" argument (as flawed as that is) and going directly to punishing people for taking birth control for contraception.

I'll be honest, I had no idea that there were this many people who had any opinion at all about contraception. Who elects these people>

[paft.livejournal.com]

anm: This is definitely edging past the limits of the "free exercise" argument (as flawed as that is) and going directly to punishing people for taking birth control for contraception.

It reveals exactly what is truly driving all that "free exercise" bullsh*t from the right.

But then, anyone actually familiar with the right already knew this.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

The nature of reactionary politics is such that positions get more extreme, which is why fundamentalism has never been a traditional value. When you're in a contest to "not be liberal", things get weird.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

It's more than a little weird, and it's not going to go anywhere.

[paft.livejournal.com]

bdj: it's not going to go anywhere.

Why not?

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

http://e-lobbyist.com/gaits/text/596074

Provision is right there.

Paft got her whole complaint wrong.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

It must be weird being an employer and having these helpful legislators do things you never asked.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

I don't know about weird, but certainly annoying.

[its-anya.livejournal.com]

I'm not surprised that the balance of power is so much in favour of employers with regards to this legislation, but what does surprise me is that there is no powerful Labour movement to counter it. :/

[paft.livejournal.com]

Americans workers are simply going to have to wake up. It's becoming a matter of basic survival.

[vehemencet-t.livejournal.com]

I just don't understand why the employer would have any knowledge or involvement in the woman's use of contraceptives, and hence any say in the matter. Does she have to go through it to get them? How would they even know?

[paft.livejournal.com]

The rationale is apparently that since the employer is providing the health insurance, the employer should be privy to that knowledge.

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

It's... it's like they want to lose elections. It's like watching a train wreck.

This is almost as loony as that law that banned foods that contained human fetuses.

[paft.livejournal.com]

s: It's... it's like they want to lose elections.

No, it's a longer range plan than that. What's happening is that the right is succeeding in returning to the mainstream ideas that most of the civilized western world rejected years ago. They'll likely lose this election, but four years from now the chances are that the dialogue will have been moved even further to the right.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

I'll post a quote I read on the SA forums.

"I believe that in a society with things such as free universal health care and guaranteed retirement income, humans will be much more free to make 'rational' decisions. Finances and health, in my opinion, are two of the greatest emotional factors at play in human decision making. It seems natural in my mind that philosophies which rely on rational action would desire to eliminate the sources of emotional stress in human action. " - archangelwar

Shaming women for being responsible seems like it would impede their decision-making and make them far less likely to make rational decisions.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

http://e-lobbyist.com/gaits/text/596074

Youve conveniently misinterpreted the provisions. Nothing in there mandates they give their medical records to the employer. The "corporation" in the text is the insurer, not the employer.

Here's a tip, if it's reported on Kos, treat it like a wiki article and do the basic research yourself first.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Laws are really the worst-written things in existence, aren't they?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Meanwhile the real USSR outlawed abortion as a capitalist deviancy and made homosexuality a capital crime. By Fundamentalist Christian standards, the USSR was actually their ideal of moral and god-fearing in practice. It even banned idiotic damn fool critiques and free speech that slammed its military and government. Yea, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was the very beau ideal of the modern-day US reactionary.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

Well shoot if that was the worst the Soviets had to offer why did everyone much such a freaking big deal over it.
And when I mean big deal I mean threaten to blow the planet up throughout much of the 20th century of course...

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

But only having the capability to do it in the last stretch of the Cold War, the one where they were in the process of winning the whole thing. Fortunately for the USA its system was incapable of taking the shock of centralized planning of a modern technologically advanced economy *and* building an enormous, technologically complex military-industrial complex, or otherwise the 21st Century would be the Soviet century. And unlike the USA the USSR was actually building the capability to fight and win a general nuclear exchange and believed it was actually feasible to do this.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

Women couldn't take pills for the purposes of contraception in the Soviet Union. Not only was it considered reactionary and decadent (like homosexuality) it was also almost impossible to obtain.

So, yeah, their position on abortion and contraception was actually the worst thing about the Soviet Union. The absolute worst thing.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Closed societies have to have babies.

[korean-guy-01.livejournal.com]

So wait, women will not be free to buy birth control with their own money?

In Soviet Union, point misses you!

[paft.livejournal.com]

k: So wait, women will not be free to buy birth control with their own money?

Many women cannot afford to pay the full price for oral contraceptives out of their own pocket.

K: In Soviet Union, point misses you!

According to one other poster here, the proposed law makes us more - not less -- like the Soviet Union when it comes to the availability of oral contraception.

[kardashev.livejournal.com]

"Does anyone else find this more than a little weird?"

Not weird at all. Seriously, what did you expect from the GOP? "Hypocritical" is the word I'd have chosen.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

Don't worry. I got this covered. Paft is wrong.

http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1381463.html?thread=110017623#t110017623

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

'In USA providing health insurance through employment entitles them to know your medical history ?? Seriously ?? '

Nope. Paft got it wrong. I cited the law and it doesn't say what she says it says. Others in the thread have tried to carry on the argument but so far it's more stubbornness than actual coherency.


I pasted a link to the actual law up thread along with a break-down. The law currently requires insurers to cover contraceptives but an employer can file an affidavit with an insurer that they have moral objections to contraception usage and the insurer must offer them plans that don't cover contraceptives except for other medical reasons. Under this bill, the state would require the affidavit still but insurers would offer the same policies with the insurer being able to deny claims for contraceptives, abortificants, and sterilizers.

This is more of a procedural change in the law but I'm guessing certain groups are stretching their "outrage legs" right now and aiming for the stars.

[dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com]

Yes, here it is -- the right wing's idea of "freedom" is a society where a woman has to ask her boss' permission to use oral contraceptives. -- Could you point out where that's mentioned in the article, that a woman has to ask her employer for permission before using oral contraceptives?

What the article is talking about is legislation that would allow an employer in charge of a private business to determine whether or not oral contraceptives for reproductive purposes would be covered by their company insurance policy. If the company insurance policy doesn't cover oral contraception except for non-reproductive purposes, female employees can still obtain it even if they're low income (Title X) and can still use it.

Also (and I'm not sure if this has changed since Obamacare -- maybe someone can verify for me), but no one is ever forced to get health care through their employer. I'm sure if a woman is dissatisfied with the insurance plans offered by her employer, she can opt-out and purchase insurance or even just a prescription plan on her own.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

Also (and I'm not sure if this has changed since Obamacare -- maybe someone can verify for me), but no one is ever forced to get health care through their employer. I'm sure if a woman is dissatisfied with the insurance plans offered by her employer, she can opt-out and purchase insurance or even just a prescription plan on her own.

This is in the same vein as saying that the US already has free healthcare, just go to the ER.

It's the truth by the rules, and utterly false in any reasonable scenario. The last time I tried to get private insurance, they wanted me to pay premiums ten times what I was paying my employer, and they wanted to exclude the conditions I needed the insurance for. Including prescriptions.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

Check out my post above. The reported facts are completely wrong.

Employers won't be slut shaming anyone. Paft is wrong objectively but refusing to withdraw her slur.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

The next thing will be proof of marriage before renting a room together.

This confirms an observation I made a while ago about conservatives: they are not truly conservative because the only object they seek to conserve is despotism.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

The GOP is threatening the renewal against the "Violence Against Women Act" because it now offers protection for same-sex couples, native americans, and illegal immigrants. AHAHAHAHAHAHAH 100% woman vote for Obama, let's do this