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

[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?

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

The law is pretty clearly written. Employers file with the insurance corp and the insurer accepts and denies claims like always.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

You summed up the relevant portion in one sentence, but looking at that thing it's like a report on the Iraq War.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

if it's what's linked above, it doesn't seem all that clear cut to me.

http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1381463.html?thread=110027607#t110027607

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

They aren't written so that we can understand them.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Why do I keep going with the media on this when I should know better?

Thanks for doing the legwork.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

I don't consider the cited blogs as media.

They're more accurately referred to as spin control.

[existentme.livejournal.com]

Lol, oh my goodness, I'm liking that last line a lot.

[paft.livejournal.com]

How does that link indicate I've misinterpreted the provisions?

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

Because nothing in there allows for employes to ask for medical records.

How about this. Since you're claiming it's in there, how about you cite it.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Meus deconstructed your objection already. (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1381463.html?thread=110019671#t110019671)

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

Not really.

But we're talking about it right now.

Nothing in the act says employers can ask employees why they require contraceptives or for their medical records.

It says quite clearly that employers can file exemption claims for birth control coverage for pregnancy prevention, abortions, or sterilizations. Nothing in that would require the insurer to pass along any claims information to the employer.

To say it does is is apparently a new form of "faith based" governance where we can't actually trust the text of laws and we have to believe that other things will happen that have no basis in law.

It doesn't say in the PATRIOT Act that we can kill Muslims, puppies and gays either but we all know how things turn out. So clearly the PATRIOT Act and all those who support it (like Obama) support the killing of gays, Muslims, and puppies.