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

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Z. Notwithstanding subsection y of this section, a contract does not fail to meet the requirements of subsection Y of this section if the contract's failure to provide coverage of specific items or services required under subsection Y of this section is because providing or paying for coverage of the specific items or services is contrary to the religious beliefs of the employer, sponsor, issuer, corporation or other entity offering the plan or is because the coverage is contrary to the religious beliefs of the purchaser or beneficiary of the coverage.� If an objection triggers this subsection, a written affidavit shall be filed with the corporation stating the objection.� The corporation shall retain the affidavit for the duration of the contract and any renewals of the contract. This subsection shall not exclude coverage for prescription contraceptive methods ordered by a health care provider WITH prescriptive authority for medical indications other than for contraceptive, abortifacient, abortion or sterilization purposes.� A corporation, employer, sponsor, issuer or other entity offering the plan may state religious beliefs or moral convictions in its affidavit that require the subscriber to first pay for the prescription and then submit a claim to the corporation along with evidence that the prescription is not in whole or in part for a purpose covered by the objection.� A corporation may charge an administrative fee for handling these claims.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

I don't see how this does what Bogey says it does.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

The employer (in the fantasy world where employers actually care about this) ostensibly files with the insurance company that they won't pay for birth control if it is used as birth control. Whore Lady who wants use birth control as birth control has to file with the insurance company that she is using it for acne problems, and provide evidence from her doctor that she's not just being a Whore Lady. Both sides of this interpretation have some disingenuity involved. The employer is going to know who/what they're objecting to, and the employee is going to know they're being whore-blocked by the employer, and the employer WILL know who it is, since HIPAA is a joke.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

Why would the insurer pass along that info to the employer?

From what I know of insurance claims the employer doesn't get anything medically detailed.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Why would the insurer pass along that info to the employer?
There doesn't have to be any passing along of information. There just has to be someone who wants birth control. And workplaces being what they are, how soon do you think you can narrow down the pool of who is trying to get birth control?

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

But why would the insurer tell the employer that they're filing claims for birth control?

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Because people get annual reports on health care costs and where they come from. You don't think benefits doesn't comb through this stuff?

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

Costs. Not denials.

What does it matter if the employers knows you're getting a prescription medication? It doesn't know what you're getting and why. The plan provider is the only one who knows. I see no reason to believe they're going to gossip.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

I'm not saying it matters or doesn't matter. I'm saying it's a fantasy that employers don't know anything about who has cancer or who missed work, or who called in or who needs Thursday to take care of X.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

Then this law really wouldn't affect anything because even if they did cover it you'd still have the same connections. And if it didn't cover birth control at all then you'd be ever better off as far as privacy.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

I'm not talking about privacy as the end here.