talkpolitics | The Right Wing's Idea of "Freedom"

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

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

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

In Soviet Union, point misses you!

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.

Well, you can get condoms for no more than $1.33 each (http://www.myscienceproject.org/condom-prices.html). I think that's fairly reasonable pricing. And if for some reason you really have to have a pill, it looks like it's easily $15-$30 per month. I'm not seeing how it's not affordable.

(deleted comment)

So, that's using it for non-contraceptive purposes, and thus isn't part of the issue.

Read the law and don't let others lead you around by the nose.

The law states specifically-

http://e-lobbyist.com/gaits/text/521860

HOUSE BILL 2625:
1.Z- ... 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 prescription for an implant to deal with PMDD would presumably fall under that and be REQUIRED by Arizona state law currently with no waiver possible.

Condoms are not as consistently effective as The Pill.

According to stats, which I think are flawed.

I've known more than one woman who relied on condoms and ended up pregnant. Never met a woman who had a similar experience with oral contraceptives.

If we're relying on anecdotes, my wife was born while her mother was on the pill, and used a condom, and something else (I know she claims 3 types of birth control were used).

I've used condoms for 20 years and never had a pregnancy.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,366741,00.html
1-2 percent get pregnant on the pill with perfect usage.

http://goaskalice.columbia.edu/explanation-condom-failure-rates
2-3 percent get pregnant with condoms with perfect usage.

That isn't the case.

But you see, I'm not relying on anecdotes. Statistics indicate that oral contraceptives are far more reliable than condoms.

I wouldn't consider 1-2 percent failure to be "far more reliable" than 2-3 percent failure.

I'd say a 9 to 10 percent failure rate is significantly lower than a 15 to 20 percent failure rate.

(no subject)

mrbogey.livejournal.com - 2012-03-18 22:24 (UTC) - Expand

paft.livejournal.com - 2012-03-18 22:51 (UTC) - Expand

mrbogey.livejournal.com - 2012-03-18 22:52 (UTC) - Expand

gunslnger.livejournal.com - 2012-03-19 07:26 (UTC) - Expand

The difference is a few percent.

As in, up to 9-10% failure rate for oral contraceptives as opposed to an up to 15-20% failure rate in condoms. Those "few percent" are a significant difference.

You're not going to back down and concede your entire outrage is based on an incorrect understanding of the issue, are you?

You've yet to show it was.

You made the claim that women would have to tell employers their medical info and be slut shamed or fired.

Everything you said is wrong objectively.

Do I have to dog you on this?

mb: Do I have to dog you on this?

Dog as much as you want. So far I've not seen any other commentators who share your belief that the employer would not be privy to this information.

I asked you to prove your point and you absolutely have refused to.

You've done nothing more than prove your ignorance on this issue and inability to read as well as proving your stubbornness.

I'll have to dog you on your fervent belief in this urban myth. You're making birthers and truthers look smart.

In other words, you can't come up with anyone else who shares your interpretation of the bill.

Well, you're free to believe what you want.

Your argument is stupid.

Edited 2012-03-18 21:05 (UTC)

They sure weren't in the Worker's Paradise. You see only a Bourgeois Deviant spent time regularly bumping uglies. A true Communist practiced Abstinence as befitted the Wave of the Future making the New Man. The Fundie and the old-school Bolshevik have more in common than either can ever admit to the other.