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]

I honestly have no clue where you're getting anything from.

I'm reading plain English from the bill and from sites that sum it up and agree with me and you're... just making claims.

The current bill doesn't change much as they still had religious exemptions in the past.

'So it's a "mandate" in the sense that its mandatory, except if you don't want to. '

And for that to kick in you needed to file the objection. Otherwise, it's still an existing mandate.


You're claiming it wasn't a mandate yet here's a site saying it was a mandate since 2002 and I cited language in the bill that supports the assertion that it's a mandate. But you're saying there's no mandate because??

If you're just fucking with me, let me know so I can just go do something else.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

And for that to kick in you needed to file the objection. Otherwise, it's still an existing mandate.
No, it's a regulatory rule, which stipulates that "health insurance" (kind of like "motor vehicles") is subject to the oversight and regulatory provisions of the FDA, (or in the page you linked to, as a result of a regulatory finding or act of an Attorney General).

If you are going to provide "health insurance", you have to abide by what the FDA considers "health insurance", sort of like if you're going to build cars, you're going to build cars according to regulations and oversights are extant to the industry.

You're claiming it wasn't a mandate yet here's a site saying it was a mandate since 2002 and I cited language in the bill that supports the assertion that it's a mandate. But you're saying there's no mandate because??
Think of it like this: If you provide prescription drug coverage, you can't deny covering Aderall because you think kids are over-medicated. You also don't get to choose one drug that gets covered because you're invested in that drug. You don't get to cover only prescription X because you don't think it works. Those decisions are the FDA and only the FDA.

If you call an opt-out policy a mandate, then you're the one fucking with me. And if you want me to think that state GOPs are legislating health-care "mandates" when state GOPs hate health-care mandates, well then, I just ain't that stupid.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

'If you are going to provide "health insurance", you have to abide by what the FDA considers "health insurance", sort of like if you're going to build cars, you're going to build cars according to regulations and oversights are extant to the industry.'

The page specifically states that contraceptive coverage isn't mandated in every state. Arizona is one of 26 states that specify that drug coverage has to include birth control.

'If you call an opt-out policy a mandate, then you're the one fucking with me.'

Opt-out policies can still exist within mandates. Selective service is a mandatory program yet there's still provisions for people to opt out.

'And if you want me to think that state GOPs are legislating health-care "mandates" when state GOPs hate health-care mandates, well then, I just ain't that stupid'

Arizona is not a single party state where everyone has to vote Republicans. Why you're arguing as if the GOP crafted all the legislation is puzzling... well not really. I think I understand your angle.

I don't think you're actually reading anything I link to you and instead you're bouncing around your arguments in an attempt to be clever and make a statement about what you perceive to be stubbornness on the part of others.

Because really, I can't understand what other angle you could be working when you're so clearly wrong in your statements and yet so clearly not giving any ground.

You're wasting my time and arguing just to argue. Every point I've made is clear and properly backed. There's no further need to engage you until you get an argument.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Nuh-uh, my arguments are properly backed up. And yours aren't. So there.