It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.”
Arizona, like nearly half the rest of the country, is an at-will employment state. “At will” simply means that an employee can be fired without cause. Not only would the bill grant employers the right to pry into a woman’s (and only a woman’s) medical history, it would give them opportunity to fire women for simply having a sex life.
If an employer is going to offer you a company car as a benefit, she doesn’t get to decide what the safety specs are for that car. That’s between the government and the car manufacturer on behalf of the consumer. By the same token, if an employer is going to offer you health insurance at all, that insurance has to meet the minimum standards. When the Affordable Care Act goes into full effect, employers with at least 50 employees will have a choice. They can either offer qualified health insurance or they can pay a tax of $2000 per employee. If a large religious institution doesn’t want to offer health insurance to its workers, for whatever reason, it can simply pay up. Religious liberty does not require the government to give religious institutions a pass on offering substandard insurance.
EMPLOYER: Um, Lisa, I see here that you have a prescription for a birth control pill.
EMPLOYER: That’s right, a birth control pill. Why are you on birth control pills?
LISA: Excuse me?
EMPLOYER: Why are you on birth control?
LISA: I’m sorry, sir, but that’s personal.
EMPLOYER: No, it’s not. I believe that birth control is a sin and I’ll need to see proof that you aren’t using it so you can have unlimited sex. LISA: What?????
EMPLOYER: Lisa, you seem rather tongue tied on the subject. Should I take that to mean that you, an unmarried woman, are using birth control only for sex?
LISA (red-faced and nearly in tears): But…I get really bad cramps. That’s why the doctor gave them to me. Plus, I don’t want to get pregnant.
EMPLOYER: So you’re admitting you have sex.
LISA: No…no. I’m not admitting anything. Isn’t that my business?
EMPLOYER: No. I need to know that I am not paying for sin. I need proof that you are using birth control for non-sexual purposes. Take the rest of the day off and go to your doctor. You can come back when you have a note from him saying that the pills aren’t for sex.
LISA: But it comes out of my insurance. I pay for that out of every paycheck.
EMPLOYER: You only pay for half the insurance. I pay for the other half. I need to make sure that you aren’t violating my First Amendment rights.
*Shaking and in tears, Lisa leaves for her doctor. The doctor, also a Catholic, (the largest religious bloc) refuses to write the note. Lisa is never allowed to return to work.
Originally posted by PvtHudson
I'm sorry, but you're just helping the MSM/Democrat party propaganda campaign to distract from the bad economy with this fictional "war on women". This would NEVER, EVER, happen. It's all meant to get emotional people to ignore the bad economy, high unemployment and high gas prices and instead focus on a non-existent boogyman.
Originally posted by PhantomLimb
You're nuts if you really think Republicans aren't trying to set women's rights back 100 years!
Plot summary In the near future war rages across the fictional Republic of Gilead and pollution has rendered 99% of the female population sterile. Kate (Offred in the novel) is captured after seeing her husband killed and daughter kidnapped while the family tried to escape into Canada. Kate is trained to become a Handmaid, a concubine for one of the privileged but barren couples who rule the country's religious fundamentalist regime. Although she resists being indoctrinated into the bizarre cult of the Handmaids, mixing the Old Testament orthodoxy and misogyny with 12-step gospel and ritualized violence, Kate is soon assigned to the home of the Commander and his cold, inflexible wife
Originally posted by Starwise
Arizona House Bill 2625,
Originally posted by FlyersFan
Originally posted by Starwise
Arizona House Bill 2625,
Looks like your sources are BS.
Perhaps that it came from a site called 'DemocraticDiva' would have been a hint.
Text of Arizona House Bill 2625
It's all about domestic relations and disposition of property in divorce.
And it was introduced by Representatives Lesko: Barton, Kavanagh, Olson, Pierce, Pratt, Proud
edit on 3/14/2012 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)
ell Politicians: Don't Play Politics With Women's Health Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Arizona's HB 2625 is a radical proposal that would allow employers to claim they have the right to fire employees for using birth control. The bill would also allow employers to refuse to provide insurance coverage for contraception. This proposal, and ones we've seen like it in Congress, are part of a widespread attempt to prevent access to contraception and limit women's health care. We can't let extremists get away with this kind of attack. Join us in telling the Arizona Senate to kill this bill so we can make politicians all across the country take note — we won't stand silently by and watch extremists use religion to discriminate and deny millions of women urgently needed access to birth control. We will stand up for women's health care.
Bill allowing employers to refuse contraception coverage passes AZ House by Taylor Summers/KTAR (March 13th, 2012 @ 3:16pm) Policy >> Talk About It PHOENIX -- The same fight that took ahold of the U.S. Congress is now raging on at the Arizona Legislature. However, the difference is this one looks like it'll end with a different result. Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-Glendale) is pushing House bill 2625, which would allow employers to opt out of covering contraception in their company's health insurance plans if they are morally or ethically opposed to the use of birth control for whatever reason. The bill is patterned after the Blunt Amendment that failed to pass through the U.S. Congress earlier this year. The amendment and HB 2625 both fight the Federal Government mandate for businesses, regardless of their religious affiliation, to provide women with the option to get contraception in health insurance coverage plans. "We live in America. We don't live in the Soviet Union," Lesko said. "The government shouldn't be telling mom-and- pop employers and religious organizations to do something that's against the moral or religious beliefs. It's just not right." However, the bill is drawing fire from several groups, including the ACLU. Women's privacy issues aside, the ACLU is concerned that the bill could hurt religious liberty instead of defending it. "This bill goes well beyond defending religious rights," Anjali Abraham, policy director for the Arizona ACLU, said. "It's not defending rights to religious liberty. It allows employers to prioritize their own rights over the beliefs and the needs of their employees."