Arizona wades into contraception controversy

[RBP]

(CNN) -- Women in Arizona may be forced to share certain private medical conditions with their employers if they want their contraception to be covered by health insurance, a bill proposes.

The Arizona Senate is considering a bill that would give all businesses the option to exclude contraceptives from health insurance coverage. The only exception is if a woman can prove she is taking the contraceptives for other medical reasons.

Supporters say such a law would protect the religious beliefs of employers, while critics assert the tradeoff would be an affront to the liberties of employees.

The Arizona debate comes on the heels of a federal controversy over the same issue.

The U.S. Senate this month voted to kill a proposal pushed by Republicans that would have allowed employers to opt out of providing health care coverage they disagree with on moral grounds.

The Arizona legislation, House Bill 2625 (PDF), was passed by the state House this month and now sits before the Senate.

"I personally don't have a moral objection to contraceptives, but I respect the people that do," state Rep. Debbie Lesko, one of the Republican sponsors of the bill, told CNN affiliate KTVK-TV in Phoenix.

"House Bill 2625 allows Arizona employers to opt out of the contraceptive mandate if they have a religious or moral objection," she told KTVK.

Denying women coverage for contraceptives would restrict women's access to basic health care, said the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona.

"As strongly as the ACLU has protected people's rights to their religious beliefs, express those beliefs and practice those beliefs, we feel the bill goes beyond guaranteeing protections for religious liberties and into allowing an employer to prioritize his religious beliefs over the beliefs, needs, interests of his employees, particularly his female employees," Anjali Abraham, public policy director for the ACLU of Arizona, told KTVK.

Arizona already has a law on the books that allows religious employers to deny such coverage, but the current bill would modify the law to allow any business to make the same exclusion.

"We live in America and government shouldn't force mom-and-pop employers to do something against their moral beliefs," Lesko told the CNN affiliate.

The bill has some exceptions that its supporters said should allay critics' fears.

For instance, coverage for contraception cannot be denied if it is prescribed for medical reasons other than pregnancy prevention.

But the ACLU and others said that this exception amounts to an invasion of privacy that will force women to share sensitive medical information with their employers.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/15/politics/arizona-contraception-controversy/index.html

[RBP]

The ACLU is dead wrong with the claim about requiring women to provide medical information to employers. It would be administered by the insurance company or third party administrator the same as any other health information. That's just a bad inflammatory argument.

[PorkChopSandwiches]

I dont see why it cant be covered like every other prescription.

[Arkady Renko]

even so, it's still pretty crass that women should have to justify their taking the pill to someone else than their gynaecologist. Anyway, the reasoning behind the proposed law is bullshit. They're pandering to the lunatic fringe and indirectly intrude on the privacy of the majority. What's next? Are they going to refuse coverage for insulin made from porcine cell cultures because that might offend muslims and jews?

[PorkChopSandwiches]

even so, it's still pretty crass that women should have to justify their taking the pill to someone else than their gynaecologist.

I agree, if you have insurance, then you should be able to get the pill and have it be covered like anything else. I like how the church isnt complaining about all the drugs that are being pushed. :roll:

[Arkady Renko]

I dont see why it cant be covered like every other prescription.

the excuse is that contraceptives usually arent taken to cure or prevent a disease but rather to avoid a natural state of the woman's body...:fryingpan:

[Arkady Renko]

besides, making the pill less accessible will only lead to two things: more abortions and more people having kids who really shouldn't have any.

[PorkChopSandwiches]

besides, making the pill less accessible will only lead to two things: more abortions and more people having kids who really shouldn't have any.

I know, its so fucking stupid :roll:

[RBP]

even so, it's still pretty crass that women should have to justify their taking the pill to someone else than their gynaecologist. Anyway, the reasoning behind the proposed law is bullshit. They're pandering to the lunatic fringe and indirectly intrude on the privacy of the majority. What's next? Are they going to refuse coverage for insulin made from porcine cell cultures because that might offend muslims and jews?

It's the privacy argument I have a problem with. Why do you say it will "indirectly intrude on the privacy of the majority?"

[Arkady Renko]

It's the privacy argument I have a problem with. Why do you say it will "indirectly intrude on the privacy of the majority?"

because they're made to discuss their family planning with people who have no business knowing about it on the one had, and if they'll honestly say that they want a scrip for a contraceptive for purposes of...contraception, they won't have it covered anymore.

Religion has got no business in this kind of thing. it's a bottomless pit, too. think of people like Jehova's witnesses. They claim blood transfusions and transplants are against god's will. Should these also be excluded from coveage so as not to offend the Witnesses? where does it end?

[Acid Trip]

You guys act like birth control is super expensive and we're fucking women over if their employer doesn't elect to cover contraception. If a woman needs it (to regulate periods or whatnot) then by all means cover it. If it's purely so a woman can go around fucking guys without condoms she should pay for it herself.

Here are the prices for two of the most popular birth control pills. They come out to less than a $1 a day.

Ortho Tri-cyclen 21 (3 month supply)
63 tabs - USD $69 CAD $81 | GBP £35 | EUR €52

Yasmin 21 (3 month supply)
63 tabs (21x3) - USD $65 CAD $76 | GBP £33 | EUR €49

Edit: Pricing shown is without any insurance coverage.

[RBP]

because they're made to discuss their family planning with people who have no business knowing about it on the one hand

They wouldn't be discussing it with anyone they aren't discussing it with now.

[MrsM]

because they're made to discuss their family planning with people who have no business knowing about it on the one had, and if they'll honestly say that they want a scrip for a contraceptive for purposes of...contraception, they won't have it covered anymore.

Religion has got no business in this kind of thing. it's a bottomless pit, too. think of people like Jehova's witnesses. They claim blood transfusions and transplants are against god's will. Should these also be excluded from coveage so as not to offend the Witnesses? where does it end?

:agreed:

[Arkady Renko]

You guys act like birth control is super expensive and we're fucking women over if their employer doesn't elect to cover contraception. If a woman needs it (to regulate periods or whatnot) then by all means cover it. If it's purely so a woman can go around fucking guys without condoms she should pay for it herself.

Here are the prices for two of the most popular birth control pills. They come out to less than a $1 a day.

Ortho Tri-cyclen 21 (3 month supply)
63 tabs - USD $69 CAD $81 | GBP £35 | EUR €52

Yasmin 21 (3 month supply)
63 tabs (21x3) - USD $65 CAD $76 | GBP £33 | EUR €49

Edit: Pricing shown is without any insurance coverage.

that's an unusually idiotic thing to say. most women take the pill so they (and their partners) can determine if and when they're going to have children, and how many. last time I checked, someone thinking about their family planning didn't mean they're promiscuous.


They wouldn't be discussing it with anyone they aren't discussing it with now.

sure, their insurance company or some third party administrator, you said so yourself.


:agreed:

it's just sommon sense, really.

[RBP]

sure, their insurance company or some third party administrator, you said so yourself.

which they would have to do to get it covered in the first place. There is no additional privacy issue that doesn't already exist.

[Arkady Renko]

would they? I was under the impression that the normal procedure involves nobody but the doctor who writes the scrip. everyone else (pharmacy, insurance) only gets to see unspecific paperwork. Since when do pharmacists ask "watcha want those for?" when someone hands them a scrp?

[Teh One Who Knocks]

This is a really simple subject (IMHO)...I would much rather see birth control to be covered or even given away free than for my taxes to be used to fund yet another unwanted baby in the world.

[DemonGeminiX]

:-k

I didn't know companies had religious beliefs.

[RBP]

would they? I was under the impression that the normal procedure involves nobody but the doctor who writes the scrip. everyone else (pharmacy, insurance) only gets to see unspecific paperwork. Since when do pharmacists ask "watcha want those for?" when someone hands them a scrp?

No the insurance company knows exactly what for or they won't pay.

[Acid Trip]

that's an unusually idiotic thing to say. most women take the pill so they (and their partners) can determine if and when they're going to have children, and how many. last time I checked, someone thinking about their family planning didn't mean they're promiscuous.

Last time I checked there are other methods of birth control available.

Screw it, I'll cave to this nonsense. I demand my insurance provider reimburse me for condoms I've bought in the past or will buy in the future.

Why should women get ELECTIVE contraception drugs covered but not my ELECTIVE contraception method?

[RBP]

This is a really simple subject (IMHO)...I would much rather see birth control to be covered or even given away free than for my taxes to be used to fund yet another unwanted baby in the world.

It's muddier than that. BC pills is the only form of birth control covered by most plans as far as I know. They don't pay for condoms or an IUD or whatever.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

It's muddier than that.

For you maybe, but not for me :dunno:

[RBP]

This is a really simple subject (IMHO)...I would much rather see birth control to be covered or even given away free than for my taxes to be used to fund yet another unwanted baby in the world.

But let the market decide that. They don't dictate what your co-pays or co-insurance is, or any other benefit for the most part.

[RBP]

Why require coverage of anything from private insurance?

[PorkChopSandwiches]

:-k

I didn't know companies had religious beliefs.

Seems like almost every hospital is owned by the catholics, so there is that.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

But let the market decide that. They don't dictate what your co-pays or co-insurance is, or any other benefit for the most part.

Let's not provide free contraception and let's completely ban abortions, we need more kids in the world.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Why require coverage of anything from private insurance?

Because the President decreed it so when he signed Obamacare into law.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Seems like almost every hospital is owned by the catholics, so there is that.

The big one in Denver is a Jewish hospital :nono:

[PorkChopSandwiches]

The big one in Denver is a Jewish hospital :nono:

Still religious based, but I dont think the Jews are anti birth control

[RBP]

Because the President decreed it so when he signed Obamacare into law.

Fuck it, nationalize the whole thing.

[Acid Trip]

Because the President decreed it so when he signed Obamacare into law.

Don't worry, the Supreme Court will fix it.

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Free birth control :tup:


http://gifs.gifbin.com/480503758.gif

[FBD]

besides, making the pill less accessible will only lead to two things: more abortions and more people having kids who really shouldn't have any.

they keep using that word. I dont think it means what they think it means. who's making it "less accessible"? nobody. the argument is over the mandate that it be provided as a base level of coverage in any policy, which is stupid and dead wrong.

[DemonGeminiX]

Why require coverage of anything from private insurance?

What would be the point of having private insurance if they're not gonna cover anything?

[FBD]

What would be the point of having private insurance if they're not gonna cover anything?

simple - people purchase what they want to be covered for - none of this mandated shit that says you have to "buy coverage" for something you may not need or ever use.

[RBP]

What would be the point of having private insurance if they're not gonna cover anything?

I never said it wouldn't cover anything. The company can choose what to cover as a competitive benefit package. Just like they decide if to provide life insurance or short term disability.

[Acid Trip]

I never said it wouldn't cover anything. The company can choose what to cover as a competitive benefit package. Just like they decide if to provide life insurance or short term disability.

You mean if a person doesn't like the benefits an employer provides they can find another job somewhere else?! What an amazing concept! You should call it a free market economy and write a book or something.

:lol:

[FBD]

:lol: and we can also get back to using dictionary defined terms instead of humpty dumpty this word means whatever I choose it to mean in the moment I use it...but then again, it depends on what your definition of "is," is...

[DemonGeminiX]

I never said it wouldn't cover anything. The company can choose what to cover as a competitive benefit package. Just like they decide if to provide life insurance or short term disability.

But if you don't legally require that they cover something, then they could very easily deny any and all claims at any point in time without legal repercussion. You'd just be giving them money hand over fist for nothing. There's no protection for the consumer.

And yes, if they could get away with doing that, they would.

[FBD]

That's why it sucks just paying one huge lump sum for a bag of services. Pay for the services you require.

How'd that work for cable tv? They wouldnt get to charge you a huge sum for a bunch of shit you dont want. or having some fucker buy your groceries for you and you having little say over what's delivered, and you pay 250% of what you normally would going yourself and getting what you need.

3rd party payer system has gone way out of control. no real value is reflected in it. then nobody has any idea of what anything costs. cant make informed decisions.

:shrug: