It looks like they are trying to address this issue, though, and get it back to being more specifically focused.
Basically allowing employers to declare "We are special" and don't want to cover contraceptives based on a moral objection. Women would then need to pay fully for their own contraceptives (not even getting the insurance pool discounts, from what I can tell). And then they can submit to their employer for reimbursement, where they will need to provide a doctors certification that the treatment is SOLELY for medical reasons, and NOT for birth control nor "abortions". Not sure how that last part works. On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 9:56 AM, GMoney <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks for the info Jerry. > > Sorry Eric, you were right. I just didn't understand the particulars. > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 8:30 AM, Eric Roberts < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > So what was that G? > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jerry Milo Johnson [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 7:54 AM > > To: cf-community > > Subject: Re: What was that about no one trying to stop women from using > > birth control? > > > > > > Because AZ is an at-will work state, you can be fired at any time for any > > reason. > > > > Wearing blue today? Fired. Don't like Tim Tebow? Fired. > > > > Don't want to give your medical records to your employer? This is > normally > > covered under other employment laws as a no-no for employers, a "you > can't > > go there" topic. But this bill would expressly grant the employer the > right > > to ask this question, but ONLY of women, and ONLY on the issue of > > contraceptives and (as written) not even if you have insurance, but just > > because they want to know. > > > > And based on your answer, or your refusal to answer, you can obviously be > > fired. > > > > So although it seems a little convoluted and ridiculous to imagine an > > employer doing just that, someone pressured the legislature (the judicial > > committee, actually) to put this precisely worded language INTO a bill, > and > > change the bill from a bill about marital assets to one about employer > > access to health records. Imagining the kind of person that wants access > to > > that information easily leads to imagining that person using that > > information. > > > > Jerks. > > > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 8:45 AM, GMoney <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Shaking your head because you were wrong? > > > > > > You said the bill gives an employer the right to fire an woman solely > > > for using birth control. Sam gave the actual content of the bill, > > > which does no such thing. So now you just "shake your head"? Are you > > > doing so because you feel guilty for being wrong? You feel silly for > > using > > unrelated hyperbole? > > > > > > You don't need to shake your head...just apologize for being wrong, > > > say you made a mistake, and move on. No biggie. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:348541 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
