Arizona Senate Committee Endorses ‘Tell Your Boss Why You’re On The Pill’ Bill

[CatWoman]

Arizona has taken up yet another draconian law for women’s health – this time replicating but broadening the federal push to let employers deny women access to birth control. The bill stipulates that, unless a woman brings in a note proving she is not using it to avoid getting pregnant, an employer can deny birth control to any woman in the workplace.

By a vote of 6-2, an Arizona State Senate Judiciary committee yesterday endorsed the measure:

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… My whole legislation is about our First Amendment rights and freedom of religion.”

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/03/14/444111/birth-control-to-control-birth/

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. So women have to accede to their employers' religious beliefs?

How does that not interfere with their freedom of religion?

[Confusious]

4. You're a peon

You don't have religious liberty.

That's sarcasm BTW.

[surrealAmerican]

7. I guess religious freedom is only for rich people ...

... kind of like freedom of speech.

[Rex]

2. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!

[tanyev]

3. OK, ladies, time to start giving those employers hourly progress reports during your periods.

They seem to think it's their business.

[appleannie1]

5. The women of Arizona need to start calling their State Senator's Offices every month to report they

started their period, request their Senators advice on whether they should wear pads or tampons, etc. etc. etc. And always preface it with "since you are so interested in my uterus and are more educated on the subject than I am". Jam their phones with calls of that nature.

[Drale]

6. She just admitted that Corporations are people and people are not people

Last edited Wed Mar 14, 2012, 08:35 PM - Edit history (1)

"So, government should not be telling the organizations or mom and pop employers to do something against their moral beliefs". According to this, only corporations deserve protection from "Soviet" style governments.

[Journeyman]

11. "He" is a woman. The bill was authored by Majority Whip Debbie Lesko (R-Glendale). . .

[Initech]

8. Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.

Of course these stupid pieces of shit can't get that through their skulls. This is not freedom of religion - this bill is forcing your religious beliefs on everyone!!!

[gopiscrap]

9. If you're a woman

why in God's name would you EVER vote republican? for that matter a person of color, teacher, or LGBTQ?

[tsuki]

10. I looked up Debbie Lesko. She has three children. I wonder why only three?

Maybe her employers, the voters of her district, need to rifle through her medical records to see if she is taking birth control to avoid getting pregnant and the employers are paying for it. If so, her employers can get together and decide whether to deny her.

[muntrv]

12. I wonder how many women will move out of AZ, if they can afford to.

[muntrv]

13. What next? Are you required to explain why you're taking heart medication?

And if it is because of heart problems from smoking, will your fundie employer be free to deny coverage for that?

[IcyPeas]

14. Is Debbie Lesko on birth control?

we need to know.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

15. I have to wonder what sort of "job creators" these guys are appealing to

We have a client who walks people out to their car after a job interview so she can check for car seats or other signs of children and another who has been sued half a dozen times (and lost all but once) for wrongful termination of women either pregnant or on maternity leave.

I would think the "job creators" would be trying to spike the office water cooler with Progesterone.

[suffragette]

16. Past time to separate health care and insurance from employment

There's no good reason health care and coverage should be employer based and keeping this system means employers and legislators will continue to find ways to further their political and religious agendas through this kind of manipulation and attack.

It's not that long ago when it was viewed as extreme to suggest that the next item of women's rights and health the RW would go after would be birth control availability and use. Yet, here we are. Despicable.

[Aerows]

18. I'd dare say that most women

Knew that this was where this was headed all along when they were claiming it was about abortion and "Pro-Life".

I do not understand how this doesn't violate HIPAA laws. How are they even allowed to know what medicines an employee is taking? It's none of their business. Are they also monitoring them to see if they are taking treatments for cancer, heart disease and other medical conditions? The entire reason for HIPAA laws were to prevent people from being discriminated against due to their medical conditions.

[suffragette]

19. Agree that most women knew it was headed this way

and warned about this being the next step, which is what I was thinking of when typing that. It's all about control and power.

Not sure on HIPAA, but it might get around that by having the employee be the one to disclose, not the medical provider. Unfortunately, HIPAA has not provided as much privacy as people thought it would. In the link below, be sure to read the 1st paragraphs about HIPAA, which I did not paste here. Agree with you that it should work that way.

See http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs8a-hipaa.htm#7
My employer is self-insured. Does HIPAA guarantee my privacy?

Under the HIPAA Privacy Rule, an employer that is also the insurer of health benefits is in a category called a "hybrid" entity. That means the portion of the company's operations that deal with processing health claims is a covered entity. Like any other covered entity, a "hybrid" function must (1) give notice of written privacy procedures, (2) place restrictions on the use of health information, and (3) appoint a privacy officer and train staff.

If you are the least bit concerned about the privacy of your medical information, the close relationship between your boss and the person who processes your health claims can send a chill down your spine.

It's Helen in personnel who's looking at all the forms, and knows whether you're seeing a psychiatrist, you just had your tubes tied, or you've just been diagnosed with cancer," quoting the chairman of the University of Massachusetts Medical School Psychiatry Department in National Journal, "Open Secrets," (Oct 9, 1999) at p.2880.

HIPAA requires that "hybrid" entities such as self-insured employers erect "firewalls" between the portion of the company that handles the health claims and the portion that does not. However, the effectiveness of this procedure remains to be seen.


I really think the best way to stop the attack from this direction would be to NOT have health coverage be employer-based. And yes, the attacks would still happen from another direction, but at least it would curtail this method of attack.

[Aerows]

17. Okay

How does this NOT violate HIPAA laws? I was under the impression that your medical records were no ones business but yours and your doctors.

How are they even allowed to know whether the women are on birth control or not? If they are, that seems like a wide open door to knowing what medications everyone is on, and that is MOST DEFINITELY against the law.