Discussion on:

Take the pill, get fired?

Interesting article - one thing that springs to mind is that it may be in the employers interests to not have members of staff taking maternity leave! :o)

I maybe could understand if the argument was that as a personal lifestyle choice to aid sexual activities the company wasn't prepared to pay, but even then it's a grey area. Could this lead to a minor class divide of sorts between the have-and-have-not's where preventing unplanned pregnancies becomes the reserve of the better-paid employed elite?

Using the pill to regulate heavy periods may result in fewer sick days for the organisation, so again despite the cost of the medication, there may be financial benefits to employers. Maybe a converse study of the cost of employee pregnancy would show that it is in the business's interests to get MORE female employees in the pill (and what about the male pill?).

However. Using religion as a control mechanism is ridiculous. I can imagine a new blame and claim culture emerging for employees suing employers for unplanned pregnancies.

What a can of worms!

Since when did the Taliban take over our country. Since when does religion control how our laws are made and applied? Since when does a company have the right to impose it's religious beliefs on its secular employees.? Separation of church and state is there for a reason. As a woman, I do not want to have to explain myself to an employer or have them making a "moral" judgement on my personal lifestyle. This is Insane and should be fought by every thinking rational human in our country.. what will be the next "moral" judgement allowed?

Since when does a company have the right to impose it's religious beliefs on its secular employees.? Separaton of church and state is there for a reason.
Since the dawn of time, that's when. Companies have always been able to impose their beliefs on their employees, there's no law prohibiting it. In fact, there are laws preventing the government from prohibiting it, it's called the 1st Amendment, which you mention in your second sentence.

The 1st Amendment applies ONLY to the government and does NOT apply to private citizens or companies. If I owned a business and I wanted rules that followed Christian beliefs, or Sharia law, or any other religious rules that you want to think of, I can do it legally, because I own the business and I determine what its rules should be. The only time that doesn't apply is when I accept federal money and there is a stipulation to accepting that money that I can't do that. Then I decide whether or not to impose the government's restrictions or not by accepting or not accepting that money.

EDIT: The rules I apply to my company employees mustn't violate civil or federal laws but as long as that criteria is met, then I can do pretty much as I please in my own company. I can not hire a person if they smoke, I can fire someone on moral grounds etc.

This is case of privacy for individuals. This proposal is a breach of privacy.
Do men have to tell if they get prescriptions for viagra?

Why are people so against allowing a company to see what the company is paying for? Anytime you want a company to pay for something, the company should know what it is and have the final decision about where its funds are spent.

There is no such thing as "separation of church and state" in the Constitution. The First Amendment prevents the Government from creating a "state religion" and prevents it from creating laws that restrict religious freedom as this idiotic contraception mandate does. And if you are going to tell me ANYONE can't afford to go to Walmart and buy the pill for nine bucks a month, you are an idiot.

You still need to include the cost of the doctor's visit for the pelvic exam and STD testing required to get the prescription in the first place since this is no longer covered as well which can run up to $200 each time around the block.

"Since when does religion control how our laws are made and applied?" Religion has had a tyrannical and regressive grip on the politics of this country for the last 40+ years - where have you been.

Just as a company shouldn't be allowed to make a moral decision for you, you should not be allowed to make a moral decision for the company. This law does not allow them to prevent you from taking the pill. It only gives the employer the right not to pay for it. If the employer feels that paying for the pill is morally wrong, who are you to force them to do it. You do what you find morally acceptable and so will your employer. That is all this bill says.

We don't need the Taliban, we have Republicans.

The word is, "Talipublicans." Get ready for floor-length dresses and covering your hair, inferior women. Next will be virginity tests.

Read "The Handmaid's Tale". It describes a Christian/Republican dystopia you might recognize.

The republicans (at least in this case) are not controlling anything. They are simply allowing more freedoms.

This is a stupid law, and Arizona legislators know it. It is in direct violation of federal privacy regulations and will fail to pass any court challenge.

I realize this is a blog so I suppose you have the right to put your opinion into it but you're not giving all the information. The instituions must be "religious instituions" in order to make this claim. It can't be just some business that says "hey I as the owner have religious beliefs so therefore I don't want to cover birtch control for my female employees". If you look on the employment site of any Catholic organization, they blatantly say on it that you must be willing to live the Catholic lifestyle if you want to work there. Which, is their right to do as a religious institution. I don't want to live that lifestyle myself, so I choose not to apply for a job there. That's my right as a woman. Just the same as if I want to smoke, I'm not going to apply for a job at a hospital, etc.

"Not only this, but the bill also makes it easier for Arizona bosses to fire women for using birth control in order to prevent pregnancy. Employers in Arizona may now have the power to fire someone if they disapprove of their sex lives ??? that is a uncomfortable thought."

Charlie, where does it say this in the bill? why are you sensationalizing your opinion? why are you stating your opinion as fact when you say "take the pill, get fired" ?

IMHO pregnacy prevention is not a medical condition. the Catholic Church has ALWAYS paid for birth control pills when they are used to treat a medical condition. what they object to is taking birth control and the morning after pill to prevent or terminate life.

people are trying to blind us to the facts that they are trying to trample on religious freedom by hiding behind 'women's rights'.

also, i simply don't understand why Smart Planet doesn't get called out more often for posting opinion as fact, getting facts wrong, and crediting people with innovation when they were not the first.

Seems to me that the Catholic Church seems to equate THEIR freedom of religion to the right to impose Their beliefs on others. In 1492 they did it to the Jewish population of Spain when they forced them convert or leave. If they suspected that the converted Jews were still secretly practicing their faith they were tortured and burned at the stake for the good of their souls. Then they artfully renamed the whole thing the Spanish Inquisition!

This bill does nothing but give the employer the freedom to follow their religion. It does not give them any power over their employees. It simply gives them the power to choose what they spend their money on.

but it is implied by the removal of the protection from discrimination by an employer if an employee chooses to obtain other insurance coverage or contraceptives from another source.

Is pregnancy a medical condition? According to most people it is, so by logical extension contraception is a means of preventing a medical condition much like getting annual flu shots.

What is really happening here is that our ever dumber politicians are attempting to create an arena in the work environment where the employer's religous beliefs or moral convictions take precedence over the employee's.

And all of this is still ignoring the blatant HIPPA violation.

How does this bill imply firing. The article above, which is clearly against the bill, even states that firing somebody because they take the pill is still illegal.

The hitch in your argument is that some of the religious institutions receive federal money. If they want to take the high road and discriminate against people who believe differently then they should not take any federal money and rely on their own income streams. The federal government is not supposed to support or oppose any religion although that is the theory and not always the practice.

Rush and the contraceptive issue shows that the surface of this is religious freedom based but the real core is about sex and how to control sex. I am surprised that Rush has not been taken to task for muddling the religious freedom argument.

Now why anyone would take a job where the employer has that much control over their personal lives is what astounds me. Maybe we should go dancing around your hard drive and see if everyone is as immaculate as you're demanding your employees be? Come on, I respect religious rights, but I still think there's a point where you're imposing instead of just leading. You're the boss so your word is final. Too bad you didn't care a bit more about what others feel is their right.

If you would care to read this piece of crap (available for review at http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/50leg/2r/bills/hb2625h.htm&Session_ID=107) you will see that the entire religious institution portion has been ripped out so it applies for ALL employers.

Nobody can demand proof of use/prescription. The law contradicts the privacy aspects of HIPPA (a federal act), which trumps local laws. It's no more than incumbents pandering to constituents.

This is between the insurance company and the employee. Nothing is divulged to the employer. HIPPA doesn't apply. And BTW, HIPPA isn't part of the Constitution.