Lovelyish

there are so many laws that get passed that I think will never get passed because people are smarter than that.  I have a feeling that this is going to be one of those laws.

I vote to cede Arizona.

What I want to know is when did we go to sleep & wake up back in the 1950s??!! Next thing you know they’ll try to keep women from voting AGAIN!!

As long as I do my job right, it shouldnt matter what I do in my private life!!! This wont pass & IF it does, it’ll be ruled unconstitutional because it would violate HIPAA & a ton of other privacy laws. I cant even believe women are siding with these blatant anti-women laws. YES THEY ARE because everytime an amendment comes along that would do the equivalent to a man, it’s shot down. MY womb & breasts are fair game but a man’s balls & penis isnt?! That aint right!

You also don’t have to work at your job… unless otherwise stated, you can find a new one. Most employment is “at will”. Employers have the ability to fire you for any reason or no reason at all. So, really they already have this power, without it being explicitly stated somewhere.

It’s bullshit.  

I don’t think birth control would be an issue if men had to carry a baby.
Also…. how in the hell do these bosses know if a lady is on BC unless she either tells them or they read her private medical records?

What the fuck is wrong with this world?

I kind of want to hear it from the lawmakers who think this is a good idea…..

I’d like to know how this is constitutional. I mean, seriously, we have economic issues, debt issues, foreign issues, all of which are far more important. And yet the republican party is sprouting “let’s get rid of birth control methods” for this election.

Excuse me but this is so stupid

what the fuck

@starcrossedloversdivine@xanga - Most people don’t work at their job because they like it. Especially given our “wonderful” economy, those who work do it because they have to. This law would mean women would have to be spitting out kids to have a job, which is stupid because pregnancy is more expensive and inefficient for a company, but hey, “morals”.

While I appreciate your point on the differentiation between the Birth Control “issue” and the Abortion “issue”, I don’t think that is the particular morality that is attempting to be legislated.  The issue is the “Don’t have sex unless you want a baby” issue.  Some % of the women who take birth control, for the purpose of having sex (and for some reason bills like this assume that is 100% of birth control users), if not allowed said birth control, will likely choose not to partake in sex.  Or such runs the theory.  Actual numbers?  1/10, 1/50?  Who knows.  Particularly, this seems targeted at women who are not married, though from what I’ve read here, there is no stipulation about that.  I’d half suspect there to be some nod to the idea of marriage in the bill, perhaps an exception for married women claiming birth control on insurance.

As far as the actual bill goes, it is just one more empty political gesture.  The truth of America is that bosses have very rarely had problems firing people they want to fire, or finding ways to make them quit, and if a boss really doesn’t want to copay insurance for birth control, he or she can find a way to make life unpleasant enough for women claiming it that the boss won’t have problem very long.  So, in effect, the bill is mostly pointless, but will certainly cost Arizona taxpayers several pretty pennies in the lengthy appeal process.

This is laughable because employers don’t have the right to see your medical records.  It’s called doctor patient confidentiality.  And you all know some fundamentalist idiot thought this one up.

@starcrossedloversdivine@xanga - It’s incredibly hard to find work now. Why would someone just give up employment? 

Also, how would they know? Surely they can’t force you to disclose your medical history if it is not pertinent to the job. (For insurance purposes?) 

Erm.. actually, they’re right. Why should they have to pay for my birth control? It’s much more practical for them to pay for my pre/post natal care, anyway. & to cover my new kid’s healthcare. Makes much more sense.

Before all of this nonsense, I never realized how many people don’t know what birth control does. Or even what it’s for! I feel like some of these people, like Rush, have never heard of girl going on the pill to help with her periods. Sorry if I call off work when I have have cramps so bad I can’t leave the house, Arizona.

@Ride_Every_Stride@xanga - Yeah but how much more costly would it be to pay for the pre/post natal care and the healthcare of the children whose parents can’t afford them in the first place? It’s much more practical and cost effective to have birth control covered in the first place rather than have unwanted pregnancies overwhelming the healthcare AND welfare systems. And if I’m following your line of thinking, if we shouldn’t pay for your birth control, why should we pay for you to have your kid? Birth control was already determined by the Institute of Medicine (a NON-PARTISAN GROUP) to be a PREVENTATIVE medicine. At the end of the day, it’s beneficial to a woman’s health and a woman’s health should not be compromised because she’s poor. 

@starcrossedloversdivine@xanga - Good answer. I know people will flame that answer, but its the right one. If people dont like what their employer does that much – they’d quit. Nobody is forcing them to work.

@Ride_Every_Stride@xanga - It’s not efficient for a company to hire women who get pregnant, especially often. But this legislation is just about some assholes trying to force their “morals” on us.

@haleymroach@xanga - It’s not the right one. In what planet do you live in that switching jobs is easy, that people don’t need to work, that there are enough jobs for everyone, etc? Is it more efficient for our society to have a bunch of women sucking up welfare because they can’t work because they’re taking BC pills? This legislation is not about efficiency, it’s just about “morals”. Sorry, people who think that’s a “right” answer either a) don’t have to work b) have not entered the job market yet c) have a spouse/family that maintains them d) are in a very lucrative industry with enough jobs for anyone in it e) otherwise rich. That’s not the reality for most Americans.

Brought to you by the “wonderful” state of Arizona.

Can the government get any more ridiculous?  Whether or not a woman wants to prevent pregnancy, that is none of the employers’ business.  I don’t think it will pass once women start telling men they can’t have sex because they may get pregnant because they can’t afford pills.  And most men I know prefer intercourse without condoms and surely not all those men want to become a daddy soon (or again).

@MoonFaeEyryan@xanga -  ”It’s not efficient for a company to hire women who get pregnant, especially often. But this legislation is just about some assholes trying to force their “morals” on us.” — I agree, which makes these laws make less sense to me.  Especially the process of hiring a temporary replacement or training other employees to fill in for the pregnant employee while on maternity leave can be costly and time consuming.

@fungusamungus33@xanga - ……………………………… You totally missed the overbearing sarcasm of my comment.

Arizona sounds like hell on Earth. I say we should promote a universal ban on condoms and vasectomies, THAT will get men pissing in their pants.

The moral objection to contraceptives harbored by the Vatican and some extreme Protestant denominations is not that it is like abortion — they are fully aware of what the pill does (prevent ovulation). The objection is that contraceptives subvert “natural law,” which they have interpreted to dictate that sex is purely for reproductive purposes. In their eyes, blocking that essential component of sex is a mortal sin. And that means all contraceptives, including condoms, vasectomies, tube-tying — not just the pill. By the same token, oral sex and “fooling around” without intent to get down to the real business are also mortal sins, because those practices lustfully “spill the seed” without intent to procreate.

What I don’t get is how most of the families I know who believe in this stuff have three to four kids. Either confession is enough to wipe out all that mortal sinnin’, or these people only have sex three to four times in their lives…

Remind me to stay the fuck away from Arizona, cause I don’t want anymore kids, and have birth control….. 

=_____=

Between this kind of bullshit and the extremely high number of copyright lawsuits being thrown around by copyright trolls… I’ve completely lost faith in humanity. Seriously, what is wrong with people these days…

If Arizona keeps it going at this rate of stupid laws, they’re gonna drive everyone out of that state thats not a conservative that still thinks we live in the 1900′s

@AbnormalButSane@xanga -  @MoonFaeEyryan@xanga - Or they could just not spread the good old info around about using BC. There is no way your employer would know that information unless you told them, told a coworker, or were observed taking it or handling it while at work. This proposed law is faker than JWoww’s boobs, it’s a sensational claim to make a point against the HC law requiring an employer to pay for BC as part of run-of-the-mill health insurance.
And, you totally overlooked the whole point of my argument: as long as you’re not in a union, you sign paperwork stating that you are “employed at will”. Your employer has every right to fire you for no reason. Meaning, they do not need to give a reason for terminating your employment. This also makes every discrimination law void at output, unless there is some form of undeniable evidence against the employer such as two independent witnesses of the employer taking discriminative action against that person.

@MiriamBeth@xanga - I don’t think men really care about condoms or vasectomies, lol.

You do realize this probably won’t passed? There are a bunch of bs laws that get turned away, this just another one of those. 

How stupid.  My friend’s sister was passed over for a promotion because she was newly married and they assumed she would be having kids soon, ergo they didn’t think she would be able to put in 100% effort at her job so they didn’t promote her.  So, if you’re a working woman you’re kept down because you might get pregnant and have your attention diverted away from your job, but now you will be fired if you use birth control to prevent pregnancy and keep focused on your job?!?!?  America is the laughingstock of the world.

Birth control cost so much less having a kid, emotionally and monetarily, not to mention the other health concerns birth control keeps at bay. Its cheaper to buy pills than pay hospital bills then the amount of money it takes for child care.

Ohh god.. Americans *facepalm* :’) 

men that use VIAGRA should be FIRED!

yuppie yuppie yuppie sccuuummmmm!
Never moving to that loser state.

although this will never pass, it’s FUCKING STUPID nonetheless. really? you’re going to fire women for NOT wanting to get pregnant so that they can do their job?!?!?!?

So they can fire a woman for trying to not get pregnant and one’s that get pregnant… of course, they don’t say it’s for you being pregnant… something to do with your performance… kinda bull crap.