Sunday, May 13, 2012

This Just In

It brings me no joy to report this.
But Arizona has taken the war on Women's Reproductive Health to the next step.
Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona has just signed a new piece of legislation that allows Employers to ask their female employees why they have a prescription for Birth Control, and if the Employee does not have a Medical condition that the Birth Control Pill is useful for treating, the employees health plan will not cover the pills.
And the justification for this would be that the employer had some Religious objection to Birth Control.
I can't count he number of ways that this is wrong.

More good news from Small Government Conservatives wanting to control the lives of others.


Bill said...

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand: Why should I, as an employer, have to pay for your recreation? Isn't paying for sex, . . . well I don't want to sound like Rush. On the other: Employers shouldn't be allowed to be so intrusive into one's personal life. It seems the solution should be an all or nothing approach.

Uncle Walt said...

Many people who are takeing Birth Control purely to avoid pregnancy (what you refer to as recreation) are doing so to schedule their family, not just so that they can have wild wonton sex any time.

In addition, contracetive coverage largely saves everybody money because it reduces, if not eliminates, the costs of unplanned pregnancys which, even if brought to term, cost far more than contraception.

Contraception is an essential part of womens health care and I think its ridiculous in the extreme that an employer, any employer, gets to interfer in those decisions.

Bsck in 97 I was skiing, which definitely qualifies as recreation, and had a major accident. I hit a tree. I was in the hospital for 11 days including being in surgery for 8 hours and then having physical therapy and follow on neuro surgery to try and repair a damaged nerve.

By your logic, my employer should have been able to deny paying for my bills because I was engaged in recreation.

If you are out riding your bike, definitely recreation, and have an accident, would you accept your employer denying coverage for your medical costs because what you were doing was recreation.

Why should my recreation, and your, and any body else who recreation comes with some risks be covered, and a woman who recreation is sex isn't? And what about a monogamous married woman who just doesn't want to get pregnant right now. Why should an employer be allowed to single her out when I am allowed to go skiing?

Bill said...

I understand your argument, Walt. I think my issue is that life simply costs money. Where do we draw the line between what I should pay for and what of my costs I can expect others to pay. Bicycle accidents and ski accidents happen, but not nearly as frequently as people have sex. My not paying for your condoms doesn't take away your freedom to have sex, it places the responsibility of that decision on you. I believe, in this case, that's where it should be. It's like buying a car. You take on the responsibility to change oil, coolant, and tires. Life works like that, too. My not paying for your activity doesn't take your freedom to do it away. It simply places the responsibility for managing the activity and its consequences on you. I think that this is my greatest and only disagreement with liberalism is with the distribution of responsibility.

Uncle Walt said...

The thing is that no one is asking you to pay for anyone else’s anything. You buy insurance, other people buy insurance. You may never have a big claim and so you end up subsidizing those who do have claims. But it could be you, or a child or spouse who is on the insurance policy you are paying for, who gets injured or very sick and runs up hundreds of thousands of dollars in bills. That’s why you have insurance. So that you and your family are protected if the worst does happen. And insurance is most affordable for all if we are all in the same pool. But you are not paying for my anything. The insurance pool that we all pay into is paying for my stuff, and your stuff, and my girl friends stuff, and your wife’s stuff. Having insurance is the only responsible response to the need to protect yourself and your family.
As an aside, offering contraception doesn’t actually cost the insurance company much. Pregnancies are much more expensive that contraception. And something like 20% of the women who are taking hormonal contraception are doing so for medical reasons.
In the end your argument seems to boil down to “Bicycle accidents and ski accidents happen, but not nearly as frequently as people have sex.” I don’t think that makes any sense.
In the end, for many reasons, hormonal birth control is an important component in how women care for their health. They use birth control to avoid pregnancy, or to plan for pregnancy, or to treat medical conditions. Why should you get to decide that some parts of their health care should not be covered by the insurance that they pay for?

Uncle Walt said...

You wrote:
“I think that this is my greatest and only disagreement with liberalism is with the distribution of responsibility.”
I am trying to understand what that means. I personally am a strong believer in personal responsibility. I am responsible for my actions, for my words, for my feelings. Me. Except in the most extreme of circumstances, no one can “make me” do anything.
And I believe that the vast majority of Liberals, indeed, the vast majority of Americans feel the same way.
In what way to you see Liberalism as different from that?

Vic said...

We're either all in this together or we're many different areas. I'm old and have no children in school but I'm still willing to pay to support public education. I was opposed to the Iraq war but I'm still willing to pay for veteran's benefits. I, fortunately, never had to collect welfare but when I was working, I had many clients who did and I am willing to pay for those programs because I don't think homeless or hungry children are acceptable in America. I'm not religious but I willingly pay taxes to help make up the difference so (often extremely wealthy) churches don't have to. I'm too old to need contraceptive for birth control purposes but I am more than willing to help pay for those who do. Unless we're going with the "every man is an island" theory of government, that's the way it is.