AZ gone certifiably insane. it's official

[MadBunny]

Interesting.  Despite the fact that this is supposed to be a law... it mentions the word 'religious' 75 times, and 'employer' 52 times, and contraceptive 73 times.

If you look at the red strike out stuff that's been re-worded, it's pretty scary.

But how does that equate to someone being fired for taking birth control pills or needing their bosses permission?

Ignoring that it's making laws regarding the establishment of religion, which should be pretty off limits to legislators...
Did you read the text of the bill that I quoted, or any of it really?

http://e-lobbyist.com/gaits/text/596074

Z.  NOTWITHSTANDING SUBSECTION Y OF THIS SECTION, A CONTRACT DOES NOT FAIL TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SUBSECTION Y OF THIS SECTION IF THE CONTRACT'S FAILURE TO PROVIDE COVERAGE OF SPECIFIC ITEMS OR SERVICES REQUIRED UNDER SUBSECTION Y OF THIS SECTION IS BECAUSE PROVIDING OR PAYING FOR COVERAGE OF THE SPECIFIC ITEMS OR SERVICES IS CONTRARY TO THE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OF THE EMPLOYER, SPONSOR, ISSUER, CORPORATION OR OTHER ENTITY OFFERING THE PLAN OR IS BECAUSE THE COVERAGE IS CONTRARY TO THE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OF THE PURCHASER OR BENEFICIARY OF THE COVERAGE

^^ This section allows an employer to 'carve out' religious and moral exemptions to a policy.

.? IF AN OBJECTION TRIGGERS THIS SUBSECTION, A WRITTEN AFFIDAVIT SHALL BE FILED WITH THE CORPORATION STATING THE OBJECTION. THE CORPORATION SHALL RETAIN THE AFFIDAVIT FOR THE DURATION OF THE CONTRACT AND ANY RENEWALS OF THE CONTRACT.  THIS SUBSECTION SHALL NOT EXCLUDE COVERAGE FOR PRESCRIPTION CONTRACEPTIVE METHODS ORDERED BY A HEALTH CARE PROVIDER WITH PRESCRIPTIVE AUTHORITY FOR MEDICAL INDICATIONS OTHER THAN FOR CONTRACEPTIVE, ABORTIFACIENT, ABORTION OR STERILIZATION PURPOSES. A CORPORATION, EMPLOYER, SPONSOR, ISSUER OR OTHER ENTITY OFFERING THE PLAN MAY STATE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OR MORAL CONVICTIONS IN ITS AFFIDAVIT THAT REQUIRE THE SUBSCRIBER TO FIRST PAY FOR THE PRESCRIPTION AND THEN SUBMIT A CLAIM TO THE CORPORATION ALONG WITH EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESCRIPTION IS NOT IN WHOLE OR IN PART FOR A PURPOSE COVERED BY THE OBJECTION. A CORPORATION MAY CHARGE AN ADMINISTRATIVE FEE FOR HANDLING THESE CLAIMS.

^^
Highlighted in red and later bolded.

To put it more simply; you have to prove to your employer what you're getting contraceptive medication for.  If they don't like it, they don't have to pay it.  In other words: you need their permission, and you have to discuss your personal sex life with them.

Also, they can charge you what ever they feel like as an 'administrative fee' to decide whether or not to pay for that portion of your coverage.

[Mr. Blackwell]

Or you can go to the local Health department and get your contraceptives for free.

[MadBunny]

Or you could move to a country with socialized medicine, or steal it, or any number of things.
How is that relevant?

[atheola]

I object on moral grounds having to actually work for pay Mr Employer.. Pay up or we'll meet it court..
The law is on very slippery ground because it opens up all sorts of "moral" objection both employer and employee can raise.. if contraceptives why not work? I object morally because men get better pay without merit.. I object morally to having to do hard physical labor for low pay while others lollygag around getting paid 8 time my pay.. Hey, you want to open the moral can of worms there it is...

[Mr. Blackwell]

Or you could move to a country with socialized medicine, or steal it

Pretty sure THAT'S the red herring.

How is that relevant?

It's relevant because:

1. my whole objection revolves around the cost of covering a pill which, in most cases, is not medically necessary to promote women's health.

2. the same goals[1] can be achieved with fewer side effects and less cost to the insurance provider  employer and employee by covering condoms as a contraceptive.

3. even if you just gotta have the pill you STILL don't need to provide any information to your boss or get their permission or even worry whether or not it's covered for in your health plan at work...because

4. you can get it free at the public health clinic.


Edit

That's all I got for now...gotta go to bed.

1.	not getting pregnant

[MadBunny]

Are you joking?

[Azdgari]

Are you joking?

Seconded.

[jaimehlers]

jaybwell32, read this post, it seems you missed it since you didn't address it.

I disagree with jaybwell32 on this issue rather profoundly.  Basically, American women don't spend most of their time pregnant, so they tend to have a lot more periods than women who do.  This should go without saying, but a period involves significant blood loss, blood that is rich in iron and other nutrients.  It also causes other hormonal effects, it can increase the risk of ovarian cancer, and need I mention anemia?  So, what birth control pills actually do is block ovulation, which reduces the chances of ovarian cancer, and it also dramatically reduces the amount of blood flow (mitigating the chances of anemia), plus that blood is not so rich in various nutrients.

That alone justifies the use of birth control pills, even if a woman is not actually having sex.  It's a rather effective preventative measure for health problems that women often have as a result of not bearing and breastfeeding children through their entire fertile period.

Source:  http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f00/web2/donimirski2.html

EDIT:  I take it back, you did "address" it, with a flippant, half-a-sentence "rebuttal" which proves you didn't even bother to read the essay I quoted (as if the fact that it was written by a freshman student "disproves" it), let alone actually address anything I said.

So, since the previous source wasn't good enough for you, here's a better one:  http://www.asrm.org/uploadedFiles/ASRM_Content/Resources/Patient_Resources/Fact_Sheets_and_Info_Booklets/Noncontraceptive%20benefits%20of%20BCP-final_1-5-12.pdf.  Among other non-contraception benefits of birth control pills are regulation of menstrual periods, treatment of various kinds of irregular periods (including heavy and/or painful periods), treatment of PMS, and reduced risks of anemia, ovarian cancer, and uterine cancer.

Please stop trying to claim that the only benefit of birth control pills is to stop pregnancy, because that's absolutely not true.  This has nothing to do with ideology for me, and it's insulting and arrogant for you to make that kind of statement.

[ungod]

Hey, you want to open the moral can of worms there it is...

Right on. Churches have tax exemption. That means they don't pay their share of the municipal services they enjoy - streets, snow plowing, sewers, water, police and fire protection. And I, who don't believe in their bullcrap, have to pay for it!
Fair is fair, if they whine they shouldn't have to pay for what they (claim) not to believe in, then they shouldn't force us to pay for their services.
Wonder how many preachers wives are on the pill at the congregation's expense? Ever notice how the preachers don't exactly have a dozen or more children....OH, the hypocrisy!

[Mr. Blackwell]

@Jaime

Some cancers depend on naturally occurring sex hormones for their development and growth. Researchers are interested in learning whether the hormones in oral contraceptives affect cancer risk in women

Some studies have shown an increased risk of breast cancer in women taking oral contraceptives, while other studies have shown no change in risk

Oral contraceptive use has been shown in multiple studies to decrease the risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer

Oral contraceptives have been shown to increase the risk of cervical cancer; however, human papillomavirus is the major risk factor for this disease

The risk of liver cancer is increased in women who take oral contraceptives and are otherwise considered low risk for the disease[1]

1.	http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/oral-contraceptives

Not to mention there are side effects of birth control pills, although the majority are not serious. They include:

Nausea
Weight gain
Sore or swollen breasts
Small amount of blood, or spotting, between periods
Lighter periods
Mood changes

The following side effects, easily remembered by the word "ACHES," are less common but more serious. If you experience any of these, contact your doctor immediately. If you cannot reach your doctor, go to an emergency room or urgent care center for evaluation. These symptoms may indicate a serious disorder, such as liver disease, gallbladder disease, stroke, blood clots, high blood pressure, or heart disease. They include:

Abdominal pain (stomach pain)
Chest pain
Headaches (severe)
Eye problems (blurred vision)
Swelling and/or aching in the legs and thighs

Now, take into consideration that the pill does nothing to protect any one from STD's. Why would any woman take on such risks if it wasn't medically necessary for them to?

Condoms are just as effective against preventing pregnancy. They have the added benefit of providing a measurable level of protection against sexual diseases. They don't interfere with or readjust your hormones and they have no side effects.[2]

I don't know why AZ lawmakers are trying to come at this from a religious perspective. That is just so stupid it makes me think that it's a diversion for a different argument all together.

I have provided an example of where the state is providing the pill along with every other FDA approved method for birth control free of charge so yes, your tax dollars are going towards something which is, in most cases, medically unnecessary and potentially life threatening to womens health. At the same time, "Obamacare" is requiring private insurance companies to provide the same coverage. All cloaked under the guise of women's health when all they have to do is provide coverage for condoms for contraception and protection against STD's.

Which, for some reason, is unacceptable because men are the only ones who use them?

2.	unless you are allergic to latex. In which case they make natural lamb skin ones too.

[Mr. Blackwell]

Right on. Churches have tax exemption. That means they don't pay their share of the municipal services they enjoy - streets, snow plowing, sewers, water, police and fire protection.

Right on. Non profit organizations have tax exemption. That means they don't pay their share of the municipal services they enjoy - streets, snow plowing, sewers, water, police and fire protection. Oh, wait...the people who donate to these non profits DO pay taxes but then again...the people who go to church and tithe also pay taxes...so what does it mean, really?

[jaimehlers]

jaybwell32:  Okay, so look at what you just said for a minute.

Some cancers depend on naturally occurring sex hormones for their development and growth. Researchers are interested in learning whether the hormones in oral contraceptives affect cancer risk in women

In other words, they don't actually know if those hormones make any difference at all.

Some studies have shown an increased risk of breast cancer in women taking oral contraceptives, while other studies have shown no change in risk

In other words, the results of these studies are contradictory.

Oral contraceptive use has been shown in multiple studies to decrease the risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer

You'll note that there are no qualifying statements here.

Oral contraceptives have been shown to increase the risk of cervical cancer; however, human papillomavirus is the major risk factor for this disease

Oh, look, a qualifying statement.  When HPV is involved in the vast majority of cases of cervical cancer, calling it a "major risk factor" is an understatement.  I'd be very curious to find out how much oral contraceptives increase the risk of cervical cancer.

The risk of liver cancer is increased in women who take oral contraceptives and are otherwise considered low risk for the disease

Looking at the specifics, your document says that white American and European women are put at a higher risk of liver cancer by taking birth control pills than Asian and African women.

However, when I examined the American Cancer Society's list of risk factors for liver cancer[1], birth control pills were listed in the uncertain/controversial/unproven category; furthermore, they explicitly stated that the likelihood of getting hepatic adenomas (a kind of benign liver tumor) was rare, that the studies which suggested a link between liver cancer and these tumors were problematic and that new studies should be done, and that modern birth control pills were substantially different than the ones used in those studies.

You then go on to list various possible side effects of birth control pills, which I don't dispute (though I would point out that most of the "lesser" side effects are temporary, and the more major ones are uncommon or rare).  But your follow-up point is strange.  You say that the birth control pill doesn't do anything about STDs, suggesting that you think that the only reason women take birth control pills is to keep from getting pregnant.  For that matter, you're undoubtedly right that it is a primary reason.  But it isn't the only reason; the regulation/suppression of periods is not exactly a minor consideration.

For example, are you aware that they now make birth control pills which are designed to reduce the number of periods a woman has?  I would think that being able to have four periods per year instead of thirteen, or one period per year, or no periods at all, would be an attractive prospect, though naturally I have no personal knowledge about it.  Point being, birth control pills aren't just for not getting pregnant, despite the name.[2]

And, to put it bluntly, if you think periods are not a potential health concern, then perhaps you'd better think again.  From what I've read, the health problems associated with having periods are not minor when they do happen, and it's really nobody's business but the woman suffering from them.

The point is that birth control pills aren't just about preventing pregnancies, so your argument that since condoms are not included on insurance plans, birth control pills shouldn't be either, is specious.  Now, if men had to go through a regular cycle where they had bleeding and/or discharge from their penises (with the attendant health concerns), and there was an oral contraceptive they could take which had the beneficial side effect of reducing or even eliminating this discharge, then it'd be eminently reasonable to expect insurance companies to cover it.  Because that would be an actual equivalent to what birth control pills do.  But trying to compare birth control pills to condoms is silly.

1.	http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/LiverCancer/DetailedGuide/liver-cancer-risk-factors
2.	http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/features/new-no-period-no-pms-birth-control-pills

[Quesi]

1. my whole objection revolves around the cost of covering a pill which, in most cases, is not medically necessary to promote women's health.

Your concern is the cost of birth control pills??????  The cost to employers who pay for their employees’ insurance?  This is your concern?????

Are you concerned about the cost of pills people take to get rid of toe nail fungus?  They don’t really NEED to treat the fungus.  It is elective.  What about the cost of high blood pressure medication for people who might be better served losing weight?  Are you concerned about the cost of antibiotics to treat ear infections, when there is a 50/50 chance the infection is viral?   Wouldn’t it be more cost-effective to have the infection run its course?  Do you have strong opinions on all personal medical issues?  Or just those involving sex?

So you like condoms and pulling out.  That is wonderful for you and whoever agrees to have sex with you.  Pulling out doesn’t work, btw, since there can be sperm in the pre-ejaculation fluid, but it doesn’t directly affect YOUR health either way, does it now?  And it is FREE!  Well, unless an unwanted pregnancy occurs and the woman either chooses to have an abortion or raise a child who she is not prepared to raise.  There are a few costs there. 

Are you concerned about the cost of fertility treatments for women who are trying to become pregnant but need some medical assistance?  What if the woman was previously using birth control?  That sure seems like a lot of money to spend to let women control their bodies and decide when and if they want to have children.  Maybe it would just be better to let God decide. 

[Mr. Blackwell]

No...I get it. I have to get ready for work so this reply will be short.

I give up. You guys keep inserting what you perceive my intentions to be and addressing those intentions without addressing what I have actually said. Some more than others are guilty of this. But it is allright, I can do that too.

I concede that women are the only ones who should be able to do whatever they want with or to their bodies. I concede that it is useless to try to change people's perspectives about natural reproductive cycles and how proper exercise and diet play a huge role in how those cycles function. Instead of educating the public that menstruation is natural and not disgusting we should just convince women to alter their body so nobody has to deal with it.

It's what we have come to expect in this society no? Just take a fucking pill. Who cares about the side effects right? The worst case scenario will never happen to you or anyone you know so what difference does it make.

And I give up trying to argue that society at large should bare the brunt of the cost of a few women's vanity. You win. Just shut up and take my money.

I am a dildo who just doesn't get it.


Laterz

[jaimehlers]

No...I get it. I have to get ready for work so this reply will be short.

The problem is that when faced with really strong opposition, you dig in your heels.  Like pretty much everyone else, to be honest.  However, it does interfere with your ability to listen to them without prejudice.  By that I mean that everyone is prejudiced against people who are opposing them.

I give up. You guys keep inserting what you perceive my intentions to be and addressing those intentions without addressing what I have actually said. Some more than others are guilty of this. But it is allright, I can do that too.

I'm not going to criticize your sarcasm except to say that it was a complete waste of time.  Even if some of the people here were doing exactly what you say, doing it back won't help.  You might as well just have said, "I have my opinion, and you have yours."  It would have been quicker and been just as effective.

But did you stop to consider that you might have misunderstood what people were trying to say?  I mean, this is an Internet forum, so misunderstandings are easy.  Perhaps instead of getting dejected and quitting, you could have said, "I don't appreciate the way some of you are coming across.  Naming no names, it seems like people are criticizing my presumed intentions rather than the point I'm trying to make."  And then lay out the point as plainly as you can manage.

By the way, I do understand your point, but I don't agree with it.  It isn't a matter of me projecting false intentions onto you, I'm trying to address what you're actually saying and pointing out the flaws with it.  I'm quite certain that women understand that menstruation is perfectly natural - but that doesn't mean that they can't also think of it as disgusting, irritating, and aggravating.  Can you seriously imagine discharging blood and other body fluids from your private parts for several days each month, and then have someone - who will never have to deal with it - tell you that it's perfectly natural and that you shouldn't consider it disgusting or be upset about it, especially since it affects what you can and can't do during those days?  Have you even tried to imagine it?  Evolution stuck us with some really annoying compromises.  Does the fact that they're natural mean we shouldn't do something about them, to make things better even though it involves more compromises?

[Frank]

I am a dildo who just doesn't get it.


Laterz

There you go. A man should always know his limitations.

[Mr. Blackwell]

@ jaimehlers et al.

You bastards are going to teach me how to make a proper argument if it kills me aren't you?

I am going to address all my concerns about this subject and how my comments were treated. I am also going to explain why I am so personally offended by the sometimes subtle, sometimes not so subtle charges of being sexist in regards to this issue. It will take me a day or two to find the time to dedicate to this. So Tuesday or Wednesday.

However, once I have thoroughly explained my position and why I have it...it will no longer be open for debate. You may take it or leave it or tear it apart limb from limb. I am not going to try to "win" the debate. At this point, I just want to destroy the strawmen that have gathered against me. 

[Babdah]

But how does that equate to someone being fired for taking birth control pills or needing their bosses permission?

They have to take their medical record to the boss and let him look over it before they will even consider letting them have it, but then if it used for anything that involves sexual acts they can deny them. Or at the least how I understood it to be from some other articles I have read. Medicare here in NC does cover birth control for both types my personal insurance does cover all types, so yes insurance does cover contraception.   

[MadBunny]

Babdah,

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,21989.msg490376.html#msg490376

You're pretty close.  I copied the (relevant) text of the bill to this thread in this post here.

[jaimehlers]

@ jaimehlers et al.

You bastards are going to teach me how to make a proper argument if it kills me aren't you?

I am going to address all my concerns about this subject and how my comments were treated. I am also going to explain why I am so personally offended by the sometimes subtle, sometimes not so subtle charges of being sexist in regards to this issue. It will take me a day or two to find the time to dedicate to this. So Tuesday or Wednesday.

However, once I have thoroughly explained my position and why I have it...it will no longer be open for debate. You may take it or leave it or tear it apart limb from limb. I am not going to try to "win" the debate. At this point, I just want to destroy the strawmen that have gathered against me.

I don't see the point of coming back just to post how offended you are at the way you've been treated.  That is not to say that you don't have good reasons for being offended, but you might be better off not posting them.  By all means, write them down, but take some time to calm down and think about them after you write them.  There have been times that I was upset and writing an angry post, and because I took that time to think about it, I realized that there were some things that were accurate about what other people had said to me which I had to take into account.

[Babdah]

Or you can go to the local Health department and get your contraceptives for free.

What is the difference between taxpayers paying for planned parenthood and taxpayers paying for insurance that covers a lot more. Is it the fact that what you dont know wont offend you kinda thing?     

Babdah,

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,21989.msg490376.html#msg490376

You're pretty close.  I copied the (relevant) text of the bill to this thread in this post here.

I find that the same people that are protesting this issue are the same people buying condoms or doing other acts that would violate their own beliefs if they really knew that they were. They are just plain hypocrites!!!

[nogodsforme]

I can't even believe we are having this discussion in 2012. How quickly we forget the recent past....like the 1940's and 1950's.

First of all, birth control pills are one of the most widely used medications in the world for a reason. They have changed women's lives, because for the first time in history, women can control their own fertility on a continual, daily basis without having to consult, get permission from, get approval from or be judged by anyone. Need I mention that men don't have to beg their bosses to let them get their Viagra covered by insurance.....and is Viagra ever medically necessary?

It may not be a big deal for a man who never has to think, each and every time he has sex, that he may end up with another human being growing inside of him. But remember the good old days when young people had sex until an accidental pregnancy and then had to get married? Or risk your life and face jail with an illegal abortion? What a wonderful world that was.

Now, for the first time in human history, a woman does not have to plan her life around whether or not she is going to have sex today or tomorrow and therefore face a pregnancy each and every month of her 30 years of fertile life. Not to have two kids, six kids, eight kids or twelve kids unless she really wants them. Not to face one pregnancy (and several miscarriages) after another until her body is worn out, like our grandmothers and great grandmothers. To have children when she is ready for them, not just when a random sperm makes it to an egg.

A miraculous life change for women, children and the men who care about them. Just by taking one pill every day. Like science fiction a hundred years ago, but everyday reality today.

Second, WTF does it matter why a woman is taking the pills? That is absolutely nobody's business but hers and her medical professional. I have had serious medical problems related to reproduction all my life. As a young woman, I had debilitating cramps for two-four days each month. This radically disrupted my life--each month I basically lost three days of my life to horrible pain, vomiting, diarrhea, etc. I also became anemic.

I tried diet, exercise, vitamins, heat packs, over the counter medications. Nothing worked, because as I learned years later after a miscarriage, I had a serious medical condition--uterine tumors. Birth control pills probably would have helped greatly, but there is no way I could have gotten them with my (abusive, religious, conservative) family situation. Ironically we lived in Arizona when I was 14, so today it would be an issue with the effing STATE as well as with my own family. WTF?

Incidentally, as a very religious and self-controlled teen, I would not have been using them primarily for birth control, but so what if I had been using them for both?  As it was, I just had to put up with the awful pain from age 14 until having a hysterectomy due to huge tumors at age 36. And one little pill a day might have saved me from all that?

Why would it matter to my employer? Well, they would have had a better employee who was not sick so much, for one thing.[1]

Contrary to popular wisdom, menstruation is not exactly earth mother "natural". Being pregnant or nursing constantly, and having almost no periods from age 15-45 is just as "natural" and is what most women the world over endured until the mid-20th century. Birth control pills, by mimicking the hormones of pregnancy, are taking women back to what was "natural" before, without the risks of constant pregnancy and childbirth.

No periods, no cramps, reduced fibroid tumors and ovarian cysts and endometriosis. No pregnancies, no miscarriages, no babies unless wanted. So, yes, there are medical and social reasons for birth control pills beyond just preventing one incidence of pregnancy during one sex act. That is what barrier methods like condoms are for--and these should also be used to prevent STD's. Birth control pills, on the other hand, should be called fertility empowerment pills instead.  Then conservative men can be even more afraid of them....

1.	I actually missed the first day at a new job I really wanted due to severe nausea and painful cramps. I had to get off the bus and go back home.

[Mr. Blackwell]

Please stop trying to claim that the only benefit of birth control pills is to stop pregnancy, because that's absolutely not true.  This has nothing to do with ideology for me, and it's insulting and arrogant for you to make that kind of statement.

I never claimed that the only benefit of birth control pills is to stop pregnancy. Please accept my apology, I meant no offense.

As for the rest. I thought about it and have come to the conclusion that there is nothing I can say that will ultimately convince some of you that I am not a right wing womanizing control freak trying to dictate what women can and can't do with their bodies. I do not know how to get myself out of this corner you have painted me into.

So I will just leave the forum with this.

Maybe it would just be better to let God decide.

Fuck you.

Why is it that you think women shouldn't be allowed to make their own choices?  Why is it that you seem to feel that an employer has a right to decide what an employee does, or what medication they take?

Fuck you.

"Fertility empowerment pills". No wonder Jay objects.

And a great big go FUCK YOURSELF to you.


This is my last post.

[One Above All]

I do not understand why you guys reacted the way you did to jaybwell32's posts. He pointed out that there are better contraceptives that also provide protection against STD's. This was under the assumption that birth control pills were being used exclusively for birth control.
He was mistaken in his assumption (as you all pointed out), but his logic was sound. Give women better contraceptives, regardless of who they are designed for, because they're better. It's like giving someone broad spectrum antibiotics rather than the more targeted ones, even though you know what disease they have. Once again, under the assumption that the birth control pills were being used solely for birth control.

Would you mind explaining why you overreacted?
EDIT: jaybwell32, if this was not your point, would you mind correcting me?

[Quesi]

Jaybwell32-

You never paint yourself into a corner that you can’t get out of. 

I disagree profoundly with you on this topic, to the point of anger. 

But that does not mean that I think that you are a "right wing womanizing control freak."  I don’t know a thing about you.  I am certain that there are many topics on which we share common ground, and I am certain that there are many topics on which I might disagree passionately with many members of this forum. 

This topic has clearly raised a wide set of emotions for you.  And for me.  And for others here.  But having strong emotions about a topic is not a reason to leave a forum where you have clearly spent a considerable amount of time, and contributed a great deal.

I hope that you reconsider. 

Lucifer, I need to start my daughter’s bedtime routine, but I will be back this evening to address your question. 

[Azdgari]

"Fertility empowerment pills". No wonder Jay objects.

And a great big go FUCK YOURSELF to you.

Hey, you did object.  Run away if you must.  But you might want to try, for your own sake, to reason through why it is that people are interpreting your comments the way that they are.

EDIT - I feel I should respond to this:

As for the rest. I thought about it and have come to the conclusion that there is nothing I can say that will ultimately convince some of you that I am not a right wing womanizing control freak trying to dictate what women can and can't do with their bodies. I do not know how to get myself out of this corner you have painted me into.

I have no idea about whether you are, or are not, a right-wing womanizing control freak.  In this thread, though, you happen to be taking the position of one.  It does invite the question of why.

[Azdgari]

I do not understand why you guys reacted the way you did to jaybwell32's posts. He pointed out that there are better contraceptives that also provide protection against STD's. This was under the assumption that birth control pills were being used exclusively for birth control.
He was mistaken in his assumption (as you all pointed out), but his logic was sound. Give women better contraceptives, regardless of who they are designed for, because they're better. It's like giving someone broad spectrum antibiotics rather than the more targeted ones, even though you know what disease they have. Once again, under the assumption that the birth control pills were being used solely for birth control.

He was arguing that the decision be one for the employer to make, rather than one for the woman's doctor to make.  Doctors are bound by ethical guidelines that employers are not bound by.

The law in question is a thinly-veiled attempt to limit womens' contraceptive options[1], among other things.  It's hardly alone in that, in American law, especially in red states.  Jay supports it despite that effect...or because of it?  Hard to say.  At the very least, he doesn't mind it.  That's kind of offensive.

Would you mind explaining why you overreacted?

Have you stopped sexually abusing your mother yet?[2]

1.	By making women dependent on a man's willingness to use a condom.
2.	In case your reading of my intentions in asking this question is on-par with your level of understanding of the reactions in this thread, I'll point out that this question is rhetorical and that I am not suggesting you actually sexually abuse(d) your mother.

[Quesi]

Lucifer-

First of all, there are dozens of forms of birth control.  Pills, mini-pills, depo prevera shots, nuvarings, iuds, diaphragms, sponges, condoms, sterilization, etc.  Each method has its pros and cons. 

Yes.  Condoms are the best for preventing STD’s and most specifically HIV.  But lots of people don’t like them.  Birth control methods that people don’t like are birth control methods that people sometimes forget or decide not to use, and then there is no birth control.  You may be as judgmental as you like about how people *should* always use a condom (or a diaphragm or a sponge or whatever barrier method they have selected as their primary form of birth control) but if they don’t use it, it doesn’t work. 

There is no universal “better” form of birth control.  Birth control is a very personal decision.  Some methods are favored by nursing mothers, while other methods are favored by couples who have entered a new level of commitment.  Some are good for women who are pretty sure they don’t want to have a kid (or another kid) for a few years, while others are better for women who want to keep their options open, and perhaps start trying to get pregnant very soon.  Some options are life-altering for women who have difficult or irregular periods.  Dozens of factors come into play, ranging from age to lifestyle to future plans and goals, to personal sexual practices.  These are medical decisions.  These are personal decisions.  These are not decisions to be made in consultation with your employer, or decisions that should be overseen by your legislative representatives.  Nor, are they decisions that need to be sanctioned in public discussion forums. 

As nogodsforme pointed out so articulately, women fought long and hard to gain control over our bodies and our lives.  The ability to decide if and when and how to be a parent is HUGE.  And there have not been that many generations who have had that power over our lives.  When we see that control being threatened, we get angry. 

[MadBunny]

I do not understand why you guys reacted the way you did to jaybwell32's posts. He pointed out that there are better contraceptives that also provide protection against STD's. This was under the assumption that birth control pills were being used exclusively for birth control.
He was mistaken in his assumption (as you all pointed out), but his logic was sound. Give women better contraceptives, regardless of who they are designed for, because they're better. It's like giving someone broad spectrum antibiotics rather than the more targeted ones, even though you know what disease they have. Once again, under the assumption that the birth control pills were being used solely for birth control.

Would you mind explaining why you overreacted?
EDIT: jaybwell32, if this was not your point, would you mind correcting me?

I'll assume that you're including me in this.

My position is that the decision to take prescription medication should be one that involves three people.  The person taking the medication, the doctor making prescriptions and the pharmacist, who checks for combination side effects.

It isn't our business to decide what medication other people take, particularly if they're already on a medical plan and paying monthly premiums for it.  Whether the woman gets a box of condoms, a case of BC pills, Bayer aspirin between the knees, or some other fourth option isn't my business.  How a woman chooses to combat STD shouldn't be something that an employer needs to be concerned about unless they're running a brothel.  In basic terms, this isn't about STD, or even cost it's about a right to privacy and a woman's ability to decide for herself what she wants to do.

The AZ law (which I've linked and quoted the relevant portion) changes this by telling a person that they need to not only discuss their private life in the sense that they have to explain why they want/need hormonal contraceptives to their employer, it puts the decision in the hands of that employer.  On top of that, the employer is allowed to charge a fee every time this decision is made.

Further, the law does not specify if this is a one time thing, or if they employer can demand it every single month.
The law itself is extremely biased toward 'moral and religious reasons' (again, I've noted the number of times the word 'religious' is mentioned in the text.

Perhaps Jaybwell32 is upset because I've tied his position to that of contemporary conservative politics.  I can see how that might make a person angry, however in that case I'm just calling it like I see it.  jaybwell32 decided to use contemporary conservative arguments to bolster his position, and got called out for it.


Ultimately, as I've stated the AZ law tells women that they cannot be trusted to make their own decisions and must rely on their employers to decide for them whether or not their medication should be paid for.  Women specifically, and for religious reasons.  I see this as an incursion of religion into the role of medicine and government and it is my personal position that this is a bad move, in addition to a slippery slope.