Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
WOW Ariz: Employers can require reason for BCPs, deny if contraception
Ariz. bill could require reason for birth control
By PAUL DAVENPORT | Associated Press ? Fri, Mar 16, 2012PHOENIX (AP) ? Women in Arizona trying to get reimbursed for birth control drugs through their employer-provided health plan could be required to prove that they are taking it for a medical reason such as acne, rather than to prevent pregnancy.
A bill nearing passage in the Republican-led Legislature allows all employers, not just religious institutions, to opt out of providing contraceptive coverage when doing so would violate their religious or moral beliefs.
When a female worker uses birth control pills, which can be used to treat a number of medical conditions, the bill would allow an employer who opted out to require her to reveal what she was taking it for in order to get reimbursed.
The bill thrusts the state into a raging national debate about religious freedom and birth control, sparked after the Obama administration required that employers must provide contraception coverage under the federal health care overhaul.
After objections from religious groups, the administration changed course, ordering that insurers, not employers, would have to pay for the coverage. Republicans, social conservatives and some religious groups believe the new order still violates their beliefs.
"We don't live in the Soviet Union," said the Arizona bill's sponsor, Republican Rep. Debbie Lesko. "And so government shouldn't be telling employers, Catholic organizations and mom and pop (businesses) to do something that's against their moral beliefs."
Critics say the bill allows employers to violate their worker's privacy.
"Leave the care of medicine to women and their doctors," said Democratic state Rep. Lela Alston.
Arizona is among at least 26 states that generally require that health plans cover contraceptives, though it's also among those that let churches and other religious entities opt out of providing the coverage, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Under the Arizona bill, employers who opt out could make women provide documentation from their health care provider.
Liza Love, a mental health worker, testified Monday before a Senate committee to oppose the bill, saying she would be required to disclose that she needed contraceptives to treat endometriosis, which is excessive growth of the uterine lining.
"That's nothing that you as my employer ... have a right to know," she said.
Opponents of the legislation suggested that the application process might violate a federal law on privacy of medical information. A supporter, Republican Rep. Edie Farnsworth, said it wouldn't because seeking reimbursements is voluntary.
However, a legislative staff lawyer said it's not clear whether the current opt-out or the expanded one violates other federal law, including the new contraception coverage mandate being implemented by the Obama administration.
House Rules Attorney Tim Fleming noted that attorneys general for seven states sued to challenge the mandate on First Amendment grounds.
A national advocacy group for social conservatives, the Alliance Defense Fund, said the current opt-out provision is too restrictive.
The bill would end uncertainty about "who is sufficiently religious to have their rights of conscience protected," said Gary McCaleb, a lawyer for the Arizona-based group.
McCaleb also said in a letter to Lesko that enactment of her bill could help state officials fight against federal mandates. Another attorney for the group, Matt Bowman, declined to say how that might work. But he noted the existence of the lawsuit by the other states.
Other states that have considered legislation this year to broaden their opt-out provisions on required coverage for contraceptives include Missouri and New Hampshire. Bills in those two states remain alive but appear to have stalled.
The Arizona bill would also erase a law that bans religion-based employers from punishing or firing workers who get contraceptives from a source other than through their employers' health plans.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona opposes the bill, and Public Policy Director Anjali Abraham said supporters shouldn't entangle the state's current coverage requirement with the national debate.
"If they're looking for some sort of tussle with the federal government, I just wish they would keep in mind the consequences for Arizona women and families because they're the ones that are ultimately hurt by this bill," she said.
Citing a policy against commenting on bills, a spokesman for Republican Gov. Jan Brewer declined to say whether she had a position on it.
___
Associated Press writers Norma Love in Concord, N.H., and Chris Blank in Jefferson City, Mo., contributed to this report.
http://news.yahoo.com/ariz-bill-could-require-reason-birth-control-045830034.html
I am the 99%.
Re: WOW Ariz: Employers can require reason for BCPs, deny if contraception
keep in mind that i'm 100% for women having access to affordable BCP - no matter why they use it...
but in most cases- doctors need to explain the reason for use with ALL drugs... and the reason can have the insurance company deny coverage (not deny the patient GETTING the drug... but just deny paying for it.). This is not uncommon practice.
I don't believe the employer will give Sandy Sue a call and say "are you useing BCP for sex??? Then NO you can't have it!".... it will be a system through the doctor's office only- just like it's done every single day for most medications- where a diagnosis code will determine if a certain drug is approved.
And again- women are not being told they can not use or get bcp... so honestly- I think it's religious - not a war on women.... at least no more of a war on women than the Catholic church has already had forever (so many things anti-woman with Catholics)... While I don't agree with the Catholics on these things - I still support the right of a religious organization to not be forced into paying for something against their beliefs.
If the govn't is going to force bcp to be paid for - then i want the govn't to force ALL children to get vaccinated - no matter what... how bout they do THAT to help save the life of children already born and in our world?
From my understanding the bill does two things:
(1) Allows a business to deny coverage of BCPs if its for sexy fun time and allows the business to ask their female employees if they use the pill for the old pickle tickle or if it's just for preventing the bleeds.
(2) Allows a business to fire a woman if she's on the pill for whoring (you know, say, like sex with like her husband). So you have a job. You are on the pill to prevent pregnancy. You can be fired.
Noxious isn't even the right word.
Goldie re: "but in most cases- doctors need to explain the reason for use with ALL drugs... and the reason can have the insurance company deny coverage" That's true, but insurers pay for all intended uses if the drug is medically necessary. For example, they won't cover my retin A for wrinkles since that's not medically necessary, but they will for acne, since that is a medical condition. They don't pick and choose between intended uses.
Anything you can achieve through hard work, you could also just buy.
The thing is all of these bills are in response to Obama's mandate which is primarily about mandating birth control coverage (although he also mandates coverage of sterilization which is rarely mentioned in the news).
I really hope our Prime Minister isn't taking notes about all of the 'moral' issues in the US right now. I like my birth control pill. It may have failed me once, but I still like it
On a more serious note, I agree with soontobe that this is certainly a war on women - why else would birth control be the only target?
Above Us Only Sky
it is NOT voluntary if you want coverage. Once again, we see the "new" GOP version of small government: allowing and even forcing people to reveal their medical history to non-medical parties.
and for this: "We don't live in the Soviet Union," said the Arizona bill's sponsor, Republican Rep. Debbie Lesko. "And so government shouldn't be telling employers, Catholic organizations and mom and pop (businesses) to do something that's against their moral beliefs."
LOfreakingL. It's ok for the Arizona govt to tell everyone else to do something that's against THEIR moral beliefs or privacy.
Well, there is one way around this - lie. Your employer asks why you're taking BCP? Tell him it's for a medical condition. If it's a man, go into EXCRUTIATING DETAIL. He'll never ask anyone again.
It's still horrible, a war against women, and a privacy issue, but he's not your doctor and has no right to your medical history. Serves him right if you say it's because you have cramps for a week and MASSIVE CLOTS that soak through your pad at regular intervals... etc etc. Make him nauseous, that's a good way to stop bosses from asking.
This seems fitting here:
What is happening in this country? I am starting to get afraid, seriously.
And isn't this a violation of HIPAA?
Yes,I'm smiling...I'm a marathoner!
Bloggy McBloggerson
CO Nestie Award Winner-Prettiest Brain-Back to Back!
2011 Bests
5K-22:49 10K-47:38 Half Mary-1:51:50
2012 Race Report
1/1-New Year's 5K-22:11
2/11-Sweetheart Classic 4-mile-29:49
3/24-Coulee Chase 5K-21:40
5/6-Colorado Marathon-4:08:30
5/28-Bolder Boulder 10K
This. A lot of people who are demanding "religious freedom" are actually demanding the right to apply it selectively.
My doctor had to write a note to my insurance agency saying it was medically necessary. She would Not since it would have been lying, which I agree with her on. I wish I hadn't had to lay 79 a months for bcp, but I didn't want her to lie for me either. So it's not that simple.
THANK YOU, Debate This!!! That's what I've been arguing. It's like people support this religious exemption because they anticipate that everyone will agree with their religion. Only when we examine this from the perspective of another religion does the absurdity of this arrangement become apparent.
Don't assume that your religion dictates MY morals. Please and thank you.
(not that the rest wasn't also insane.)
I think its insane to suddenly try to give corporations "religious freedom". Apart from actual religious organizations, corporations don't have religious freedom. They never have, and they shouldn't now. Religious freedom is an INDIVIDUAL, personal right. A corporation is a legal entity created by the state whose sole purpose is to turn a profit. Legal entities must comply with the laws and regulations imposed by the state that allows its creation. If mom and pop Jehovah's Witness Inc. doesn't want to comply with the law, then they shouldn't be allowed to create a business. Period, the end. What's next? Exemptions for paying TAXES under claims they violate religious beliefs? Absurd!
Anything you can achieve through hard work, you could also just buy.
I am the 99%.
MsAxillia
This post is now saved in "my favorites" right next to SBPs personhood post
Above Us Only Sky
Wait, doctors don't always consider birth control medically necessary? Doctors even consider it unethical to say so?
Thank you. I would never expect a Jehovah's Witness org to pay for a blood transfusion if I worked for them.
And no, it's not complicated at all Irish. This is easy peasy...this is a WAR ON WOMEN.
She is saying that her Catholic school who provided her insurance required a doctor's note stating that it was for something other than contraception. That does not mean that the doctor doesn't believe it's medically necessary.
my read shelf:
Of course BC isn't always *medically* necessary but it is preventative. I don't "need" a Pertussis vaccine, but I sure wish I had gotten one.
Above Us Only Sky
This goes beyond just religious organizations (see MrsAxilla's comment) and you are assuming that you know the religious leanings or lack there of for those who are making the decisions about health care coverage.
ETA: Until these bills stop being only about contraception, I will stand by my opinion that this is against women.
Why are we drawing the line at just birth control? Business entities used to use the Bible to justify and support slavery too.
Yes, it is part of other "preventative" services listed, but birth control, sterilization and abortifacients are the "preventative" services that religious orgs take issue with. The bottom line is that these bills are reacting to Obama's mandate.
Since we know there isn't more than one reason fro sterilization or abortifacient drugs, birth control is the only item that can have more than one reason...medical or contraceptive. Hence, bills requiring the ability to only cover birth cotrol when used for purposes other than contraception.
I'm not necessarily agreeing with this particular bill, but let's not pretend why these bills are happening now. I guess everyone should just shut up and agree with Obama's mandate, huh?