FARK.com: (7103437) Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signs legislation permitting employers to interrogate female employees about contraception use. Do you object? You must be a harlot

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

		Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signs legislation permitting employers to interrogate female employees about contraception use. Do you object? You must be a harlot (rawstory.com)		380
		More: Asinine, Jan Brewer, female employees, RH Reality Check, ovarian cancer, TPS, Christian College, contraceptives, health information

• • •

5454 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 May 2012 at 5:56 PM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/7103437

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

380 Comments (+0 »)

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

LarryDan43		2012-05-13 08:01:46 PM

Sabyen91		2012-05-13 08:03:02 PM

LarryDan43: [seattletimes.nwsource.com image 296x395]

Huh, Governor Brewer got her hair done. It is very much an improvement.

cmb53208		2012-05-13 08:05:04 PM

jso2897: Life isn't going to be much fun in places like Arizona or North Carolina when all the gays, women, young people and smart people leave. You can argue the right and wrong, and the legal or illegal all day long - but in the long run, people won't stand still for this shiat.

The young and smart people already have left Arizona, it's nothing more than the place old bigots go to die

gremlin1		2012-05-13 08:06:44 PM

If an employee has family coverage would that give the employer the right to question the employee' s family members about their sexual practices.
What man wants to discuss his daughter's sex life with anyone?

SilentStrider		2012-05-13 08:09:00 PM

gremlin1: What man wants to discuss his daughter's sex life with anyone?

I'd be willing to bet that, if there are any employers that try, there'll be more than a few with black eyes.

ravenlore		2012-05-13 08:09:13 PM

themeaningoflifeisnot: simplicimus: Don't people know how to lie anymore? "No,sir,never."

Unfortunately, there are lots of easily intimidated or just plain ignorant people out there who would never dream of rocking the boat. Their rights will be routinely violated because the employer holds all the power.

THIS.

So much this, about so many things in the workplace.

smeegle		2012-05-13 08:10:14 PM

Poster girl for Sandy Vajayjay

jso2897		2012-05-13 08:12:00 PM

smeegle: jso2897: the elections they are hoping to influence will be long over.

That is why they are stupid. These laws only serve to alienate women.
Jan Brewer has come out as turncoat and a traitor against her fellow women.
She should be ashamed.

By the time the backwash hits, she'll be playing shuffleboard in an assisted living facility in Scottsdale - and she knows it.

buckler		2012-05-13 08:18:55 PM

beta_plus: Or you could just pay for it with your own money. Us crazy fascist nazi libertarian republicans have this wacky notion that that is what your pay check is for.

Us libertarian leaning republicans warned you libs ages ago about giving the government more power. But you assumed that you would stay in power forever. Ooops.

/is there anything the employers and the government are not expected to pay for?

If an employer chooses to offer healthcare as a perk of employment, that's their right and privilege. Exactly what healthcare is received is none of their damned business, as that's between the doctor and patient, unless it materially impacts job operations.

gremlin1		2012-05-13 08:24:10 PM

Are the employees contributing to the cost of health insurance at the workplace?
If I'm paying for it I don't think it's anyone's business but my own.
If the employer is paying 100% of the health insurance they would be able to list what is covered and what isn't but they shouldn't have to talk to individual employees about their medications. If a bill is rejected by the insurance company that would be between the insurance company and the employee.

Mad_Radhu		2012-05-13 08:38:51 PM

namegoeshere: Health care should not be tied to employment.

Health care should not be tied to employment.

Health care should not be tied to employment.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

I'm getting a kick out of this because I'm temporarily without health insurance for the next two weeks because my job got moved to a new company, so even though I am working the same job I have to wait 30 days for the new company's insurance to kick in. The chnagr happened on May 1st, and I just got the paperwork for COBRA last week, so I can either pay $250 for two weeks of crappy coverage ($1200 deductable) or just cross my fingers and hope that nothing major happens between now and June 1st and use my HSA account money to cover any small doctor's visits that wouldn't have covered the deductibe. It's a really annoying situation to be in. Health care so needs to be decouple from employment.

The Lone Gunman		2012-05-13 08:40:37 PM

That sounds unconstitutional. Doesn't that violate your 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination? In other words, forcing women to volunteer information against themselves that might get them fired?

CptnSpldng		2012-05-13 08:41:24 PM

Bloody William: "I believe we live in America. We don't live in the Soviet Union," Lesko said. "So, government should not be telling the organizations or mom and pop employers to do something against their moral beliefs."

We don't live in farking cyberpunk Seattle either, you moralizing shiat. So corporations should not be telling people to do something against their moral beliefs.

Now there's the flaw in your argument. Corporations don't have morals.

The Lone Gunman		2012-05-13 08:41:26 PM

Well...by definition, you can't 'force' someone to 'volunteer', but you know what I mean...

TheMysticS		2012-05-13 08:43:13 PM

God DAMN, Arizona. Wtf?

I three-hundred-fifty-third the request for an ARIZONA tag.
I mean, c'mon. They've earned it.

demaL-demaL-yeH		2012-05-13 08:44:13 PM

The Gadsden Purchase part of the state is true blue.

The stupid is concentrated in Phoenix.

Kittypie070		2012-05-13 08:52:21 PM

I do believe Jan Brewer has a wowser case of fulminating dry rot of the crotch.

VJStinger		2012-05-13 08:53:59 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: The Gadsden Purchase part of the state is true blue.

The stupid is concentrated in Phoenix.

There's something in the water here. No, really. If you've ever been here and seen some of the locals, and I mean the ones that have been here for generations, there is something seriously wrong going on here.

ghare		2012-05-13 08:56:07 PM

Well, one thing for sure, the current crop of Republicans has been GREAT for making civil rights lawyers a lot of money.

demaL-demaL-yeH		2012-05-13 08:58:58 PM

gremlin1: Are the employees contributing to the cost of health insurance at the workplace?
If I'm paying for it I don't think it's anyone's business but my own.
If the employer is paying 100% of the health insurance they would be able to list what is covered and what isn't but they shouldn't have to talk to individual employees about their medications. If a bill is rejected by the insurance company that would be between the insurance company and the employee.

The employees are earning their health insurance benefits.
The employees are paying for all of their health insurance just as they are paying for all of the payroll taxes - with their labor.
Employee labor pays for everything - with profits and executive compensation on top.

thatboyoverthere		2012-05-13 09:01:06 PM

VJStinger: demaL-demaL-yeH: The Gadsden Purchase part of the state is true blue.

The stupid is concentrated in Phoenix.

There's something in the water here. No, really. If you've ever been here and seen some of the locals, and I mean the ones that have been here for generations, there is something seriously wrong going on here.

Little known fact but all of the Lovecraftian cults moved to Arizona in the early 1900's after Lovecraft ratted them out. So I would move if I were you.

Selena Luna		2012-05-13 09:02:18 PM

Ooh, Lovecraft cult. THAT would scare away the Mormons...

Bear151556		2012-05-13 09:06:46 PM

Thanking the FSM that I live in Wisconsin rather than Arizona !

badLogic		2012-05-13 09:07:06 PM

tomWright: I read that article and nowhere did they put the little (R) next to brewers name. So following the usual protocol I assumed she was a Democrat. After all, media never mentions the party affiliation of democrats when they do douche-nozzle things like this.

Then I looked her up and yup, she's a republican, which is what you would expect from a nasty-faced old hate-monger like this.

Please, everyone, please follow protocol: When Republicans do something stupid they get identified with every name mention. when Democrats do something stupid, then never get get identified with any name use, except maybe at the very end of the article, that most people never read. However, never identify republicans that do good, or democrats that do bad.

When a republican does something stupid, or worse than stupid, you are expected to use their party affiliation every time you use their name, otherwise you will cause a major panic with people thinking it was a democrat being such a turd.

Here I was reading that, thinking some Democrat had stroked out and joined the Tea Party or something when all along it was the usual Republican ass-hattery.

Or you could go the Fox News route and always tag mis-behaving Republicans with the dreaded (D)

LouDobbsAwaaaay		2012-05-13 09:10:29 PM

Bear151556: Thanking the FSM that I live in Wisconsin rather than Arizona !

WI = AZ - 5 years

Salt Lick Steady		2012-05-13 09:12:18 PM

The Lone Gunman: That sounds unconstitutional. Doesn't that violate your 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination? In other words, forcing women to volunteer information against themselves that might get them fired?

5th am only applies to criminal cases, so no.

14th am issues? Oh you bet.

God Is My Co-Pirate		2012-05-13 09:16:23 PM

Dwight Schrute: All right, who did this? I'm not mad, I just want to know who did it so I can punish them.
Jim Halpert: What are you talking about?
Dwight Schrute: Uh, someone, uh, forged medical information, and that is a felony.
Jim Halpert: Okay, whoa, all right, 'cause that's a pretty intense accusation. How do you know that they're fake?
Dwight Schrute: Uh, leprosy? Flesh-eating bacteria? Hot dog fingers. Government created killer nano robot infection.
[to Jim]
Dwight Schrute: You did this, didn't you?
Jim Halpert: Absolutely not.
Dwight Schrute: Yes you did.
Jim Halpert: No I didn't.
Dwight Schrute: I know it was you. Okay, fine, you know what? I'm going to have interview each and every one of you until the perpetrator makes him or herself known. And until that time, there will be no health care coverage for anyone.

DrBenway		2012-05-13 09:20:47 PM

simplicimus: Don't people know how to lie anymore? "No,sir,never."

I think a stern "I beg your pardon?" would be appropriate. Or better still, "How dare you?" accompanied by a sharp slap across the face of the interrogator.

SurfaceTension		2012-05-13 09:28:59 PM

So, in general, can someone explain to me what's wrong with a woman taking birth control?

Selena Luna		2012-05-13 09:30:26 PM

SurfaceTension: So, in general, can someone explain to me what's wrong with a woman taking birth control?

Not a damn thing.

Bear151556		2012-05-13 09:30:31 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Bear151556: Thanking the FSM that I live in Wisconsin rather than Arizona !

WI = AZ - 5 years

Hoping the recalls stem that tide, but it is very possible! Christ what a farking mess of a time we live in!

T-Cubed		2012-05-13 09:33:44 PM

I'm not sure what the big deal is. If an employer chooses to not cover birth control it's just a part of their insurance package, one of the excluded items. It doesn't involve questioning any one UNLESS they want reimbursement for that birth control. They can still use their health care flex accounts to pay for the birth control, tax free. They can obtain and use birth control, it just won't be paid for by the insurance company. In fact, I would be surprised if the employer ever knew who applied or was reimbursed as that would be between the employee and the insurance company.

Of course any company wanting to do this is stupid because prevention of pregnancy is so much cheaper than paying for doctor bills.

By the same right, I think a company has the right to choose NOT to cover abortions, condoms and ED pills. They just have no right to know if the employee is choosing these things by using their own money.

Is there something here I'm not getting?

Mrbogey		2012-05-13 09:34:49 PM

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer Signs Legislation Permitting Employers to Interrogate Female Employees About Contraception Use

Except anyone who has read the bill can tell you this is completely untrue. There's no provision for employers to demand proof from an employee. The health care corporation is the entity that would seek proof. At no point does the employer have a right to medical information. It's a non-story when an insurance company asks for proof before reimbursing a claim.

This raises the question, why are reporters lying? Well when you can't build a narrative on facts you have to lie. And here we are.

orclover		2012-05-13 09:37:39 PM

If Texas gets its own tag before Arizona does, im gonna go tie up an piss all over Drews cat. A long long piss. I mean farks sakes at least Texas has the shattered rape victim that is Austin and better food. Arizona has nothing but wall to wall crazy shiats.

Gyrfalcon		2012-05-13 09:38:10 PM

PapaChester: WHAT IS DRIVING REPUBLICANS TO WANT MORE GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE IN OUR LIVES?

HOW DO THEY THINK THEY STILL REPRESENT SMALL GOVERNMENT?

It's small enough to fit in a uterus.

Mrbogey		2012-05-13 09:40:16 PM

YoungSwedishBlonde: How in the actual flying fark does this not violate HIPAA?

http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/50leg/2r/bill s /hb2625c.htm&Session_ID=107

Notwithstanding subsection y of this section, a religiously affiliated employer may require that the corporation provide a contract without coverage for specific items or services required under subsection Y of this section because providing or paying for coverage of the specific items or services is contrary to the religious beliefs of the religiously affiliated employer offering the plan. If a religiously affiliated employer objects to providing coverage for specific items or services required under subsection Y of this section, a written affidavit shall be filed with the corporation stating the objection. On receipt of the affidavit, the corporation shall issue to the religiously affiliated employer a contract that excludes coverage for specific items or services required under subsection Y of this section. 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 religiously affiliated employer offering the plan may state religious beliefs in its affidavit and may require the subscriber to first pay for the prescription and then submit a claim to the hospital service corporation, medical service corporation or hospital, medical, dental and optometric service corporation along with evidence that the prescription is not for a purpose covered by the objection. A hospital service corporation, medical service corporation or hospital, medical, dental and optometric service corporation may charge an administrative fee for handling these claims.

AA. Subsection Z of this section does not authorize a religiously affiliated employer to obtain an employee's protected health information or to violate the health insurance portability and accountability act of 1996 (P.L. 104‑191; 110 Stat. 1936) or any federal regulations adopted pursuant to that act.

BB. Subsection Z of this section shall not be construed to restrict or limit any protections against employment discrimination that are prescribed in federal or state law.

Because the bill doesn't do what it's claimed to do. Employers can only direct the health care corporation as to what therapies are allowed. It specifically does not grant access to medical records or allows an employers to interrogate female employees.

Here's a simple fact of life; if it's outrageous, look for the facts. Because there's a good chance someone is lying to you.

Gyrfalcon		2012-05-13 09:40:17 PM

I'm just going to leave this here...

Mentat		2012-05-13 09:46:55 PM

SurfaceTension: So, in general, can someone explain to me what's wrong with a woman taking birth control?

It encourages her to have sex. This is also why we can't have comprehensive sex education or HPV vaccines.

rohar		2012-05-13 09:48:05 PM

Selena Luna: SurfaceTension: So, in general, can someone explain to me what's wrong with a woman taking birth control?

Not a damn thing.

Nuh huh! It makes them whores.

/kinda like Mary Magdalene
//Christ kinda got along with her
///not very Christian of AZ

Selena Luna		2012-05-13 09:50:32 PM

rohar: Selena Luna: SurfaceTension: So, in general, can someone explain to me what's wrong with a woman taking birth control?

Not a damn thing.

Nuh huh! It makes them whores.

/kinda like Mary Magdalene
//Christ kinda got along with her
///not very Christian of AZ

You know, I haven't had sex in three years. I WISH I could earn the title of slut or whore.

Curse of the Goth Kids		2012-05-13 09:50:35 PM

So is Arizona the new Mississippi, or does that comparison not do justice to things?

Gyrfalcon		2012-05-13 09:52:02 PM

Curse of the Goth Kids: So is Arizona the new Mississippi, or does that comparison not do justice to things?

They have NOTHING in common.

AZ is a lot drier.

Curse of the Goth Kids		2012-05-13 09:54:37 PM

Gyrfalcon: Curse of the Goth Kids: So is Arizona the new Mississippi, or does that comparison not do justice to things?

They have NOTHING in common.

AZ is a lot drier.

True. Can't shoot out the light over Faulkner's grave in AZ either. Yeah, actually come to think of it MS is probably leaps and bounds cooler than AZ at this point.

bulldg4life		2012-05-13 09:54:54 PM

Selena Luna: You know, I haven't had sex in three years. I WISH I could earn the title of slut or whore.

You know, not everything needs to be posted on Fark.

The Iconoclast		2012-05-13 09:55:34 PM

Gyrfalcon: [www.rawstory.com image 615x345]

[kellymahanjaramillo.files.wordpress.com image 460x307]

I'm just going to leave this here...

Oh great, thanks. No sleep for me tonight.

dennysgod		2012-05-13 09:55:37 PM

"Small Government" Republicans.

homework.never-ends.net

Selena Luna		2012-05-13 09:57:32 PM

bulldg4life: Selena Luna: You know, I haven't had sex in three years. I WISH I could earn the title of slut or whore.

You know, not everything needs to be posted on Fark.

Probably true, but it's a very boring Sunday afternoon and this works while my Netflix isn't.

badLogic		2012-05-13 09:59:47 PM

Mrbogey: YoungSwedishBlonde: How in the actual flying fark does this not violate HIPAA?

http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/50leg/2r/bill s /hb2625c.htm&Session_ID=107

Notwithstanding subsection y of this section, a religiously affiliated employer may require that the corporation provide a contract without coverage for specific items or services required under subsection Y of this section because providing or paying for coverage of the specific items or services is contrary to the religious beliefs of the religiously affiliated employer offering the plan. If a religiously affiliated employer objects to providing coverage for specific items or services required under subsection Y of this section, a written affidavit shall be filed with the corporation stating the objection. On receipt of the affidavit, the corporation shall issue to the religiously affiliated employer a contract that excludes coverage for specific items or services required under subsection Y of this section. 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 religiously affiliated employer offering the plan may state religious beliefs in its affidavit and may require the subscriber to first pay for the prescription and then submit a claim to the hospital service corporation, medical service corporation or hospital, medical, dental and optometric service corporation along with evidence that the prescription is not for a purpose covered by the objection. A hospital service corporation, medical service corporation or hospital, medical, dental and optometric service corporation may charge an administrative fee for handling these claims.

AA. Subsection Z of this section does not au ...

Can't wiat until Christain Scientist employers refuse to provide coverage for blood transfusions.

Macular Degenerate		2012-05-13 10:00:30 PM

I predict a pretty short constitutional lifespan for this legislative abortion. Oh wait.

Thrakkorzog		2012-05-13 10:02:07 PM

There will not be a person going around asking women about their sex lives it will be a corporate wide insurance change. The new insurance provider will only cover birth control if a woman has the note from her doctor. No harassment, No lawsuits. Stupid always finds a way....

Displayed 50 of 380 comments