E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe bill would also allow all employers, and not just religious institutions, to opt out of providing coverage for birth control.
PHOENIX - 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."
'Women and their doctors'
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.
Privacy concerns raised by opponents
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.
Journal disavows study linking abortion, mental health
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.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News
Leave a Comment:
This is so STUPID..maybe they should make men prove they really can't get an erection before they cover their prescriptions for Viagra
Great idea. Unfortunately, you can't prove a negative. Kinda like the argument about the existence of God. Religious people can't prove the existence of God. Non-religious people can't prove the non-existence of God. They just have to take it in faith.
Agreed...take it a step further and also require men to provide proof that the Viagra is being prescribed for "procreational" use ONLY! If women have to provide proof that hormonal medication is not being prescribed to prevent pregnancy, men should provide proof that Viagra is being prescribed to assist in copulation strictly with the intent to conceive a baby. Of course that would mean 24/7 observation of both the husband and wife (even during sex) including all medical testing on each party after each act of copulation to verify that steps were not taken to prevent pregnancy. Isn't this more COSTLY and AWKWARD for everyone?
Make birth control over the counter instead of a prescription. Problem solved, if I want it to prevent pregnancy, then I buy it. If you want to make something a prescription then it should be covered by "prescription coverage medical insurance". Maybe I'll just move to a place where women have no say and no rights, it seems that we are heading backwards instead of forward in this country.
@ bmp2012
they can't make OC's over the counter because for some women they might be unsafe or lead to death due to existing medical conditions and family history like heart attacks strokes or blood clots a person needs to be medical evaluated. OC's need to remain prescription. Drug makers keep jacking up the cost of OC's 50.00 or more a month . They are making a killing off something that is very very cheap for them to make. They need to make OC's affordable something women can afford to pay out of pocket like 5.00 0r 10.00 a month. Then they wouldn't have to have all these religious fanatics involved in their very personal private affairs.
Religions need to adapt and accommodate.
Jehovah's Witnesses blood transfusion confusion
Jehovahs Witnesses take blood products now in 2012.
They take all fractions of blood.This includes hemoglobin, albumin, clotting factors, cryosupernatant and cryopoor too, and many, many, others.
If one adds up all the blood fractions the JWs takes, it equals a whole unit of blood. Any, many of these fractions are made from thousands upon thousands of units of donated blood.
Jehovah’s Witnesses can take Bovine *cows blood* as long as it is euphemistically called synthetic Hemopure.
Jehovah's Witnesses now accept every fraction of blood except the membrane of the red blood cell. JWs now accept blood transfusions.
The fact that the JW blood issue is so unclear is downright dangerous in the emergency room.
--
Danny Haszard http://www.ajwrb.org
JW blood reform site
I am not capable of ever being pregnant, however, I took birth control pills 20 years ago to regulate and control my menstrual cycle - they were a gift for me as they really helped the quality of my life - they were covered under my healthcare plan PPO - i did not have to gain approval prior to my taking them -
Looking at it now, I find it amusing healthcare companies would balk at birth control for any reason - its so much cheaper than women having babies ....and for the employer as well, no maternity leave - temp workers etc......
An employer does not have the right to know why a pill is being taken. This is absurd and there needs to be a stop to the government telling people (women) they are too ignorant to decide what to do with their lives and bodies. God this makes me so mad.
You are correct. The argument about employer notification is a red herring. HIPA makes that illegal.
Actually, if your employer 'self insures' then they already have access to your medical files if they wish. Most employers who do self insure has a 'middleman' company that handles insurance claims, etc....but that company has access...and is hired by your employer.....
Sticky situation, to say the least.
HIPPA violation of the highest order...
@denver bill 2: Men must 'prove' they have ED now - if they are having a script written for Viagra or Cialis (or any of the other 'erection enhancing' drugs. Actually, having that little factoid being made known to their employer would be fun too, don't you think (it would explain why some men are so short tempered and irritable)?
this law will be deemed unconstitutional, not because of the US Constitution but the Arizona constitution. Anti Abortion foes argue that the US Constitution does not have a right to privacy clause and so Roe v. Wade should be overturned as that case centered on a right to privacy between the decisions a woman makes with her medical professionals. However, many states, including Arizona, do in fact have such a consititional right of privacy clause in their state constitution and as such that right is supreme over other state statues which are an invasion of privacy as this one will surely be because it will require a woman to reveal private health matters.
OMG! What the hell? This is all about privacy here! This should be between the Dr. and the patient! This should have NOTHING to do with work, or the insurance from that job! What the hell is wrong with th GOP??? LEAVE WOMEN ALONE!!
Only us, the women and men who object these actions, can change the way history is now rolling. We could all laugh this off, but truth is, our lives are in the balance here ladies. Medical care is expensive and invasive. We need to take a stand and make it be loud and clear that no one's life is worth their vote. They would end up increasing the country's population rapidly leaving this economy in even worse condition. There will be more murders, back alley abortions and suicides. It is bad. We the VOTERS can change this. If we all move together for one cause the benefits health resources. No excuses. Your MOTHER, GRANDMOTHER, SISTER, AUNT, WIFE OR GIRL FRIEND.....We are all at risk here. We all know some one who would be terribly affected by laws like this passing. Take a stand. Do what's right, not what's easy. It makes a difference.
Why target birth control alone, when there are many religious cults which oppose things like blood transfusions and mental health treatment?
And why should your employer's religious views trump yours?