Kate wrote: The foundation of your argument is that there is nothing explicit within the bill that says employers can fire people based on their use of contraception? Since Arizona is an "at-will" employment state, it doesn't have to be in the bill.
Want to try again?
Want to lie again? Are you and JSG taking lying lessons from Lady Jazzer?
You're right. I apologize. They're not "whore pills." They're birth control pills. I apologize for sinking to level of Rush Limbaugh in referring to them as "whore pills." It's not what I do. I didn't mean it as a personal attack on women who take birth control pills.
I'm sorry to say that it was the rep from my district here in AZ who authored this bill. Yes it could end up allowing a company to terminate an employee because she uses birth control, but here in AZ you can be terminated for wearing the wrong color shoes to work. But that really isn't the scary part of the bill...requiring a woman to provide her employer with her private medical information, herr medical condition that requires an Rx for the pill, will most likely kill the bill. But not before this crazy state legislature passes it. The courts will have to stop it.
Mary Scott wrote: Does that mean that you could be fired for driving a Chevy instead of a Ford if the employer only liked Fords?
That's funny, but I have heard of managers firing or laying off people who drove foreign cars.
It sure would be a lot simpler if individuals could buy a health insurance plan with the coverage they want, like how we buy car insurance. Benefits go up, cost goes up. Pretty simple really.
If you want to be, press one. If you want not to be, press 2
Republicans are red, democrats are blue, neither of them, gives a flip about you.
archer wrote: I'm sorry to say that it was the rep from my district here in AZ who authored this bill. Yes it could end up allowing a company to terminate an employee because she uses birth control, but here in AZ you can be terminated for wearing the wrong color shoes to work. But that really isn't the scary part of the bill...requiring a woman to provide her employer with her private medical information, herr medical condition that requires an Rx for the pill, will most likely kill the bill. But not before this crazy state legislature passes it. The courts will have to stop it.
Where in THE BILL is there any section that allows an employer to fire an employee for using birth control pills? Kate keeps saying that, JSG keeps saying that and now you are saying that... "Yes IT (meaning the bill) could end up allowing a company to terminate an employee because she uses birth control". Show me that language in the bill?
archer wrote: I'm sorry to say that it was the rep from my district here in AZ who authored this bill. Yes it could end up allowing a company to terminate an employee because she uses birth control, but here in AZ you can be terminated for wearing the wrong color shoes to work. But that really isn't the scary part of the bill...requiring a woman to provide her employer with her private medical information, herr medical condition that requires an Rx for the pill, will most likely kill the bill. But not before this crazy state legislature passes it. The courts will have to stop it.
Hope so. I can't believe a Republican lawmaker would want to give an employer to right to delve into private medical information of its employees. Oh wait, we're talking about a Republican lawmaker.
The language isn't in the bill GOP, no one said it was...only that it adds one more excuse to a long list of excuses to terminate an employee. Even in an at will employment state a company cannot discriminate again an employee because of race or gender etc..if a company wanted to fire a woman they would need a reason and this may give them one.
Kate wrote: The foundation of your argument is that there is nothing explicit within the bill that says employers can fire people based on their use of contraception? Since Arizona is an "at-will" employment state, it doesn't have to be in the bill.
Want to try again?
Want to lie again? Are you and JSG taking lying lessons from Lady Jazzer?
You know, you really don't have to insult people when you've been shown that you are wrong.
Kate wrote: The foundation of your argument is that there is nothing explicit within the bill that says employers can fire people based on their use of contraception? Since Arizona is an "at-will" employment state, it doesn't have to be in the bill.
Want to try again?
Want to lie again? Are you and JSG taking lying lessons from Lady Jazzer?
You know, you really don't have to insult people when you've been shown that you are wrong.
"Law Will Allow Employers to Fire Women for Using Whore Pills" The title says it's in the law. It's not in the law. I'm right. Want to try again?
Arlen wrote: Health insurance is for illness and sickness. Is ovulation a disease?
LOL, Arlen I think this was covered already in another thread. Health insurance is now mandated Health care, and it is for whatever Obama decides it is for. Try and keep up.
If you want to be, press one. If you want not to be, press 2
Republicans are red, democrats are blue, neither of them, gives a flip about you.
