Ladies, if you want birth control on your insurance plan, should you have to deal your boss?
A.) that you're getting it and B.) why you're getting it
Arizona Republicans think so.
"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."
Tell your boss, that is.
The best part of all this is that most Conservatives reading this instead of saying, "OK, this has gone too far. Let's just get back to the economy, taxes and foreign policy." will instead double down.
Toxic - they should be required to provide health insurance that comply with federal law. An employer doesn't have to provide insurance but an insurance plan is required to carry a certain number of things to prevent cherry picking. This item falls under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which has been upheld as Constitutional by SCOTUS numerous times.
ADD - Title VII gave congress the authority to create the EEOC and enforce the provision therein through appropriate means. Subsection K of Title VII of the CRA of 1964 reads as follows, “(k) The terms “because of sex” or “on the basis of sex” include, but are not limited to, because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions; and women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment-¬related purposes, including receipt of benefits under fringe benefit programs, as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work, and nothing in section 2000e-2(h) of this title [section 703(h)] shall be interpreted to permit otherwise. This subsection shall not require an employer to pay for health insurance benefits for abortion, except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term, or except where medical complications have arisen from an a
ADD 2 - arisen from an abortion: Provided, That nothing herein shall preclude an employer from providing abortion benefits or otherwise affect bargaining agreements in regard to abortion.”
Subsequently, it has been the position of the EEOC the denial of birth control to women violates both the letter and spirit of the aforementioned text. (“The terms “because of sex” or “on the basis of sex” include, but are not limited to, because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions; and women affected by pregnancy…”)
With respect to the fallacious religious liberties argument, the Courts and Congress have occasionally granted individuals and communities immunity from otherwise applicable federal law. For example, a self-employed Amish individual does not have to pay Social Security or Medicare tax because they believe that care of the elderly is strictly a purview and obligation of the family and immediate community. In the case United States v. Lee, an Amish
ADD 3 - business owner argued that because of this exemption, he should not have to pay the employer’s portion of Social Security and Medicare tax. The Courts disagree and found that indeed must. Whilst it has been established that Courts occasionally allow for individual or communal exemptions, they have not allowed an employer to impose such standards upon their employees.
- dark eyesLv 79 years agoFavorite Answer
No! What goes on between an individual and their health care provider is not any one else's business, except for those that individual WANT to share that information with...Period!
Employers only pay a premium, they do not cover the entire cost of health care coverage, and employees who wish to partake in that benefit [yes BENEFIT--as in NOT a requirement] also pay a premium.
If we start doing this for birth control, then we may as well start putting all the cards on the table for health care issues that are preventable [almost completely] with lifestyle change!
- hartonLv 45 years ago
This delivery manipulate factor is only a made up argument. The reality is many states ALREADY call for that religion centered corporations coverage enterprise's present delivery manipulate. and feature for years. Also "delivery Control" is used for lots of girl heath problems different then Birth manipulate. Such as ovation cysts. And those explanations Included taking delivery manipulate whilst on remedy that might rationale delivery disorder are actually accepted by way of the Church-- and but they nonetheless are inclined to Deny girl this choice- However if a person are not able to get a difficult on good that's included. If you're a Jewish or Muslim Company you are not able to decide out on middle valve Replacement protection when you consider that they use porcine valves. And but for lots of that might be untrue. You are forgetting one manger component right here-- that on one is making the worker to make use of it. The trustworthy don't ought to have it.
- Anonymous9 years ago
It's a stupid bill but with saying that, so is REQUIRING ALL health insurance policies to offer x, y & z. If a private individual wants a health insurance policy that covers birth control pills they can certainly go out and get their own. However, a company that provides a health insurance policy is the one deciding upon the insurance plan(s) that will be offered as part of the compensation package (benefits). So if they opt to find an insurance plan with-out birth control pills, because its "cheaper", than why are they wrong in doing so? Why shouldn't private insurance be allowed to have plans (that can be purchased by a business or individual) that dont include birth control pills?
Edit: Explain to me why & how birth control pills fall under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (or am I reading that wrong)? Oh I certainly agree that health insurance policies MUSt comply with Federal Law, so if the Federal Law says "you guys got to cover birth control pills" than of course its the law.
With saying that, I don't get the point of it being mandated by the Federal Government. You claim its "cherry picking" but everything on insurance is cherry picking to an extent. Some plans cover mental health, some don't. WHy isn't that cherry picking? What if one plan covers cosmetic surgeries and another one doesn't? Is that cherry picking as well?
Lets also not claim Viagra and Birth Control pills are apple to apple comparisons...they are not. Birth Control pills would be like insurance carries having to cover a rubber. Sure, there are times when birth control pills are used to help non-pregnancy related issues and of course they should be covered.
- Anonymous9 years ago
she would actually have to show a note from a doctor stating it was for uses other than birth control for it to be covered.
we need to solve the religious fanaticism taking over our country.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- MargaretLv 69 years ago
What does it matter why a person is getting it?
It's a personal choice, which means it's no one else's business.