Arizona’s HB 2625 Does Nothing! (that the liberals say it does)

That’s right, Arizona House Bill 2625 does nothing!

HB2625, sponsored by AZ House Majority Whip Debbie Lesko, allows employers to opt-out of certain mandated benefits, based on the business owner’s beliefs. It doesn’t authorize the firing of women, it doesn’t violate the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), it won’t deprive women of health care or contraceptive choices, kill kittens, or dictate the color of your panties.

HB2625 merely lets a business owner choose what they will and won’t pay for in the reproductive health insurance area. Contrary to the ACLU’s dishonest agitprop, the bill doesn’t, “give your boss the green light to fire you for using birth control.” It does prevent employees and politicians from forcing their beliefs onto a business owner. An employer’s rights shouldn’t be any different than yours.

Sadly, there are allegedly liberated women, freaking out that the government might not use laws to take care of their tender bits. Shocking isn’t it?

This outraged woman happily shared her personal details with Arizona State Representative Brenda Barton and everyone else on Facebook. Alvin (not her real name) can’t claim privacy rights when she’s posting the details of her period for the whole world to see.

I thought most women wanted the government to stay out of their nether regions. These outraged women are unfortunately getting false information and haven’t stepped back to look at the situation. If you invite the government, and your employer, into your “women’s healthcare” issues, don’t be surprised when the government, or your boss, wants to have a say in what you do with those body parts. This bill removes your boss and your government from your reproductive organs.

If you believe contraceptive issues are your private business, please support HB2625 and don’t use the government to force other people to pay for your beliefs.

Reposted with permission from Great Satan, Inc.


Comments

  1. Harris Shirley says

    Its obvious “Alvin” wasn’t taught in college how to — read with comprehension — because she certainly missed it in this case. Her source of information certainly wasn’t the bill itself – Maybe in college they don’t teach them to do original research, just parrot what someone else is saying.

  2. Is this the best so-called social conservatives can do?

    The bill doesn’t support banning of blood transfusions by Jehovah’s Witness employers, nor can a Scientologist prevent coverage of mental healthcare!

    Whatever happened to religious FREEDOM! Don’t you care about the rights of ALL religious employers?

    My employer should be able to determine initiation or termination of life-support if I am in a persistent vegetative state, not my family and certainly not a Living Will…because life begins at last call.

    Remember who’s paying for all of this! Ever heard of the idiom “you buy it, you own it?” What are your rights to self-determination compared to that?

    • Veritas Vincit says

      My Virginia… forgetting to make any sense again are we?

      As for who pays the freight? Lifestyle medication should not be the responsibility of the employer; rather the employee who’s habits require the use of such prescription drugs.

      • When a man who is active in sports gets a sports injury it’s due to a lifestyle CHOICE!

        Why should his employer pay the frieght for that!

        Good point, conservative!

        • When a man who is active in sports goes to the doctor with an injury, he does so in order to recover from some bodily harm. His treatment is necessary to restore his health.
          When someone purchases contraceptives, they do not do so out of a need to restore their health (except in certain cases, which are provided for in the bill). Birth control is non-essential and does not necessarily need to be covered by health insurance. There are many healthcare services that are more essential to one’s health than birth control and yet are not necessarily covered by health insurance.

  3. Virgina said, “Whatever happened to religious FREEDOM! Don’t you care about the rights of ALL religious employers?”

    I do, and I will support the full restoration of the First Amendment. You should too!

    • I do and thank you for your support!

      But the ones who really need our support include people like Sylvia Olona, a nurse who was removing IUD’s during routine exams because she believed they “push out” fertilized eggs from the uterus, which as a Christian woman she naturally couldn’t agree with!

      Until we have scientific proof of this fact all we have is the concience clause to defend her actions.

      A bunch of foolish women are suing her for this and for refusing to replace the IUD’s, which clearly violates the conscience clause! Fortunately she has not lost her license and still works at the Presbyterian Medical Services Rio Rancho Family Health Center.

      Unfortunately her employer is also being sued. What is wrong with these women? It’s about time we take back our religious FREEDOMS!

      • If I understand your sarcasm and non sequiturs correctly, an individual who starts or owns a business completely surrenders their freedom of religion and freedom of assembly rights to the state?

        • Unfortunately right now yes since they are legally HAVE to purchase insurance policies for workers! LOL!

          Three times I’ve had insurance through an employer and each time my share of the premium is far more costly than the majority of birth control pills, especially the generics! Who gets to pick and choose whose money goes where?

          Health insurance is not healthcare itself. A big pool of money gets collected from all participants and as such you can only really look at general things… like the fact that 4 years of birth control could have been covered by the cost of an uncomplicated pregnancy, and some pregnancies are medically complicated and some babies are unhealthy. Multiple studies confirm that this is the reason why coverage of BC is cost-effective.The employer DOES NOT pay more if contraception is covered ergo they DO NOT perform the equivalent of reaching in their back pocket, taking out their wallet, and grudgingly giving money for contraception.

          When I’ve worked for companies without insurance they pay more per hour. People forget that insurance is part of the compensation package as much as wages, I guess because it’s optional. The insurance is as much compensation as an hourly wage! It’s “their” money going to insurance just like it’s “their” money going to my wages that pay for my beer, and who knows if they’re going to have a problem with that next after what I’ve heard people come up with!

          “Their” money paying my mortgage as if I’m receiving Section 8 vouchers!

          But more importantly Catholic Bishops need to follow up on their request in 2009 that Catholic hospitals and nursing homes REFUSE to honor Living Wills that deny life-sustaining measures, which is almost always paid for Medicare.

          Because that’s the FREEDOM-loving thing to do!

          Also they need make sure they revive the practice of stealing newborns from single teenage whores.

          • There is a flaw in your reasoning. Would you agree that it is the employer, and not the employee, that sets wages? Although the employee can choose whether or not to take a job, the compensation for the job is determined by the employer. And since insurance is part of the compensation package as much as wages, is it not up to the employer to decide what insurance benefits they will offer their employees? I agree that insurance can be likened to money that belongs to a worker, but it only belongs to them because their employer has agreed to pay it to them.

  4. Virginia said, Unfortunately right now yes since they are legally HAVE to purchase insurance policies for workers! LOL!

    Didn’t anyone tell you? The Gov’t made it cheaper for employers to drop insurance coverage than it is to pay for these expensive, overreaching new requirements.

    • Virginia says

      You read the bill… right?

      One of the fewdecent aspects of the bill is it would have (it was voted down) mandated more comprehensive coverage of maternity care. Right now maternity costs in Arizona are only covered about 18% of the time (yet women pay $100 a month more than men on average like in other states) because insurance companies in that state are only required to pay if complications were involved!

      So WHY would the idiots in charge mandate coverage of expensive maternity care while allowing companies to deny birth control coverage? As I already stated birth control is cost-effective because each pregnancy would have covered 4 years of BC, and some are medically complicated and some babies require extensive care after birth.

      That bill is hardly a testament of fiscal conservativism!

      I’ve been watching the GOP sell out that and their other ideals like “small government” (vaginal ultrasounds!) constantly lately.

Leave a Reply