Mar. 13th, 2012

trenchkamen: (Bend over.)
I am appalled. I wish I could say "shocked and appalled", but really, I'm not shocked at all. This is Arizona HB 2625; scroll to page 11 to get to contraceptive coverage. The last quarter of page 12, specifically, notes (slashed out in red) that "A religious employer shall not discriminate against an employee who independently chooses to obtain insurance coverage or prescriptions for contraceptives from another source." BUT, as a subsection: "This section does not apply to evidences of coverage issued to individuals on a nongroup basis."

I'm not a lawyer, but the strike-out for the non-discrimination clause, and the sub-clause, seems like bad news.

And this shit better not pass the House, but it probably will. The state Senate and House tend to lock-step with each other on bullshit like this.

The ONLY semi-ethical reason I could see for this law is to protect innocent doctors from lawsuits--if there was a rash of people wrongfully suing doctors for birth defects they could not have detected pre-birth. There are many such defects, and people do try to sue when there was nothing anybody could have done or foreseen. But I seriously doubt that is what the law is really going for, and even if it was, this sort of legislation is NOT the way to handle the issue. It gives doctors with an agenda the right to withhold the information they DO have.

Tort reform is a whole other issue. Malpractice suits need to go before a panel of peers--other physicians who know the science. But let's be honest here--this bill is about restricting access to abortion, about policing women and their decisions, not about preventing frivolous lawsuits.

And our friends in Kansas are facing an identical bill. Disgusting.

Here is Arizona SB 1395. It is very short, very vague, and very easy to abuse.

God, I am so glad I am leaving this state for California (which, yes, I know, is far from perfect and has a horrific economy).

July 2012


Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags