I'm gonna do something odd for me; introduce a topic here. The reason is that it's a TTBM, but it might incite a debate no matter how I phrase it.
Friend of mine reposted a link to
an article saying that Arizona's proposed House Bill 2625 would let employers fire employees for using birth control, because Arizona is an "at-will employment state."
There are
so many things wrong with that, which I found out upon, you know, doing the research. I had to wade through a number of blog sites (HuffPo, among others) all repeating the same line, until I found the Arizona government's site with bills posted with revisions.
After reading
the current revision, it's clear the bill is not about employment termination at all. It says,
- Spoiler:
Z. Notwithstanding subsection y of this section, a contract does not fail to meet the requirements of subsection Y of this section if the contract's failure to provide coverage of specific items or services required under subsection Y of this section is because providing or paying for coverage of the specific items or services is contrary to the religious beliefs of the employer, sponsor, issuer, corporation or other entity offering the plan or is because the coverage is contrary to the religious beliefs of the purchaser or beneficiary of the coverage. If an objection triggers this subsection, a written affidavit shall be filed with the corporation stating the objection. The corporation shall retain the affidavit for the duration of the contract and any renewals of the contract. This subsection shall not exclude coverage for prescription contraceptive methods ordered by a health care provider WITH prescriptive authority for medical indications other than for contraceptive, abortifacient, abortion or sterilization purposes. A corporation, employer, sponsor, issuer or other entity offering the plan may state religious beliefs or moral convictions in its affidavit that require the subscriber to first pay for the prescription and then submit a claim to the corporation along with evidence that the prescription is not in whole or in part for a purpose covered by the objection. A corporation may charge an administrative fee for handling these claims.
Shorter version is that an employer who has filed a written affidavit stating that he has a religious objection to including contraceptives in employer-provided health care plans may require that employees first pay for the contraceptives themselves (birth control pills may be obtained for free at some clinics or for $9 for a month's supply at places like Wal-mart) and then submit medical proof that the contraceptives were for medical, non-contraceptive reasons before being compensated (which covers those who take it for hormone-regulatory reasons, etc.).
There is nothing there about termination of employment. It is a very reasonable exception to avoid violating the rights of employers.
Now, onto
"at-will employment." It's true, the at-will employment assumption is in effect in Arizona,
as it is in every state in the Union, in some form or another. The article is fundamentally misrepresenting the concept. At-will employment is in effect where there is no union in place and means that employees are free to quit and employers are free to terminate (with clauses). Federal law states, however, that employers cannot terminate for retaliatory purposes, and Arizona is among the states with a "good faith" clause that states there must be just cause.
So, effectively, the law changes
nothing. The law does not provide for termination if an employee is "caught" using birth control, in fact it specifically says employers should provide unless they log a legal document stating their religious objection (in which case the employee is free (under at-will employment) to find another employer.
The "outrage" over this is just absolutely ridiculous, especially because those who are screaming about it fundamentally misunderstand the issues. It is not an issue of women's rights; it is not an issue of availability; it is an issue of freedom of employers not to be forced to pay for something
for somebody else to which they have a religious and moral objection. They scream "Government should not be interfering!" and they're right! I agree! Government cannot (Constitutionally) and should not override an employer's religious beliefs, and they should not interfere with the services employers choose to offer to their employees. This screaming about a "war on women" has got to stop. There is only a "war" so long as the mainstream media keeps harping on the same issues, badgering conservatives to defend the same points over and over again, distorting the issues and misinforming the public.
Am I alone here? []