237 replies to this topic

[Cait]

I've heard it here and elsewhere in real life that there is no GOP "War on Women". That it is a made up controversy.   I'm not sure I'd call it a war either, but it works as a slogan in many ways.  In any event, whether or not it is a war on women or just a war on legal abortions, there is plenty of evidence that, at the State level at least, the GOP has been hard at work to pass legislation that would alter the face of women's reproductive rights .

I don't know about other women, but the recent emphasis on transvaginal ultrasounds strikes me as some pornographic delight among legislators.  Medical Porn mandated by the State. It's more than just an end run around Row v. Wade.  It's an end run around Griswald v. Connecticut.  The privacy between a doctor and a woman is being legislated away.

I'd rather this conversation didn't get all caught up in the right or wrong of abortion.  I'll stipulate that there are two very hotly contested sides to that question.  I'm interested in what people think about the legislation that is currently making its way through several state legislature and how it relates to privacy between a woman and her doctor.  I'm interested in what people think about the state mandating medical procedures that a doctor might not believe are necessary. As it stands now, abortion is legal and the legislation strikes me as more than trying to make abortion so hard to obtain that no one does get one.  It strikes me as punitive.  It's a punishment for daring to try to get one in some of these states.

Here are some of the bills being considered in several states, and this is a short list.  There are plenty more.  While all seems to be quiet at the National level, the states have been very busy indeed.

http://www.huffingto..._n_1366994.html

Quote

If Winder's mandatory ultrasound bill becomes law, a victim of rape or incest or a woman with a medical emergency who is seeking an abortion must obtain an ultrasound first and the state will provide a list of providers. Nearly every provider of free ultrasounds in Idaho is a "

crisis pregnancy center

," which aims to dissuade women from having an abortion. The woman would also have to obtain from a doctor a second ultrasound, which would involve an invasive

transvaginal procedure if she is in her first trimester of pregnancy

. Even if she averts her eyes from the ultrasound image and refuses to listen to the fetal heartbeat, she would have to hear the doctor describe the fetus in detail.

http://abcnews.go.co...24#.T2jKfMUgcwE

Quote

Abdominal ultrasounds for women seeking abortions in Virginia will become mandatory under a bill signed into law Wednesday by the state's Republican governor, who had faced a national uproar when earlier versions of the measure had sought to make the exams medically invasive.

The law conservative Gov. Bob McDonnell signed requires all Virginia abortion providers to comply starting July 1 or pay a $2,500 fine for each violation. Patients living within 100 miles of the clinic where the abortion is performed must wait 24 hours after the ultrasound examination before having an abortion. Victims of rape or incest who reported the attacks to police are exempt. Women must be offered the chance to view the ultrasound images, but can't be forced to see them.

http://e-lobbyist.co...its/text/596074

ARIZONA HOUSE BILL 2625

http://www.huffingto...=media&ir=Media

Quote

There is a

bill making its way

through the Arizona state legislature that would require women to prove to their boss that they need birth control in order to treat a medical condition if they wanted their prescription to be covered by their insurer. That is outrageous. Women should never be forced to share personal information with their boss in order to have access to basic health care.

As if that wasn't bad enough, it goes even further. This bill also allows a woman's boss to fire her for using birth control as a contraceptive. Fired. For taking birth control. These Republicans are trying to take away women's rights and freedoms and we won't stand for it. This bill has, incredibly enough, already been passed in the Arizona State House and is now up for debate in the State Senate.

http://www.bloomberg...y-cut-care.html

Quote

Texas public health officials say women who get family-planning services at Planned Parenthood clinics will struggle to find other providers once the nonprofit group is expelled from the state Women's Health Program.

A dispute pitting Governor Rick Perry, a Republican, against President Barack Obama, a Democrat, over a state ban on aid to abortion providers or their affiliates is expected to force out the nonprofit organization, which cares for almost half of the program's 130,000 participants.

http://www.texastrib...-expires-today/

Quote

Since the standoff between Texas and the federal government erupted over the state's decision to write clinics "affiliated" with abortion providers out of the Women's Health Program, abortion opponents have argued that there are thousands of more comprehensive health care providers available to take Planned Parenthood's place. By law, none of the clinics enrolled in the five-year-old program were performing abortions.

But Fran Hagerty, the head of the Women's Health and Family Planning Association of Texas — which represents non-Planned Parenthood providers in Texas, including clinics, hospitals and medical schools — said she seriously doubts Gov. Rick Perry will be able to keep the pledge he made last week to maintain the roughly $30 million-per-year program without federal help. She said the "monstrous" family-planning funding cuts of the last legislative session, made before the Women's Health Program was jeopardized, have eroded trust and have forced clinics to shut their doors.

http://www.reuters.c...E82D04K20120314

Quote

An admitting privilege gives a doctor a right to admit a patient to a medical facility. Many Mississippi hospitals have refused to grant such privileges to doctors who provide abortions, Derzis said.

She vowed a legal challenge of the legislation if necessary.

"We're not going to leave the women of Mississippi high and dry," Derzis said.

Conservative Mississippi lawmakers have long sought to limit abortion rights. Abortion opponents last year pushed for an amendment to the state constitution that would have defined a fertilized egg as a human being. It was defeated in a statewide referendum last November.

http://www.foxnews.c...-coverage-rule/

Quote

While the battle over birth control, women's rights and religious freedom rages in Washington, Republicans in New Hampshire are firing a preemptive strike, aiming to reverse a 12-year-old state law requiring health plans with prescription coverage to include contraceptives.

Republican House Speaker William O'Brien is leading the charge to allow employers with religious objections to exclude contraceptive coverage from their health plans. He believes the law as it stands can be legally challenged.

http://www.philly.co...n-patients.html

Quote

While sponsor Rep. Kathy Rapp (R., Forest) said her bill would require only ultrasounds on the belly, the language of the bill suggests it could also mandate a vaginal ultrasound, if the embryo is too small to be seen. (For more background read Marie McCullough's piece in the Inquirer here.)

The bill, which passed out of a House committee last month, was scheduled for a vote on the House floor this week.

http://www.huffingto..._n_1363410.html

Quote

A new bill moving through the Tennessee House of Representatives would require the state to publish the names of each doctor who performs an abortion and detailed statistics about the woman having the procedure, which opponents worry will spur anti-abortion violence in the state.

The Life Defense Act of 2012, sponsored by state Rep. Matthew Hill (R-Jonesboro), mandates that the Tennessee Department of Health make detailed demographic information about every woman who has an abortion available to the public, including her age, race, county, marital status, education level, number of children, the location of the procedure and how many times she has been pregnant. Each report would also have to include the name of the doctor who performed the procedure.

http://suwanee.patch...fice-in-suwanee

Quote

On its website, the group says that HB 954, which passed the House recently, is "criminalizing physicians" -- a physician may be sentenced to 1–10 years in prison for terminations post-20 weeks, the group says.

The bill "allows no terminations after 20 weeks unless the life of the mother is already in serious physical jeopardy," the group says.

According to the bill's summary on the Georgia Legislature website, HB 954 would "change certain provisions relating to when abortion is legal." The site says the bill was referred to the Senate on March 5.

http://www.huffingto..._n_1355351.html

Quote

]

The full House of Representatives adopted an amendment to the state budget Friday evening that would prohibit state money from being used on abortions and would ban state workers from performing abortions during the workday. Opponents say the amendment will jeopardize the accreditation of KU's OBGYN residency program, where residents receive training to provide abortions.

[/size]

On Thursday, a House committee meanwhile passed an amendment to the

state's sweeping anti-abortion bill

meant to allow for the abortion training to continue at KU. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requires OBGYN programs to provide abortion training.

http://www.huffingto..._n_1310992.html

Quote

The "Personhood Act," introduced by Sen. Brian Crain ®, would give legal personhood rights to embryos from the moment of fertilization. A similar measure was rejected in Mississippi, one of the most conservative states in the country, because legal and medical experts raised concerns that the bill could ban some forms of birth control, in vitro fertilization and stem cell research.

Edited by Certifiably Cait, 14 April 2012 - 12:20 AM.

[Cheile]

for anyone, anywhere, to claim there isn't an attack against women's rights headed by the GOP is ridiculous and they need to open their eyes.

that's all i'm saying.

[psycaz]

In regards to the Arizona bill, it's actually very simple in you step back and read what's there.
If the person is getting the Pill under the pretense of medicinal purposes but wants it for contraceptive purposes only and has no other medical reason to have it, that's fraud?

Being able to fire someone who is defrauding the company is rational. Why should fraud be allowed under any circumstance?

Folks want exceptions to be made for cases where the Pill is being prescribed for medical reasons other than contraceptive. Ok, so a business does. You can get the Pill if you need it for other medical reasons. They don't want to cover it for contraceptive reasons. That is their choice.

You need it, you can have it. Obtain it under false pretenses, you're fired. Makes sense to me.

Edited by psycaz, 20 March 2012 - 03:56 PM.

[Tricia]

I have read about the Arizona bill though I have not read the bill itself

Not sure about the firing part as this is the first I have read of this so will have to go read it now.

edited to add---I read the AZ bill and admittedly my eyes are blurring but I do not see the reference to the part mentioned about firing the employee.  All relevant parts are in blue or red so if anyone can find that...

Here's the link that I originally posted in the thread about legislating viagra usage
link.  Requiring proof of medical reasons for birth control to treat other conditions is basically an exemption to the exemption for those who do not wish to provide insurance coverage for birth control to their employees due to the employer's own religious beliefs. So those women can get the treatment they need.
I'd prefer that be provided only to the insurance company but honestly I have no trouble myself telling an employer exactly why I need it. (but maybe I'm the exception because I've worked with and for a lot of women so feel freer?)

I'm not saying that it doesn't seem like there is a war on reproductive rights.  As a result women feel attacked as they are the ones who bear the children and they feel like their rights to make their own choices are being taken away.

Edited by Tricia, 20 March 2012 - 04:54 PM.

[Nonny]

Certifiably Cait, on 20 March 2012 - 02:12 PM, said:

I don't know about other women, but the recent emphasis on transvaginal ultrasounds strikes me as some pornographic delight among legislators.  Medical Porn mandated by the State. It's more than just an end run around Row v. Wade.  It's an end run around Griswald v. Connecticut.  The privacy between a doctor and a woman is being legislated away.

I have no doubt about that.  

When I was facing my first hearing for my VA claim, I was warned that some of the men adjudicating claims of what is now called Military Sexual Trauma didn't bother to hide their sexual excitement.  Fortunately for me, my claim was settled on gender discrimination, not sexual harassment, much easier to prove, and far less scope for titillation.

[Cheile]

psycaz, on 20 March 2012 - 03:55 PM, said:

In regards to the Arizona bill, it's actually very simple in you step back and read what's there.
If the person is getting the Pill under the pretense of medicinal purposes but wants it for contraceptive purposes only and has no other medical reason to have it, that's fraud?

Being able to fire someone who is defrauding the company is rational. Why should fraud be allowed under any circumstance?

Folks want exceptions to be made for cases where the Pill is being prescribed for medical reasons other than contraceptive. Ok, so a business does. You can get the Pill if you need it for other medical reasons. They don't want to cover it for contraceptive reasons. That is their choice.

You need it, you can have it. Obtain it under false pretenses, you're fired. Makes sense to me.

how about the fact that it's none of an employer's business what prescriptions you are on??  man or woman, that is between you and your doctor.

[psycaz]

Obtaining medical services that one would otherwise not legally be entitled to is insurance fraud. In most cases, companies contribute towards the policies that cover their employees. By extension, they are being defrauded as well.

If the person is conducting fraud, the company has every right to know and take appropriate action.

[Cait]

Quote

While the battle over birth control, women's rights and religious freedom rages in Washington, Republicans in New Hampshire are firing a preemptive strike, aiming to reverse a 12-year-old state law requiring health plans with prescription coverage to include contraceptives.

Republican House Speaker William O'Brien is leading the charge to allow employers with religious objections to exclude contraceptive coverage from their health plans. He believes the law as it stands can be legally challenged.

I'm curious about this in particular.  For 12 years the state of New Hampshire mandated that Insurance companies cover contraception, now suddenly it's a moral issue of conscience?  What was it for the last 12 years?  Good business?

It's not a First Amendment right when it is done at the State Level, but becomes one at the Federal level?  Some of this moral outrage about contraception coverage and issues of conscience doesn't pass the smell test, because if it was a question of conscience it would have been one in New Hampshire 12 years ago.  I wonder how many states have similar laws on the books, and now suddenly it's all about religious freedom.

Edited by Certifiably Cait, 20 March 2012 - 05:27 PM.

[psycaz]

Certifiably Cait, on 20 March 2012 - 05:26 PM, said:

Quote

While the battle over birth control, women's rights and religious freedom rages in Washington, Republicans in New Hampshire are firing a preemptive strike, aiming to reverse a 12-year-old state law requiring health plans with prescription coverage to include contraceptives.

Republican House Speaker William O'Brien is leading the charge to allow employers with religious objections to exclude contraceptive coverage from their health plans. He believes the law as it stands can be legally challenged.

I'm curious about this in particular.  For 12 years the state of New Hampshire mandated that Insurance companies cover contraception, now suddenly it's a moral issue of conscience?  What was it for the last 12 years?  Good business?

It's not a First Amendment right when it is done at the State Level, but becomes one at the Federal level?  Some of this moral outrage about contraception coverage and issues of conscience doesn't pass the smell test, because if it was a question of conscience it would have been one in New Hampshire 12 years ago.  I wonder how many states have similar laws on the books, and now suddenly it's all about religious freedom.

Could be as simple as they didn't have the support to get the mandate changed before. Now with the increased focus on the issue, they do.

The reverse can be said about the Georgetown issue. How long did their policy not cover contraceptives and it was fine?

[Cheile]

psycaz, on 20 March 2012 - 05:16 PM, said:

Obtaining medical services that one would otherwise not legally be entitled to is insurance fraud. In most cases, companies contribute towards the policies that cover their employees. By extension, they are being defrauded as well.

If the person is conducting fraud, the company has every right to know and take appropriate action.

you're ignoring the point.  it's none of an employer's business what legal, doctor-prescribed medications an employee is taking.

if this were about someone obtaining medical marijuana (an illegal drug that should not be legalized) and they were lying about a medical need just to get high, you would be correct.  but it is not.  birth control pills, regardless of which use they are prescribed for, are 100% legal.

what's next, employers demanding to know what medications someone with depression is taking?  other people with mental disabilities?  any and every medication--and then judging and firing people because they don't approve of people with X or Y condition?  

it's a complete invasion of privacy and none of an employer's business, so long as it is a legal medication and it is legally prescribed by a physician.

Edited by Cheile, 20 March 2012 - 05:37 PM.

[psycaz]

Cheile, on 20 March 2012 - 05:36 PM, said:

psycaz, on 20 March 2012 - 05:16 PM, said:

Obtaining medical services that one would otherwise not legally be entitled to is insurance fraud. In most cases, companies contribute towards the policies that cover their employees. By extension, they are being defrauded as well.

If the person is conducting fraud, the company has every right to know and take appropriate action.

you're ignoring the point.  it's none of an employer's business what legal, doctor-prescribed medications an employee is taking.

if this were about someone obtaining medical marijuana (an illegal drug that should not be legalized) and they were lying about a medical need just to get high, you would be correct.  but it is not.  birth control pills, regardless of which use they are prescribed for, are 100% legal.

what's next, employers demanding to know what medications someone with depression is taking?  other people with mental disabilities?  any and every medication--and then judging and firing people because they don't approve of people with X or Y condition?  

it's a complete invasion of privacy and none of an employer's business, so long as it is a legal medication and it is legally prescribed by a physician.

You're ignoring the point that the contraceptives being discussed are not a covered drug unless necessary for other medicinal needs, not contraception.

That makes obtaining them for solely contraceptive purposes fraud. The company has every right to be made aware of an employee committing fraud.

[Cheile]

psycaz, on 20 March 2012 - 05:43 PM, said:

You're ignoring the point that the contraceptives being discussed are not a covered drug unless necessary for other medicinal needs, not contraception.

That makes obtaining them for solely contraceptive purposes fraud. The company has every right to be made aware of an employee committing fraud.

if the insurance company wants to investigate alleged fraud, that's on them.  the employer should worry about running their business and stay out of their employees' personal lives--whether it's their medications or their social media.

furthermore, how long do you think it will be before some random woman loses her job because she's falsely accused of lying even with her doctor's testimony that, yes, she has [insert medical reason] to be taking those pills?  answer:  about five seconds.  all it will take is her mentioning she doesn't want children (whether that's this year or ever) or some hater male/jealous backstabbing female coworker fabricating supposedly-believable b*llsh*t to the bosses about how he heard her bragging that she's cheating the system.

[Captain Jack]

I think privacy in general is being legislated away, for everyone. Big government always leads to over-regulation and legislation that ends up dictating a person's personal life. Because those that are doing this believe they know better and know what is good for you. Who are they to make such decisions? No one should be controlled at any level of government.

[psycaz]

Since the company is usually paying for a portion of the deductible, they have the right to know that they are being defrauded. It is affecting them directly.

If the legislation gives them the right to know, then they have the right to know of being defrauded.

False accusations will have a remedy as well. The personl can file suit if they feel they were dealt with unfairly. Just like now on many a matters.

[Cheile]

psycaz, on 20 March 2012 - 06:04 PM, said:

Since the company is usually paying for a portion of the deductible, they have the right to know that they are being defrauded. It is affecting them directly.

If the legislation gives them the right to know, then they have the right to know of being defrauded.

False accusations will have a remedy as well. The personl can file suit if they feel they were dealt with unfairly. Just like now on many a matters.

because people can win lawsuits against crooked corporations so easily.

this legislation has zero to do with supposed insurance fraud and is just an excuse to take away women's rights.  end of.

[Captain Jack]

psycaz, on 20 March 2012 - 06:04 PM, said:

Since the company is usually paying for a portion of the deductible, they have the right to know that they are being defrauded. It is affecting them directly.

If the legislation gives them the right to know, then they have the right to know of being defrauded.

False accusations will have a remedy as well. The personl can file suit if they feel they were dealt with unfairly. Just like now on many a matters.

A good point.

[psycaz]

Insurance fraud costs everyone. It is one of the factors that cause rates to rise.

It's similar to this hypothetical:

I don't have insurance but my brother does. I use his insurance and go see the doctor. I get the legal treatment I need.

It's still fraud. I received legal treatment under false pretenses. It still causes everyone rates to rise.

[Cheile]

your scenario is not similar at all.  

it is fraud to use someone else's insurance to see the doctor (if you could even do so).

it is not fraud to obtain a medication legally prescribed by your doctor for any of the purposes that medication is made for.

and again i will repeat what i said above since you conveniently ignored it:
this legislation has zero to do with supposed insurance fraud and is just an excuse to take away women's rights.  end of.

[psycaz]

It is exactly similar. It's obtaining coverage a person is not entitled to. If the policy says the Pill is not covered, then the Pill is not covered. If it says it's only for other medicinal purposes, not contraceptive, then it's that way.

The law is the law. Breaking it is fraud.

[Cait]

psycaz, on 20 March 2012 - 05:32 PM, said:

The reverse can be said about the Georgetown issue. How long did their policy not cover contraceptives and it was fine?

Are we sure Georgetown didn't cover it previously?