Previous Post Next Post


Brought to you by

Arizona Law Would Allow Women To Be Fired For Using Birth Control

By Sierra Black |

Firing a woman for using birth control sounds like something out of a dystopian fantasy. It could soon become a grim reality for women in Arizona, though, if a proposed law passes.

Arizona lawmaker Debbie Lesko has proposed a bill that would allow employers to require women seeking birth control prescriptions to prove they aren’t using the pills for contraception. Lesko claims this legislation will somehow protect First Amendment rights, by allowing employers with moral objections to birth control to opt out of paying for it.

The problem is…well, there are so many. The only brilliantly pointed out by our friends at Jezebel is that Arizona is an at-will employment state. So all those “mom and pop” employers who will be opting out of paying for birth control prescriptions would also be within their rights to just opt out of employing women who do use birth control. Classy.

In essence, how it works is this: The Arizona law would allow employers to insist that a woman using insurance to pay for birth control prove she’s being prescribed the Pill for a medical reason other than contraception. To help with cramps or acne, say. If she’s using it to avoid getting knocked up, the employer would be allowed to refuse coverage based on religious beliefs. Since Arizona is an at-will state for employment, most employees can be let go for any reason. That means the same employees who are turning over their sensitive medical information to get insurance coverage could not only be denied coverage, they could also be out of a job.

The worst part of this is that it makes already vulnerable women more vulnerable. The law is so vague, it lets individual employers invade their female employees privacy and then pass judgement on them without a clear standed. What does a moral objection mean? One can easily imagine a situation in which an employer feels OK about birth control but doesn’t like premarital sex. That employer would have the legal right to fire a woman just because they think her boyfriend is sketchy, while giving married employees a pass.

How did an idea this bad get any legislative backing? Well, we all know there’s been a lot of crazy going on over birth control lately. The rep who put this bill forward says she’s doing it to protect religious freedom, by which she means the freedom of religious people to use their beliefs as a weapon to control other people’s lives.

As Jezebel says:

It’s all about freedom, she said, echoing everyone who thinks there’s nothing ironic about claiming that a country that’s “free” allows people’s bosses to dictate what medical care is available to them through insurance. First amendment. The constitution. Rights of religious people to practice the treasured tenets of their faiths, the tenets that dictate that religious people get to tell everyone who is not of faith how they’re supposed to live, and the freedom to have that faith enforced by law. Freedom®.

Freedom. Right. I’d like to keep the freedom to have conversations about birth control remain private between me and my doctor, thanks.

Photo: iStock

More on Babble

About Sierra Black


Sierra Black

Sierra Black lives, writes and raises her kids in the Boston area. She loves irreverence, hates housework and wants to be a writer and mom when she grows up. Read bio and latest posts → Read Sierra's latest posts →

« Go back to Mom

Use a Facebook account to add a comment, subject to Facebook's Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. Your Facebook name, profile photo and other personal information you make public on Facebook (e.g., school, work, current city, age) will appear with your comment. Comments, together with personal information accompanying them, may be used on and other Babble media platforms. Learn More.

61 thoughts on “Arizona Law Would Allow Women To Be Fired For Using Birth Control

  1. jennifer says:

    Stop. Please just stop. We are embarrassing ourselves as a country.

  2. Laura says:

    OMFG. seriously? Can they fire the men for using condoms? Because they are using their paychecks to buy condoms, right? So in essence, it’s the same thing?

  3. Megan says:

    I am getting more and more disgusted as I read article after article about limiting access insurance covered birth control. Insurance companies are not complaining. They would much rather pay for $30 bucks a month for the pill then the $20-30k it costs to give birth not to mention the cost of infant/child health care. People have the choice to not use birth control- that is their right but why the feel the need to take away peoples access to it based on moral/religious reasons is ridiculous.

  4. Manjari says:

    The whole point is to try to control women and women’s choices. This is why I don’t understand how any women can be conservative.

  5. Susan Donohue says:

    I have no idea how any woman or any minority can be a conservative. I also do not understand why the GOP is attacking these issues when it is clear that the people of this great nation have other priorities. Clearly, they are not listening so it is our job to inform them loudly.

  6. Jackie says:

    Wouldnt the insurance company be administering the plan on behalf of the company? How would the employer know that the insurance company denied the birth control coverage for a particular employee. I think it is a crappy change either way. I handle benefits at my job and have no visibility to individual employee claims. We rely on the insurance company to rule on medication eligibility based on the companys policy. But i live in canada, maybe its different here.

  7. Liz says:

    however the employer finds out his employee is using contraceptives as a pregnancy barrier… thinking, couldnt that be a hippa violation?

  8. pam says:

    What the hell is going on. Why do women vote against their own self interest. These conservative women are really something else. They don’t mind men controlling their lives. They vote for stuff like that and then realize that OMG is that what I voted for. Now I can be fired If I use birth control, now my employer who does not know my health concerns can now fire me. These stupid conservative women are really crazy they really want women to go back into the dark ages. Now these conservative women are talking about religious freedom. Really, that is not what this is about it is about women’s health care your health care stupid. So if you conservative women don’t want your birth control covered, then pay for it yourself. The rest of us women want our birth control our health care covered. We want our mammograms, pap smear and so on covered. Don’t you stupid conservative women realize that. You are making it so hard for women to function in this society. While you are putting in legislation to ruin women, why are men given a pass. That’s the nonsense that is going on with these conservative women. That is not the way to fight back for women. I can not understand why we are having this conversation in 2012. We now know that there are women who think that women should no have any and I mean any control over their bodies. These republicans and conservative women always talk about “Big” government and are constantly putting “Big” government in between a woman and her doctor. So now a legislature knows better than a woman and her doctor. So the republicans are the biggest government intrusion when it comes to women but want the government out of your business when it comes to everything else. Let government get all up into a woman’s vagina, let government get all into to a woman’s bedroom, let government tell a woman she needs invasive medical procedures even if it isn’t necessary. Let’s have government control women’s bodies, even their minds. Don’t bother men that would be silly. What’s silly is the conservative women voting against their own self interest. This whole thing has really gotten out of hand. These republicans that say I want government, I want freedom really don’t mean that when it comes to women. They really want women to be controlled. What is the matter with these republican or conservative women? Don’t they know that once these laws passed it is hard to get them reverse and once one state starts it another will and women will know longer have a voice. So sad.

  9. bunnytwenty says:

    As I’ve pointed out on other posts about this: there does not appear to be any exemption for married women. So it’s not even just penalizing women for “immoral” unmarried sex – it’s penalizing married women for having non-reproductive sex with their husbands. I would love to hear someone defend that particular insanity.

  10. grace says:

    Unless I’m reading it wrong, the title is misleading. It looks to me that the bill is allowing employers who object to contraception to refuse to pay for it through their health plans unless it is for an unrelated medical condition. Besides, (admittedly, I didn’t read the bill), does it really require the employee to turn over their medical records to their employer, or will they simply have to produce a prescription to their pharmacy and have it approved by the insurance company- like any other drug that normally isn’t approved in a formulary? When was not paying for contraception the same thing as firing?

  11. Diana says:

    Absolutely ridiculous. I agree that we’re embarrassing ourselves as a nation. Where does HIPAA fit into all of this?

  12. goddess says:

    Oh Bunny- don’t you know = the Catholic Church argues it cannot cover ANY birth control- and it won’t cover sterilization either- since all sex needs to be open to procreation.

  13. goddess says:

    From the article: “The only brilliantly pointed out by our friends at Jezebel is that Arizona is an at-will employment state. So all those “mom and pop” employers who will be opting out of paying for birth control prescriptions would also be within their rights to just opt out of employing women who do use birth control. Classy.”

  14. grace says:

    That’s why it’s called at-will employment. Will the next article state that “Law Would Allow Women to Be Fired For Wearing Brown Shoes”? Unless a contract or handbook offers more specific policies regarding termination (cause, for example), an employer OR employee can terminate the employment for any reason (although there are legal exceptions). This law doesn’t change that.

  15. Manjari says:

    I absolutely do not understand how any female can be republican. I am so incredibly disgusted by this crap.

  16. grace says:

    I have seen way too much time and energy focused on whether or not the government should require private employers to pay for contraception through their employee health plan. Let me repeat that: WHETHER OR NOT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD REQUIRE PRIVATE EMPLOYERS TO PAY FOR CONTRACEPTION THROUGH THEIR EMPLOYEE HEALTH PLAN. Seriously? I realize that costs of heathcare are through the roof. But instead of spending all our energy trying to figure out new ways for other people to pay for our birth control pills, wouldn’t it be a better idea focusing on ways to make real healthcare affordable, so WE can actually pay for it? So WE can pay for what WE want and what WE need? That seems to make WAY more sense to me than finding more ways to stick my handout and squabble over what really breaks down to women whining because they think they deserve to have someone else pay for their pills because they’re too expensive.

  17. Manjari says:

    Grace, are you kidding? Why is it “whining” to want medication covered by insurance that we pay into and that is a benefit of working? Are you ok with Viagra being covered when birth control is not? Do you realize that women take birth control pills for medical reasons, and not just to prevent pregnancy (though I don’t think it should matter). Do you not see the benefit to public health that birth control pills provide? No one is trying to figure out ways to make other people pay for their birth control pills any more than for any other kind of medicine. Of course women deserve to have their pills covered. Why wouldn’t they? Why is it different from any other medicine?

  18. Manjari says:

    And for you to act like women are sticking their hands out… it’s like you have no idea what the actual situation is. Do you think women are trying to get their employers to just pass the pills out for free at work? People who earn their health care by working and by paying into the plan deserve to have their prescription covered. Anyone who says otherwise has a different problem with the idea of birth control.

  19. grace says:

    Majari- you said it in your first sentence. It’s a benefit of working. Some policies are better than others, just like some employers are better than others. Even if you pay your own premiums, you aren’t actually paying for your actual healthcare. It’s insurance. Most likely, your employer is paying part of your premium and negotiating the price of that premium. Women are making a huge deal over one small aspect of health insurance. Why aren’t more people up in arms because their employers don’t cover dental or vision? They suck it up and pay for it themselves. So yes, I think that women are sticking their hands out because somehow it has turned into the political firestorm of the month, and suddenly all women “deserve” to have their birth control pills covered. I just think that our time is better spent finding a solution to affordable healthCARE that doesn’t simply have the government place more regulations on health insurance.

  20. bunnytwenty says:

    “That seems to make WAY more sense to me than finding more ways to stick my handout and squabble over what really breaks down to women whining because they think they deserve to have someone else pay for their pills because they’re too expensive.”
    So you’re calling it whining that people are demanding to receive something they’ve paid for? I sure hope you don’t complain if you order something on Amazon and it doesn’t arrive, you big whiner. Next you’ll be saying that just because you pay rent, you should be allowed to live in your apartment, and just because you paid for a toy, your child should be allowed to play with it.

  21. grace says:

    Bunnytwenty- If you want to use an analogy, try one that actually fits. If I buy something from Amazon that states, “Batteries not included”, I am not going to start crying that Amazon should be required to pay for my batteries.

  22. Bryan says:

    Well said, Grace.

  23. Manjari says:

    Grace, but why should birth control pills be singled out as something that is like a handout if other medications aren’t? Are you saying no one should have health insurance at all? If you have no moral objection to birth control, why would you describe women who want it covered as “whiners” if you wouldn’t say so about anyone wanting other medication covered? You’re the one who seems to be politically motivated to say that. Birth control pills aren’t actually that expensive compared to other medications. For example, I was originally prescribed bcp for a medical condition but ended up on a different kind of medicine which cost $500/mo. It would have been cheaper for the insurance company to cover bcp. You are talking about people who are receiving health insurance as a benefit of working, people who are paying part of the price for it, and who are willing to also pay a copay for the pills. To call that asking for a handout just doesn’t make sense, unless you also think that no medicine should be covered for anyone at all.

  24. Linda, T.O.O. says:

    “So it’s not even just penalizing women for “immoral” unmarried sex – it’s penalizing married women for having non-reproductive sex with their husbands. I would love to hear someone defend that particular insanity.” Exactly! this is part that just kills me. It’s not that I think that any woman ought to be shamed for her sexuality, but who do these bozos think they’re speaking to?

  25. aescam says:

    I’m not surprised! Arizona laws keep getting stupider and stupider. Next were going to get pulled over for looking like we use birth control. I’m referencing to their laughable immigration bill.

  26. bunnytwenty says:

    Grace, my analogy still works – when you pay for health care with prescriptions included, you’re paying for someone to cover all of your prescriptions, not just the ones they feel like covering.

  27. Stephanie says:

    This is rediculous! A woman who chooses to control her own reproduction by means of birth control is NOT destroying life but preventing it in the first place. A woman’s birth control is a PRIVATE matter- not one to be judged by her employer or anyone else. In a business world where women have struggled and still continue to struggle to climb the ladder, this is a big step in the wrong direction. I agree with Linda… What about married couples who want to plan their family?
    So the question is.. “To be or not to be… pregnant?” or rather “To be or not be… employed.” …. or more simply… “To be or not to be… homeless?”
    A woman being penalized because her religious views don’t agree with her employer is a gateway to other problems for every citizen of every religion (future litigation and legislation.) Rediculous.

  28. amanda says:

    ok I have to say something now I am a conservative independent, and I really dont like that some of you have the nerve to say things like we allow men to control our lives(yea my husband would disagree with that one if I did his life would be eaiser .LOL)and how can any woman be republican? The people that support these bills are crazy out of touch pricks, most just happen to be conservative. That doesnt mean all conservatives support those bills. Thats like saying most serial killers are white men so all white men must be serial killers ,sounds stupid right? so does lumping all conservatives together .so if you dont want others to lump you in with people in the democratic party who have done bad things or sponsed stupid bills then please dont do the same to me

  29. Roslynn says:

    To me it sounds more like this bill is targeted towards religious employers, such as the Catholic church, Catholic charities, etc and not towards “mom and pop” employers… And really, if you’re working for one of those large religious organizations, then you need to understand that your birth control won’t be covered by the insurance that your Catholic/religious employer provides. That’s just common sense. If you want it to be provided through your insurance, find a different employer, or get supplemental insurance. I really don’t think this should have to be something that the government feels it needs to dictate though, and I REALLY feel that the government and religion should stay out of each others’ business. I don’t want the government dictating my religion, nor do I want my religion dictating my government. Let’s get a little more common sense, America.

  30. tania says:

    what happened to be free to choose what we want to do , my god you woudnt here of this in newzealand , its discusting i feel so sorry for the women of arizona its crazy trying to safe geez we only have so many children , besides they should be able to choose weather to parents or not!!!!!!!!!makes so angry!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  31. dillonsmomma says:

    Whatever happened to the division of Church and State. The government tends to poke it’s nose where it doesn’t belong. And have they thought of how women are going to pay for those babies they don’t want or perhaps they’ll just be in the welfare system the bulk of their lives and the government can pays hundreds of thousands for them instead of women paying $10 a month and taking the pill. They are not taking it to destroy lives, but as a way to prevent them until they are ready financially and emotionally to have children.

  32. jabs says:

    Absurd law — If they want this, then they should have to pay for all childcare and schooling through college.

  33. Laura says:

    @ Grace – I don’t think it’s an issue of saving money on health care. I thought (perhaps mistakenly) that insurance paying for contraception for women was a good thing because it was much less expensive than the cost of a pregnancy. Sort of like how many insurance companies pay for (or employers negotiate their policies to include) annual checkups, mammagrams, etc., because paying the cost of the well-visits and annual preventive tests is much cheaper than paying for treatment of, say, late-stage cancer that could have been caught earlier. Seems like if lots of women go off of birth control because it’s not covered by insurance, the costs might RISE overall because of all the pregnancies that may happen that wouldn’t have otherwise. So that makes me think it’s less about the money and more an issue of whether religious (and other) organizations have the right to make what many see as moral judgments about their female employees.

  34. Brenda Burgess says:

    oh, when its convenent for them, they want to bring religion back into the work place. doesnt it figure.

  35. mlp says:

    Were this enacted, I would LOVE to tell my employer in GRAPHIC detail the medical reasons why I take birth control. This plan is awesome. :/

  36. goddess says:

    This would give them a reason that should never be a factor Grace.

  37. goddess says:

    Actually Grace, i think there’s a sub-text going on right now for which this is just a symptom. AS such, all of the manifestations need to be thoroughly routed.

  38. goddess says:

    Grace- why should my insurance (for which we not only pay part of the premium -30%, but also have $10,000.00 per year deductibles)- why should it cover erectile dysfunction medications? Why should I pay to treat an alcoholic’s liver disease? An over-eater’s diabetes or hypertension? Why should it pay for people to have one child after another that will place more expenses on the plan and company? Why should it be approved to pay for acne and not contraception? Seriously.
    What you call whining many consider acting for change. You work on the things YOU think need to be addressed and let us do the same.

  39. dbscandy says:

    Wait a minute!! I am a conservative woman, and I think this is the stupidest thing I have ever heard of!!!!
    What’s next? My medication for depression not partially covered because someone thinks depression is a sin??
    I want my insurance company to share the cost of birth control for I sure don’t want it paying for an abortion!!!!

  40. dbscandy says:

    …And could an employer even ask if a woman uses birth control? You can’t even ask a person’s age. It’s clearly discrimination!
    What about the man using condoms?? Would a man even be asked this question? I guess he would have to prove he uses them to prevent spread of disease, NOT pregnancy!!!

  41. jackie says:

    To the grace and goddess conversation. I am with you Goddess. What if i skipped the insurance claim to avoid the work related squabble and went to the health department and asked for the free birth control available to those who cant afford it! It seems that all Goddess is saying is let me use my insurance benefits and pay my co-pay and receive my medication in piece. The law is attacking a woman’s right to privacy! That is the issue here. It is none of the employer’s business what medication i am prescribed by a doctor! If the doctor believes that i need said medication that is all that matters. Why anyone thinks its OK to dive between a doctor and patient is beyond me. This is not about handouts. If i wanted a hand out i would go to the government sponsored health department and get it there. I am asking to receive services and goods that i PAID money for. Grace shame on you for being a woman and wanting to put this fight down. It is about a WOMEN’S RIGHT TO PRIVACY! and the next time your sick and your doctor says well sorry dear but the medication was not approved because your a woman think about what is going on here!

  42. Michele says:

    It is one thing to have a health insurance policy with exclusions – it is something entirely different to have specific exclusions based on one persons beliefs. If a policy provides prescription coverage then there should be prescription coverage – PERIOD!!!!! What in the world do these people think will happen by taking away means of preventing pregnancy? We already have far too many kids not being properly taken care of, many kids sitting in foster care or being abused daily. We have a huge population of the country already requiring assistance to feed, cloth and shelter their kids, doesn’t this seem to be taking us in the wrong direction?
    These religious freaks can’t have it both ways – if God has all things planned, then why should insurance pay for heart surgery or cancer treatment? If they are okay with modern medicine playing a role in prolonging life and/or preventing death in those and many other situations; why or better yet how can they challenge that modern medicine can also change God’s plan by providing the ability to prevent pregnancy – preventing one from having the blessing of a child that they know they are not ready for or able to provide for. To me that sounds much more responsible and God like than having a number of children you don’t want, won’t love and won’t take care of.

  43. Muxika says:

    This makes as much sense as employees denying service to customers for the customers’ personal beliefs.

  44. Michele B. says:

    Just another nail in a dictatorship coffin. Ladies there are more of us than them. VOTE! ! Write letters to your congressional representatives. Don’t let ignorance ruin YOUR freedoms!!

  45. Chuck Chalker says:

    I’M OUTRAGED. Government has no right dictating our personal affairs. Its not a bosss’ job or right to regulate what goes on behind bedroom doors. was this proven in Germany .

  46. CK says:

    Where I get lost is how does any employer ever have any right to ANY knowledge of a woman’s (or man’s for that matter) healthcare information? You can have this, but only for a reason your employer deems acceptable? What? In what way would we imagine that we would allow them in this conversation? If I have diabetes do they get to decide whether I get the drugs through insurance or should control it by diet? Please. And besides, we all get acne. We all get cramps. Who is going to decide how much we are supposed to endure before BC pills are “medically” necessary? (Get your teenage girls on the pill while their skin is a mess because once diagnosed, you can just call it medically necessary until they’re married and want to have kids. I mean, what doctor is going to take them off, just to see if their pimples come back? Is a doctor really expected to say to a 25 year old woman with a new job, sorry sweetie, your new boss isn’t into this, so you’re going to have to wing it from here on. Is this something you’re going to have to ask about in a job interview? Hey, I’m on the pill. Are you cool with that? Oh and if you’re not, I assume you’re cool with my bringing the kid to work, because I will very rapidly have one.) This is so stupid I’m offended that our lawmakers are wasting their time and energy on it. But, beyond this, the whole conversation about what is okay *for our employers* when it comes to *our* healthcare is a huge argument for cutting them out of the loop and moving to goverment-run (gasp! socialist!) insurance for all. Because what I do with my body is NOT EVER anyone else’s business but mine.

  47. heather says:

    i would rather pay for someone elses birth control then someone elses 10 kids on welfare.

  48. Toni says:

    Really? I mean REALLY? What kind of bozos do we seriously have running the state?? And MY state?? It is beyond belief that my legislators are wasting precious time, effort and MONEY on such insidious issues. That time that could be devoted to some REAL life issues the state (as well as the nation) as a whole is experiencing… QUIT WASTING THE TIME WE GAVE YOU TO INDULGE IN YOUR OWN PERSONAL BELIEFS WHEN YOU WERE ELECTED TO REPRESENT THE INTERESTS OF THE PEOPLE OF ARIZONA… geesh…

  49. goddess says:

    You know what? Your privacy when it comes to health care, employers and insurance companies went out the window when everyone was cool with “drug-testing”. I mean, why not? Why worry unless you have something to hide? Instead of outrage over employers and insurance companies demanding to make sure they knew about what you were doing while off the clock, a lot of people figured it was OK since they didn’t do drugs. and so now, emboldened, companies, like the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, refuse to hire smokers. Not just ban smoking AT work, but demand people not engage in a legal activity in their own HOMES and while off the clock. Weight is the up and coming bugaboo., with those overweight being penalized financially for high BMIs…..
    So now, birth control and through it, women’s sexuality, becomes a target.
    I’m really sorry that people didn’t listen when all of these things began, because with each bit of permission we willingly GAVE to employers, to insurance companies- to invade our privacy (and nice work letting them talk you into training up the next gen in high schools via drug testing, BTW) we gave a little bit of our rights as individuals to people who have us by the balls.

  50. April Garland says:

    If I wanted Congress in my womb, I’d f*ck a Representative. This woman is so dumb…I can only guess she blew her way to the top #TRUTH

  51. Whatevs says:

    Goddess, that is a brilliant and astute statement.

  52. Diera says:

    I wonder if the Church of Scientology could craft their health plan so that it didn’t cover medication for mental health conditions, because they don’t believe in psychiatry?

  53. Pam Hurd says:

    If your company’s new CEO is a Christian Scientist, then your company will have the right to deny ALL medical care??? That is what all these “freedom of religion” banner wavers are saying. I bet most of them wouldn’t like the repercussions of their own moronic bills.

  54. Helen Hill says:

    what about seperation of Church and State… Let’s keep religion out of the workplace. Insurance companies should continue to provide birthcontrol as a beenfit and let people choose whether or not to use it. So employer’s want to be moral and not provide this service so they can have their woman out on maternity leave every year, very productive? Arizona- please take this energy and stop funding the illegal’s children with free health care, education and food stamps… and protect our borders… not bord up our women from the freedom to choose…

  55. pranantha says:

    Hasn’t doctor/patient confidentiality been gone for while now? Yes, you complain when bc is threatened but for awhile now there is no doctor/patient confidentiality when ur govt insists on electronic records not paper ones which can actually be kept private, or when pain control medications are scrutinized or even forbidden with the excuse of ‘stopping abuse’, for those even with cancer pain. You’ve made your bed.

  56. Sara says:

    Ok…this WHOLE debate could be solved EASILY! I do NOT need birth control strength pills. I need pills to control bleeding. Why can’t I get NON birth control strength pills? Is the pharmacutical industry funding this debate?

  57. Louwho says:

    This is a ridiculous and over simplistic article. Clearly, the facts are not present. An employer would not have direct knowledge of a medical claim, HIPPA would prohibit this. HIPPA is a federal mandate. An employer has the RIGHT to select and purchase health care plans based on whatever criteria they determine appropriate. If an employer elects coverage for their employees with limitations, so be it. Many employers limit coverage or cap coverage at a certain dollar amount. If you, as an employee of this company do not agree with the restrictions in your coverage, you are free to seek employment elsewhere. EVERY health insurance plan has limitations on their Rx coverage, EVERY insurance plan has a formulary of approved drugs. As for the argument that erectile dysfunction meds are covered and consequently, birth control should also be covered, this is fiction. ED meds are NOT a covered benefit under most plans and are purchased out of pocket. Birth Control is not medical treatment, it is preventative care. It is cost effective preventative care to be sure and most plans offer it at will. It is NOT an entitlement. It can easily be purchased for relatively little money. As for a separation of church and state issues, the government CAN NOT and SHOULD NOT force an private employer to violate what they believe to be a religious/moral imperative. That is a violation of the employers rights. Gotta agree with Grace on this one. The issue is far more complicated than a 500 word blog article. Do not be fooled in to thinking it is as simple as all of this.
    Lou Who

  58. sukienki ołówkowe says:

    I like it very much especially the information you have putted here is like training. Keep the blog up to date. Thanks a lot!

  59. Netpow says:

    I like the quality of your blog. Thank you very much. Regards. Rachel

  60. Limun says:

    I believe that is among the most important info for me. And i’m glad reading your article. However want to observation on some basic things, The site taste is ideal, the articles is truly great : D. Just right task, cheers

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *.

Previous Post Next Post