HB2625 Comments

HB2625 was sponsored by 7 Republicans and passed the Arizona House (40 Republicans, 20 Democrats) by a vote of 39-18 (3 didn’t vote). The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the measure on March 12, 2012 with a 6 to 2 vote and on March 28 the Senate (21 Republicans, 9 Democrats) failed to pass the bill (13-17 vote) so the bill did not head to Republican Governor Jan Brewer. Ray Torres, spokesman for the House GOP majority, said Debbie Lesko plans to revive the measure. The fight is not over so I’m giving you what some have said about this bill and others.

March 14 Morallowground.com says if you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention. The Arizona Republic said HB 2625 makes it okay for both religious and secular employers to deny health coverage for contraception if said employers object to birth control for moral reasons. Worse, the bill eliminates a crucial anti-discrimination provision of current law. This means that, if passed, Arizona employers could fire women who are using contraception for birth control, not other medical reasons. Representative Lesko told KTVK3 “I personally don’t have a moral objection to contraceptives but I respect the people that do, House Bill 2625 allows Arizona employers to opt out of the contraceptive mandate if they have a religious or moral objection” But Arizona already has a law that permits religious employers to deny workers contraception coverage for religious reasons. HB 2625 would expand that prerogative to all employers and that has got many people alarmed. Anjali Abraham ACLU of Arizona Public Policy Director said “I think this just goes to what we’ve been saying about the bill. It isn’t really about guaranteeing an individual’s religious liberty but ultimately is about eliminating access as much as possible to basic health services for women. A lot of women require contraception for a variety of serious conditions things like endometriosis, ovarian cysts, conditions that can be very dangerous.” Bryan Howard, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Arizona said “It would just open the door to every employer and every insurer in Yuma County to superimpose his or her values on the major health care decisions available to the women of Yuma County. Fortunately in Yuma County we have the Planned Parenthood health center where we have affordable contraception. But in places like Lake Havasu City, or towns that are farther away from health centers, accessing affordable contraception could be a real barrier.” 

On March 16, 2012 Statepress.com said: Arizona House Bill 2625 would permit employers to ask their employees for proof of medical prescription if they seek contraceptives for non-reproductive purposes such as hormone control or acne treatment. Debbie Lesko said this bill responds to a contraceptive mandate in the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act signed into law March 2010. She also said - I believe we live in America. We don’t live in the Soviet Union, so government should not be telling the organizations or mom and pop employers to do something against their moral beliefs. My whole legislation is about our First Amendment rights and freedom of religion, all my bill does is allow an employer to opt out of the mandate if they have any religious objections.

Roanoke.com March 16, 2012 said - I swear this isn’t a joke. Instead, it’s an abominable sign of how weirdly polarized America has become. And on one side are the freakishly moralistic voyeurs. They actually are arguing in favor of a bill in the Arizona legislature that would require women who are on the pill to explain to their bosses why they’re taking it. If it’s for birth control, health insurance coverage would be a no-no. If it’s for polycystic ovarian syndrome, or another medical condition unrelated to avoiding pregnancy, their health insurance would pay for it, provided they could prove that via a doctor’s note. Here are some moral and commonsense objections to this legislation.

First, what the hell business is it of ANY employer why ANY doctor is prescribing ANY medication to ANY female employee? Let’s take the case of acne. It’s malpractice for any doctor to  prescribe Retin-A, to clear up acne, to any woman of childbearing age unless she’s on birth control or is otherwise sterile. Doctors know that acne medication will cause severe birth defects. So they will insist on prescribing her the pill at the same time. Why should her employer have to be informed of this?

Second, what if an employer has a moral and/or religious belief that acne is God’s will, and that a woman should not try to interfere with her God-given complexion? After all,” moral and/or religious beliefs” is one hell of a big tent, and there are some weird religions out there. In that case, the bill has a “not-covered” loophole so large that you could pass a Planned Parenthood clinic through it.

Third, not one health-insurance-providing employer in all of Arizona would be required, even without the bill, to “pay for his employees’ birth control” under any circumstance. Actually, at the worst, covering for birth control requires the employer to save money. Because pregnancy and childbearing and maternity leave cost insurance companies and employers much more than birth control does.