War against Women

[MyReality]

So lately the media and internet have been overwhelmed with recent legislations that are sadly passing into law that can be said to go against womens rights. Especially in Arizona where Jan Brewer is (CRAZY!) extreme on determining the sexual practices of women in the state. I will post laws passing only from the beginning of 2012 otherwise their would be to much to talk about. Mainly from Arizona.


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/12/j ... M6Y.reddit

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer Signs Legislation Permitting Employers to Interrogate Female Employees About Contraception Use

Arizona Bans Funding to Planned Parenthood
PHOENIX — Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday signed into law a bill to cut off Planned Parenthood's access to taxpayer money funneled through the state for non-abortion services.
Arizona already bars use of public money for abortions except to save the life of the mother. But anti-abortion legislators and other supporters of the bill say the broader prohibition is needed to ensure no public money indirectly supports abortion services.
Planned Parenthood Arizona claims a funding ban would interrupt its preventive health care and family planning services for nearly 20,000 women served by the organization's clinics. The organization says it will consider a legal challenge.
The measure targeting funding for Planned Parenthood for non-abortion services was one of several approved by Arizona's Republican-led Legislature related to contentious reproductive health care issues this session.
PHOENIX (AP) – Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday signed into law a bill to cut off Planned Parenthood's access to taxpayer money funneled through the state for non-abortion services.
Planned Parenthood Arizona claims a funding ban would interrupt its preventive health care and family planning services for nearly 20,000 women served by the organization's clinics. The organization says it will consider a legal challenge.


The measure targeting funding for Planned Parenthood for non-abortion services was one of several approved by Arizona's Republican-led Legislature related to contentious reproductive health care issues this session

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/1 ... 15715.html

Arizona Abortion Bill: Legislators Pass Three Bills, Including One That Redefines When Life Begins


Arizona lawmakers gave final passage to three anti-abortion bills Tuesday afternoon, including one that declares pregnancies in the state begin two weeks before conception.
The Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed a bill to prohibit abortions after the 18th week of pregnancy; a bill to protect doctors from being sued if they withhold health information about a pregnancy that could cause a woman to seek an abortion; and a bill to mandate that how school curriculums address the topic of unwanted pregnancies.

The other two bills passed by the House include the state's "wrongful birth, wrongful life" bill that prohibits lawsuits against doctors who do not provide information about a fetus' health if that information could lead to an abortion. In addition, parents cannot sue on the child's behalf after birth.

The third bill requires that schools teach students that adoption and birth are the most acceptable outcomes for an unwanted pregnancy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/1 ... 44557.html

Arizona legislators have advanced an unprecedented bill that would require women who wish to have their contraception covered by their health insurance plans to prove to their employers that they are taking it to treat medical conditions. The bill also makes it easier for Arizona employers to fire a woman for using birth control to prevent pregnancy despite the employer's moral objection.

Arizona is a right to work state, which makes it all the scarier.

Jan Brewers reasoning behind these bands are on religious grounds, which can be read in the sites above.

In Virginia:


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/29/us/vi ... wanted=all

Gov. Bob McDonnell demanded the revisions last week, and their acceptance on Tuesday all but assured the state’s adoption of the ultrasound requirement. The original bill set off protests from women’s groups and others. Some critics called it “state rape,� and the plan was mocked on television comedy shows.

In Alabama, the sponsor of a bill to strengthen an existing ultrasound requirement said on Monday that he would seek a revision softening the bill. The existing bill mandates that the screen must face the pregnant woman and requires use of the scanning method that provides the clearest image — which would mean vaginal ultrasounds in most cases.

As a result, the bills under active consideration in several states, including Pennsylvania and Mississippi, require detailed fetal images that would in practice require many patients to have vaginal ultrasounds.

Such a requirement has been in effect since early this month in Texas with little of the outcry seen in Virginia. Similar laws adopted in Oklahoma and North Carolina are now blocked by federal court order until their constitutionality is determined.

http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2012/03 ... tock-bill/

The bill as first proposed outlawed all abortions after 20 weeks under all circumstances. After negotiations with the Senate, the House passed a revised HB 954 that makes an exemption for “medically futile� pregnancies or those in which the woman’s life or health is threatened.

If this makes its seem like Rep. England and the rest of the representatives looked beyond their cows and pigs and recognized women as capable, full-thinking human beings, think again: HB 954 excludes a woman’s “emotional or mental condition,� which means women suffering from mental illness would be forced to carry a pregnancy to term. It also ignores pregnant women who are suicidal and driven to inflict harm on themselves because of their unwanted pregnancy.

http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2012/04 ... -murdered/

House Bill 3517 [PDF], the so-called “embryo bill,� allows prosecutors to levy charges of assault or murder if an embryo is harmed or killed. The bill excludes consensual “medical or surgical procedures,� although it removes existing language that would specifically exempt “abortion.� Given Tennessee’s long history of fetal rights legislation, the bill raises some speculation as to whether the “embryo bill� is a step toward declaring “fetal personhood.�

The “embryo bill� expands on two previous laws. The first allowed a murder or assault charge for harm to a “viable� fetus, defined as one 32 weeks or older, which has been the precedent in Tennessee since 1989. The second, passed in 2011, removed the word “viable� to cover a fetus at any age.

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-legis ... challenge/

The Texas law is more strict: It requires women to have a sonogram at least 24 hours ahead of an abortion, and the doctor to play the heartbeat aloud, describe the fetus, and show the woman the image, unless she chooses not to view it. Although the Texas law doesn’t specify what kind of ultrasound — belly or transvaginal — abortion providers say they almost always must use the transvaginal probe to pick up the heartbeat and describe the fetus at the early stage of pregnancy when most women seek abortions.

http://www.heraldonline.com/2012/04/24/ ... t-pay.html

SC health plan would not pay for abortions involving rape, incest under new proposal

http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2012/04 ... in-danger/

On the final day to review general bills, the Mississippi Senate Public Health Committee passed HB 1390, which requires doctors performing abortions to be board-certified OB-GYNs with hospital admitting privileges. Although it sounds reasonable, HB 1390 is another affront to women’s reproductive rights when you factor in the already meager resources available to the women of Mississippi.

ITS ONLY BEEN 5 MONTHS! What the hell is going on? I know that the forums have been saturated lately with abortion threads but im going to make this a new one with all the above material for the use of Pro-Choicers and Pro-Lifers. I think every single one of these is going wayyyyyyy to far. Who here can argue the justification to keep this trend going? How far do you think it will go before we start going back even further in time when it comes to womens rights?

[WinePusher]

Arizona is a right to work state, which makes it all the scarier.

Why? Do you even know what a right to work state is? If so, explain why you think it's all the scarier.

[MyReality]

Arizona is a right to work state, which makes it all the scarier.

Why? Do you even know what a right to work state is? If so, explain why you think it's all the scarier.

Because i live in Arizona....

It sucks because the employer can fire anyone on a whim no matter what at any time. Zero job security. Disagree with the boss, Fired. Ask for a raise, fired. Make a complaint (big one here is sexual harassment complaints) fired. The reasons for the firing on paper can be anything the company/boss wants it to be. And its all legal. Unless you have the boss ranting the real reason and its caught on tape, your out of luck when trying to prosecute. Iv seen it many times over, working here. I hear about it and almost everyone has a story they can add to it.

[Quath]

I have seen a few women who have been very supportive of the GOP in the past get very angry at some of these new laws and proposed laws. It will be interesting to see how many women will stay Republican even when it goes against their best interest.

[WinePusher]

Because i live in Arizona....

It sucks because the employer can fire anyone on a whim no matter what at any time. Zero job security. Disagree with the boss, Fired. Ask for a raise, fired. Make a complaint (big one here is sexual harassment complaints) fired. The reasons for the firing on paper can be anything the company/boss wants it to be. And its all legal. Unless you have the boss ranting the real reason and its caught on tape, your out of luck when trying to prosecute. Iv seen it many times over, working here. I hear about it and almost everyone has a story they can add to it.

That doesn't have anything to do with Arizona being a right to work state. Right to work merely means that union membership is optional, not mandatory. Can employees quit on a whim? Can a non-contractual employee quit their job whenever they want to for whatever reason they want? Should a non-contractual employer be allowed to do the same?

I know that the forums have been saturated lately with abortion threads but im going to make this a new one with all the above material for the use of Pro-Choicers and Pro-Lifers. I think every single one of these is going wayyyyyyy to far.

So from reading your post, you consider strict abortion regulations and barring tax dollars from funding abortions to be a War on Women. There shouldn't be any regulations on abortions? Abortions should be freely accessible? And I don't agree with the Arizona law regarding contraception, but I can understand why the right would implement legislation like this as a response to the radical and extreme federal contraception mandate in Obamacare. If a woman wants to use contraception she should be able to without any type of interference from the state.

[nursebenjamin]

... I can understand why the right would implement legislation like this as a response to the radical and extreme federal contraception mandate in Obamacare. If a woman wants to use contraception she should be able to without any type of interference from the state.

The "federal contraception mandate in Obamacare" (as you put it) requires most health insurance plans to cover preventive services for women including recommended contraceptive services.[1] This is because "scientists have abundant evidence that birth control has significant health benefits for women and their families, is documented to significantly reduce health costs, and is the most commonly taken drug in America by young and middle-aged women."[ibid.]

It's interesting that you consider beneficial preventive health services for women to be "radical and extreme".

[bluethread]

Because i live in Arizona....

It sucks because the employer can fire anyone on a whim no matter what at any time. Zero job security. Disagree with the boss, Fired. Ask for a raise, fired. Make a complaint (big one here is sexual harassment complaints) fired. The reasons for the firing on paper can be anything the company/boss wants it to be. And its all legal. Unless you have the boss ranting the real reason and its caught on tape, your out of luck when trying to prosecute. Iv seen it many times over, working here. I hear about it and almost everyone has a story they can add to it.

That doesn't have anything to do with Arizona being a right to work state. Right to work merely means that union membership is optional, not mandatory. Can employees quit on a whim? Can a non-contractual employee quit their job whenever they want to for whatever reason they want? Should a non-contractual employer be allowed to do the same?

That is correct. My Reality is mistaking "right to work" for "at will". Washington State is not a right to work state. In fact, it is decidedly prounion and antibusiness, ie the Boeing union fiasco. However, it is an "at will" state. Either party can change nearly any noncontracted factor as they see fit at any time. This is not as pro business as some might think. In a market where there are few qualified people, a qualified employee can gain significant advantage in pay and working conditions.

[WinePusher]

... I can understand why the right would implement legislation like this as a response to the radical and extreme federal contraception mandate in Obamacare. If a woman wants to use contraception she should be able to without any type of interference from the state.

The "federal contraception mandate in Obamacare" (as you put it) requires most health insurance plans to cover preventive services for women including recommended contraceptive services.[1] This is because "scientists have abundant evidence that birth control has significant health benefits for women and their families, is documented to significantly reduce health costs, and is the most commonly taken drug in America by young and middle-aged women."[ibid.]

It's interesting that you consider beneficial preventive health services for women to be "radical and extreme".

It's interesting how you left out key components of this issue. Like how the government is forcing employers to cover contraception despite the fact that it violates their conscience, or how insurance is meant to only cover unexpected and catastrophic events, or how contraceptives are one of the most accessible and cheapest drugs on the market. War against Women? Give me a break, more like a War against Religious Freedom and Liberty.

[Wyvern]

It's interesting how you left out key components of this issue. Like how the government is forcing employers to cover contraception despite the fact that it violates their conscience, or how insurance is meant to only cover unexpected and catastrophic events, or how contraceptives are one of the most accessible and cheapest drugs on the market. War against Women? Give me a break, more like a War against Religious Freedom and Liberty.

Why is it you want to alter an HMO's business plan in order to fit your definition of what insurance is and specifically in this case health insurance. Why do you insist it makes better business sense for an HMO to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to treat a heart attack and other such expensive unexpected and catastrophic events instead of treating the patient with simple and cheap procedures which will forestall the heart attack in the first place? Strangely enough I looked through my health plan and not once do they call themselves health insurance, the company which runs my health plan is not a health insurance company it is a health maintenance organization. The government is not forcing employers to cover contraceptives except for the HMO's which considering the positive health aspects contraceptives give to women it is simply good business for them to do so. Why is it I a liberal has to explain to a conservative a good business practice?

[nursebenjamin]

It's interesting how you left out key components of this issue. Like how the government is forcing employers to cover contraception despite the fact that it violates their conscience…

I specifically stated that this new rule by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services requires (forces) most health insurance plans to cover beneficial preventive services for women. Employers should not interfere with the private health-related decisions made by their employees. Should a Christian Scientist employer be allowed to exempt psychiatric care from their employer-based health care plan? Should a Christian fundie who believe in the power of prayer be allowed to exempt medical treatment of diabetes?

The government has every right to regulate health care plans and mandate that they cover the basic needs of the individuals enrolled. Government regulations are for the protection of the consumer. I sure wouldn’t want to be stuck with a HMO that didn’t cover basic preventive services.

Would you prefer that, since nearly every employers has private biases, that we do away with employer-based health care and give everyone the option of enrolling in Medicare?

or how insurance is meant to only cover unexpected and catastrophic events,

There are health care plans that do cover only catastrophic injuries and illness, but as Wyvern stated above, most health insurance plans are actually HMOs (health maintenance organization) or other subscription-based medical care arrangement such as PPO (preferred provider organizations). These subscription-based medical care arrangements help enrollees maintain optimal health through preventive care. Why is it that this has to be explained to you?

how contraceptives are one of the most accessible and cheapest drugs on the market.

Contraception might be one of the most accessible and cheapest drugs on the market, however high costs are one of the primary barriers to contraceptive access.[2] Women of reproductive age spend 68 percent more on out-of-pocket health care costs than do men, in part because of contraceptive costs. More than half of young adult women say they have not used their contraception as directed because it was cost-prohibitive.[ibid.]

Should all women have access to their preferred method of birth control, or should only wealthy women have this privilege?

War against Women? Give me a break, more like a War against Religious Freedom and Liberty.

You talk of religious freedom… But you forget that my health care decisions should be free of your religion nonsense. Your liberty ends where my health begins!