Wrongful Birth Bill passes in Arizona

[AXOmom]

Originally Posted by psy

Am I the only one put off by the "better to be dead than disabled" implications of these laws and cases? I can kind of see the reasoning for something like Tay Sachs where the lifespan is only a few years, but Down Syndrome isn't terminal (yes, I'm aware of the higher risk for heart deficits, early onset Alzheimer's, and leukemia, but those are still issues that, AFAIK, affect a minority of people with DS, and *everyone* is at some risk for those things, some moreso based on family history/genetics.).

As I mentioned in one of my previous posts - I am concerned about it from an ethical standpoint and yes it does bother me, but it is a decision these parents can legally make, and given that, I was curious about legal issues relating to this case and how they relate to the Arizona law....or proposed law.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by psy

Am I the only one put off by the "better to be dead than disabled" implications of these laws and cases?

No. That's one of the reasons that the courts are so reluctant to recognize wrongful life claims -- they are reticent to suggest that no life is better than life.

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Hell, not everyone is able to handle being a parent at all.

That's for sure.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by psy

Am I the only one put off by the "better to be dead than disabled" implications of these laws and cases? I can kind of see the reasoning for something like Tay Sachs where the lifespan is only a few years, but Down Syndrome isn't terminal (yes, I'm aware of the higher risk for heart deficits, early onset Alzheimer's, and leukemia, but those are still issues that, AFAIK, affect a minority of people with DS, and *everyone* is at some risk for those things, some moreso based on family history/genetics.).

I personally find it to be quite disturbing, not just for the implications now but also in the future. What sort of Pandora's box are we opening here? Will it be acceptable in the near future to terminate a pregnancy because the child may be born deaf, or may develop ADHD, or born a gender unwanted by the parents? My mother was born with a physical handicap and the idea that someone would think she would have been better off never being born makes me sick to my stomach.

[DaemonSeid]

Check hb2625

Scroll down to the red section to see what was proposed.

An employer could fire a woman if she used contraceptives.

http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument...Session_ID=107

[WhiteRose1912]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Check hb2625

Scroll down to the red section to see what was proposed.

An employer could fire a woman if she used contraceptives.

http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument...Session_ID=107

The blue portions are the proposed amendments. I don't see anything relating to firing, unless you're suggesting that it's already in the bill?

[AXOmom]

Well, it's in legaleese, so I'll defer to someone who speaks that language and admit I may be totally misunderstanding the highlighted blue and red portions but what I understood each of those sections to say was that religous employers have the right to refuse certain types of coverage as part of their health plans, so a Catholic church, for instance, can ask their health care provider to exclude prescriptions for birth control from their employee coverage. It sounds like these organizations would first need to notify the health insurance company of each exclusion in writing, but assuming they did that, having those exclusions wouldn't be considered a failure to provide necessary coverage for their employees.

The employee, on the other hand, has the right to seek health care insurance on their own and not use the religous organization's coverage, and they cannot be descriminated against if they choose to do so.

I'm also missing anything that indicated an employee would be fired for using contraceptives - and how in the world would an employer ever be able to get this information anyway?

[WhiteRose1912]

Originally Posted by AXOmom

Well, it's in legaleese, so I'll defer to someone who speaks that language and admit I may be totally misunderstanding the highlighted blue and red portions but what I understood each of those sections to say was that religous employers have the right to refuse certain types of coverage as part of their health plans, so a Catholic church, for instance, can ask their health care provider to exclude prescriptions for birth control from their employee coverage. It sounds like these organizations would first need to notify the health insurance company of each exclusion in writing, but assuming they did that, having those exclusions wouldn't be considered a failure to provide necessary coverage for their employees.

The employee, on the other hand, has the right to seek health care insurance on their own and not use the religous organization's coverage, and they cannot be descriminated against if they choose to do so.

I'm also missing anything that indicated an employee would be fired for using contraceptives - and how in the world would an employer ever be able to get this information anyway?

That's the gist of what I was getting, too, with the addition that if you need contraceptives for a medical reason such as endometriosis, you first have to pay for it out of pocket, then petition to have it covered, for which they will charge you a filing fee.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Check hb2625

Scroll down to the red section to see what was proposed.

The red is what the bill proposes to delete from the statute, to be replaced by the blue.

I'll admit I didn't read every word carefully, but I didn't see anything either about being able to fire employees who use contraceptives. Exactly what language in the bill are you talking about?

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

The red is what the bill proposes to delete from the statute, to be replaced by the blue.

I'll admit I didn't read every word carefully, but I didn't see anything either about being able to fire employees who use contraceptives. Exactly what language in the bill are you talking about?

I read an article on HP that suggests employers would be able to fire employees if they claimed to be on contraceptives for a medical condition to get it paid for by the employer's health insurance under this statute only to be found out to be lying. Very convoluted thinking. Still not a good law. This goes to far to protect a employer's "religious rights" but ignores the employee's rights when they frequently pay into the health insurance as much as or more than the employer.

[AXOmom]

Did HP say what section they were referencing because I didn't see anything to suggest that, but again, maybe we're all missing something.

As WhiteRose said - the only thing as I understand it that it said was that if the employee had a condition that required a contraceptive but they were not using it to prevent pregnancy, they would have to submit an explanation and pay out of pocket until it was approved. I'm not sure how an employer would figure out if they were lying or how they could lie and get it approved by a health insurance company. Wouldn't a doctor have to sign off saying they needed it for the medical purpose and why?

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by AXOmom

Did HP say what section they were referencing because I didn't see anything to suggest that, but again, maybe we're all missing something.

As WhiteRose said - the only thing as I understand it that it said was that if the employee had a condition that required a contraceptive but they were not using it to prevent pregnancy, they would have to submit an explanation and pay out of pocket until it was approved. I'm not sure how an employer would figure out if they were lying or how they could lie and get it approved by a health insurance company. Wouldn't a doctor have to sign off saying they needed it for the medical purpose and why?

HP didn't say where they came up with this. You know a lot of these are hypotheticals. I assume a doctor would have to write a letter attesting to the medical necessity. That's not any different than when insurance companies didn't cover BCP for non-medical reasons in the past.

[AGDee]

This would all be moot if we took health insurance benefits decisions out of our employers hands and put them in OUR hands. Then people could choose the riders they wanted. People who need/want birth control options could opt in to the contraception riders. People who were too old to get pregnant, had their tubes tied, etc. could opt out.

I'm tired of my employer choosing my health insurance benefits. I want to choose them. Especially since all of my employers over the last 18 years owned health insurance plans so I have had no real options or choices at all.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by AGDee

This would all be moot if we took health insurance benefits decisions out of our employers hands and put them in OUR hands. Then people could choose the riders they wanted. People who need/want birth control options could opt in to the contraception riders. People who were too old to get pregnant, had their tubes tied, etc. could opt out.

I'm tired of my employer choosing my health insurance benefits. I want to choose them. Especially since all of my employers over the last 18 years owned health insurance plans so I have had no real options or choices at all.

Dee, I see this as more of a problem of government intervention in benefit decisions than anything else. Politicians with agendas choosing our benefits= no good. Unfortunately I think this is just an appetizer of things to come.

Would a health reimbursement account allow you to choose what benefits you receive?

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

Dee, I see this as more of a problem of government intervention in benefit decisions than anything else. Politicians with agendas choosing our benefits= no good. Unfortunately I think this is just an appetizer of things to come.

Would a health reimbursement account allow you to choose what benefits you receive?

I don't have a problem with the government identifying a minimum level of benefits for a basic plan. States do it with auto insurance and that's pretty accepted.

Depending on whether you're talking about the FSA (Flex Spending Account) or HSA (Health Savings Account), it offers some flexibility.

FSAs let you use tax free dollars that you have chosen to have withheld from your paycheck to pay for your health care- co-pays, deductibles, uncovered things. What you don't spend, you lose. On the other hand, if you are putting $3000 into an FSA during the year, you have access to that whole amount on January 1st.

HSAs can be paired with high deductible plans, earn interest, and initial contributions are not taxed. This is the ideal for a young person with minimal health expenses because the money rolls over from year to year also. You can withdraw money from them for other purposes, but are taxed at that point, with a penalty, like withdrawing from an IRA early. Unlike the FSA, if something major happens before you've built up money in your account, you're paying out of pocket instead.

So, either allows you to use pre-tax dollars to pay for whatever you want (if it is an approved expense.. cosmetic stuff isn't covered, prescription birth control is).

[ASUADPi]

My question really would be the justification for suing for "wrongful birth". Like I'm 32. I'm healthy. No family history of diseases that would require an amnio. Since I'm not 35+, I'm not required to get an amnio. So for me all I would have is the ultrasounds. Now, I'm not a medical professional, but it seems that there are some "birth defects" that a plain old 2-d ultrasound isn't going to show.

So if I had a child, let's say next year, and my child was born with down's, for me it's legally how could I even sue. I'm not at the age that an amnio is required, that is the only way to detect DS, so therefore my doctor didn't know. What justification would I have to sue him/her?

Like others have said, I see this as a pandora's box. Let's abort the children who aren't "perfect" (a la Hitler). To me it seems incredibly selfish of the parents and even the child. The parents are saying "I would have aborted my child, but now I'm stuck with them", what the hell does that say to the kid! It says "You're not wanted!!!!" Then the person suing for wrongful life, that is just an oxymoron in its self.