Wrongful Birth Bill passes in Arizona

[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.