© UnknownA proposed new law in Arizona would give employers the power to request that women being prescribed birth control pills provide proof that they're using it for non-sexual reasons.
Some nutbag in Arizona - a woman, no less - authored a bill that would allow employers to interrogate their female employees about their sexual practices.
No seriously.
You might want to sit down for this one, actually.
Ready?
You see, if a female employee seeks a medical prescription for contraception, an employer will be permitted to ask that employee for proof that she doesn't plan to use the contraception for slutty f***-making. Using it for medical reasons is ok - that's medicine.
So, if you're one of those women who uses slutpills for non-slutty reasons, then you're ok. You'll get to keep your job. Enjoy your ovarian cancer or your acne or whatever, but make sure you put that red cover on your TPS reports or the boss'll have your head.
But if you're running around like some sort of whore-nympho, then you better keep that shit on the down-low, because if The Man finds out you might-could get fired:
The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 6-2 Monday to endorse a controversial bill that would allow Arizona employers the right to deny health insurance coverage for contraceptives based on religious objections.This bill has no chance of becoming law***, but that's not the point, is it?
Arizona House Bill 2625, authored by Majority Whip Debbie Lesko, R-Glendale, 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.
"I believe we live in America. We don't live in the Soviet Union," Lesko said. "So, government should not be telling the organizations or mom and pop employers to do something against their moral beliefs."
Lesko said this bill responds to a contraceptive mandate in the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act signed into law March 2010.
"My whole legislation is about our First Amendment rights and freedom of religion," Lesko said. "All my bill does is that an employer can opt out of the mandate if they have any religious objections."
Glendale resident Liza Love said the bill would impose on women's rights to keep their medical records private.
Love spoke to the committee about her struggle with polycystic ovary syndrome and endometriosis, conditions requiring her to use birth control.
"I wouldn't mind showing my employer my medical records," Love said. "But there are 10 women behind me that would be ashamed to do so."
(read the rest)
We're surrounded by f*****g lunatics and I want off this planet.
***As a BJ commenter pointed out, it's Arizona. It has a chance of becoming law. To clarify, I meant that the law has no chance of remaining law after the courts have their way with it. This shit isn't going to fly in the Ninth Circuit, in my opinion.
UPDATE: I'm so full of vagina outrage that I'm not being as clear as I should be. Arizona is an "at-will-employment" state, which means that employers do not need a reason to fire an employee. Theoretically, if an employer finds out that an employee wants to use birth control for preventing pregnancies, that employer would be within his or her legal right to fire the employee for being a nympho-whore (while couching it in other terms).
Crypto-fascists like the Kochs and others are spreading money around states to instigate a sovereignty crisis. At issue is the use of a civic splintering tool at the heart of the Republic's founding: rights of united States versus those of the federal, supposedly sovereign government. The former history of the United States of America is the ply of this tool by the oligarchy - and similar modes of societal structuring for the sake of producing a limited cadre of power players - as it pits local authorities for or against one another to the benefit of a limited cadre of elitist. This means they formerly and variously co-opted executive, legislative or judicial branches of local, state or federal governments when and where it was advantageous, while later undermining the same for the sake of continued gain for the few. Finding something opposed by the cadre at a federal level and allowed for the observation of the reactionary politicking of "States Rights" rubes. Conversely, the same could have been observed if state politicians protested the plans of the supra-monied cadre. Now, however, the game is to splinter the Republic with the same-old-same-old States v. Feds dichotomy, while infusing all politics - state or otherwise - with divisive memes (Consider, for example, the empty rhetoric of the hordes of people who declaim the "idiots in Washington" or "career politicians" or the usurping "Washington elite" who know nothing of "[state your State]." This will ensure collapse at two levels of governance simultaneously. And, those committed to one or the other spheres of thinking will be left scratching their heads in a para-moral vacuum, wholly committed to some meaningless candidate, cause or squabble. This collapse of what was - i.e. a system with parts manipulated to produce gain for the few while engendering continued support of the manipulated system by those effectively outside the system but impacted by it - can now occur precisely because the system is useless to their former aim (i.e. obtaining control). The goal is met. Control has been realized; and, now, we observe the system's planned collapse for other aims. Propping up some non-person, intellectually defunct moron as the central to some cause is part of this splintering, regardless the passage or failure of passage of related legislation.