A divided state House voted Thursday to expand the list of employers who can refuse to include contraceptive coverage in their health care plans for workers.
The 36-21 vote came after Rep. Debbie Lesko, R-Glendale, agreed to narrow the scope of her legislation. She said that will protect organizations with a true religious mission which have moral objections to birth control, without letting everyone opt out.
But foes of HB 2625 still found what they said are flaws in the plan. The measure still needs Senate approval before going to the governor.
A 2002 law says company health plans that include prescriptions cannot exclude birth control.
Legislators built in an exemption for churches and certain church-run charities that hire and serve mainly those of their own faith.
Lesko argued that still subjected others with religious objections to having to fund them. So she proposed allowing any employer to opt out.
After that was objected, she agreed to scale the plan back to extend the right of refusal to “religious affiliated employers.” Those are defined as any company whose articles of incorporation say it is a religiously motivated organization whose beliefs are central to its operating principles.
Rep. Katie Hobbs, D-Phoenix, said that would appear to provide relief to employers like St. Vincent de Paul. But she said that’s still too broad.
“They’re public organizations,” Hobbs said. “They receive public funding. And they employ many people of all different faiths and backgrounds.”
She argued that it would be wrong to let these organizations deny birth control coverage to their workers.
But Rep. Terri Proud said nothing in the legislation precludes women from obtaining contraceptives. The question, she said, is who pays.
“No one, and I mean no one, should be forced to provide or pay for something that violates their sincere held beliefs,” she said. “As a woman, I may have a legal access to birth control or abortion. But it does not mean that I have the right to force someone else to pay for it.”
Hobbs, however, said there’s another problem.
Current law contains a specific provision which says employers who do not have to fund birth control cannot discriminate against a worker who, using her own money, obtains contraceptives from another source. That language, however, was stripped from the new version of the law, something she said leaves women subject to being fired for their personal choices.
Rep. Justin Pierce, R-Mesa, said that’s not true. He said the legislation spells out that workers remain protected by any existing state and federal anti-discrimination laws.
But Hobbs responded that there is nothing in those statutes, which govern issues of gender, race and religion, which extends similar protections to women based on using birth control.
Rep. David Smith, R-Carefree, rejected contentions that Arizona was being unfair to women. He said there are 22 states which have no mandate at all for any employer to provide contraceptive coverage to workers.
Some concerns have also been expressed by opponents of the measure that the new language would allow any company at all to amend its articles of incorporation and declare itself to be a “religiously motivated organization.”
samkat posted at 6:06 pm on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.
Does Ms. Proud have state provided insurance? If so, we taxpayers are paying for her contraceptives. This is just another assault by the flat earth and probably head right wing religious zealots.
samkat posted at 6:12 pm on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.
PS: These organizations should be willing to give up their tax exempt status if they want to opt out. They should also be required to provide health care vouchers or provide health care through a third party provider which should provide a degree of separation to maintain their objectivity.
spyderdog posted at 1:10 am on Fri, Apr 20, 2012.
^^agreed^^
dustbowl11 posted at 11:42 am on Fri, Apr 20, 2012.
Why not do the same with erectile dysfunction drugs? It seems pretty obvious they are not being used solely by men with real problems. Why aren't our money and time wasting Republican legislators concerned about those being used to promote promiscuity? I wonder if it has anything to do with male dominated religious dogma?
STR8SHOOTR posted at 11:49 am on Fri, Apr 20, 2012.
Why is the government 'mandating' to anyone what should be offered in a health care plan. It is this kind of nanny state mentality on both sides of the aisle that has this state and this nation in the current situation. Lets let the employers and employees figure out what is to be included in a health plan, and leave the politicians and bureaucrats out of it.
samkat posted at 4:44 pm on Fri, Apr 20, 2012.
STR8: That is too logical for the flat earth religious zealots. They will not be satisfied until they have a theocracy style government and then they will fight amongst themselves as to which brand of religion is best. Come to think of it, they are an awful lot like the Taliban. Lesko and Proud are among the worst.