The state representative who was sponsoring a bill that would let employers ask why female employees are on the pill, and then decide whether or not they’d pay for it based on the answer, says she’s doing a bit of amending. She’s claiming we all just misunderstood the controversial parts. Oh, of course.
Rep. Debbie Lesko, a Republican, said the bill was misinterpreted, reports AZcentral.com, especially the exception allowing employees to maintain coverage if their contraception was for health reasons, and not for avoiding pregnancy.
The bill wouldn’t require the employee to disclose her medical condition to her employer, only the insurance company, claims Lesko, who says she’s clarifying the bill for political reasons. Her bill would extend a 2002 bill that allows religious organizations to deny insurance coverage for contraception, to include any employer who cites religious objections when it comes to paying for birth control.
So, that part is still in there, but Lesko says the employer can’t cite moral reasons, even though the bill mentions “moral convictions.” And the difference is…?
She pulled the bill from the Senate Rules Committee agenda so it can be amended before the full Senate votes on it– it already passed the House.
“I’m not even Catholic, and I have no moral objection against contraceptives,” Lesko said. “I just think the government should not tell employers what they have to cover.”
Thanks for the clarification, and it still sounds like a terrible idea.
Sponsor working to amend birth-control bill [AZCentral.com]