When You Need To Send Arizona Lawmakers A Message, Say It With Knit Uteruses

Nothing says “I hate your proposal” better than packages full of knitted uteruses (uteri?) with googly eyes delivered to the offices of more than a dozen Arizona state lawmakers. That was the medium of choice used to send a message from opponents of a proposal to severely limit birth control coverage.

The Associated Press (via Newser) reports on the cute little crafted organs, which were dropped off yesterday. Proponents of the birth control bill think it’s totally cool for employers to ask why someone is on the pill or other contraception, and then decide if they should give that employee coverage or not, based on the answer and their own beliefs.

Those who don’t want anyone else up in their business say the measure violates women’s rights to privacy. Having to hand over proof that you’re on the pill for health reasons and not just because you’re doing what you want with your own body is downright silly and altogether bad, say critics. Silly like a knitted uterus with googly eyes.

The legislation is currently being amended and is expected to be voted on next week.

*Thanks for the tip, Heidi!

Birth Control Advocates’ Weapon: Knitted Uterus [Newser]]


Edit Your Comment

  1. rmorin says:

    Welcome to Mary Beth’s Politcal Opinion Blog.

    Whether you agree with her or not, posts like these detract heavily from the website.

    • NightSteel says:

      I don’t think there’s much left to detract from after a video game company ‘won’ WCIA over banks who have had real, far-reaching and greivous negative effects on people’s lives.

    • Draw2much says:

      I agree. But I also find sending hand-knitted uterus (with googly eyes) in the mail pretty funny.

      Anything that makes me laugh, I have a hard time disliking.

      • rmorin says:

        I agree that lighter topics and tangential issues to consumer issues are completely fine, but Mary Beth pushes heavily her left leaning views all the time. It really has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with her, it is that this is just not the place. I go to consumerist, for consumer issues, I can go to a million different websites for political discussion.

        • pop top says:

          Isn’t being pro-consumer inherently left-leaning?

          • clippy2.0 says:

            keep your logic to yourself!

          • TheMansfieldMauler says:

            Do you seriously believe that? Sheesh.

          • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

            No, but it ends ups being left-leaning only because the opposing view is pretty much solely tied to right-leaning views.

            The Right advocates more for business rights than consumer, so advocating for consumer rights by default generally puts you to the left.

            I’m sure there are consumer advocates out there that are also staunch Republicans. But, I also still believe in unicorns, so take that with a grain of salt.

          • penuspenuspenus says:

            I’m pro me getting the best value for my dollar as a consumer and as an employer.
            Sounds pretty damn American to me.

            • TheMansfieldMauler says:

              If you’re an employer, you must be evil. Shame on you taking advantage of your employees by exploiting them for meager wages, and shame on you for wanting to make profits profits PROFITS off the backs of the poor. Also, you want to kill women and children and ruin the environment.

              Don’t feel bad. I’m also evil.

              • penuspenuspenus says:

                Reading comments on here it really does seem like that, doesn’t it? Politics and this blog really shouldn’t mix.

            • pop top says:

              Who is talking about being an American here?

              • penuspenuspenus says:

                If you’re not American, why do you care enough to comment on a post about Arizona Uterine law?

        • Grogey says:

          Umm I believe political and consumerist issues are tied together pretty well.

          Ill agree that this probably could have been written differently to be a little less biased sounding.

          • Fineous K. Douchenstein says:

            Considering Mary Beth’s status as a woman and the fact that most of these terrible bills are written by men who not only don’t have a clue, but don’t give a damn about the women they affect, she has every right to be biased.

          • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

            What part was biased? She described what transpired, and their motivation. Then she explained the advocate’s side and the proponent’s side of the argument.

            I see no direct advocation of either side.

        • Fineous K. Douchenstein says:

          Joe the Plumber, is that you?

        • myCatCracksMeUp says:

          You wouldn’t get a clue if it slapped you in the face.

          Go write your own blog, you stupid troll.

          • rmorin says:

            You have no idea what “troll” means.

            “Troll” means some one who intentionally says something they do not agree with to illicit a response. I outlined over many posts why I have a certain opinion.

            Learn how to use the internet, it’s not hard.

    • McRib wants to know if you've been saved by the Holy Clown says:

      But it is consumer related. Very much so.

      • Agent Hooter Enjoys Enhanced Patdowns says:

        Trolls are nearsighted from sitting under bridges all day.

        • rmorin says:

          Arizona law: Consumer related

          Political activists tactics regardless of cause: Not consumer related

          • Yomiko says:

            To be fair, there have been a lot of posts about various protests against banks. It’s reporting about consumer reactions to a consumer issue. Just think, if Phil had written this post, he would have ended it “have you ever knitted something to show your displeasure regarding an issue”?

            • rmorin says:

              That is a good point. I see the difference in that the activists are not neccesarily doing this because of the consumer effects. Sending a uterus does not convey “hey there may be economic costs to this measure”. I think it would be much more consumerist worthy if they had sent notes with the stuffed uterus saying “this measure will cost me an extra X$ a year, please don’t let it pass :)” because it is address consumer concerns.

              • Conformist138 says:

                There it is! You think consumer issues have to be ECONOMIC in nature. No, no they don’t. Sometimes it’s a matter of basic equality and separating reasonable from unreasonable product restrictions. Viagra is covered by insurance for erectile dysfunction without employers picking and choosing (they can’t specify that it’s only ok if the man is married, or it’s only ok if the man is married AND actively attempting to have children).

                The language of who knows what about the condition is actually the strawman that is meaningless. I don’t only care if my employer KNOWS the reason, I care that they can restrict me BECAUSE of the reason. Also, that the reason the employer wishes to restrict me is based not on any cost-benefit analysis or legit business reason, it’s because SOMEONE at the top of the company has a personal belief.

                So, this is consumers reacting to a consumer issue- our options for a product are being restricted based on whether our moral code on this one issue happens to match that of a decision-maker at the companies we work for and the issue is one-sided and inappropriately judgmental for an employer-employee relationship.

      • rmorin says:

        Please tell me my sarcasm detector is not working?

        Arizona law: Consumer related

        Political activists sending stuffed uterus: Not consumer related

        • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

          News about a consumer related issue = consumer related.

          • rmorin says:

            Explain to me how knowing that people sent stuffed uterus made me a better or more informed consumer. Go ahead, try some crazy mental gymnastics, but sorry it does not.

            • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

              Explain to me how reporting on a group of people protesting a consumer-related issue is not consumer-related news?

              • rmorin says:

                If you are so unknowledgeable that you think that there are not people protesting both sides then I do not know what to tell you. The article did not educate, it was a propoganda piece.

                • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

                  This is a pro-consumer site. By it’s very nature there is a bias.

                  If you want truly un-biased news, you need to go somewhere else. I don’t think anyone will miss you.

                  Get a clue.

                  • rmorin says:

                    Ahahaha Loias you just spent like 8 posts trying to tell me it was not bias and then ended with “By it’s very nature there is a bias”. What a joke.

                    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

                      Not at all. Your argument was bias in this specific example, which you have yet to prove your case by any shred.

                      My point was that being a pro-consumer blog has an inherent bias, so perhaps your best choice to “solve” your complaint was to simply leave. After all, complaining about a consumer site’s pro-consumer bias gets your exactly no where. So stop be a whiny whiner and leave.

                    • rmorin says:

                      Loias, tell me more about your doomsday cult you belong in!

    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

      If I tell you about the terrorist events in the world, does that make me a terrorist advocate?

      If I tell you about political news and events that transpired, does that make me a political advovcate?

      If I tell you that someone sent knitted uteruses to protest an Arizona law about birth control, does that automatically mean I am advocating that side of the arguement?

      The answer is no, sorry, reporting the news doesn’t mean you advocate it.

      • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

        Oh and how could I be so remiss? I forgot to add:

        get a clue.

      • rmorin says:

        Proponents of the birth control bill think it’s totally cool for employers to ask why someone is on the pill or other contraception, and then decide if they should give that employee coverage or not, based on the answer and their own beliefs.

        Those who don’t want anyone else up in their business say the measure violates women’s rights to privacy.

        Loias, did you read what MBQ wrote at all? The passage I quoted is about as fair and balanced as foxnews.

        • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

          That was a very factual and accurate description of their opinion on why the bill should put into law. Sure, it had a little “color” to it, but this is also a blog meant to entertain as well as inform. I heard nothing from here on why these people are terrible, or wrong, or an opinion of any kind.

          Get a clue.

          • rmorin says:

            You saying that is unbias is the exact same thing as a birther saying foxnews is not bias. If you do not have the reading comprehension to understand the bias (whether you agree or not!) then you just have really poor reading skills.

            • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

              The only…only possible bias in the sentence you quoted is her use of “totally.” To say this proves a bias is questionable at best, as any justification you provide would be circumstancial and purely an assumption. At worst all it proves is that she has an opinion, but in no way is that opinion actually expressed in her article.

              And if you disagree, then I would say all it does it show your own bias towards the topic – whether the topic is the Arizona law or just your opinion of Consumerist and/or Mary Beth.

              Get a clue.

              • rmorin says:

                No Loais, it shows that I have actually researched more then sound bites on the proposed bill.

                Proponents of the birth control bill think it’s totally cool for employers to ask why someone is on the pill or other contraception, and then decide if they should give that employee coverage or not, based on the answer and their own beliefs.

                This is categorically false and shows a terrible bias. This bill allows an employer to buy a health insurance package that covers birth control for only medical, not elective use. No one at your place of employment asks you why you are using the pill Your insurance will instead only cover medical uses of hormonal contraception, again no one at your place of employment knows about your healthcare decisions. This is already done for many, many, many, medications. Insurance doesn’t just universally “cover” medications, it is entirely based on the context of the use.

                Please tell me how this is not incredibly slanted knowing what I just told you?

                • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:


                  “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.

                  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.”

                  It appears YOU are the misinformed person. Your employer absolute can ask you why you are on the pill.

                  GET A CLUE!!

                  • rmorin says:

                    Wrong again:


                    The wording of the bill detailing that process has created significant confusion. Heinz stated that the employee must get approval for reimbursement of the prescription cost directly from the employer. Other Democrats and bill opponents have stated this as well, criticizing the bill for requiring an employee to provide personal health information to an employer.

                    Lesko, as well as Center for Arizona Policy attorney Deborah Sheasby, whose organization wrote the bill, disagree. They say the bill states that the employee must submit that reimbursement request to the insurance company, not the employer.

                    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

                      This is a strawman argument. The linked article clearly says the bill itself is confusing and needs to be changed. Therefore MB Quirk’s alleged bias is justified.

                      You just proved my point in another way.

                      Get a clue.

                    • rmorin says:

                      Do you have multiple different people posting under your screen name?

                      The only…only possible bias in the sentence you quoted is her use of “totally.” To say this proves a bias is questionable at best,

                      You said that just an hour ago, and posted many times about how how the story is non-bias and now you are fully admitting MBQ has bias. Pick a side!

                      Also I love your logic: the law is confusing so it is completely okay to make up claims about it and present it as fact.

                    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

                      I love how you ignored the part where I quoted the bill itself? You know the part that pretty clearly shows that you’re wrong? How convenient.

                      Get a clue.

                    • rmorin says:

                      You never quoted the bill. You quoted a student newspaper. Do you really not know the difference? Really???

                      Also Mitt Romney, you keep giving different answers to a simple question: is this blog bias?

                    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

                      I see your reading skills need work. I quoted from the very article you linked.

                      Enjoy your cave over the weekend.

                    • rmorin says:


                    • jamar0303 says:

                      Ooh, look, you’ve gone and broken the edge.

        • c_c says:

          Seems fair to me, seeing as how that’s pretty much what the bill says.

          • rmorin says:

            Great so spin is justified as long as it’s spin you agree with. Is this bizarro world?

            Change around a few key words and you have Bill O’Reilly talking: “Opponents think that it is totally cool to promote women to have sex, while proponents just want their religious rights respected”

            I guess being even-keeled and thinking criticall isn’t hip any more.

            • clippy2.0 says:

              you mean “their christian religious rights” right? because we all know fox will go out of its way to attack jews, muslims, and atheists at any chance. seriously, try to at least act like youre not trolling.

              • rmorin says:

                You are so far one way you can’t see the middle. I am actively calling out Fox News for being slanted crap and you say I am a troll?

                My whole point is that sensationlist news whether the extreme of foxnews, or MBQ’s left slanted posts are that they are not good sources of information. MSNBC sucks, Foxnews sucks, your local weatherman screaming “WILL THIS BE THE STORM OF THE CENTURY?? TURN IN AT 11 TO FIND OUT” sucks. None of which should be celebrated and defend, yet people defend them because they align with their views, ignoring rational attempts to look at issues. Arguing against this is so bizarre you have to be a radical on one end to do it.

                • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

                  What part of this is sensationalized? It was a downright boring description of the events.

                  Seriously, you call me out on this site and then post this obvious troll banter?

                  Get a clue.

                  • rmorin says:

                    Copied and pasted from downthread, (you still don’t know what you are talking about)

                    Proponents of the birth control bill think it’s totally cool for employers to ask why someone is on the pill or other contraception, and then decide if they should give that employee coverage or not, based on the answer and their own beliefs.

                    This is categorically false and shows a terrible bias. This bill allows an employer to buy a health insurance package that covers birth control for only medical, not elective use. No one at your place of employment asks you why you are using the pill. Your insurance will instead only cover medical uses of hormonal contraception, again no one at your place of employment knows about your healthcare decisions. This is already done for many, many, many, medications. Insurance doesn’t just universally “cover” medications, it is entirely based on the context of the use.

                    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

                      I repled with a wonderful quote from a non-Consumerist article that specifically specifies your employer WOULD be allowed to ask why you;re on the pill.

                      Get a clue.

                    • rmorin says:

                      AHAHAHA Loias you quoted a student newspaper.

                      I responded with a much more reputable source which discussed that while there is confusion, the bills authors themselves publicly state that employers will not have anything to do with it.

                    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:


            • 401k says:

              This bill is actually people allowing their religion to keep them from respecting other people’s rights. Its impressive you were able to believe it was the other way around though.

    • 401k says:

      This is a fucking blog. I am so sick of people who take their time to read this site, create an account, and then post complaints about the site content. If you don’t like consumerist go to another site. Not that any news source is exactly “reputable” anymore, but consumerist was never trying to be. I repeat: This is just a fucking blog.

    • smo0 says:

      Discussing insurance, in general, has always been a consumer issue. If you need – go back into the post archives.

      To the brown basics- this is spending money vs not spending money – also a consumer issue.

      On a more personal note: as a woman – I like more people blogging about these issues.
      They affect me, they affect other women I know.

      More people need to get involved.

      I think before you do a google search – there should be a headline about the latest REPUBLICAN debacle about contraception and birth control issues.

      Or how certain politicians are trying to put a kibbosh on equal pay.

      That’s what I want.

      I can’t get enough of reading about this stuff.

      I think every blog, and ever news source about EVERY thing should have something about these topics.

      I’m not being sarcastic either…

      Get mad! get fucking angry, direct your anger towards the people trying to harm the females in your life – everyone has a mother! do it for her if not for anyone else.

  2. YouDidWhatNow? says:

    Better yet, send it with a coupon for a free taco. And on the coupon, type something like “you are ugly >:|” – cover three issues with one stone. Er, uterus.

  3. Firevine says:

    FFS, fire this broad. She can take her political schill somewhere else. Blogger and WordPress are two popular platforms that she might like to try. I personally prefer WordPress.

    I really liked Consumerist up until MB decided it was her personal political soapbox.

    • clippy2.0 says:

      we’ve had dozens on articles on employer vs employee on here this year. What makes this one so wrong? shut up and don’t post or read it if you don’t like it

      • rmorin says:

        Yeah real great advice pal. A company (the consumerist) is not living up to our expectations and your advice is, “don’t complain about it, just stop going”. If consumerist followed your own advice there would be few, if any articles on this blog, because according to you people should not write to the consumerist when a company is misbehaving, they should just shut up and stop doing business with that company.

        • clippy2.0 says:

          what business are you doing with consumerist?

          • rmorin says:

            Advertising for Consumer Reports, look to your the right of your screen. Also what does C/R do with the information tied to your browser? I’m sure they use it beneficially for themselves.

            Nothing is free. If you are not the consumer, you’re the product.

            • clippy2.0 says:

              hmmm, so I see a donate button, a link to the parent company, and contact information for other companies. as well as other articles. yeah, not much business to do here. if you dont like it, don’t read it. simple as that. the only thing we provide is web traffic.

              • rmorin says:

                So C/R does not use our information in any way, even for internal purposes?

                • clippy2.0 says:

                  what information? theres no ads, theres nothing to track. they can track what browser we use, and what articles generate the most hits, and maybe what the generating link (if any) brought us here. possibly your geographic location via IP address. if you use the search function, they can track that too.

                  so yeah, ground breaking results there. and it costs you millions of dollars a year! we should protest! lets form a human fence outside of their offices until we get our money back!

        • clippy2.0 says:

          and also yes, that would be the point. if a company is misbehaving, people should stop using it, so they go out of business. thats pretty much the entire fucking point.

    • YouDidWhatNow? says:

      Protip: the author of each post is listed by the link on the main page of the site…allowing you to easily ignore posts written by authors you don’t like.

      …but then you wouldn’t get the chance to post in here about how stupid she is, and how superior you are, now would you?

      In a lot of ways, this kind of thing (I see it on CNN.com and other sites too) reminds me of the moron banter in WoW. There’s always somebody saying something in WoW chat about how “this server is the worst.” Which begs the question…why are you still here if you dislike it so much?

      • rmorin says:

        Jesus get off your high horse. It is not about being superior. It’s that talking about political activist tactics is not a consumer issue. And this is a consumer issues website! We are customers (just because you don’t pay money, does not mean you are not a customer) and a company is providing us with the completely wrong product.

        If I wrote in tomorrow and said “Amazon keeps sending me the wrong widget, I contacted them multiple times and they keep sending the wrong product”, would you tell me “Shup up, why are you writing to the consumerist? So you feel self important? Just ignore Amazon, god this reminds me of WoW” No.

        • sagodjur says:

          Feel free to spill your vitriol on your own blog. The rest of us came to read comments regarding the article regardless of whether you think it’s consumer-related or not. Feel free to not waste our time because you feel your opinion is so important that you have to wage flame wars throughout the thread when you could have just sent a polite email to the site admins and left the rest of us out of your immature tirades.

    • Tacojelly says:

      For one, there is little to no opinion in that piece. Just reporting that it happened.

      Secondly, I like to consider myself open-minded and will listen to and evaluate conservative ideas, bills, etc. and then make decisions based on the facts that I can get.

      But there is NO-WAY anybody should be supporting the limiting of access to birth control. Conservative values dictate that people support small government to allow individuals enough freedom to live your life and pursue your happiness without people getting in your way; this is contradictory to that belief.

      There is being a god-loving, pro-life, republican… and a nut.

    • Charmander says:

      Limiting birth control coverage is a consumer issue.

  4. Grogey says:

    Isn’t somethings like this go against HIPAA?

    • rmorin says:

      No, Knit Uteri are not covered.

      Serious answer: There is precedent for employers to have information about your healthcare. Many professions require physicals, or that you disclose illnesses and some even access to your entire medical records. secondly, many health insurance companies will cover medications for certain illnesses but not universally for any condition.
      Putting these two things together; employers having access to medical records and insurance companies selectively covering depending on condition I could hypothetically see this being allowed, however I am not sure if there is precedent for asking why a specific medication is being taken for a job, and then decideding whether to cover it or not. To this end it would probably be decided in court, not a simple “yes” or “no” at this point.

      • clippy2.0 says:

        that’s a very very very far stretch. those professions that allow doctors to commicate the health of the employees to the employer generally require some type of physical function. No one should ever have to disclose if they have sex to get a job as a commercial airline pilot; knowing if the person is a diabetic or having a similar disabling disease would be a perfectly valid thing to have to disclose. Those two things are not at all related. The need for you to have healthcare should not be a reason for an employer to know about your health; unless your health directly impacts your job, they can go fuck themselves. pretty simple

        • rmorin says:

          You did not adress the second component of my statement. This law would affirm that employers health insurance companies can pick and choose when to cover birth control, as they do now for many, many, other medications. It is sensationalist that “an employer would ask why you are taking the pill”; they would not. It is that they can buy health plans which coverbirth control for medical conditions, but not as elective use.

          As an example, Viagra is covered by most all health plans for pulmonary arterial hypertension, but in very, very, very, few for erectile dysfunction.

          • clippy2.0 says:

            And from how many of those prescriptions did the employee have to tell the employer what he was planning on using that viagra for? It’s pretty simple, a prescription is written by the doctor, for the patient. the employer can suck it, and really the insurance company can suck it too. that’s why people want healthcare reform. it shouldn’t matter what I am going to use viagra, or insulin, or ritalin, or weed for. if the doctor prescribes it, I take it, and the insurance covers it. plain and simple!

            • Coleoptera Girl says:

              In an ideal world, health insurance would only be necessary for catastrophic or unpredictable events… The masses should be able to pay for their own healthcare. Unfortunately, the cost of meds and medical services are ridiculously high. Rather than make medical services consumer-friendly as far as cost goes (you know, reducing the cost of medical school might help here a bit…) our wonderful POTUS decided that health insurance reform would be good enough. I blame everyone involved in the creation/editing/passage of that bill (not just Mr. Obama).

              You don’t use car insurance every time you get an oil change, why should you have to use health insurance in order to afford a simple checkup at the primary care provider’s office?

              • clippy2.0 says:

                this is a problem more to do with our overall healthcare system than anything. if an oil change cost 100 bucks every time, and you had to get an oil change every 6 months in order to carry car insurance, I’m sure folks would be just as upset. The cost of healthcare is insanely high in the US, hence when folks without insurance would rather go to the ER than to a doctor, just because if they’re already poor then can at least get the coverage and then run out on the check.

                In terms of the solutions, while folks love to hate the idea of requiring everyone to carry insurance, lets think about the idea you seemed to imply. Make all doctors charge less and make all medicine cheaper? Hmmm, I wonder which is harder to do, ask pharmacys and doctors to all take a pay cut, or ask everyone to have insurance.

            • rmorin says:

              the employer can suck it, and really the insurance company can suck it too.

              You are thinking about a perfect world, not the world we live in. This is beyond the scope of a debate about birth control, but the reason that it is done with many medications is to keep costs down. Health Insurance does not want to pay for the brand new, brand name drug, if an older one will be effective. For a lot of the expensive new drugs insurance companies require you to try two others before covering it, because if something cheaper works, there is no reason to pay big money. Saying it should only be between you and your doctor is ignoring costs.

              • clippy2.0 says:

                The idea you present assumes everyone has multiple choices, and always goes for the most expensive. It’s funny how a insurance company asks you to help keep costs down by going with cheaper drugs, but then charges you more money when there are no other drugs, or even if you do, your premiums still manage to go up. Ignore a perfect world. If the doctor says I need a pill, guess who I want being the person who decides which pill will work best for me? I’ll give you a hint, its going to be the one who is an actual person looking after my health, not the account looking to increase profits for the insurance company

              • sagodjur says:

                If this were just a cost issue, then using contraception medication for the purpose of birth control would be covered because it saves more money not to have to conduct prenatal screenings and possibly even surgery, in addition to the employer having to cover more dependents of their workers and losing those workers for maternal leave.

                Clearly this is law is about allowing private citizens who happen to be employers dictate their morality to people who happen to be their employees. It’s religious or moral discrimination.

                • rmorin says:

                  This is beyond the scope of a debate about birth control,

                  Did not read this part, huh? I was not talking about the economics of birth control because the person I responded to mentioned many other medications.

    • TheMansfieldMauler says:

      Part of the problem is that this particular drug has 2 uses, one of which is medical and one of which is personal choice. If the employer covers one and not the other, then the employee must show that there’s an actual medical need.

      It’s a gray area to be sure, but there’s no reason an employer should pay for the employee’s personal choice if they choose not to.

      • sagodjur says:

        The so-called personal choice is a medical choice. We’re not talking about breath mints here.

        • rmorin says:

          That’s an over simplification. A nose job is a medical decision, but still is a personal choice.

          • clippy2.0 says:

            A nose job for personnal reasons is elective, not medical.

            • clippy2.0 says:

              damn it not elective, I meant cosmetic!

              • TheMansfieldMauler says:

                It’s both elective and cosmetic. BC pills not medically necessary for health issues is also elective.

                • sagodjur says:

                  By that argument, all preventative care is elective and not medically necessary. So we should stop vaccinating children because it’s elective and not medically necessary.

                  • rmorin says:

                    People usually don’t take doxycycline unless they are going somewhere malaria is prevalent.

                    People don’t take birth control unless they have a medical reason (that is covered, this law doesn’t change that) or if they want to use it as contraception.

                    If they cover birth control, they had better cover doxycycline because why is the ability to have access to a specific form of contraception, more important then my ability to not contract malaria on my trip to africa? Both are personal choices, and both my trip, and access to HBC are not technically “necessary”?

                    • tralfaz says:

                      By this token, we should not allow Viagra (or Cialis, etc.) to be dispensed to men unless there is a verified medical reason (therefore, actual testing, not just Average Joe asking the doctor for it…), and it should not be dispensed to men who are not actively trying to get their wives pregnant. Also, the wife must submit to fertility testing, and if she is menopausal the request will of course be denied, since the Viagra (etc.) will be for purely elective reasons.

                    • sagodjur says:

                      Do you go to a place where you might contract malaria in your everyday life?

                      Many women naturally engage in sexual activity that makes the medical condition of pregnancy possible during their day-to-day lives at certain times of the month. Since pregnancy is a desirably avoidable condition unless you are planning or at least willing to get pregnant, why wouldn’t it naturally be covered?

                      Saying that sex is a choice is like saying that you can survive on bread and water alone. It’s not reasonable to expect people with natural urges and hormones to forgo living their lives as they choose and consensually engaging in a healthy sexual life in responsible ways so as to prevent overpopulation, greater competition for limited resources, unwanted children who might burden the welfare or foster systems, and increased medical costs to themselves and to society, as well as potentially endangering their lives, and preventing unwanted pregnancy prevents abortion.

                      If religious people want to live as celibate as nuns or spawn like rabbits for the greater glory of their chosen deity, they have that right, but they also lack the religious freedom to force either of those options upon others.

            • rmorin says:

              It is a procedure done by healthcare professionals which has both risks and benefits. It is a medical decision.

              I mean it is all semantics really though.

  5. dush says:

    Come on guys, if you’re going to offer the coverage, offer the coverage. If you don’t want to offer the coverage, don’t offer the coverage. You shouldn’t be asking what they are doing with the coverage though.

  6. Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

    I am so glad I moved from that state.

  7. caradrake says:

    I really want a knitted uterus now.

  8. XianZomby says:

    The entire time I was thinking — uteruses that have been knitted together — taxidermied the medical waste from a hysterectomy — googly eyes — my head was spinning. WHO DOES THIS TYPE OF THING?!?!?!

    And then I clicked the actual story and saw cute toys knitted from yarn and in the shape of an organ, sent to lawmakers to make a point. Well that’s just neat.

  9. IGetsAnOpinion says:

    I don’t see how this isn’t consumer related – unless women aren’t considered consumers? Especially women in AZ. If they want to ask women why they need birth control, then they need to equally ask men who use the little blue pill why they need them too. Or don’t cover them either.

    • nbs2 says:

      They do that with finasteride.

      Proscar is a 5mg tablet; Propecia is a 1mg tablet. Most insurance companies will cover Proscar, as it is used for prostate related care – a proper medical issue. Most will not cover Propecia, which is used to regrow hair for balding men – a social lifestyle issue (which is what sex for non-procreative purposes is, no matter how enjoyable it is).

      If a company were to produce a differentiate dosage for birth control pills that would be prescribed for non-contraceptive purposes, I’d be all over not covering the contraceptive-designed pills. Production of such a pill would also eliminate the need to ask the purpose of the pill, because only one dosage would be in the formulary.

      Besides, if you need it for contraception, condoms will also protect against STDs.

      • justhypatia says:

        Sorry, sick of this bull that I’ve seen repeated here several times.

        Not wanting to get pregnant is a medical reason for birth control.

        Did you get that? Here I’ll say it again:


        And I don’t want to hear any “it’s preventative” crap either.

        ‘Cause you know what? No one is saying “hey, let’s not cover statins.”

        Or take away anti-seizure medication from the epileptics.

        Or the anti-depressants from the bi-polar.

        Or the blood thinners.

        Or the asthma medication.

        Or the beta blocker or ACE inhibitors.

        No law makers seem to concerned about my prophylactic migraine medication.

        So let’s stop pretending there is some valid reason for freaking out over what women do with their vaginas.

  10. Weakly says:

    This is a consumer activism blog, and this is a story about people working together to act in the public’s interest, why wouldn’t this be relevant?

  11. pgr says:

    All conservative evangelical Republican hate bigots, and one half of the state of Arizona, belong in hell (to bad it doesn’t exist) ;(

  12. SoCalGNX says:

    They spend a lot of money in this state on stupid legislation. The people here seem to think that they own others.

  13. psykomyko says:

    Yes, it’s “uteri.”

  14. Talmonis says:

    ITT: Fundies trying to justify more intrusion into the sex lives of women.