Republican War On Women – Crazy Arizona Goes Even Further

Filed in National by on March 13, 2012

Simply stunning.  Arizona is an embarrassment.

Via TPM:

The bill doesn’t just aim to implement a Blunt Amendment-type law at the state level — it would also strike a protection from the books that forbids a religious employer from firing “an employee who independently chooses to obtain insurance coverage or prescriptions for contraceptives from another source.” That means that if women sought coverage outside of her employer plan, she could be fired, although that might conflict with other laws in Arizona that would protect women from such employer actions. [emphasis mine]

This is where we are heading, folks.  Even if a women wants to buy health insurance on her own, with her own damn money, her “religious” (and, boy, am I using that word lightly) employer can fire her.  Fire her.

Charles Pierce points out where the War On Women will head next…

How, in short, do we keep state laws from being made a mockery without the federal equivalent of a Fugitive Slave Law? And we all know how well that worked out the last time.

Well, it turns out that the House of Representatives has come to our rescue. This law pertains to minors, but you have to be completely naive to believe that, if the Supreme Court turns the issue back to the states, there won’t be an identical one slouching out of the House within a month. Down the line, some woman, seeking to exercise what once was a constitutional right to choose, is going to end up as the new Dred Scott, and we all know how well that worked out the last time, too.

Yep, I can see it happening.

Take a look at what commenter fightingbluehen said today concerning abortion… “In the unlikely event that the far right crazies ever are successful in what you fear, you can always move to another state. That’s the beauty of having states and states’ rights.”

Perhaps the GOP sent out a memo?  Seriously, it sounds like this idea is being tossed around in Republicanville.

Tags: ,

About the Author ()

A stay-at-home mom with an obsession for National politics.

Comments (41)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. pandora says:

    And the Arizona bill gets better:

    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.

    Guess women’s medical records aren’t private anymore.

  2. AQC says:

    And a woman authored this? I hope the hell they vote her out!!

  3. fightingbluehen says:

    Terminating a pregnancy is not a right . It’s a service provided by professionals in the medical field.

    I like fireworks on the Fourth of July but they are illegal to purchase in Delaware. If I want fireworks, I have to drive to Virginia to buy them.

    Maybe in the future people in Virginia can come to Delaware to get their Abortions. Sounds like a win for Delaware.

    Now what I’m saying is sort of tongue in cheek, but I hope you get my point.

    If people in a certain state don’t like what their lawmakers propose, then they should vote them out or move. That’s pretty much the option.

  4. pandora says:

    That is not an option, and the fact that you keep offering it up as a solution makes you sound, well… nuts. And what a women does with her body is a right. If you disagree with that basic premise then just say it. Say, when a woman has sex and becomes pregnant she then becomes property of the state.

  5. cassandra_m says:

    Making your own healthcare choices without interference from your employer or the government is a right. And I agree that lawmakers who interfere with that right should be voted out. But your health care choices should be no one’s business but yours.

  6. pandora says:

    And this law would even forbid women from using their own money to purchase other health insurance with contraception coverage. It also says that a women who needs contraception for “medical” reason must provide proof to their employer.

    We are watching the Republican Handmaid’s Tale. The GOP’s war on women rages on.

    And just watch the laws that come into being when women try and cross state lines to get an abortion. Women will need special passports and have to take a pregnancy test just to cross state lines.

  7. V says:

    what an obnoxiously priviledged and closed-minded statement to make. That everybody can just go to another state or move. Because they have those resources, job opportunities, and a support system to make that happen.

    We forget living in Delaware how BIG some of the other states in this country are, and it’s not just a 20 min drive (you know, if you have a car) to get somewhere else. What if you live in Alaska?

  8. Geezer says:

    “Terminating a pregnancy is not a right.”

    In the first three months of pregnancy it is. And if men were the ones getting pregnant, it would have been a right since before history.

  9. fightingbluehen says:

    OK Geezer, in the context that you are implying you are correct, but I guess buying chewing gum is also a right in that case. It falls under goods and services.
    The whole point is mute anyway because abortion is always going to be legal.

  10. fightingbluehen says:

    “moot” sorry

  11. pandora says:

    There are plenty of things that are “legal” and not affordable or accessible to all people. I get that your strategy is to make this about abortion, but that ship sailed with your Republican Presidential candidates.

    You guys are no longer simply the party of anti-abortion. You are now the anti-contraception party and the party that’s a-okay with government mandating unnecessary medical procedures. You guys so own this.

  12. Geezer says:

    FBH: I’m referring to Roe v. Wade, which took abortions out of the hands of the states and cited the “implied” right to privacy in declaring abortion legal during the first trimester of fetal development.

    Chewing gum, as far as I know, has not yet made an appearance on the SCOTUS docket.

  13. liberalgeek says:

    Chewing V. Bubble 1974

    One of the lesser-known decisions.

  14. fightingbluehen says:

    “That is not an option, and the fact that you keep offering it up as a solution makes you sound, well… nuts. And what a women does with her body is a right. If you disagree with that basic premise then just say it. Say, when a woman has sex and becomes pregnant she then becomes property of the state.”

    Wow pandora I don’t even know how to address that. I guess you are correct. Certain things can be called rights I guess, if the law allows it. Prostitution is illegal in most places so (“what a woman does with her body is a right”) may not apply everywhere.

    My point is that, if you don’t like laws in certain locations, what else can you do besides vote the lawmakers out or move? Maybe you know a better way pandora? Let me know.

  15. Dave says:

    What a person does with their body is a right that all persons have. There is no one who can or should deny that.

    But certainly that right to those who are not emancipated. Their parents make those decisions.

    There are always situations where a minor child appeals for emancipation in order to take control of their lives. Often those appeals are granted. So even though we have drawn a line between minors and adults, that line shifts according to specific circumstances.

    The debate over abortion is similar, with a line drawn at the 1rst trimester. As a Catholic, I believe life begins at conception but that conflicts with my belief that women have a right to do what they want with their bodies.

    How most everyone sees this in black and white is beyond me. I have the same problem with personhood. Personhood is bestowed at birth. But how about still in the birth canal? Not a person? Inside the womb not person, but outside a person? Viable to survive outside the womb? Well how about preemies? To me it’s very messy. I applaud those who see the situation with absolute clarity, while I struggle with the answers to questions that have no definitive answer.

    I have always thought that Colin Powell said it best: The decision to have an abortion should be a matter between a woman, her doctor, her family, her conscience, and her God

  16. pandora says:

    But that’s just it, Dave. What you see me viewing as black and white is me saying I will not tell anyone what to do. Restricting access to contraception or abortion is someone telling someone else what they can or cannot do.

    If you don’t believe in abortion? Don’t have one. If you don’t believe in contraception? Don’t use it. My problem is with people telling others to do and believe what they do.

  17. Dave says:

    “But that’s just it, Dave. What you see me viewing as black and white ”

    Well, I actually wasn’t referencing anything specific you said. It really was the overall debate and not just on this blog. There was no intention on my part to label you as a binary (which is my term for those who see the world in binary terms of 1 and 0 (yes, no, true, false, etc).

  18. socialistic ben says:

    “How most everyone sees this in black and white is beyond me.”
    here here.

    this is disgusting. FBH (et all), you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what it’s like to NOT be a middle (or upper) class white man. Everything you say smacks of the ability to “just move somewhere else” that comes with a life of relative privilege. Educate yourself. PLease, as a fellow human, you should educate yourself. Most people aren’t as lucky as you and cant simply pick up and go…. they CAN suffer under laws that they oppose and lack the voice to fight them…. That you don’t know that just reinforces my charge that every piece of knowledge you have on “the issues” comes from Fox on one of their many many analogs.

    As far as your argument about not wanting your tax money to go to this and that… MY tax money went to slaughter 16 innocent Afghan civilians. I paid for that. you paid for that. Del Dem paid for that. Tell me something, would you rather your “tax money pay for someone’s safe sex.. (presumably a “loose woman, and NOT with you) or go to bullets that kill children?

  19. socialistic ben says:

    I think there is a misconception that liberals are pro-abortion. that we LOVE abortions and want them to happen. i DONT want them to happen. i dont want them to be illegal.. and in the case of health risks, rape, or rednecks… i mean incest, I’m supportive of the CHOICE. If you really want to see abortion numbers shrink… if that is REALLY your goal, and NOT oppression, or theocracy, or any of the motives demonstrated by GOP lawmakers, than you would support greater public funding for the foster system, or easier access to contraception, or ANYTHING that honors CHOICE and makes the alternative CHOICES more appealing.

  20. fightingbluehen says:

    So Ben, you have a better idea? What are you supposed to do when the people in your state vote in legislatures that make laws that you don’t like?

  21. Valentine says:

    Roe v. Wade established the women have a constitutionally protected right to have an abortion.

  22. socialistic ben says:

    I better idea for what, hen?
    A better idea about what to do about unwanted births? yeah. how about we as a nation decide that we want ALL CHILDREN to have a shot (not at being born, but having a good life) rather than focusing on turning every egg into another cog in the machine.
    When something in delaware happens that i dont like, i make my voice heard…. i however am very lucky to make enough money so i can afford to worry about things like that, instead, like now a majority of americans, who have to worry about feeding themselves, or paying medical bills, or getting medicine without being called a slut by a fat white man.
    I say you have no idea what life is like for most of your fellow americans, because if you did… assuming you arent a monster like Rush Limbaugh, you would have a different opinion.

  23. liberalgeek says:

    So Ben, you have a better idea? What are you supposed to do when the people in your state vote in legislatures that make laws that you don’t like?

    We already have experience with this. What are we supposed to do when a state says certain people cannot vote or marry or go to a public school because of the color of their skin? Should they move to a state more amenable to their skin color?

  24. fightingbluehen says:

    I’ll put that in the category of ( voting them out) . Thank you, Ben.

  25. V says:

    FBH I feel like you’re moving the goalposts. I feel like you’re saying “oh shucks! those kooky republicans in state legislatures are being all crazy! I guess we’ll just have to suck it up and wait until their term is over and vote in someone else. That or move”

    To that extent you’re correct. I feel like Pandora and I and what others are saying is – why are we even talking about this in the first place, why NOW all of a sudden are things like women’s basic medical care ok to be under attack? why all of a sudden is this ok when they didn’t campagin on “well you bitches just need to keep your legs closed” and it’s totally acceptable by the mainstream.

    I’ve grown up my whole life thinking that it was a given that I would have access to birth control (which I took relatively young for a medical reason). The fact that all of a sudden that could be taken away, or made harder,(for me and for others less fortunate than me) just to score some points in this political game is scary.

  26. socialistic ben says:

    yeah, LG. the south had to be told what to do by the federal government. remember learning about that in school BH? the southern states could not be trusted to do the right thing on their own. would you suggest a black family in alabama just “move north”? what would your position be on that? voting the racists out wasnt gonna work… most of the voters were (are) racist.

  27. socialistic ben says:

    it sounds like he’s saying each state should have a separate set of rules, and people would live in state that best reflects their beliefs. sounds like secessionist talk to me.

  28. liberalgeek says:

    The point is that the Supreme Court has decided in Roe v. Wade that a woman has a RIGHT to have an abortion. That right was based on the idea that a person has a RIGHT to privacy. Those rights cannot be abridged by a state. A state cannot establish an official religion for the state. It cannot ban public speech. It cannot ban free association.

    That’s what the Constitution is for.

  29. fightingbluehen says:

    liberalgeek,I also put that in the (voting them out category) at the federal level.

  30. liberalgeek says:

    WRONG! What don’t you get about rights?

  31. fightingbluehen says:

    The states are abiding by Roe v Wade. If they weren’t the courts would step in, right?

  32. V says:

    so going by that argument if Delaware decided to outlaw all hunting rifles (or put severe restrictions on gun ownership: ex. make you submit to a mandatory and unneccesary mental health and vision/dexterity exam that you consider invasive, or required your spouse to sign off on having the gun in the house) you’d just wait until the next election to vote those bums out right?

    (i had to jump into your argument LG, because FBH keeps ignoring my brilliant posts ;P)

  33. socialistic ben says:

    it’s not worth it. he’s either being deliberately dickish, or deliberately uneducated. either way, there is no use arguing. it’s too nice a day to yell at the trolls.

  34. V says:

    NO FBH, the court can’t step in unless there’s a suit before them. which means the state has to do something wrong to a person, that person has to sue, and then it has to work it’s way through the court system to get to them. They can’t just call up South Dakota and tell them to get their shit together.

    also there’s a lot of talk in the pro-choice community that the make-up of the court is so close right now, that any Roe-related challenge could be used to chip at the previous decision (which is what happened last time a Roe appeal got up there). So even if something is BLATANTLY terrible,like really over the top terrible, pro-choice groups are afraid to fight the legislatures for fear it will do more harm than good.

  35. fightingbluehen says:

    ” going by that argument if Delaware decided to outlaw all hunting rifles (or put severe restrictions on gun ownership: ex. make you submit to a mandatory and unneccesary mental health and vision/dexterity exam that you consider invasive, or required your spouse to sign off on having the gun in the house) you’d just wait until the next election to vote those bums out right?”

    What else could I do, V?

  36. V says:

    How come i have to come up with a way to stop it for it to be wrong? Can’t i just say that it’s wrong? Point out that your team is doing something harmful where it has never been an issue before? I can’t make a middle-aged conservative white dude understand what it’s like to be a young poor woman with few resources who needs medical care (not talking about abortion exclusively, but gen. OBGYN needs including Birth Control). I mean that’s really the way to fix this problem. Half the criticism coming about BC makes it clear the critics don’t even understand how it works. I can’t educate them.

    I can’t make conservatives compassionate. As long as it’s not their daughter, they don’t care. That doesn’t mean I should just keep my mouth shut about it.

  37. V says:

    in the gun example, as a gun owner you could sue for your 2nd amendment rights.

    call your congressmen and harrass them, write letters

    make a big fuss about it and hope they get embarrased by outcry

    or vote them out/move

    No matter what you do you’re still allowed to complain. you’re acting like we should just sit down and shut up about it because we can’t do anything.

  38. fightingbluehen says:

    Yes you can protest but In the end, all you can do is vote for the people you agree with, and let the system do the rest, or leave, or revolt I guess.

  39. socialistic ben says:

    well, the fury like hell hath no (thanks, jack sparrow) is going to be unleashed on all the supporters of the vagina leash laws. it will (as i t should be) conservative christophiles roaming from town to town looking for a place to be free to control others.

  40. V says:

    so why are any of us talking about politics at all then, since it’s so futile? you know Republicans are on the wrong side of this one so you just shrug your shoulders and say “oh well.” you should be yelling with us. They’re much more likely to listen to their own kind. Don’t just roll over in apathy while they make you look bad.

  41. pandora says:

    They already rolled over, V. FBH and other “moderate” Republicans created the Tea Party and the likes of Christine O’Donnell. They loved their monster when it was attacking Liberals/Dem, but were shocked when they found themselves (and Mike Castle) kicked out of their own damn party. They are now political outcasts – which you’d think would give them a voice… since they have nothing left to lose.