I see. Thanks. It seems like a bit of a stretch to me. I wonder if there is any clause in any other law in Arizona that prevents a religious employer or any employer from discriminating against anyone who uses birth control? Even with this clause in place, could a non-religious employer discriminate against a person who used birth control?
I think this is the offensive section:
Z. NOTWITHSTANDING SUBSECTION Y OF THIS SECTION, A CONTRACT DOES NOT FAIL TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SUBSECTION Y OF THIS SECTION IF THE CONTRACT'S FAILURE TO PROVIDE COVERAGE OF SPECIFIC ITEMS OR SERVICES REQUIRED UNDER SUBSECTION Y OF THIS SECTION IS BECAUSE PROVIDING OR PAYING FOR COVERAGE OF THE SPECIFIC ITEMS OR SERVICES IS CONTRARY TO THE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OF THE EMPLOYER, SPONSOR, ISSUER, CORPORATION OR OTHER ENTITY OFFERING THE PLAN OR IS BECAUSE THE COVERAGE IS CONTRARY TO THE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OF THE PURCHASER OR BENEFICIARY OF THE COVERAGE. IF AN OBJECTION TRIGGERS THIS SUBSECTION, A WRITTEN AFFIDAVIT SHALL BE FILED WITH THE CORPORATION STATING THE OBJECTION. THE CORPORATION SHALL RETAIN THE AFFIDAVIT FOR THE DURATION OF THE CONTRACT AND ANY RENEWALS OF THE CONTRACT. THIS SUBSECTION SHALL NOT EXCLUDE COVERAGE FOR PRESCRIPTION CONTRACEPTIVE METHODS ORDERED BY A HEALTH CARE PROVIDER WITH PRESCRIPTIVE AUTHORITY FOR MEDICAL INDICATIONS OTHER THAN FOR CONTRACEPTIVE, ABORTIFACIENT, ABORTION OR STERILIZATION PURPOSES. A CORPORATION, EMPLOYER, SPONSOR, ISSUER OR OTHER ENTITY OFFERING THE PLAN MAY STATE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OR MORAL CONVICTIONS IN ITS AFFIDAVIT THAT REQUIRE THE SUBSCRIBER TO FIRST PAY FOR THE PRESCRIPTION AND THEN SUBMIT A CLAIM TO THE CORPORATION ALONG WITH EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESCRIPTION IS NOT IN WHOLE OR IN PART FOR A PURPOSE COVERED BY THE OBJECTION. A CORPORATION MAY CHARGE AN ADMINISTRATIVE FEE FOR HANDLING THESE CLAIMS.
I think the fact that an employee who gets contraceptives through the plan must affirm that said contraceptives is not for, well, contraception. If the affidavit isn't provided, that would amount to a violation of the contract (insurance fraud?) and subject the employee to termination. But I'm not a lawyer. This section is repeated half a dozen times in the amended bill. http://www.azleg.gov/...m&Session_ID=107
"i disagree with your analysis [or judgment], nevertheless you have the responsibility of moderating this board so i honor your authority to make the moderating decisions."