• Advertisement

My Response to NH Union Leader Editorial About Maggie Hassan and “Women’s Rights”

I do not usually comment not the “women’s rights” issues but this one angered me.  My anger does not have anything to do with women and their rights.  The NH Union Leader is distorting the facts to continue the NH House’s extreme agenda.

Here is the link to the entire Editorial

Below is an excerpt from the editorial an my comments (which are also posted on the NH Union Leader Website).

Denying women access to “basic health care” would indeed be an awful thing. Voters will be relieved to know that no one tried to do that. A bill, rejected in the Senate, would have let employers who have religious objections to contraception opt out of paying for it. In March, the House passed a different bill that would, as Reuters reported, “exempt religious institutions from having to include contraceptive coverage in health insurance plans.”

Neither bill was an attempt to “take away a woman’s right to make her own health care decisions.” Birth control would still be legal and accessible. A one-month pack of birth control pills costs as little as $9 at Walmart. The difference would be that those who object to contraception on religious grounds would not be forced by law to pay for someone else’s use of it.

For people who are all about protecting your rights, you sure want to know a lot about your Employee’s Health. Under the privacy act you do not have to tell your employer anything about your medical situation unless there is a medical requirement to perform your job. So they should not even have knowledge of women seeing a doctor or being prescribed any birth control.

Second, if the employer pays for health insurance they again would SHOULD NEVER have any knowledge of what the insurance company is paying for benefits. It would violate all privacy between the insurance company and the employee/client.

There is no possible way for an employer to know what the medical insurance payments would be going to.

As an employer who provided health care, your obligation is to pay the insurance company a set fee. Lets say $100 a month. That is it. You pay $100 a month wether I, as the employee, use that health insurance or not. The company has no connection to the Doctor or the Pharmacy where medications are given.

Thank goodness the NH Senate was sane enough to reject these bills. Bills like this would lead to more invasions of privacy and would lead to insurance companies and businesses being allowed to pick and choose what health care they will pay for. You as my employer (or as my elected representative) do not get to make medical decisions for me. I have a Medical Doctor for that.

 

 

Comments

comments

About Matt Murray

Matt Murray is the creator and an author on the NH Labor News. He is a union member and advocate for labor and progressive politics. He also works with other unions and members to help spread our message. Follow him on Twitter @NHLabor_News
Tagged . Bookmark the permalink.
  • Subscribe to the NH Labor News via Email

    Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 199 other subscribers

  • Advertisement

  • Advertisement