Imagine that you work for a relatively small company. One fine Friday in Spring you go to pick up your paycheck, and the owner of the company asks you to sign this:
I agree to use none of my paycheck from XYZ LLC to purchase novels in the Twilight or 50 Shades series. If I am found to own such books, I agree to show that they were not purchased with salary funds (i.e., gift) or face immediate termination.
You might say “What’s this?”
The owner might reply “Those books are sinful, and I won’t allow my money to be spent on them.”
“But it isn’t your money anymore. It’s my money,” you say.
“And you wouldn’t have it if I didn’t give it to you. Now, are you going to sign this, or are you fired?”
I think most of us would be outraged if this happened — even if we never had any desire to read those books. If it were an option, some of us might find other jobs (ha, yeah right, what other jobs?). A few of us might call a local investigative reporter to stick a microphone in that owner’s face. Somebody might think to call the ACLU.
It’s not an accident that I chose two controversial series with a largely female fan base. That’s because the thing some employers are actually trying to censor is access to birth control pills.
The employers trying to do this are using the exact same argument: “It’s sinful and I won’t allow my money to be spent on it.” It sounds a lot siller when we talk about books rather than medication that can prevent poverty and can relieve women of PCOS and endometriosis symptoms — making them more productive workers.
Obamacare requires health insurance plans to cover birth control pills, regardless of what your boss thinks of them. If you think that’s a good thing, click here and sign the petition.
What additional costs to an employer does BC in a healthplan represent?
While, in fact, I see some benefit to the employer (less missed work, healthier female employees) are there costs to that employer that do represent money from their pocket to support a practice they find abhorrent?
Don’t beat me up; pursuade me.
Well, a packet of pills runs about $35 cash. Let’s say for the sake of argument that there is way too much overhead and it costs the insurance plan double that once all the paperwork is complete, $70 a month. Obviously only about half the insureds are female, and not all of them want it. Let’s just say half do, so a quarter of all insureds. So for every dozen employees, this *could* cost the boss as much as $280/mo (4 x $70). Since many plans have already been covering this for some years because of state law requirements, there *shouldn’t* even be an increase over what he is currently paying.
WebMD tells me that prenatal care costs $2000 and an “uncomplicated vaginal birth” is around $9600. That’s 165 months worth of double-priced BC pills.
Some people are opposed to “the pill” because they mistakenly believe it “causes abortions.” There is no science to this idea whatsoever. In fact, “the pill” *prevents* abortions by preventing the unwanted pregnancy in the first place. And unlike condoms, it even works if you weren’t expecting sex (or rape, for that matter).
And of course some employers are opposed to hiring sluts. They should just put up a sign that says “No Sluts Need Apply” and see what happens.
But as my example shows, it’s not my boss’s business what I read or whether or not I am sexually active or what medications I take. What if the boss decides that insulin or cholesterol meds is sinful? What if my boss is from one of those sects that thinks blood transfusions are abhorrent — should I just *die* if I lose a lot of blood?