posted
Re: Hobby Lobby, I thought this was a great response:
quote: I will refrain from asking where Hobby Lobby gets the nerve to claim ‘conscience’ when their shelves are full of products from countries with appalling labor laws. I won’t even ask which version of the bible they’re reading where Matthew 25.36 reads “I was sick and you sued not to cover my medical care.”
Instead, I want to know exactly where they’re getting the idea that conscience protections are a consequence-free exemption from legal obligations.
During World War II, men who refused conscription for reasons of conscience didn’t get to go back to their normal lives. They were conscripted instead for difficult, dangerous jobs. They served as forest fire fighters (including smoke jumpers), psych ward orderlies, and subjects in medical testing.
That program formed the basis of the Alternative Service Program used during the Korean and Vietnam wars. If a draft were called tomorrow, the Alternative Service Program would start right back up again.
And Alternative Service applies to work that people are required to actually carry out themselves, not to things they’re only required to pay for.
Every year, I pay taxes to the United States government. I tell myself that I’m paying for roads and schools; food for hungry families and head start programs.
I am, of course. But I’m also paying for Guantanamo Bay.
I’m paying for two wars, and for racist immigration laws.
I’m paying for drone strikes, including those that kill and maim children.
I’m paying for federal executions, and for lawyers to argue that the government is not obligated to provide comprehensive medical care to Chelsea Manning.
I’m paying for the prison industrial complex.
All of those things violate my religious beliefs.
And if I refused to pay my taxes because of that? I would go to jail.
There are Quakers whose consciences really won’t permit them to pay federal taxes. Many of them manage that by making sure they don’t make enough money to incur tax liability. They live on far less than they could earn if they were willing to pay taxes, but they’re willing to make that sacrifice, because their conscience demands it.
posted
Dustin, although I don't think that argument goes as far as you think it does (since I disagree, that's to be expected) it doesn't do anything for the problem of women's health concerns that are treated with birth control that's not prescribed for the purposes of birth control.
Do these women get swept up along with the morally objectionable types who will spend Hobby Lobby's money (which if paid to the employees directly, isn't and no kne thanks twice but paid in the form of health care...)?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Godric 2.0: .... Every year, I pay taxes to the United States government <for stuff I don't like>.
If this were about the government providing birth control, than I could see this as being parallel. But it's about the government compelling someone else to provide birth control, which is quite a different issue.
The Alternative Services question is more parallel. If the law were written in such a way that the fines Hobby Lobby paid for not providing Health Insurance with a birth control option were similar to the extra cost they would face with the birth control option, then I think it would be more parallel still. However, the fines on companies that don't meet every regulation, including the one about birth control, are far more financially burdensome. It would be like saying that, rather than serving in the Armed Forces for two years, conscientious objectors can choose to serve in the Alternative Service for a hundred. That doesn't strike me as realistically respecting individual conscience.
But, again, what I really think the case is about is whether corporations have a right to conscience at all. Arguments about individual rights are only appropriate if you grant that those individual rights ought to vest in the corporations those individuals are responsible for running. In general that isn't the case, and if the court finds that it is the case with respect to free exercise of conscience, that would signal a significant practical expansion of corporations' rights.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: it doesn't do anything for the problem of women's health concerns that are treated with birth control that's not prescribed for the purposes of birth control.
This argument as mis-direction in a larger moral tug-of-war. If that's really the issue there are a number of ways to ensure that those women who need hormonal contraceptives for non-birth control reasons can have access to it, even while employed by businesses such as Hobby Lobby.
And is Hobby Lobby against any and all forms of birth control? If not, and employees are provided coverage for other means of family planning, then I don't see this as a terribly difficult problem to solve.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:This argument as mis-direction in a larger moral tug-of-war. If that's really the issue there are a number of ways to ensure that those women who need hormonal contraceptives for non-birth control reasons can have access to it, even while employed by businesses such as Hobby Lobby.
Such as? Because the only way I can think of involves requiring women to pass a morality test interfacing them, their doctors, and their employers in whether or not it'll be covered. All for the sake of Hobby Lobby's flexibly Christian conscience as referenced above. Somewhat related, but boy howdy do I love when religious conservatives flex their conscience when it comes to what women are or aren't, should or shouldn't be doing. No notion of men being required to promise they won't use their wage for condoms, vasectomies, Viagra (the latter two of which I don't know are coveted by their insurance). But wait, women getting BC *without* the single extra layer of buffer of 'we pay them, then they buy this' versus 'we pay them in insurance, which may be used for this'. No! A bridge too far.
quote: And is Hobby Lobby against any and all forms of birth control? If not, and employees are provided coverage for other means of family planning, then I don't see this as a terribly difficult problem to solve.
That's quite true, but if they aren't against other forms...what's the beef here?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Godric 2.0: .... Every year, I pay taxes to the United States government <for stuff I don't like>.
If this were about the government providing birth control, than I could see this as being parallel. But it's about the government compelling ***someone else*** to provide birth control, which is quite a different issue.
Emphasis mine. I think that's the crux. I don't think it is someone, but rather something.
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Such as? Because the only way I can think of involves requiring women to pass a morality test interfacing them, their doctors, and their employers in whether or not it'll be covered.
...
That's quite true, but if they aren't against other forms...what's the beef here?
To begin with, it's my understanding that Hobby Lobby does not object to hormonal birth control (the pill) or true contraceptives such as condoms or diaphragms. They take issue with post-conception forms of birth control like the morning-after pill and IUDs. Are the forms of BC to which Hobby Lobby objects being used to treat the medical conditions you referred to earlier?
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: To begin with, it's my understanding that Hobby Lobby does not object to hormonal birth control (the pill) or true contraceptives such as condoms or diaphragms. They take issue with post-conception forms of birth control like the morning-after pill and IUDs.
The morning-after pill IS hormonal birth control, and neither the morning-after pill nor IUDs are "post-conception" birth control. They prevent ovulation and/or fertilization of the egg.
Post-conception birth control (aka "the abortion pill") like RU486, is not required to be covered.
Posts: 89 | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Godric 2.0: .... Every year, I pay taxes to the United States government <for stuff I don't like>.
If this were about the government providing birth control, than I could see this as being parallel. But it's about the government compelling ***someone else*** to provide birth control, which is quite a different issue.
Emphasis mine. I think that's the crux. I don't think it is someone, but rather something.
Exactly. That's what I was trying to elucidate in my third paragraph above. If this were a question of an individual being compelled to provide birth control contrary to personal conscience (say Foster Friess* being forced to provide it to his personal driver), from what I understand that would be clearly illegal due to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (assuming the RFRA itself isn't unconstitutional). The question is whether the same holds for corporations.
*I don't know if Foster Friess actually has a moral objection to birth control, or if he has a personal driver. He's just the best example I could come up who was both socially conservative and rich enough to potentially have personal employees.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: To begin with, it's my understanding that Hobby Lobby does not object to hormonal birth control (the pill) or true contraceptives such as condoms or diaphragms. They take issue with post-conception forms of birth control like the morning-after pill and IUDs.
The morning-after pill IS hormonal birth control, and neither the morning-after pill nor IUDs are "post-conception" birth control. They prevent ovulation and/or fertilization of the egg.
Post-conception birth control (aka "the abortion pill") like RU486, is not required to be covered.
I know. I grouped the methods according to objectionable/non-objectionable, not strictly by mechanism. I used hormonal birth control to mean the common COC pill. It's my fault for not being more clear.
Regarding your second point, after further research I found that you are mostly correct. It seems most research concludes that the morning-after pill delays ovulation but according to the Plan B website, it may also work "by preventing attachment (implantation) to the uterus (womb)." And according to WebMD, hormonal IUDs can prevent implantation (and are thus objectionable). I gather that Hobby Lobby refuses to provide coverage for these types of birth control because they might act by stopping implantation, not because they always do.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
Prevention of implantation is a potential side-effect with IUDs, but should be rare (given that when used correctly it should generally prevent fertilization to begin with).
There are a myriad drugs where miscarriage is a potential side-effect. Hell, there are plenty of drugs where the death of the patient is a potential side effect. Those are issues to be examined on an individual case-by-case basis by doctor and/or patient, not by the patient's employer.
Posts: 89 | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't it cheaper for the insurance companies to provide contraception than to provide maternity benefits? If the contraception isn't coming from your insurance won't there be an increase in maternity costs which means that the costs of insurance that includes contraception should be less than the cost of the same insurance without contraception.
So isn't Hobby Lobby saying, "How dare the government force me to save money by allowing my employees to use contraception if they choose."
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: Because it isn't and has never been about preventing abortion, but punishing women for sex.
It's amazing you believe bullshit like this, let alone post it and thus broadcast your self-delusion.
ETA: Feel free to back up your claim with some evidence and logic.
Well, the Catholic church believes that all sex that is not intended to result in the conception of a child is a Sin. As they told us in a very special CCD session. Thus, birth control is also a sin. Because Sex is only okay if you are getting pregnant from it. FYI, 98% of Catholics have admitted to having sex with some form of birth control.
About 50% of pregnancies in the United States are unplanned. A very large percentage of that didn't even bother with birth control AT ALL. Some of these people do get abortions.
Face it, humans are animals, and asking animals to keep their legs closed isn't going to happen anytime soon. Some will abstain if you tell them sex is bad, but
If it were truly about preventing abortions, birth control would be near-universal as soon as a girl hits menarche. Not to encourage young sex, but to prevent abortion in the case of rape. And sex on purpose.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Elison's claim is, it should come as little surprise, sweeping and absurd in its overreach, capax.
That said, though, surely you'll acknowledge that there is a substantial element (though I would hesitate before saying 'primary' much less the only) of 'disincentivize 'adulterous' sex, with a strong focus on women that isn't only because of biology, right?
Because if not...well, the post immediately beneath yours addresses that pretty handily. So while it's not nearly as much of an overreach to claim Elison's statement is without logic or evidence, it is still an overreach, right?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Elison: a blog post with a clearly biased graphic isn't really evidence. And, I would argue, the logic in the post is flawed.
Posts: 298 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
