Hobby Lobby decision - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-30-2014, 08:40 PM   #41
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 64,498
Local Time: 11:45 PM
Soooooo if I work for Hobby Lobby, they get to inflict their religious beliefs on me. Gosh, thanks for that religious freedom, America.

Which also happen to be incorrect beliefs. I'm pretty sure none of those people know what an IUD is.

Spent the drive home listening to an actually interesting discussion on local talk radio. The company that owns the radio station (among others) is part of Deseret Industries (or Deseret something), aka a Mormon-based company. They do not cover birth control pills.

The woman employee speaking said she respects their beliefs, and she's fortunate that she's on a type of pill that she can afford to pay the entire price of, but she does not like that monthly reminder that they are forcing their religious beliefs on her, every time she pays a copay for antibiotics or antidepressants, etc, but pays full price for one very specific kind of medication.

Also, it sounds like Hobby Lobby was only arguing against having to cover 4 specific kinds of birth control they consider a kind of abortefacent, which is ridiculous on its own. But other companies involved in the various suits and the decision today were arguing that they didn't want to cover any form of BC.

So it's a more general outrage than specifically against Hobby Lobby, but the IUD thing has me outraged at their stupidity more than anything else at this point.
__________________

corianderstem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 08:47 PM   #42
ONE
love, blood, life
 
digitize's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New York / Dallas / Austin
Posts: 14,074
Local Time: 12:45 AM
Hobby Lobby decision

My thoughts:

i) Corporations are not people. However, I fail to understand why a group of people organizing themselves as a corporation would collectively lose first amendment protection in doing so. And all that this decision applies to is corporations held closely enough to enable their owners' religious beliefs to be easily ascertained.

One may argue that businesses of any form, including sole proprietorships, should be required to provide contraceptive coverage, to their full time employees. Perhaps that is true, but then the line here should be either "people's free religious rights can be curtailed at the point when they try to make money from business ownership" or "requiring a person to pay for medical treatment against which he or she has religious objections is not a violation of religious freedom".

ii) On the surface, the scope of this decision seems to be narrow to nearly the point of uselessness. It covers only closely-held companies, and only salaried employees thereof, and only four types of contraception (somewhat absurdly, as some have pointed out), and Kennedy's concurrence opened the door for insurers to still be required to cover the contraception without the companies paying (on the government's dime, I think, but I'm not sure).

However, I don't understand how the majority is claiming to not be setting precedent for other religious objections. It seems like either this is a precedent, opening up the door for all that Ginsberg brought up, or it's a first amendment violation insofar as it protects some absurd beliefs by evangelical Christians and not much else.

iii) My libertarian instincts, which I can't decide if I like or not, think that all companies should be free to set whatever terms of labor they see fit (and, likewise, employees should be able to seek out whatever employers they see fit). However, it's difficult to apply those to such a rabidly un-libertarian industry as healthcare.

iv) I wonder if the Democratic Party paid Kennedy off to vote as he did, because this is absolute fundraising gold for them.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________

digitize is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 08:54 PM   #43
Blue Crack Distributor
 
bono_212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 83,098
Local Time: 10:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitize View Post
My thoughts:

i) Corporations are not people.
But not according to the law, is that what I'm meant to take from the reading of the '93 law?
__________________
bono_212 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 09:00 PM   #44
ONE
love, blood, life
 
digitize's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New York / Dallas / Austin
Posts: 14,074
Local Time: 12:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bono_212 View Post
But not according to the law, is that what I'm meant to take from the reading of the '93 law?

I meant for that sentence to be read in conjunction with the ones following it as something like "corporations are not people in the literal sense, but the level of personhood ascribed to them by the SCOTUS is not absurd". Sorry for the lack of clarity; I went through a few drafts of that paragraph.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
digitize is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 09:06 PM   #45
Blue Crack Distributor
 
bono_212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 83,098
Local Time: 10:45 PM
Nono, it's fine, I enjoyed reading your post, was just clarifying.
__________________
bono_212 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 09:10 PM   #46
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,728
Local Time: 01:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bono_212 View Post
But not according to the law, is that what I'm meant to take from the reading of the '93 law?
A corporation is a separate legal entity, yes, it has legal "personhood" but this stems back to Salomon's Case from the lat 19th century. It's the seminal corporate law case for all common law jurisdictions, even though it is a UK case.

As for IUDs, the pro-lifers argue that because they impede implantation, they are a form of abortion. In other words, because the egg and sperm fertilize in the fallopian tube and the resulting blastocyst makes its way down to the uterus, but for the fact that the IUD "sweeps" it away, it could be a baby. They of course don't make note of the fact that by most estimations some 50% (or more) of fertilized eggs fail to implant naturally.
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 10:04 PM   #47
Blue Crack Distributor
 
bono_212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 83,098
Local Time: 10:45 PM
But that begs the question, again, why IUDs and not the pill.
__________________
bono_212 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 10:22 PM   #48
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,228
Local Time: 12:45 AM
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5070279?utm_hp_ref=tw

Hypocrisy?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 10:27 PM   #49
Blue Crack Distributor
 
bono_212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 83,098
Local Time: 10:45 PM
Deep posted that a couple hours ago, and again, I ask, did Hobby Lobby ever release a statement about it?
__________________
bono_212 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 10:38 PM   #50
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,228
Local Time: 12:45 AM
My bad deep...

It just doesn't seem like their "convictions" truly run that deep.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 11:08 PM   #51
The Male
 
LemonMelon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hollywoo
Posts: 67,878
Local Time: 10:45 PM
More on the IUD issue:

Here's Why Hobby Lobby Thinks IUDs Are Like Abortions - Olga Khazan - The Atlantic
LemonMelon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 11:17 PM   #52
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,600
Local Time: 10:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
My bad deep...

It just doesn't seem like their "convictions" truly run that deep.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
no big deal
if it is back couple of pages, many won't see it
in conversations, many times more than one person brings up the same point


my take is that this really is not about sincere religious beliefs, but more about conservatives trying to undermine the affordable care act.
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 11:36 PM   #53
Blue Crack Distributor
 
bono_212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 83,098
Local Time: 10:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LemonMelon View Post
Specifically:

Quote:
But the copper IUD can also be used as emergency contraception if it’s inserted up to five days after unprotected sex (and then simply left in to serve as longer-term birth control). And when used in that way, the copper-laden environment might also prevent the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. It might. We just don’t know. The dance of the egg, the IUD, and its molecules changes on a case-by-case and whoopee-by-whoopee basis.

Also, I read the synopsis of the court's decision, and I want to know if someone can clear this up for me. My reading was this: The reason that they sided with Hobby Lobby, etc, was because 1) Non-Profit organizations are already allowed to do what Hobby Lobby was pushing for and 2) As such, women aren't being denied anything, Hobby Lobby just doesn't have to pay for it? The way I read it was that the logic of the court was that non-profits were already having these forms of birth control provided by the government, instead of paying themselves and that Hobby Lobby and co. should have the same benefit. Additionally, as blood transfusions vaccines are NOT covered in a similar manner for non-profits, this is why the Supreme Court stated it was not setting a further precedent for religious groups to argue cases for not providing those?
__________________
bono_212 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 11:48 PM   #54
The Male
 
LemonMelon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hollywoo
Posts: 67,878
Local Time: 10:45 PM
lol "might," "we don't know," "it depends."

It's horseshit. You can say all day long that Hobby Lobby has religious convictions that they need to follow (if you believe that a corporation has a soul or conscience), but the IUD thing is a clear corner they cut to save money. Someone had an intern at corporate research hypotheticals and they came up with that. It's a relatively small issue, but it pisses me off.
LemonMelon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 11:58 PM   #55
Blue Crack Distributor
 
bono_212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 83,098
Local Time: 10:45 PM
Oh, I fully agree, the IUD thing is insane.
__________________
bono_212 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2014, 01:08 PM   #56
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,266
Local Time: 02:45 AM
Ron Paul Says if Americans Understood This, the Hobby Lobby Contraception Case Would Likely Never Have Happened | Video | TheBlaze.com
the iron horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2014, 04:08 PM   #57
The Male
 
LemonMelon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hollywoo
Posts: 67,878
Local Time: 10:45 PM
Quote:
"needs can’t become rights"
...Huh?
LemonMelon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2014, 10:10 PM   #58
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,266
Local Time: 02:45 AM
The facts: Look it up if you think the following is a lie.

Hobby Lobby only asked the court to allow them to not cover four specific types of birth control (out of the 20 FDA-approved types) that may prevent an already fertilized egg from implanting.


Before the ruling, Hobby Lobby was already covering 16 different birth control methods, which account for the types used by 93% of American women. They will continue to provide coverage for those 16 and will not (and cannot) prevent any employee from purchasing the other four types themselves.
the iron horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2014, 11:28 PM   #59
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: South Philadelphia
Posts: 19,218
Local Time: 02:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the iron horse View Post
They will continue to provide coverage for those 16 and will not (and cannot) prevent any employee from purchasing the other four types themselves.
They are preventing them from doing so if they can't afford those types of birth control on their own. Which many cannot.

And none of this has to do with defense of life, because the difference between a fertilized egg and an implanted egg is pictured next to "semantics" in your Oxford dictionary.

The people supporting Hobby Lobby don't give two flying fucks about women.
PhilsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2014, 11:41 PM   #60
Blue Crack Distributor
 
bono_212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 83,098
Local Time: 10:45 PM
Did they ever make it clear if the government would be paying for those birth control forms, as they are already doing for non-profits?
__________________

__________________
bono_212 is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×