Boycott Hobby Lobby: Trumping Women's Rights

[Revoltingest]

It is merely a circumstance of history that there currently aren't many religious objections to being deprived of the coverage. But such objections could conceivably arise. For instance, there may be Pagans or people of other beliefs who see their religious duties as including responsible, managed reproduction. This decision, giving rights to employers over the rights given of employees, is short-sighted.

But to require employers to provide services they oppose on religious grounds can be seen as a violation of their rights. Companies aren't denying employees the right to the service...only refusing to pay for the service. The USSC will decide what religious objections warrant exemption from Obamacare. Of course, this will be a messy, irrational & overly political method to craft public policy. Single payer anyone?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I haven't been paying attention to the company itself.
What's their hypocrisy?

Their deal with China, and the country's use of abortions for population control, for one. It seems as if as long as Hobby Lobby is making money, they're happy to relax their religious beliefs on company business practices.

 

[beenie]

I haven't been paying attention to the company itself.
What's their hypocrisy?

1) they import their inventory from China, which we know is the "ideal" society for pro-life.

2) fertility treatments are not covered, but Viagra is. They'll pay for the fertilizer but not the seed.

I know the second point is not isolated to HL, but I don't understand the religious justification. Do they make sure only married men get Viagra or is it ok to be promiscuous, so long as you don't get her preggers and she needs the morning after pill?

 

[Revoltingest]

Their deal with China, and the country's use of abortions for population control, for one. It seems as if as long as Hobby Lobby is making money, they're happy to relax their religious beliefs on company business practices.

1) they import their inventory from China, which we know is the "ideal" society for pro-life.
2) fertility treatments are not covered, but Viagra is. They'll pay for the fertilizer but not the seed.
I know the second point is not isolated to HL, but I don't understand the religious justification. Do they make sure only married men get Viagra or is it ok to be promiscuous, so long as you don't get her preggers and she needs the morning after pill?

I'm the wrong person to ask about consistency of thought among religious folk.
But I understand this perspective better now.

 

[Koldo]

I've heard BS on this board before, but none fresher nor greener than yours. The employees may very well be forced, under this decision, to act in a manner that goes against their religious beliefs, if any harbor religious beliefs that imply making responsible reproductive choices.

How are the employees being forced to act against their religious beliefs? They can still buy contraceptives taking the money out of their pockets. If that is not possible, and if the government believes the reproductive rights should be upheld, then it falls upon the government the duty to provide the contraceptives.

 

[Koldo]

I was listening to several lawyers talking on CNN just a few minutes ago (one man and two women), and one item they discussed is what if a corporation that has a majority of fundamentalist Christian members on the board refuses to hire gay people, and nothing in Alito's majority opinion would innately prevent that?

I don't think it would work.

As Ginsberg stated in the minority opinion, this opens up a Pandora's box of new court cases, and we definitely need more of them in American society.

Are you afraid?

 

[Sunstone]

How are the employees being forced to act against their religious beliefs?

If there is no potential for an employee to be forced to act against his or her religious beliefs, then how can there be a potential for the employer to act against his or her religious beliefs? After all, you could just as easily have said that the employer's rights are not being violated since they are not forcing their employees to use birth control methods that they object to. But you seem to have overlooked that angle.

 

[ChristineES]

Is birth control the only women's rights there are? If so, then yes, they might be trumping women's rights. Otherwise, no. I say this as a woman. My insurance doesn't cover Zetia, which I take, not because I have high cholesterol, but because, as a diabetic, my good cholesterol can get too low and my bad cholesterol can get to high- this medication keeps it in check. Is my insurance trumping my rights as a diabetic?

 

[Koldo]

I'm not a doctor, but I have female friends who've been prescribed birth control for medical reasons having nothing to do with reproduction.

I am curious as to what medical conditions these are, and whether there are alternatives. If such a condition exists and there is no ( reasonable ) alternative, then this decision shouldn't apply to those cases.

 

[Koldo]

I'm on birth control for hormones due to the lack of estrogen and progesterone. Many women are on it for the same, as well as to regulate menstrual cycles, for amenorrhea, for PMS, for endometriosis, etc.

EDIT TO ADD: Recently, obgyn's have begun prescribing birth control to reduce the risk of ovarian cancer in women who have a heightened risk from family history of ovarian cancer. It doesn't increase the risk of breast cancer as much as what was once thought, therefore some doctors are more willing to prescribe it for women who don't plan on becoming pregnant purely for cancer prevention.

Thanks for your input. Are there viable alternatives?

 

[ChristineES]

I think that maybe, sometimes exceptions should be made. Women do take birth control, not only to keep from getting pregnant but for other reasons, which others have pointed out. But that is another debate.

 

[Koldo]

Endometriosis, heavy bleeding with menstruation, irregular periods, uterine fibroids, adnenomyosis, severe acne... I could go on and on...

I am going to sound repetitive by now, but it can't be helped:
Are there any viable alternatives?

 

[Koldo]

I really want someone to stop covering male performance drugs on religious grounds... "if you ain't got it, you ain't got it", much like their reasoning for denying fertility treatments. Let's see the uproar then.

"What? I can't have sex? Something MUST be done!!!"

*instant coverage resumes*

The silence from the questioning of insurance coverage of man's right to Viagra is interesting, no?

Surely, there must be religious objections to a man having sex for pleasure's sake. Isn't there? Anyone? Anyone?

I must disagree here.
There wouldn't be an uproar since most men probably wouldn't confess using Viagra like that.

Either way, the same ruling should apply to Viagra. I don't see why not.

 

[Revoltingest]

For reference, from the NYT article on the ruling...

A federal judge has estimated that a third of Americans are not subject to the requirement that their employers provide coverage for contraceptives. Small employers need not offer health coverage at all; religious employers like churches are exempt; religiously affiliated groups may claim an exemption; and some insurance plans that had not previously offered the coverage are grandfathered in.

 

[Koldo]

If there is no potential for an employee to be forced to act against his or her religious beliefs, then how can there be a potential for the employer to act against his or her religious beliefs? After all, you could just as easily have said that the employer's rights are not being violated since they are not forcing their employees to use birth control methods that they object to. But you seem to have overlooked that angle.

That angle doesn't work. The objection from employers is having to provide those birth control methods. By providing them, they are supporting their use.

 

[beenie]

I am curious as to what medical conditions these are, and whether there are alternatives. If such a condition exists and there is no ( reasonable ) alternative, then this decision shouldn't apply to those cases.

Thanks for your input. Are there viable alternatives?

I am going to sound repetitive by now, but it can't be helped:
Are there any viable alternatives?

Why should there be? Because it prevents pregnancy too, we should have to take something else?

To answer your question, there might be some homeopathic options, but they are often slower-acting, less effective, and often not covered by insurance either.

Other options are surgical and invasive.

 

[Koldo]

Why should there be? Because it prevents pregnancy too, we should have to take something else?

To answer your question, there migh be some homeopathic options, but they are often slower-acting, less effective, and often not covered by insurance either.

Other options are surgical and invasive.

If there are no viable alternatives, then this decision shouldn't apply to it.
This is why I am asking. By viable, I mean among other things being at least as effective.

If the only other option is a surgical method that makes an even more curious case.

 

[beenie]

If there are no viable alternatives, then this decision shouldn't apply to it.
This is why I am asking. By viable, I mean, among other things being at least as effective.

If the only other option is a surgical method that makes an even more curious case.

I wish I could find the stats of women who take birth control pills for uses other than contraception. It's higher than one would think. I'll post it when I find it.

Also, I would ask, are their viable alternatives to erectile dysfunction?

Edit: Wow, that was easier than I thought:

Stats of women using BC pills for reasons other than for contraception:
14%
1.5 million women

 

[Quiddity]

I wish I could find the stats of women who take birth control pills for uses other than contraception. It's higher than one would think. I'll post it when I find it.

Also, I would ask, are their viable alternatives to erectile dysfunction?

Given that there are Catholic women that live ordinary lives that don't resort to everything the doctor prescribes; I suspect the moral argument to use them isn't as easy as people might think.

 

[Koldo]

I wish I could find the stats of women who take birth control pills for uses other than contraception. It's higher than one would think. I'll post it when I find it.

Also, I would ask, are their viable alternatives to erectile dysfunction?

I am too young to look into that stuff.... :run:

Edit: Wow, that was easier than I thought:

Stats of women using BC pills for reasons other than for contraception:
14%
1.5 million women

Alright. Thanks for the info.