Boycott Hobby Lobby: Trumping Women's Rights

[Quintessence]

I have been wondering where all of this started. I mean this sentence. I have heard it so often.

Did this actually happen? Or has it always been a complete misrepresentation of what is going on?

Eh, it's more of a "since corporations are apparently people, it's a violation of their rights to force them to provide insurance coverage to their employees that includes providing alleged abortificants to women."

For the rights of a corporation to trump that of an actual human being is kind of sickening to me, but I'm not a fan of that particular catch phrase.

 

[metis]

Of course, corporations can be privately held too. But the distinction isn't significant for my purposes, since in all forms of ownership the owners risk the capital, & the workers get wages in exchange for work.

But work doesn't just involve wages even for the employees, much like profit isn't the only thing that you're likely concerned with when dealing with your company. Both you and the employees have quite a bit at stake, so why is it supposedly only your concerns that count?

No one disputes the necessity of workers. To attract them, I offer compensation commensurate with their wants. But give them control of the company? No way. If I make bad decisions which cause the company to fail, then I lose far more than the workers do, ie, I lose all my capital & my job, while they lose only their jobs.

It doesn't have to be all one way or another, especially since you and the employees have irons in the same fire.

This is the alternative for workers who want some control, but without going so far as to assume the work & risk of starting one's own company.

To me, workers should have at least some say in the operations of a company, but they also need to also have some of the risk, which is one reason I feel that profit sharing is a step in the right direction-- but only if that also means they may have to take some hits during bad times. If I as an employee have irons in the company fire, I'm gonna do all I can to make certain that it's a success, and if it doesn't work out, I should have to pay the price as well.

I think a lot depends on which model does one feel more comfortable with: an authoritarian one or a democratic one? Even though a completely democratic model isn't necessarily called for because it does pose some difficult problems, I prefer to go in that direction versus the authoritarian approach. After all, if we both have something at stake, we both should have some say as to how the company/corporation should be handled.

Nice talking with you, have a happy 4th, and I'm outta here for a couple of days. Take care.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have been wondering where all of this started. I mean this sentence. I have heard it so often.

Did this actually happen? Or has it always been a complete misrepresentation of what is going on?

It seems to have started with a reaction to the USSC's decision on Citizens United v FEC,
which was based upon corporations having some (not all) of the rights of persons.
This is a far older legal theory than that recent decision.
Corporate personhood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
After all, corporations are merely a way for people to aggregate & organize....they're started by people,
owned by people, & run by people. They need to be able to enter into contracts, & enforce them in court.
Were this impossible, then corporations would serve no purpose. Without corporations, it would greatly
curtail business's ability to engage in large & risky enterprises, eg, railroads, auto manufacturing.

 

[Revoltingest]

But work doesn't just involve wages even for the employees, much like profit isn't the only thing that you're likely concerned with when dealing with your company. Both you and the employees have quite a bit at stake, so why is it supposedly only your concerns that count?

Ultimately, it boils down to the stark fact that I started the company with the structure I wanted. I hired workers who accepted this relationship, ie, I pay them to do work, & they don't get to run the company. But I have far far more at risk than they. I've never had an employee want to invest even a nickel or unpaid minute in the company. They put in their hours & expected to be paid.

It doesn't have to be all one way or another, especially since you and the employees have irons in the same fire.

This is true. And non-dictatorial relationships are possible.....just uncommon.

To me, workers should have at least some say in the operations of a company, but they also need to also have some of the risk, which is one reason I feel that profit sharing is a step in the right direction-- but only if that also means they may have to take some hits during bad times. If I as an employee have irons in the company fire, I'm gonna do all I can to make certain that it's a success, and if it doesn't work out, I should have to pay the price as well.
I think a lot depends on which model does one feel more comfortable with: an authoritarian one or a democratic one? Even though a completely democratic model isn't necessarily called for because it does pose some difficult problems, I prefer to go in that direction versus the authoritarian approach. After all, if we both have something at stake, we both should have some say as to how the company/corporation should be handled.

Woo hoo....detente!

Nice talking with you, have a happy 4th, and I'm outta here for a couple of days. Take care.

Enjoy!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It seems to have started with a histrionic reaction to the USSC's decision on Citizens United v FEC,
which was based upon corporations having some (not all) of the rights of persons. This is a far
older legal theory than that recent decision.
Corporate personhood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
After all, corporations are merely a way for people to aggregate & organize....they're started by
people, owned by people, & run by people.

... while not actually being the people themselves. There's always some distance between the corporation and its human owners - that's the whole premise behind limited liability of shareholders.

Actually, I wonder if that will be the next thing to go: when a corporation is so "closely held" by a small group of owners that the we need to treat the duties of the corporation as impositions on the personal values of the shareholders, then maybe it's time to reconsider whether the arm's length relationship between shareholder and company assumed under limited liability rules actually exists for these companies.

 

[Revoltingest]

... while not actually being the people themselves. There's always some distance between the corporation and its human owners - that's the whole premise behind limited liability of shareholders.

Exactly!

Actually, I wonder if that will be the next thing to go: when a corporation is so "closely held" by a small group of owners that the we need to treat the duties of the corporation as impositions on the personal values of the shareholders, then maybe it's time to reconsider whether the arm's length relationship between shareholder and company assumed under limited liability rules actually exists for these companies.

I don't see it as an imposition upon the employees, who still have the right to use whatever
contraception they're legally able. Tis only that their compensation doesn't include some
specific health services. This is not the loss of a right, but rather the lack of a perquisite.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Exactly!


I don't see it as an imposition upon the employees, who still have the right to use whatever
contraception they're legally able. Tis only that their compensation doesn't include some
specific health services. This is not the loss of a right, but rather the lack of a perquisite.

And yet, if we look at state's rights to decide just how much support for places like Planned Parenthood to exist within state lines, we keep seeing how easy it is for religious beliefs to keep trumping women's access to birth control services and reproductive health care options.

So let's say that women don't "lose" the right to 4 different types of contraception...those that a corporation believes are abortificants (even though they're not)....and that they can just pay out of pocket or go elsewhere to work or to pay for what they are looking for. Understand that a precedent has been set and will be perpetuated.

This isn't new. Women in many states have to travel hundreds of miles to find what they need in reproductive planning and health care. Largely because of their state legislature restricting access as much as they can that can be deemed constitutional (according to religious belief in most cases). In spite of the fact that they can recognize not all female citizens do not follow the religion of those that create, enact, or interpret these laws.

You know, it's easy for those without a uterus to dismiss these concerns. Count your lucky stars you don't have a panel full of women deciding what should happen to your testicles according to their personal ethics (and hope you don't catch them on a bad day).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Exactly!


I don't see it as an imposition upon the employees, who still have the right to use whatever
contraception they're legally able. Tis only that their compensation doesn't include some
specific health services. This is not the loss of a right, but rather the lack of a perquisite.

I said imposition on shareholders. That's the whole idea behind the ruling: requiring *the company* to meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act is considered a burden on the religious freedom of *the shareholders*. This ruling assumes an intimate relationship between the corporation's acts and the owners. Limited liability assumes a distance between the corporation's acts and the owners. These ideas are in conflict.

 

[Revoltingest]

And yet, if we look at state's rights to decide just how much support for places like Planned Parenthood to exist within state lines, we keep seeing how easy it is for religious beliefs to keep trumping women's access to birth control services and reproductive health care options.

That's a larger & different issue IMO.
Let's just say that I give Planned Parenthood money.

So let's say that women don't "lose" the right to 4 different types of contraception...those that a corporation believes are abortificants (even though they're not)....and that they can just pay out of pocket or go elsewhere to work or to pay for what they are looking for. Understand that a precedent has been set and will be perpetuated.
This isn't new. Women in many states have to travel hundreds of miles to find what they need in reproductive planning and health care. Largely because of their state legislature restricting access as much as they can that can be deemed constitutional (according to religious belief in most cases). In spite of the fact that they can recognize not all female citizens do not follow the religion of those that create, enact, or interpret these laws.

Were the effects of Hobby Lobby's exemption more onerous, that would change things.
Female employees didn't have this 'right' (I presume) before Obamacare, so they're simply
in the same situation (most of'm, I presume) they originally signed up for.
As for the larger issues you bring up, we're largely in agreement (although
I'm more extreme in my pro-choice agenda).

You know, it's easy for those without a uterus to dismiss these concerns.

Oh, no! The uterus card! (Does a hysterectomy put a woman in my position?)

Certainly I don't dismiss them....to take a side one not to be blind to the other.
I don't even say this ruling is valid...only that I find it a reasonable balance of concerns.
Note: I'm ignoring the issue of Hobby Lobby hypocrisy to focus solely on the legal aspects.
Do they deserve their exemption under this interpretation of the law? I've heard much,
but I've not looked into it.

Count your lucky stars you don't have a panel full of women deciding what should happen to your testicles according to their personal ethics (and hope you don't catch them on a bad day).

Your analogy fails because no one is deciding anything for these female employees.
They're still free to reproduce or not by whatever legal means they choose....just not
on the company's dime.
(I like the "bad day" reference....a sly sense of humor you have!)

 

[Revoltingest]

The name, "Hobby Lobby", has me thinking.....
I'd like to see a law firm called the "Lawyer Foyer" or the "Attorney Gurney".
(The latter would be for ambulance chasers.)

 

[Revoltingest]

I said imposition on shareholders. That's the whole idea behind the ruling: requiring *the company* to meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act is considered a burden on the religious freedom of *the shareholders*. This ruling assumes an intimate relationship between the corporation's acts and the owners. Limited liability assumes a distance between the corporation's acts and the owners. These ideas are in conflict.

I don't disagree. This case is not an easy or obvious balancing of interests.

 

[Revoltingest]

You know, it's easy for those without a uterus to dismiss these concerns. Count your lucky stars you don't have a panel full of women deciding what should happen to your testicles according to their personal ethics (and hope you don't catch them on a bad day).

This bears re-examining.

Ya know that I'm tamed, ie, a polite, calm, caring & sensitive modern male.
But I'm going to turn off that state for a moment, & see what kind of repulsive
response erupts from my knuckle walking thuggish inner Mister Man.....

Alls you wimins want is free birth control, and youz don't care how you gets it. The law is
irrelevant! Ya go on & on wit histrionics 'bout how corporations is people, but you wimins
don't got no rights & you ain't even human. But youz don't care 'bout the religious rights of
others! You just want yer free pills, IUDs, IEDs, abortions & cat toys, and wanna make someone
else pay for'm! It's yer right to get free stuff. And why? Cuz you want it real bad....and if
someone else don't pay yer tab, then it takes away yer 'right' to'm....that's yer legal argument.
"Rights" is more than just want'n stuff.

Jeeze, even I'm offended at the language that spewed forth from my fingers!
Let's not try that experiment again for a long long time.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The name, "Hobby Lobby", has me thinking.....
I'd like to see a law firm called the "Lawyer Foyer" or the "Attorney Gurney".
(The latter would be for ambulance chasers.)

Barrister Canister?
Litigator Incubator?
Counsel Corral?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

That's a larger & different issue IMO.
Let's just say that I give Planned Parenthood money.

I disagree. I submit that it's symptomatic of what women work with. Denial, based on religious grounds, told to us it isn't a right, and then say that we shouldn't complain and just find it elsewhere (all the while being perfect happy to freely supply Viagra and vasectomies to men who demand it).

Including penis pumps on Medicare taxpayers dime.

Were the effects of Hobby Lobby's exemption more onerous, that would change things.
Female employees didn't have this 'right' (I presume) before Obamacare, so they're simply
in the same situation (most of'm, I presume) they originally signed up for.
As for the larger issues you bring up, we're largely in agreement (although
I'm more extreme in my pro-choice agenda).

Female employees, regardless of prior status, should have the same right to have sex with impunity as much their male co-workers, and to have as much freedom to birth control methods as males have freedom to their birth control methods.

Oh, no! The uterus card! (Does a hysterectomy put a woman in my position?)

Interesting how many post-menopausal women, who biologically are in the same position as you, can still fight for the rights of people who have uteruses.

Certainly I don't dismiss them....to take a side one not to be blind to the other. I don't even say this ruling is valid...only that I find it a reasonable balance of concerns.
Note: I'm ignoring the issue of Hobby Lobby hypocrisy to focus solely on the legal aspects.
Do they deserve their exemption under this interpretation of the law? I've heard much,
but I've not looked into it.

I stand against their argument that they deserve exemption.

Your analogy fails because no one is deciding anything for these female employees.

That is precisely what they're doing.

They're still free to reproduce or not by whatever legal means they choose....just not on the company's dime.
(I like the "bad day" reference....a sly sense of humor you have!)

Jokes aside (thank, btw), everybody is free to reproduce, but what I'm standing for is gender equality under a constitutional ruling, and that if a company is discriminating against a gender, they should not be supported and should not be deemed as acting according to the Constitution.

 

[Revoltingest]

I disagree. I submit that it's symptomatic of what women work with. Denial, based on religious grounds, told to us it isn't a right, and then say that we shouldn't complain and just find it elsewhere (all the while being perfect happy to freely supply Viagra and vasectomies to men who demand it).

- To be symptomatic of something else isn't a legal argument by itself. If you could make a strong link comparable to ID being a front for creationism, I'm willing to listen.
- I don't know who is telling you that you shouldn't complain. But whoever they are, their doing so doesn't affect the legality of the USSC decision. I'm sure it's vexing to you, but how would you have me address it?
- Since Viagra isn't contraception, it isn't a good analog. But if you make the argument that if men get some desired thing solely for them, then women should get some desired thing (even if they're different in function), then I'd like to see a broad analysis showing that women receive significantly less benefit.
- As I recall, women do get some contraceptive measures under this ruling, so why the need to deny men vasectomies (perhaps the only contraceptive measure covered for them)?

Including penis pumps on Medicare taxpayers dime.

Since the ruling was about contraceptives, how is this relevant?

Female employees, regardless of prior status, should have the same right to have sex with impunity as much their male co-workers, and to have as much freedom to birth control methods as males have freedom to their birth control methods.

The USSC ruling doesn't diminish anyone's right to have sex. The law forcing some employers to provide contraception does not confer any new rights...rather, it forces some employers to provide (ie, pay for) some contraceptive coverage. This is a mere privilege in the form of a perquisite. Prior to Obamacare, men & women had the right to buy it, & after the new law, they still have the same rights. The only difference is that some (not all) companies are required by law to pay for it for some employees. Were it an actual "right", then it should be universal, & not limited to employees of large for-profit companies.

Interesting how many post-menopausal women, who biologically are in the same position as you, can still fight for the rights of people who have uteruses.

To some of us, fighting for rights of oneself & others is not about the plumbing within oneself or others. This strikes me as the unseemly authoritarian side of feminism, wherein they see their rights as necessitating others to fund their wants. It reminds me of Xians here who claim their freedom of worship requires that government provide them with free services (normally funded by property taxes, eg, police, fire, library). I say no to this, ie, a right isn't lost just because some related service isn't subsidized.

Moreover, the view that contraception is solely an issue for women is to ignore male concerns about contraception (employed by both genders). Sure, sure, it's to prevent the female from getting pregnant, but there are other issues than this medical condition, eg, the father is responsible for the resulting child financially at least, & parentally at most. So the old argument that only the owner of a uterus has right to opine is unconvincing.

I stand against their argument that they deserve exemption.

I don't stand with them either.

That is precisely what they're doing.

No, they only decided that certain companies need not pay for some contraceptive measures.
The employees may still exercise the same privileges they had before Obamacare, which are
identical to perquisites many companies still offer under the same law. Obamacare coverage
was not mandated for all companies.

Jokes aside (thank, btw), everybody is free to reproduce, but what I'm standing for is gender equality under a constitutional ruling, and that if a company is discriminating against a gender, they should not be supported and should not be deemed as acting according to the Constitution.

When law runs into religion, we will find strange compromises in balancing competing interests.
This will happen when government requires people to behave in a manner which violates religious
belief. This happens in many other areas, eg, military draft, church employment.
A gender difference here will be created by the religious obsession with life beginning at conception.
Contraceptives applicable to males wouldn't affect this. But since conception is something which
happens inside the female, there will inevitably be gender based differences in how believers see
contraception, specifically that dealing with a fertilized egg. And of course, the related science will
be molested by the unscientific religious views on it.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Is it that people don't understand the concept of "equal treatment under the law", or is it that people don't care about "equal treatment under the law"?

When our President starts enforcing ALL THE LAWS instead of just the ones he approves of, I might see your point.

Right now I say screw the federal government and their hypocrisy

 

[fantome profane]

When our President starts enforcing ALL THE LAWS instead of just the ones he approves of, I might see your point.

Right now I say screw the federal government and their hypocrisy

I feel much the same about the hypocrisy of Hobby Lobby.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I agree. This entitlement mentality has got to stop. Contraption is a luxury, not a necessity regarding physical health. There are many laws regarding religious exemption and. contraception seems appros in the list of things people that are not essential for health and well being.

My message to the whiners in this case....buy your own contraceptives.

Tell that to people like one of my co-workers who would bleed to death if she didn't have an intra uterine device (IUD) inside her uterus at all times.

Or the person like myself who without the pill suffers from debilitating cramping so bad that I can barely walk or do much of anything for several days a month.



Some of this stuff IS absolutely essential for health and well being. I wish more people would educate themselves on this stuff OR just allow people to make their own medical decisions.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Beg your pardon, but...

...how the $#@% is pregnancy and contraceptives not a critical health care issue for men, and especially women?! It is probably the most critical health issue most women deal with in their lives, as well as the most significant time and money investment of their lives!!!! How the $#@% is the reproduction of the human species not a critical health care issue?

My brain can seriously not comprehend this, much less comprehend how anyone else could possibly think in such a fashion.

This ^^^^^^^:yes:

 

[Alceste]

Interesting point. What medical conditions require contraceptives for proper treatment ?

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.

:areyoucra...




Never said it was...



While all of this is true this wasn't the point I was making. Many women who use birth control use it for various medical reasons which go beyond preventing unwanted pregnancies.

IMO, anyone who is unaware that doctors routinely prescribe birth control pills or IUDs to women for a wide variety of health reasons other than birth control is not entitled to be taken seriously in this debate. That goes double for the male SCOTUS justices, whose incredible ignorance vis a vis women's health has now been forcefully injected into the doctor's office with millions of female employees of other ignorant men.