Boycott Hobby Lobby: Trumping Women's Rights

[Drolefille]

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.

Agreed.

To add to the list of "other reasons to take birth control":

Because you're on a medication that would cause SEVERE birth defects if you got pregnant. You sometimes have to double up on birth control - a non-hormonal IUD (Paragard) AND a pill/ring/etc.

 

[Revoltingest]

To add to the list of "other reasons to take birth control":

Because you're on a medication that would cause SEVERE birth defects if you got pregnant. You sometimes have to double up on birth control - a non-hormonal IUD (Paragard) AND a pill/ring/etc.

Do you know how the USSC addressed use of contraceptive drugs for other applications?
This is typical of many drugs, ie, being known for treating one thing, but also being beneficial
for unrelated maladies. This is so commonly known that I'd expect all the justices to be aware.
(This would be especially true for an aged bunch like them, since personal medical issues sure
do mount up the longer one survives.)

 

[Drolefille]

Do you know how the USSC addressed use of contraceptive drugs for other applications?
This is typical of many drugs, ie, being known for treating one thing, but also being beneficial
for unrelated maladies. This is so commonly known that I'd expect all the justices to be aware.
(This would be especially true for an aged bunch like them, since personal medical issues sure
do mount up the longer one survives.)

To my knowledge it specifically did not cover the IUDs or morning after pills for any reason, not just for purely contraceptive purposes - contrasted with contraceptive purposes secondary to X other purposes.

I don't think it mattered to the majority opinion writers as the fact that those are not abortificants was not considered more relevant than the belief that they were.

 

[Revoltingest]

To my knowledge it specifically did not cover the IUDs or morning after pills for any reason, not just for purely contraceptive purposes - contrasted with contraceptive purposes secondary to X other purposes.
I don't think it mattered to the majority opinion writers as the fact that those are not abortificants was not considered more relevant than the belief that they were.

Have you seen any in depth articles dealing with this aspect of the decision?
(I haven't seen any yet.) I'd hate to pass judgement on the details of their
reasoning for the ruling without more clarity.

 

[Drolefille]

Have you seen any in depth articles dealing with this aspect of the decision?
(I haven't seen any yet.) I'd hate to pass judgement on the details of their
reasoning for the ruling without more clarity.

The ones that suggest that ALL contraceptive care could be at risk:
Wider impact of Hobby Lobby ruling? : SCOTUSblog
See the cases sent for review or denied with broader rejections of contraceptive coverage.
Truthiness, Belief, and Story: Reflections on Hobby Lobby Decision « Sociological Reflections

1. The Central Claim was one of Truthiness

Stephen Colbert introduced the idea of “truthiness” the night he launched his satirical news show. His point was the facts didn’t matter because he depended on his gut to tell him what was true. It was the Merriam Webster “word of the year” for 2006, beating out the word “google”. If something feels a certain way, then that’s what matters.

At the heart of the dispute over the contraceptive mandate is a concern over four forms of contraceptives that the plaintiffs “believed” caused abortions. The mandate is actually in implementation language written by the HHS in response to amendment to the Affordable Care Act dealing with women’s preventative health. [The dissent makes clear than a religious exemption amendment failed during the ACA debate.] As the case was moving its way through the courts, I kept waiting for someone to address the central belief. There are many news reports that attempt to explore the claim that the four types (mainly IUDs and “morning after pills”) cause abortion rather than preventing ovulation. While not conclusive, my reading of the science leans toward the ovulation argument, but I’m not a definitive source. It seemed to me that someone would need to address this along the way.

I was quietly stunned in reading the oral arguments that both sides emphasized that the plaintiffs “sincerely believed” that the methods caused abortions which was a violation of their religious beliefs. But nobody addressed the scientific claim. I remember reading that social science data on young girls and dolls was an important part of the Brown v. Board deliberation, so it seemed appropriate.

This is important because Justice Alito based part of his support on the idea that there were less restrictive options available. The federal government could pay for those disputed contraceptive methods. But one can’t do so without addressing the science. If it turns out that these methods are, in fact, abortifacients, the Hyde Amendment and the Stupak amendment to the ACA would preclude any federal funds being used. It’s stunning that Alito would suggest such a strategy unless he believed the science was on the ovulation side. [He does argue that the government has a legitimate interest in providing all 20 forms of contraception.]

From the ruling itself:

If the
owners comply with the HHS mandate, they believe they
will be facilitating abortions, and if they do not comply,
they will pay a very heavy price—as much as $1.3 million
per day, or about $475 million per year, in the case of one
of the companies. If these consequences do not amount to
a substantial burden, it is hard to see what would

The Hahns have accordingly excluded from the group health insurance plan they offer to their employees certain contraceptive methods they consider to be abortifacients

\

...(1)satisfy the challengers'religious objections to providing insurance coverage for certain contraceptives (which they believe cause abortions); and...

I can't get the pdf to let me copy/paste so typos are my own.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf

As to the science: Morning-After Pills Don't Cause Abortion, Studies Say : Shots - Health News : NPR - now there's some more debate about Ella vs. Plan B. But this also gets back to my statistical argument which I got detailed from the site below as well as the source site. The short version - fewer zygotes die WITH birthcontrol than without IF you take the argument that birth control DOES actually prevent implantation. This argument was originally used against daily pills, but just assume it bears out for IUDs as well.

Zygotes Lost With Birth Control v. Without Birth Control

Without Birth Control:
Out of 100 fertile women without birth control, 100 of them will ovulate in any given month.
Out of those 100 released eggs, 33 will become fertilized.
Out of those 33, 50% will be rejected by the uterus.
In a group of 100 women not on birth control: 16 zygotes will “die”
With Birth Control:
Out of 100 fertile women on birth control, around 1.5 of them will ovulate in any given month.
Out of those 1.5 released eggs, only 10 to 15% will become fertilized.
Out of those 0.15, 100% will be rejected by the uterus.
In a group of 100 women on birth control: 0.15 zygotes will “die”

Just in case starting the sample with 100 women who are not pregnant somehow skewed the numbers, let’s simply consider two individual women over their lifetimes. Let’s say that each has 25 fertile years. One is on the pill the entire time. If we add up her 2% chance per year of having a zygote flushed out, we end up with a 50% chance over her lifetime. The other woman does not use birth control. For every menstrual cycle, there is a 16% chance that she will have a zygote flushed out. This means that out of six periods, on average she will have one zygote flushed out – one fertilized egg that will fail to implant in her uterus. While without birth control she will likely spend much of her time pregnant, she will still have periods in between pregnancies. And since it’s just as likely that a zygote will fail to implant in between two pregnancies as it is that it will successfully implant, thus starting another pregnancy, she will probably end up with just as many dead zygotes as she ends up with pregnancies.
Thus a woman on the pill for her entire fertile period has a one in two chance of her body “killing” a zygote by flushing it out, but the body of a woman not on birth control will flush out and thus “kill” numerous zygotes over the course of her life. Sarah’s numbers, then, are low. The actual numbers indicate that a woman on the pill for her entire life flushes out something like 95% fewer zygotes than a woman not using birth control.

 

[Drolefille]

More articles/analyses on belief vs. fact:
Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby: What the Court Got Wrong about Facts | IVN.us
Bustle


A few other analyses
Hobby Lobby symposium: A decision based on conclusory assertions and results-oriented reasoning : SCOTUSblog
Hobby Lobby symposium: Corporations who worship
The Hobby Lobby ruling: Disingenuous | The Economist

A “view” from the Court: Justice Alito has his day in finale : SCOTUSblog

Virtually all women use contraception at some point in their lives. Some twist this fact to argue against the need for contraceptive coverage. As a student once said to me, relating a common and understandable, but dangerous, misconception, “Why can’t women just purchase condoms at the drug store?”

In fact, as the data and our lived lives make clear, avoiding unintended pregnancy is extremely difficult during the course of our long reproductive lives. Extensive evidence supported the government’s adoption of the contraceptive coverage guarantee as a means of addressing that difficulty and meeting a compelling need.

The typical American woman wishing to have only two children spends thirty years, three-quarters of her reproductive life, seeking to avoid unintended pregnancy. Half of all pregnancies in the United States (more than three million a year) are unintended. More than half of American women will experience an unintended pregnancy. Forty percent of unintended pregnancies end in abortion. Three in ten American women will have an abortion at some point in their lives. Reducing unintended pregnancy through the contraceptive coverage guarantee undeniably will reduce the need for abortion.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

Couldn't agree more.

Just another reason health care decisions should be left to individuals and their doctors.

And if an individual thinks contraception is immoral then it's up to that individual to avoid it. I have no idea why corporations should be dictating what medical treatments should be available to people.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Couldn't agree more.

Just another reason health care decisions should be left to individuals and their doctors.

And if an individual thinks contraception is immoral then it's up to that individual to avoid it. I have no idea why corporations should be dictating what medical treatments should be available to people.

It's easy to do it until it affects one personally.

 

[Sunstone]

The day after the ruling came out, the Supreme Court sent orders to lower courts emphasizing that the ruling covered all contraceptives, and not just the contraceptives discussed in the case.

 

[Revoltingest]

More breaking news...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielf...cision-begins-to-contort-under-its-own-logic/

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

It's not the company paying for the contraception; it's the women themselves. Health insurance is part of the women's compensation, and they're the ones deciding which things to spend it on.

A woman's decision to use her health insurance coverage on contraception is just as removed from the company as her decision on how to spend her salary would be. We don't (yet) have companies complaining that paying their employees money that can be spent on all sorts of "sinful" things is a burden on the religion of the company, do we?

... though maybe that's the next step: pay employees in scrip that's only accepted at certain "wholesome" businesses that the employer approves. We can't pay them actual money, after all - those employees might use it to buy things their boss disapproves of, and that's a violation of the boss' religious freedom.

If how an employee spends their paycheque is no business of their employer, I fail to see why how the employee spends their health insurance benefit would be any of their employer's business either.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's not the company paying for the contraception; it's the women themselves. Health insurance is part of the women's compensation, and they're the ones deciding which things to spend it on.

A woman's decision to use her health insurance coverage on contraception is just as removed from the company as her decision on how to spend her salary would be. We don't (yet) have companies complaining that paying their employees money that can be spent on all sorts of "sinful" things is a burden on the religion of the company, do we?

... though maybe that's the next step: pay employees in scrip that's only accepted at certain "wholesome" businesses that the employer approves. We can't pay them actual money, after all - those employees might use it to buy things their boss disapproves of, and that's a violation of the boss' religious freedom.

If how an employee spends their paycheque is no business of their employer, I fail to see why how the employee spends their health insurance benefit would be any of their employer's business either.

I'm not ignoring your post.
I've just nothing new to add.

 

[Drolefille]

More breaking news...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2014/07/04/hobby-lobby-decision-begins-to-contort-under-its-own-logic/

What your link says: http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielf...cision-begins-to-contort-under-its-own-logic/
Where your link goes: http://www.howjsay.com/index.php?word=plebian
Um, so why the false link?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

What your link says: Hobby Lobby Decision Begins To Contort Under Its Own Logic - Forbes
Where your link goes: Pronunciation of plebian - how to pronounce plebian correctly.
Um, so why the false link?

That doesn't happen to me. Making you clicked on an ad.

 

[Drolefille]

That doesn't happen to me. Making you clicked on an ad.

There's an ad on the forbes link, but Revolt's link is set up with the Forbes as visible but the other as the actual direct - if you quote it you'll see. The actual Forbes link is good.

 

[Koldo]

As to the science: Morning-After Pills Don't Cause Abortion, Studies Say : Shots - Health News : NPR - now there's some more debate about Ella vs. Plan B. But this also gets back to my statistical argument which I got detailed from the site below as well as the source site. The short version - fewer zygotes die WITH birthcontrol than without IF you take the argument that birth control DOES actually prevent implantation. This argument was originally used against daily pills, but just assume it bears out for IUDs as well.

Zygotes Lost With Birth Control v. Without Birth Control

That's not relevant.

". It is
therefore “against [their] moral conviction to be involved
in the termination of human life” after conception, which
they believe is a “sin against God to which they are held
accountable.”"

On one case they had a hand on supporting the "killing" of a zygote, while on the other they had not.

 

[Koldo]

It's not the company paying for the contraception; it's the women themselves. Health insurance is part of the women's compensation, and they're the ones deciding which things to spend it on.

That's clearly not how the court sees it though.
Are you aware if the text of the law makes a mention on why employers ought to pay for the health care?

 

[Alceste]

Agreed.

To add to the list of "other reasons to take birth control":

Because you're on a medication that would cause SEVERE birth defects if you got pregnant. You sometimes have to double up on birth control - a non-hormonal IUD (Paragard) AND a pill/ring/etc.

The pill is prescribed to women to prevent osteoperosis after menopause, maintain hormonal balance after a hysterectomy, ease the symptoms of menopause, regulate painful or irregular periods, and whatever else the doctor and patient agree on. IUDs are prescribed to ease the discomfort of endometriosis. My 65 year old mum is on the pill and my lesbian friend has an IUD, following the advice of their doctors. To state the obvious, there is NO RISK WHATSOEVER that either of them are getting an egg fertilized, ever, no matter how much sex they have.

Thank God they both live in a sane country where idiots who know nothing at all about women's health can decide a moronic religious quibble about fertilized eggs maybe possibly sometimes failing to implant in the uteruses of loose women trumps my loved ones' right to good health and comfort.

 

[Revoltingest]

What your link says: Hobby Lobby Decision Begins To Contort Under Its Own Logic - Forbes
Where your link goes: Pronunciation of plebian - how to pronounce plebian correctly.
Um, so why the false link?

That's weird.
Trying again....
Hobby Lobby Decision Begins To Contort Under Its Own Logic - Forbes

 

[Mycroft]

It seems Americans are in need of a new wristband that bears a catchy phrase:

WJSWF
Would Jesus Side With FOX?
​