Boycott Hobby Lobby: Trumping Women's Rights

[MysticSang'ha]

Au contraire! Body parts don't dictate interest in issues.
- Males are affected by birth control (even if their methods were never covered).
- Some companies really don't want to cover employees' birth control.
- And some of us are greatly concerned with creeping governmental authoritarianism.
Decisions such as this one portend change.

The question was asked who is affected by this particular SCOTUS ruling. And the four methods on the table were two different IUDs and two different abortifacients.

All four medical options affect distinctly people with a uterus. So let's address that first, and then expand the scope to include how this ruling can affect others' bodily autonomy.

 

[Sunstone]

The race card just looks too facile an explanation.

That's your opinion and you have a right to it, but if I held the same opinion, I would naturally ask myself: It's too facile why? Because prejudice and bigotry in this country ended...when? Why has Obama encountered unprecedented levels of obstructionism? What makes him so different from the average Democrat to Republicans that they would even oppose their own Republican ideas -- such as "Obamacare" -- if and when those ideas are adopted by Obama? I'd ask those and about ten other questions.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's your opinion and you have a right to it, but if I held the same opinion, I would naturally ask myself: It's too facile why? Because prejudice and bigotry in this country ended...when? Why has Obama encountered unprecedented levels of obstructionism? What makes him so different from the average Democrat to Republicans that they would even oppose their own Republican ideas -- such as "Obamacare" -- if and when those ideas are adopted by Obama? I'd ask those and about ten other questions.

Where you see race as the ruling factor, I see politics (which is the more
general explanation because it addresses same race situations too).
Just different perspectives.

 

[Tarheeler]

When people choose to employ others is pursuit of profit, we make them provide their employees with all kinds of things. If we are going to add health insurance to that list, then there is no conceivable reason it should not include the same things other plans cover. These companies aren't being asked to provide the birth control, use birth control, of encourage their employees to use birth control. They're being asked to provide their employees with medical insurance that covers it if the employee chooses to use it.

 

[Revoltingest]

When people choose to employ others is pursuit of profit, we make them provide their employees with all kinds of things.

The same laws apply to non-profit corporations.

 

[Sunstone]

Where does this stop? Can closely held companies now refuse their employees insurance that pays for blood transfusions on religious grounds? What can't they refuse employees on religions grounds? I think the conservatives on the Supreme Court may have just opened a can of worms.

 

[Sunstone]

It interests me that the religious beliefs of the employers seemed to weigh so much more heavily in the eyes of the Court than the religious beliefs of the employees. Doesn't seem fair to me.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Where does this stop? Can closely held companies now refuse their employees insurance that pays for blood transfusions on religious grounds? What can't they refuse employees on religions grounds? I think the conservatives on the Supreme Court may have just opened a can of worms.

Or vaccinations on religious grounds.

Or circumcision on religious grounds.

There are other possibilities of unintended consequences. But watch out for responses accusing one of straw manning

 

[MysticSang'ha]

It interests me that the religious beliefs of the employers seemed to weigh so much more heavily in the eyes of the Court than the religious beliefs of the employees. Doesn't seem fair to me.

As long as it's denying things to women and queers that others enjoy, and as long as they don't make a big fuss about it, the country is operating under the premise that all men are created equal. Just that some people are more equal than others, that's all.

Oh, Phil...didn't anyone tell you? Life isn't fair. Get over it, and stop hating America.

 

[Sunstone]

Or vaccinations on religious grounds.

Or circumcision on religious grounds.

There are other possibilities of unintended consequences. But watch out for responses accusing one of straw manning

My cynical hunch is that the conservatives on the Supreme Court will find some "grounds" for limiting their decision to restrictions on women's reproductive rights. That is, if put to the test, they'll find a reason their decision does not open the door to denying circumcisions, vaccinations, blood transfusions, etc., on religious grounds, but only women's reproductive rights. But call me a cynic.

 

[Revoltingest]

The question was asked who is affected by this particular SCOTUS ruling. And the four methods on the table were two different IUDs and two different abortifacients.
All four medical options affect distinctly people with a uterus. So let's address that first, and then expand the scope to include how this ruling can affect others' bodily autonomy.

There must be an order to how the various issues are addressed?
No, I'll see them all (religous freedom, constitutional law, insurance
policy, contraceptin, governmental reach) concurrently.

 

[Sunstone]

Life isn't fair. Get over it...

It's a remarkable jump from the fact that life in general isn't fair to the notion that laws, regulations, and political systems should or must be designed to be unfair. The kind of jump a three year old might make with ease.

 

[metis]

My cynical hunch is that the conservatives on the Supreme Court will find some "grounds" for limiting their decision to restrictions on women's reproductive rights. That is, if put to the test, they'll find a reason their decision does not open the door to denying circumcisions, vaccinations, blood transfusions, etc., on religious grounds, but only women's reproductive rights. But call me a cynic.

I think part, maybe even a majority, of the five Republican-appointed justices' decision on this and "Citizens United" is probably political in that these decisions not only help Republicans but also stick a thumb in Obama's and the Democrat's eyes.

BTW, remember when Alito said "Not true!" at Obama's State of the Union speech several years ago when Obama said that the corporate donation money will flow in and be impossible to trace? Well, as we now know, Obama was right and Alito was wrong.

But here's a really scary one: several months ago Scalia was giving an interview, and when asked about the 2nd Amendment, he said that he thinks that all hand-held guns would likely be acceptable to personally own. When the interviewer asked what about the Sting Missile, which is hand-held but which can shoot down planes, his response was that he didn't really know for sure and that he would have to think about it.

 

[Quintessence]

It interests me that the religious beliefs of the employers seemed to weigh so much more heavily in the eyes of the Court than the religious beliefs of the employees. Doesn't seem fair to me.

That really struck me about this too. As I observed within my own heart, I would not have much of a problem with this law if the case were that the employer and employees all shared a common religious path. Except in America, you can't hire or fire based on religion, which means you're not going to have a homogenous base of employees. Effectively that translates to employer religious freedom trumping employee religious freedom.

 

[metis]

That really struck me about this too. As I observed within my own heart, I would not have much of a problem with this law if the case were that the employer and employees all shared a common religious path. Except in America, you can't hire or fire based on religion, which means you're not going to have a homogenous base of employees. Effectively that translates to employer religious freedom trumping employee religious freedom.

Exactly. And the irony (some call it "hypocrisy") is that some of Hobby Lobby's investments have been in areas that counters their stated beliefs, including getting most of their items from China, which has legal abortion, readily available birth control, and limits families to one child. Apparently, HL's outrage is limited only towards that which they put out, not what they put in.

 

[Revoltingest]

Or vaccinations on religious grounds.
Or circumcision on religious grounds.
There are other possibilities of unintended consequences. But watch out for responses accusing one of straw manning

Aye, I addressed this earlier. There could very well be other disputed coverage.
But I don't see it as a slippery slope...just that when there is political pressure
by various religious lobbies, the strong will win & the marginal ones will lose.
Rather than opening the floodgates, this case is the tip of the iceberg.
(OK, I'm done with the water related metaphors.)

 

[Sunstone]

But watch out for responses accusing one of straw manning

Oh come on, Heather! Get real! When in the history of law have lawyers ever stretched a ruling to include things not intended in the original ruling? Why, you act as if it were a common occurrence!

 

[beenie]

I'm still going over the free contraceptives in my head... I can't see why any company is paying for it. Seems like a personal thing you would take care of with your wages

Totally Agree.

OK, stop paying for Viagra and vasectomies and I can agree with you. It's all or nothing.

The contraceptives that they are fighting against are proven foeticides. This is obviously a big deal to pro-lifers.

I'm not religious but I am pro-life. Clearly some do deeply object to the thought of funding someone else's foeticides.

This is a clear distinction, and I can see how the "religious right" would oppose these abortifacients, but it opens the door to them proclaiming, as some do, that even regular birth control pills are abortifacients.

It's fairly common to cover prescriptions but not non-prescription treatments.

BTW: they do cover at least one form of male contraception:

Hobby Lobby Still Covers Vasectomies And Viagra

Yep, that's what chaps my ***. Let's make sure dem men can perform! To hell with the consequences of a heightened sex drive...

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.

Then stop covering Viagra.

Like it or not, the responsibility of birth control is largely put on women. I can guarantee you if there was a "male" birth control pill, it would be happily covered. Just because a fetus is housed in a female rather than the male, we have the right to not cover it?

Whats wrong with a givin group of people paying for their own contraception? Obviously they have a job and are pulling in an income.

Shouldnt an employer reserve the right decide for themselves if they would include contraception as an incentive or not based on the company policies including the religious view of those who operate the business? Obviously Hobby Lobby made no secret it's Christian based. People should understand that when they apply, or find another company that offers contraception. I figure thats how free enterprise works.

If this dealt with critical health care issues it would be a different story. Imo.

Right, because everyone can afford birth control, and all the unwanted babies are much cheaper. It's a slippery slope that all "closely held" companies can now adopt. The Supreme Court just opened the door to a much broader problem. I'm all for companies standing up to government-forced rules and regulations, but not always at the expense of women's reproductive rights.

I'm right there with you, Q. It's much easier for a culture to see pregnancy and childbirth as happening TO a woman, rather like how sex happens TO a passive and reluctant woman, rather than a woman who takes charge of her reproductive health and claims ownership of her reproductive system.

So, her cardiovascular health? Important. Her immune system? Important. Her reproductive system? Meh. Just don't make too much of a fuss and everybody will be happy.

Can I get an A-FREAKIN'-MEN?

Where does this stop? Can closely held companies now refuse their employees insurance that pays for blood transfusions on religious grounds? What can't they refuse employees on religions grounds? I think the conservatives on the Supreme Court may have just opened a can of worms.

Huge, nasty, smelly worms.

That really struck me about this too. As I observed within my own heart, I would not have much of a problem with this law if the case were that the employer and employees all shared a common religious path. Except in America, you can't hire or fire based on religion, which means you're not going to have a homogenous base of employees. Effectively that translates to employer religious freedom trumping employee religious freedom.

This sums it all up in one clean paragraph.

 

[Sunstone]

OK, stop paying for Viagra and vasectomies and I can agree with you. It's all or nothing.

It would be nice if "religious convictions" now and then extended to granting men and women equal reproductive rights. Alas! To often, they seem to grant unequal rights and obligations.

 

[beenie]

It would be nice if "religious convictions" now and then extended to granting men and women equal reproductive rights. Alas! To often, they seem to grant unequal rights and obligations.

Seriously, let's make sure all these men can have sex, but refuse to pay for fertility treatments for women, too. Man, the double standards are piling up in here.

I won't even address the hypocrisy of Hobby Lobby importing inventory from China, because I think I may get a migraine from all of said double standards.