Boycott Hobby Lobby: Trumping Women's Rights

[Sunstone]

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.

In a way, Shireen, it reminds me of the Feudal Ages when the lords had all sorts of control over their serf's rights and obligations, but the serf's had few things they could demand of their lords.

 

[Koldo]

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.

That's not a fair comparison.
The health of her reproductive system is covered, isn't it?
If a woman gets afflicted by a disease on her uterus, she will receive treatment, right?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

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.)

Ah, privilege. It strengthens political presence.

Too bad that word is offensive to some folks. It's quite clearly being demonstrated right in front of all of us.

 

[Koldo]

Actually a lot of people. If the SCOTUS can allow a corporation or business owner to dictate to their employees what they can or cannot have access to outside of their own company, where does it stop? Did you notice that none of the female justices decided in the company's favor? Ginsberg cited the potential pitfalls of this decision, much like the pitfalls from the 5-4 Citizens United decision. A poll I saw this morning had it that nearly 3/4 of the women opposed the decision.

What does that mean though?
Does that mean male judges are biased against women or that female judges are biased on favour of women? Or maybe a mix of both?

 

[Nakosis]

So tell me, who is gonna be concerned about todays ruling

People with political agendas.

Otherwise not much to be concerned about.

 

[Sunstone]

If a woman gets afflicted by a disease on her uterus, she will receive treatment, right?

Presumably not if the prescribed treatment includes birth control.

 

[Sunstone]

People with political agendas.

Otherwise not much to be concerned about.

I agree. Women's reproductive rights are nothing more than a "political agenda" no decent person should be concerned with.

 

[Nakosis]

What does that mean though?
Does that mean male judges are biased against women or that female judges are biased on favour of women? Or maybe a mix of both?

Everyone is biased.
Hopefully you get a large enough group of individuals to limit the amount of personal bias which goes into a decision. That's the US idea of fairness.

Not exactly fair but as fair as possible.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

That's not a fair comparison.
The health of her reproductive system is covered, isn't it?
If a woman gets afflicted by a disease on her uterus, she will receive treatment, right?

Oh I submit that it is a fair comparison. Men do not have to contract a disease on any part of their reproductive system to be entitled to coverage for vasectomies. They are actively participating in ensuring they do not pro-create. And Hobby Lobby and our government, thus far, supports a man's right to easy access to his reproductive health care choices AND will actively alleviate any financial cost toward such a decision with insurance coverage.

If a woman wishes to have an IUD implanted in her uterus for the purpose of preventing implantation, the company feels she should not be financially or medically covered precisely because the owners do not agree on religious grounds, and that such a procedure is a personal choice that she must make on her own.

I find it telling.

 

[Koldo]

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

It has been mentioned in the original link that this decision doesn't apply to vaccinations nor blood transfusions.

 

[Sunstone]

It has been mentioned in the original link that this decision doesn't apply to vaccinations nor blood transfusions.

And on what grounds doesn't it? Why are women's reproductive rights singled out then? And don't you find it telling that they are?

 

[Nakosis]

I agree. Women's reproductive rights are nothing more than a "political agenda" no decent person should be concerned with.

That's not what I said. So your agreeing with a strawman. A common political practice.

 

[metis]

What does that mean though?
Does that mean male judges are biased against women or that female judges are biased on favour of women? Or maybe a mix of both?

I would suggest that more women tend to be more sensitive to women-related issues than a great many men. Even though the poll I cited has it that almost 3/4 of women disagree with the decision, I wonder what percentage of men do, and my guess is that it's not likely anywhere near that number? When one looks across the board on a great many issues, men and women tend to have often significant different voting patterns.

Maybe the five majority justices follow this motto: keep women barefoot and pregnant.

 

[Sunstone]

That's not what I said. So your agreeing with a strawman. A common political practice.

Then what did you actually mean to say?

 

[Koldo]

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's because the employers are the ones being "forced" to do something against their religion, and not the employees.

 

[beenie]

In a way, Shireen, it reminds me of the Feudal Ages when the lords had all sorts of control over their serf's rights and obligations, but the serf's had few things they could demand of their lords.

Indeed, and maybe I'm crazy, but wasn't America founded to escape tyrannical, feudal systems? Hmmmm...

Presumably not if the prescribed treatment includes birth control.

Truth. Many diseases of the uterus are treated with birth control pills. I do wonder if Hobby Lobby will stop covering all medications that can harm fetuses, such as Accutane and the like. Many drugs can be abortifacients, are they going to stop covering them all, other ailments they're actually treating be damned?

Oh I submit that it is a fair comparison. Men do not have to contract a disease on any part of their reproductive system to be entitled to coverage for vasectomies. They are actively participating in ensuring they do not pro-create. And Hobby Lobby and our government, thus far, supports a man's right to easy access to his reproductive health care choices AND will actively alleviate any financial cost toward such a decision with insurance coverage.

If a woman wishes to have an IUD implanted in her uterus for the purpose of preventing implantation, the company feels she should not be financially or medically covered precisely because the owners do not agree on religious grounds, and that such a procedure is a personal choice that she must make on her own.

I find it telling.

I find it disgusting. Here we claim to be the most fair country on the planet, yet we are quite hypocritical when it comes to women's choices with their own bodies.

If they're not going to cover contraceptives for women, don't cover ANY reproductive medications for either sex--including Viagara, Cialis, and vasectomies. Be fair or go home.

 

[Nakosis]

And on what grounds doesn't it? Why are women's reproductive rights singled out then? And don't you find it telling that they are?

It has nothing to do with women's reproductive rights.
It has to do with religious freedom.

 

[Sunstone]

That's because the employers are the ones being "forced" to do something against their religion, and not the employees.

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.

 

[Koldo]

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?

I don't expect that to be the case.

 

[metis]

It has been mentioned in the original link that this decision doesn't apply to vaccinations nor blood transfusions.

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?

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.