Boycott Hobby Lobby: Trumping Women's Rights

[Sunstone]

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

Sure it doesn't. And there's never an underlying agenda to anything, is there?

 

[Quintessence]

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

I'm not sure how you square the fact that this ruling was explicitly regarding women's reproductive rights and claiming it has nothing to do with that subject. Were that the case, it would most assuredly be applied to vaccinations, blood transfusions, and the like as well. But no, this "religious freedom" specifically trumps women's reproductive rights.

 

[Revoltingest]

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

I share your perspective. But regarding the regarding the first sentence, there are those who
believe that it is a woman's (& not a man's) right under Obamacare to employer provided
contraception. These 2 different sides have great difficulty understanding each other.

If Obamacare did cover contraception for men, I wonder how the decision would be affected.
Is there a typical religious objection to contraception in general, or just for women?

 

[metis]

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

But for whom? Do my religious rights trump yours because you're merely and employee of mine, you "low-life"?

 

[Koldo]

Presumably not if the prescribed treatment includes birth control.

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

 

[Nakosis]

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.

Nothing in Federal rulings prevents that anyways. Gay rights are protected on a state level, in those states that choose to protect them.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm not sure how you square the fact that this ruling was explicitly regarding women's reproductive rights and claiming it has nothing to do with that subject. Were that the case, it would most assuredly be applied to vaccinations, blood transfusions, and the like as well. But no, this "religious freedom" specifically trumps women's reproductive rights.

But...but...you don't understand...pure logic dictates that had it been applied exclusively to vasectomies or Viagra, it would be a men's rights issue, but being applied exclusively to women's reproductive rights is anything but a women's rights issue. Don't you understand logic? Sheesh!

 

[Sunstone]

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

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.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

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.

 

[Nakosis]

But for whom? Do my religious rights trump yours because you're merely and employee of mine, you "low-life"?

Unless they adversely affect other protected rights I have.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

Does the ruling deal with prescribing contraceptives for these purposes other than birth control?

 

[Koldo]

Oh I submit that it is a fair comparison.

How so?

Men do not have to contract a disease on any part of their reproductive system to be entitled to coverage for vasectomies.

What is the reasoning behind that, if any ?
Without further knowledge on this issue, I am completely against that unequal treatment. It sounds very sexist.

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.

Hasn't it been said that health care doesn't cover condoms?
Is that incorrect?

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 don't see why you are treating life saving procedures and contraceptives as if they were all one and the same.

 

[Sunstone]

Unless they adversely affect other protected rights I have.

So are you saying that an employer's religious freedom rights trump an employee's religious freedom rights unless "they adversely affect other protected rights you have"?

 

[Nakosis]

Presumably not if the prescribed treatment includes birth control.

The ruling is only regarding the "morning after pill". It doesn't affect other means of birth control.

 

[metis]

Nothing in Federal rulings prevents that anyways. Gay rights are protected on a state level, in those states that choose to protect them.

Actually it could be challenged under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

 

[Sunstone]

The ruling is only regarding the "morning after pill". It doesn't affect other means of birth control.

Even if that were true, how would it make the ruling any less of an offense against women's reproductive rights?

The healthcare law mandates coverage of 20 forms of birth control, but the owners of Hobby Lobby had strongly objected to two kinds of emergency contraception and two types of intrauterine devices - both of which prevent fertilisation and implantation of an egg in females.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Does the ruling deal with prescribing contraceptives for these purposes other than birth control?

Oh, there's an order to considering this ruling? I thought you looked at the whole picture, the "tip of the iceberg", so to speak.

Catholic doctrine has routinely spoken out against the pill. I'm sure there can be a connection made here between this ruling and its impact on businesses with Catholic owners who religiously object to the birth control pill and who don't wish to cover it on their employees insurance plans.

But in regards to Hobby Lobby, they do cover their employees for the birth control pill itself. They object to what they consider abortifacients (including the IUD).

 

[metis]

The ruling is only regarding the "morning after pill". It doesn't affect other means of birth control.

But it's the ramifications of the decision that may open "Pandora's box", as Ginsberg said, as decisions often have "legs".

 

[beenie]

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

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

The ruling is only regarding the "morning after pill". It doesn't affect other means of birth control.

Ok, let's play out a scenario here. A woman is taking an antibiotic, which often lowers the efficacy of birth control pills. She cannot sustain a pregnancy healthily, as she has a chronic illness. She then could POTENTIALLY become pregnant despite being very careful and responsible, and those antibiotics also are categorized "X", which is a proven fetal-damaging drug. That baby will clearly be born with severe birth defects, if it survives at all. The morning after pill, while it will end the possible/potential pregnancy, will save the life of mother and baby. Should she be denied coverage?

Let's NOT forget that this does open the door to much more regulation on birth control. Everything starts off small, remember?

 

[Nakosis]

So are you saying that an employer's religious freedom rights trump an employee's religious freedom rights unless "they adversely affect other protected rights you have"?

That's the way laws work. Specific rights have to be protected by laws.

You want to get a law passed at the federal level that employees have a right to have their employers pay for their abortions, I'm sure they would have ruled differently.

They should rule based on passed laws, not that they always do, but they should.