Merged Hobby lobby and the slippery slope/SCOTUS decision

[Ziggurat]

One wonders why they didn't have such deep moral objections to the same contraception coverage their insurance offered to employees prior to ACA ...

I've not been paying very close attention to this story. Did Hobby Lobby have contraception coverage in their employee health insurance policy prior to the ACA?

Hold on a second. Hobby Lobby is not objecting to any and all contraception coverage. They're objecting to only certain forms of contraception, namely IUD's and morning-after pills, since those halt pregnancy after conception, whereas other forms of contraception (such as condoms and most birth-control pills) which act to prevent conception and Hobby Lobby is not objecting to providing coverage for them.

 

[rwguinn]

Yes, it did and I'll find the links that show it but I'll have to dig around a bit in the history of a comp I don't have access to ATM for the articles about it I was reading.

IIRC, many of the firms/employers who object to having to provide birth control to women have no problem with insurance that pays for Viagra and such for men...

 

[Upchurch]

No, Upchurch. All employees are treated the same, none of them get the benefit. The fact that some want the benefit and others do not doesn't make their treatment any different. And that's always going to be the case: if a company does not offer a vision plan, are people with bad eyesight having their rights trampled upon? No, they are not.

The difference is that this decision is being made on the basis of religion. In essence, it gives a preferential status to the religious beliefs of some employees over those of others and directly impacting their compensation on that basis.

No, Upchurch. There are many reasons besides religion for why an employee might not want to buy insurance coverage for every form of birth control.

That's lovely, but those aren't the explicit reason this decision was made.

But none of those, NONE of those, creates a difference in employment conditions. Everyone is treated the same.

It does, actually. Let's say that Hobby Lobby decides, on the basis of religion, that all employees must wear a yarmulke. Everyone has to do it, so everyone is treated the same. However, it sets up a preferred status for those of the Jewish faith (especially those of the Conservative and Reform varieties), because it caters to their religious practices and beliefs over those of other employees.

 

[SomedayGirl]

Yes, it did and I'll find the links that show it but I'll have to dig around a bit in the history of a comp I don't have access to ATM for the articles about it I was reading.

According to Salon, at least, HL's previous coverage also excluded emergency contraception and two types of IUDs.

http://www.salon.com/2014/03/25/4_things_you_need_to_know_about_the_hobby_lobby_scotus_case/

"Here’s the thing about the Hobby Lobby challenge to the contraception mandate: The company was already doing 80 percent of what’s legally required before it sued the government in 2012.

Hobby Lobby already covered 16 of the 20 methods of contraception mandated under the Affordable Care Act, but it didn’t cover Plan B One-Step, Ella (another brand of emergency contraception) and two forms of intrauterine devices. This is because the owners of Hobby Lobby have incorrectly labeled these methods of birth control and emergency contraception as “abortifacients,” a claim popular among anti-choice ideologues but refuted by scientific evidence and major reproductive health associations."

 

[SomedayGirl]

It's also worth noting that HL grabs all the headlines because of their size but there is a co-appellant in this case, Conestoga Wood Products. They cover IUDs but not emergency contraception, also on religious grounds (they are Mennonite owned).

 

[RussDill]

Hold on a second. Hobby Lobby is not objecting to any and all contraception coverage. They're objecting to only certain forms of contraception, namely IUD's and morning-after pills, since those halt pregnancy after conception, whereas other forms of contraception (such as condoms and most birth-control pills) which act to prevent conception and Hobby Lobby is not objecting to providing coverage for them.

IUD is by far the most effective form of birth control. Also, they are hypocrites. 50% of conceptions end in natural abortion. If they believed such a thing was abhorrent, they wouldn't have any children.

Whoever told you that IUDs prevent pregnancy by preventing implantation is a liar. And you are incredibly lazy for believing them. There are two types of IUDs, hormonal and copper. The first works by preventing ovulation, the second my making the uterus into an environment that is toxic to sperm.

Is it any coincidence that they disallow the most effective, most foolproof method of reversible conception?

ETA: You may also guess that whoever "educated" you about IUDs was also lying about Plan B.

 

[RussDill]

BTW, I'm guessing that if Hobby Lobby wins, the next big target would be IVF.

 

[turingtest]

Yes, it did [cover the contraceptives it now wants to disallow on religious grounds- tt] and I'll find the links that show it but I'll have to dig around a bit in the history of a comp I don't have access to ATM for the articles about it I was reading.

According to this Mother Jones article:

Take for instance Hobby Lobby's argument that providing coverage for Plan B and Ella substantially limits its religious freedom. The company admits in its complaint that until it considered filing the suit in 2012, its generous health insurance plan actually covered Plan B and Ella (though not IUDs). The burden of this coverage was apparently so insignificant that God, and Hobby Lobby executives, never noticed it until the mandate became a political issue.

You can read Hobby Lobby's complaint here, where we find this:

55. Recently, after learning about the nationally prominent HHS mandate controversy, Hobby Lobby re-examined its insurance policies to ensure they continued to be consistent with its faith. During that re-examination, Hooby Lobby discovered that the formulary for its prescription drug policy included two drugs- Plan B and Ella- that could cause an abortion. Coverage of these drugs was not included knowingly or deliberately by the Green family. Such coverage is out of step with the rest of Hobby Lobby's policies, which explicitly exclude abortion-causing contraceptive devices and pregnancy-termination drugs. Hobby Lobby therefore immediately excluded the inconsistent drugs from its policies.

I love the way they cite the faith of the Green family as if it's interchangeable with the faith of a for-profit corporation, and therefore incumbent upon all its employees. As I think has already been pointed out, insurance coverage is part of a total compensation package- it's no more their right to mandate on religious grounds what the employees can use the insurance to pay for than what their actual paycheck would pay for. Freedom to exercise religious beliefs doesn't include a privilege to impose its strictures on those who don't share the beliefs.

 

[BardKesnit]

There is even a slang term for motorcycling in emergency rooms: donorcycle

Some states automatically add you to the organ donor registry when you get a motorcycle license. (Mine is one them.)

 

[pgwenthold]

I love the way they cite the faith of the Green family as if it's interchangeable with the faith of a for-profit corporation,

This doesn't make sense to me either. Since when does Hobby Lobby have "faith"?

Hobby Lobby re-examined its insurance policies to ensure they continued to be consistent with its faith

It must be the faith of the owners, because if it were actually the faith of the employees, they wouldn't be asking for it in the first place.

 

[RussDill]

Another way to think about this logically. Only a certain percentage of contraception lead to a full term pregnancy. If your goal is to reduce that number, you need to look at the numbers. Actually trying to have children is probably the worst possible thing you could do as far as numbers of unborn babies being killed every year.

Closely after that would probably be the rhythm method. Instead an 85% rate (no method), you have a 25% rate. Out of that 25% of pregnancies, you can still estimate double that in embryo deaths.

Dropping down to hormonal birth control, you get around 8%. That's still a lot of dead embryos.

With IUDs you get about 0.2% Even if it makes implantation less likely, the primary methods of action still account for the vast majority of effectiveness. This method provides the least number of dead embryos (aside from sterilization). Even then, vasectomy is 0.15%, tubal litigation 0.5%.

Even Plan B reduces the number of dead embryos. (Compared to doing nothing)

Sorry for all these posts, the Hobby Lobby type of thinking just angers me to no end.

 

[SomedayGirl]

.

Whoever told you that IUDs prevent pregnancy by preventing implantation is a liar. And you are incredibly lazy for believing them. There are two types of IUDs, hormonal and copper. The first works by preventing ovulation, the second my making the uterus into an environment that is toxic to sperm.

Neither company objects to all IUDs either, as near as I can tell. Both seem to allow the copper IUD in their plans, their objection is to the two hormonal IUDs. According to WebMD, Mirena and Skyla can stop a fertilized egg from implanting and that seems to be the basis for the objection.

http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/intrauterine-device-iud-for-birth-control

"Hormonal IUD. This IUD prevents fertilization by damaging or killing sperm and making the mucus in the cervix thick and sticky, so sperm can't get through to the uterus. It also keeps the lining of the uterus (endometrium) from growing very thick.1 This makes the lining a poor place for a fertilized egg to implant and grow. The hormones in this IUD also reduce menstrual bleeding and cramping."

 

[RussDill]

Neither company objects to all IUDs either, as near as I can tell. Both seem to allow the copper IUD in their plans, their objection is to the two hormonal IUDs. According to WebMD, Mirena and Skyla can stop a fertilized egg from implanting and that seems to be the basis for the objection.

http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/intrauterine-device-iud-for-birth-control

"Hormonal IUD. This IUD prevents fertilization by damaging or killing sperm and making the mucus in the cervix thick and sticky, so sperm can't get through to the uterus. It also keeps the lining of the uterus (endometrium) from growing very thick.1 This makes the lining a poor place for a fertilized egg to implant and grow. The hormones in this IUD also reduce menstrual bleeding and cramping."

The same can be said for oral contraceptives. I think the percentage of cases where these changes in endometrium prevent implantation is about 1%. And as above, this is a huge overall win when it comes to preventing embryo death. I'll look for a source for that 1% number, but it'd have to be much much higher for IUDs not to come out a win.

I just feel like they motivations are very transparent, they have very little care for the actual life of the embryo, but are far more interested in having a say over the reproductive rights of their female employees.

 

[SomedayGirl]

The same can be said for oral contraceptives.

Well, no. Oral contraceptives don't damage or kill sperm, don't thicken cervical mucus, and don't prevent fertilized eggs from implanting. They only prevent ovulation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_oral_contraceptive_pill

That's one of the reasons the IUD is more effective, it has multiple modes of action.

 

[RussDill]

Hobby Lobby brief:

The plan likewise excludes four drugs or devices that can prevent an embryo from implanting in the womb—namely, Plan B, Ella, and two types of intrauterine devices.

So yes, they don't female employees to use their health care compensation for either type of IUD.

 

[Ziggurat]

IUD is by far the most effective form of birth control. Also, they are hypocrites. 50% of conceptions end in natural abortion. If they believed such a thing was abhorrent, they wouldn't have any children.

So because disease kills people, it's OK to murder someone?

No, Russ. What we choose to do is not the same as what happens beyond our control. This is perhaps the worst justification for birth control that I have ever heard. And I say that as someone who is personally in favor of birth control methods that Hobby Lobby objects to.

 

[RussDill]

Well, no. Oral contraceptives don't damage or kill sperm, don't thicken cervical mucus, and don't prevent fertilized eggs from implanting. They only prevent ovulation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_oral_contraceptive_pill

That's one of the reasons the IUD is more effective, it has multiple modes of action.

Oral contraceptives cause "Endometrial atrophy and alteration of metalloproteinase content, which may impede sperm motility and viability, or theoretically inhibit implantation." and "Endometrial edema, which may affect implantation.". (WP)

But of course, just as with IUD "Since pregnancy occurs despite endometrial changes when the primary mechanisms of action fail, endometrial changes are unlikely to play a significant role, if any, in the observed effectiveness of combined hormonal contraceptives.". (WP) Except with an IUD, even more so.

I'm pretty sure they are just picking their battles, if they had a choice, they would not be providing oral contraceptives. If the US was like the rest of the world, where IUD is more popular than oral contraceptives, they probably would have dropped oral contraceptives instead of IUDs.

 

[RussDill]

So because disease kills people, it's OK to murder someone?

No, Russ. What we choose to do is not the same as what happens beyond our control. This is perhaps the worst justification for birth control that I have ever heard. And I say that as someone who is personally in favor of birth control methods that Hobby Lobby objects to.

This is the same argument the anti-vax movement uses. Sure, without vaccines huge numbers of people die and vaccines save those people. But in a small number of cases, there are reactions causing disability and even death. We choose to vaccinate. Am I justifying killing that child who died from an adverse reaction to vaccination?

 

[SomedayGirl]

Hobby Lobby brief:

The plan likewise excludes four drugs or devices that can prevent an embryo from implanting in the womb—namely, Plan B, Ella, and two types of intrauterine devices.

So yes, they don't female employees to use their health care compensation for either type of IUD.

And the two types are the two hormone IUDs. The third type, copper, doesn't seem to be excluded, otherwise they would have just said "...and intrauterine devices" period.

 

[RussDill]

And the two types are the two hormone IUDs. The third type, copper, doesn't seem to be excluded, otherwise they would have just said "...and intrauterine devices" period.

I think they are grouping the two types of hormone IUDs together and when they refer to "two types" they mean hormonal and copper. Here's another brief:

Plaintiffs maintain that they cannot provide insurance coverage
for emergency contraceptives, such as Plan B and Ella, and for certain
intrauterine devices, such as the copper intrauterine device,