Merged Hobby lobby and the slippery slope/SCOTUS decision

[SomedayGirl]

I'm pretty sure they are just picking their battles, if they had a choice, they would not be providing oral contraceptives.

But, Russ, they HAVE been providing oral contraception in their plans. They have no problems with that or most other forms of BC. Emergency contraceptives and the two types of IUDs they DO have a problem with. Conestoga has a problem only with the IUDs.

Please understand I disagree with their stance but for reasons larger than the specifics. I don't find their specific exclusions terribly bothersome or onerous.

ETA: I see your post above and that wording is just silly - two types would imply there's more than two (like two hormonal and one copper but if they mean hormonal and copper they could have just said "both" or simply "IUDs".) Lawyers, I swear...lol

 

[Ziggurat]

The difference is that this decision is being made on the basis of religion.

You have this exactly backwards. The constitution privileges the exercise of religion but it does not privilege other motivations such as cost savings.

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.

No. You have not changed the logic of your argument, and it still fails for the same reason. An employee of Jewish faith may find this arrangement more convenient than other employees, but all employees are still treated the same. One could argue that Hooters discriminates against various religious fundamentalists who insist upon modest dress, but the government will not hold Hooters liable for religious discrimination.

Furthermore, you fundamentally misunderstand the legal conflict here. It is not between the rights of employees and the rights of Hobby Lobby, it is between the rights of Hobby Lobby and the power of government. The question the court faces is, does the government have the power to force Hobby Lobby to do this? The government may have an interest in making Hobby Lobby provide birth control, but employees have no right to it. If employer-provided contraception really were a fundamental right, it would make no sense to have administrative exceptions such as for small businesses, so even the law itself clearly doesn't treat it as such.

 

[Dr. Keith]

No. You have not changed the logic of your argument, and it still fails for the same reason. An employee of Jewish faith may find this arrangement more convenient than other employees, but all employees are still treated the same. One could argue that Hooters discriminates against various religious fundamentalists who insist upon modest dress, but the government will not ho

I'm fairly certain that most of the government will, in fact, ho.

Also, this is interesting reading for anyone thinking seriously about this case, without being overly technical.

 

[Ziggurat]

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?

First off, vaccine deaths are unintended and rare consequences. The death of an embryo is not an unintended effect of certain forms of birth control, it is the entire point. Second, the alternative to vaccination carries greater risk, so the choice to vaccinate is the lower-risk choice. If you believe that embryo death is a bad thing, then birth control which kills the embryo is not a lower risk option than letting the pregnancy proceed naturally. While a natural pregnancy can still result in embryo death, it is much less likely to do so than post-fertilization birth control. And third, even if one considers embryo death a bad thing, that doesn't mean that natural pregnancies and the associated high embryo death rate are worse than the alternative (the extinction of our species).

You keep doubling down on bad arguments, Russ. And they're arguments that have nothing to do with the legal questions in this case.

 

[RussDill]

But, Russ, they HAVE been providing oral contraception in their plans. They have no problems with that or most other forms of BC. Emergency contraceptives and the two types of IUDs they DO have a problem with.

Please understand I disagree with their stance but for reasons larger than the specifics. I don't find their specific exclusions terribly bothersome or onerous.

ETA: I see your post above and that wording is just silly - two types would imply there's more than two (like two hormonal and one copper but if they mean hormonal and copper they could have just said "both" or simply "IUDs".) Lawyers, I swear...lol

I think they'd like to be a vague as possible in their wording so they they can easily expand or contract their claim as need be, very typical lawyering stuff.

The Plan B thing is less of an issue because it is available OTC at a low cost. The IUD thing is a bigger deal. While the cost taking oral contraceptives for long periods of time does add up over time, getting an IUD implanted has a high up front cost. As far as cost savings go for insurance companies, its a win, but difficult for someone with a lower income to afford up front. IUDs are some 40 times more effective than oral contraceptives at typical use rates.

Again, they are either stupid/shortsighted, or their thinking is transparent as above. Want to reduce elective abortions? Get everyone who wants an IUD an IUD.

http://www.businessweek.com/article...e-behind-the-decline-in-u-dot-s-dot-abortions

The ACA makes it possible for everyone who wants an IUD to get an IUD, unless of course Hobby Lobby is successful.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm fairly certain that most of the government will, in fact, ho.

Doh! Fixed now.

 

[RussDill]

First off, vaccine deaths are unintended and rare consequences. The death of an embryo is not an unintended effect of certain forms of birth control, it is the entire point.

birth control which kills the embryo

post-fertilization birth control.

The only "post-fertilization birth control" pill I'm aware of is RU-486? Will you please list the others you are aware of, I'm certainly not aware of any.

An decrease in implantation rates is a rare unintended side effect of many forms of birth control. Failure of implantation is also a really common unintended side effect of conception. Failure of implantation is a natural thing and doesn't directly cause the death of the embryo. Are you seriously stating that methods exist that *kill* embryos?

ETA: oops, decrease not increase.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Doh! Fixed now.

I try not to be critical of obvious typographical errors, but it lent itself to a joke I couldn't pass up. Thanks.

 

[Travis]

Here at Obstruction Coal Company we adhere to the teachings of the Book Of Alymech which clearly states that respirators, rescue breathers and protective clothing are all horrible sins. If employees want to not die down in the mine they have to pay for it out of their own pocket and pray to The Giant Oak Tree that they don't get sent to Malgymatoris in the afterlife for doing so.

 

[tyr_13]

A coal company would never have a holy tree. They're more stocking types.

 

[fishbob]

What they are saying is that they don't want to facilitate the use of certain contraceptives that they, for religious reasons, think would be considered to be tantamount to being an accomplice in what their religion considers to be murder. There is plenty of precedent for people to opt out of actively fighting in a war for religious reasons due to their religion considering all war to be murder.

Does the business attend a church? Does the business worry about going to hell (literally, not figuratively)?

No - the business was created to make money for the owners. The business operates under business law. Religious views of the owners, shareholders, managers are irrelevant to operation of the business and to the laws regulating business activities.

 

[sylvan8798]

Just wondering about the slippery slopes:

Company A: gluttony in one of the seven sadly sins. We don't want to cover any condition resulting from the fact that you ate too much. Including that broken ankle you just got because you can't waddle on ice.

Company B: homosexuality is a sin. We don't want to cover any gays. Remarkably we don't have any working for us.

Company C: um fornication. Surely we don't have to cover Serena's illegitimate pregnancy and the ensuing kid?

 

[ponderingturtle]

According to this Mother Jones article:


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


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.

What is the point in having employees if you can't make them follow your religious teachings? Next Catholic hospitals will be required to provide appropriate treatment for ectopic pregnancy, instead of fertility damaging ones to claim it isn't an abortion.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Just wondering about the slippery slopes:

Company A: gluttony in one of the seven sadly sins. We don't want to cover any condition resulting from the fact that you ate too much. Including that broken ankle you just got because you can't waddle on ice.

Company B: homosexuality is a sin. We don't want to cover any gays. Remarkably we don't have any working for us.

Company C: um fornication. Surely we don't have to cover Serena's illegitimate pregnancy and the ensuing kid?

In many states B is legal. I prefer keeping women out of positions of authority as the bible demands.

 

[SomedayGirl]

I was about to ask if a corporation has religious beliefs that must be legally protected, does it also have a gender or a race or the other class protections? What are the implications of that?

Then the more I thought about it, I realized in a way they already do. My city, and many states I think, have provisions in awarding government contracts that state a defined percentage of those most go to what are called here MWBE (minority/women business enterprises). I assume most such businesses are incorporated so that in essence the corporation is what its majority owner is - Latino, female, whathaveyou. I guess a corporation can, by extension, be Catholic if that is the the religion of the owner.

The difference is I'm not sure how a white/minority or male/female corporation would impose policies on its employees the way a religious corporation can, although I can think of many non-PC jokes about the possibilities (the tamest of which is the male corporation that never asks for directions ).

 

[jj]

Well, given that the SCOTUS questioning made it pretty clear that they intend to vote in favor of Hobby Lobby, how long do you think it will be before CEO's turn Christian Scientist and object to any medical care whatsoever?

Days? Weeks? Will it take a whole month?

Greed is a powerful motivator when you don't care about what happens next week.

 

[Ziggurat]

Here at Obstruction Coal Company we adhere to the teachings of the Book Of Alymech which clearly states that respirators, rescue breathers and protective clothing are all horrible sins. If employees want to not die down in the mine they have to pay for it out of their own pocket and pray to The Giant Oak Tree that they don't get sent to Malgymatoris in the afterlife for doing so.

Worker safety of this sort falls under the heading of a compelling state interest. As such, religious exemptions do not apply.

But it's hard to argue that employer-sponsored contraceptive coverage is a compelling state interest, and not simply a state interest. If it were a compelling interest, there shouldn't be any exceptions, but there are tons of them. Furthermore, if it were a compelling interest, then the question of whether or not Hobby Lobby qualified for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (under which the suit was brought) would be completely moot, since (again) there is no religious exemption from compelling state interests. And I don't think the government is trying to argue it's a compelling interest either.

In other words, the slippery slope you're trying to depict simply doesn't exist.

 

[pgwenthold]

Company C: um fornication. Surely we don't have to cover Serena's illegitimate pregnancy and the ensuing kid?

Interesting comparison.

Is it apt?

Can the company refuse to cover a single mother's pregnancy because it goes against "it's" religion?

 

[Upchurch]

Can the company refuse to cover a single mother's pregnancy because it goes against "it's" religion?

Well, that's the question, isn't it.

 

[pgwenthold]

Well, that's the question, isn't it.

No, it's not THE question at hand, but it is certainly a consequence of it. If the company can limit birth control because it sees it as against their religion, how far can it go?