Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Goober5000 on June 29, 2013, 12:39:15 am
-
From http://cnsnews.com/news/article/court-gov-t-must-halt-enforcement-sterilization-contraception-abortifacient-mandate
(CNSNews.com) – Following on yesterday’s 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that Hobby Lobby can continue its lawsuit against the Obama administration’s contraception mandate on religious grounds, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma ruled today that the federal government must halt all enforcement of the mandate (and related financial penalties) against the Christian-based company.
Hobby Lobby and sister company Mardel are suing the Department of Health and Human Services and Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, arguing that to force the company to pay for health insurance that must offer abortion-inducing drugs, as well as sterilization and contraception, is a violation of its religious liberty.
In his order issued on Friday, U.S. District Judge Joe Heaton said the “court concludes plaintiffs [Hobby Lobby] have made a sufficient showing to warrant the issuance of a temporary restraining order in the circumstances existing here."
[...]
For those who aren't familiar with this case, Obamacare mandates that employers of a certain size must pay for insurance coverage that covers the "morning-after" pill and other contraception/abortifacient drugs. Hobby Lobby raised objections to this mandate on religious grounds, and now the Court has issued a temporary restraining order against HHS from enforcing the mandate.
This comes a day after the 10th Circuit Court ruled that yes, business owners do indeed have religious liberty rights. (I'm surprised we needed a court to tell us that, but there you go.)
This is good news, and a relief for Hobby Lobby especially, which would have faced draconian fines starting Monday if the case hadn't been fast-tracked. It's only a temporary restraining order, but it gives Hobby Lobby some respite while they prepare to make their full case.
-
contraception/abortifacient
We have always been at war with East Asia. (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2013/01/10/memory-vs-hobby-lobby-evangelicals-and-contraception-and-why-denny-burk-is-not-a-conservative/)
-
Hang on, let me understand this.
Does this mean that if my medical insurance included contraceptives and the like a prospective employer could force me to change insurers just because they disagreed with the idea of contraception?
What kind of bull**** is that?
(Also, ROFL at the idea that in the land of the free, an employer is totally free to discriminate on religious grounds when it comes to this.)
-
I am pretty damn sure that the Constitution specifies rights of people, not corporations. A corporation should not have the right to freedom of religious belief; while its members/owners may, forcing a corporation to comply with a law that is incompatible with the owners' religious beliefs should not be a violation of those rights.
Apparently the lower courts in the US disagree with me, however. Well, so did the Supreme Court when they ruled that corporations have free speech rights and therefore cannot be regulated in terms of political donations (a ruling that has basically ****ed the notion of equal democracy in the US). For a country that constantly proclaims the superiority of its Constitution, the enforcement of it sure is messed up in some areas.
Basically, it seems the liberty of special interest groups and corporations now trumps the guaranteed rights of individuals, and that is unbelievably ridiculous.
-
Does this mean that if my medical insurance included contraceptives and the like a prospective employer could force me to change insurers just because they disagreed with the idea of contraception?
No, it means that your employer can freely choose to only use an insurer that will not fund contraceptives/abortifacients because your employer - corporation - disagrees with the notion of them on religious grounds, and therefore if you need such drugs you will be paying for them entirely yourself. In short, it's yet another way that certain "Christian" groups would like to financially **** people that don't agree with their agenda.
Not that I've ever purchased anything from Hobby Lobby to begin with, but I certainly won't ever do so in the future.
-
And that is why real socialized medicine is so awesome.
Around here, stuff like this wouldn't even be possible. People choose their healthcare insurance, tell the employer, and then the employer has to pass the money over. Corporations may fund something called a Betriebskrankenkasse ("Corporate Health Insurance", more or less), but they may not force any of their employees to join it (Although it is usually a good idea to do so anyway, as they more often than not provide perks above and beyond the basic service all health insurers must provide). Do note that contraceptives etc are always covered for those who desire them, regardless of which health insurer you subscribe to.
Churches, and institutions owned by them, are the only ones allowed to break labor laws for religious reasons, and that's a ****ing shame. But even they may not interfere with whatever health care provisions their employees make.
-
This is sad news. This only affects the 10th Circuit Court right?
-
contraception/abortifacient
We have always been at war with East Asia. (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2013/01/10/memory-vs-hobby-lobby-evangelicals-and-contraception-and-why-denny-burk-is-not-a-conservative/)
That article is long on the rhetoric and short on the facts. It blasts evangelicals for hypocrisy (and to be fair, there is a lot of hypocrisy in the Church nowadays) but it completely omits the reason for the change. Which is in the author's own interests, because if he were to take a serious look at the reason then his whole case would fall apart. The reason is simply that many people who don't have a problem with condoms or the pill do have a problem with the morning-after pill. The classical pill inhibits ovulation so that there is never an egg to fertilize. The morning-after pills disrupt the pregnancy (usually by inhibiting implantation) after fertilization has taken place. That constitutes abortion. Naturally, those who have a problem with abortion would have a problem with those medications.
Does this mean that if my medical insurance included contraceptives and the like a prospective employer could force me to change insurers just because they disagreed with the idea of contraception?
What kind of bull**** is that?
(Also, ROFL at the idea that in the land of the free, an employer is totally free to discriminate on religious grounds when it comes to this.)
I'm astonished that you think it is right to force an employer to go against his strongest moral principles for the sake of your convenience. It's not enough that you have the ability to purchase your own insurance if you so choose. It's not enough that you are free to find another employer whose views are more compatible with your own. You want to force someone else to pay for a thing that goes against his religious convictions, simply because you don't agree with him.
Would you approve of a government mandate requiring employers to print propaganda denying the Armenian genocide as a condition of employing Turkish nationals?
I am pretty damn sure that the Constitution specifies rights of people, not corporations. A corporation should not have the right to freedom of religious belief; while its members/owners may, forcing a corporation to comply with a law that is incompatible with the owners' religious beliefs should not be a violation of those rights.
First, you have that backwards. The Constitution recognizes rights, it does not specify or grant them. The Constitution lays out what the federal government can and cannot do, it does not lay out what rights people do and do not have.
Second, I agree with you that a corporation is not a person, and a corporation does not have the rights that a person has -- never mind that the Supreme Court has held the opposite since the late 19th century. This incorrect application of the 14th Amendment has led to all kinds of problems and imbalances in the business world.
However, none of this applies to this situation. Regardless of whether a corporation itself has the right to freedom of religious belief, its employers and owners most certainly do. And its employers and owners are the ones who would be forced to implement this unjust regulation.
-
I'm astonished that you think it is right to force an employer to go against his strongest moral principles for the sake of your convenience. It's not enough that you have the ability to purchase your own insurance if you so choose. It's not enough that you are free to find another employer whose views are more compatible with your own. You want to force someone else to pay for a thing that goes against his religious convictions, simply because you don't agree with him.
Versus you apparently feel an employer is free to choose whatever medical benefits they want to provide to their employees based solely on the employers religious convictions. Can't wait until some Jehova's Witnesses decide not to insure all procedures related to blood transfusions for their employees - I'm curious what your tune will be then.
I wouldn't have a problem with that if the consequences of uninsured employees weren't so dire, but the United States has the most expensive medical system per capita in the world - which actually doesn't equate to the best patient outcomes - largely because of bull**** insurance policies. Nevermind that many of the social problems these "Christians" deride are a direct consequence of poor medical coverage, unwanted children, and low-income single-parent households raising large numbers of children. As education, income, and health coverage go UP, the birth rate and crime rates go DOWN. But let's not let facts get in the way of ideology and the nonsense that if people have access to birth control they might *gasp* have sex. This is the same breed of idiocy that is content to condemn their teenage daughters to a higher risk and possible death due to ovarian cancer because HPV is technically a sexually-transmitted disease (nevermind that it is as easily transmitted from husband to wife as it is among non-married people).
Unless the US wants to socialize medicine like every other Western country on the damn planet, employers should not be free to discriminate what coverage their employees get on the grounds of the owner's religious convictions, for the reasons I shall lay out at the end of my post momentarily...
First, you have that backwards. The Constitution recognizes rights, it does not specify or grant them. The Constitution lays out what the federal government can and cannot do, it does not lay out what rights people do and do not have.
This is a 'conservative' semantic argument. The Constitution lays out protected rights. This notion of recognize/grant/specify, etc is semantic only and is utterly irrelevant except as an ideological talking point. Without the Constitution, you can believe you have a right to go have sex with sheep. I can believe that you ought to be hung up by your testicles for that particular offense. Neither view matters because the rights only exist if someone or something says they do. In this case, it's the Constitution of the United States.
Second, I agree with you that a corporation is not a person, and a corporation does not have the rights that a person has -- never mind that the Supreme Court has held the opposite since the late 19th century. This incorrect application of the 14th Amendment has led to all kinds of problems and imbalances in the business world.
However, none of this applies to this situation. Regardless of whether a corporation itself has the right to freedom of religious belief, its employers and owners most certainly do. And its employers and owners are the ones who would be forced to implement this unjust regulation.
No, they wouldn't. The owner may own the corporation, but the corporation is the entity to which the law applies. If the owner doesn't like that their corporation has to comply with certain laws, they are free to unincorporate themselves and take all the business risks as individuals with sole proprietorships, in which case they may argue that such benefits violate their rights (and I agree with them then).
Business owners cannot have it both ways - you cannot have all the protections of incorporating a business to legally protect yourself, and then try to say that laws shouldn't apply to your corporation because of your individual rights. The whole purpose of incorporation is to legally dissociate the person from the business. And THAT, my friends, is why this entire lawsuit is legally unfair bull**** and why the courts should immediately reject these arguments. Corporations do not and were never intended to have the same rights as persons, and the continual expansion of case law to the contrary shows just how ****ed up property rights in the United States have become. Normally I accord the courts a fair amount of deference, but this is one area of law which the US courts have gotten completely backwards. It has already ****ed your political system - PACs are the end of democracy as you knew it, I'm sorry to say - and now it threatens to allow corporate rights to trump individual legal protections. I don't care what side of the political spectrum you're on - I'm a classical liberal along the lines of Swift, Jefferson, Mill, Smith, and Locke on most matters of politics - this is wrong.
My only consolation is that I do not live in the United States and the court system in my country has generally seen these arguments for what they are - an attempt by corporate owners to gain a legal double standard of protections to the detriment of their employees.
-
That article is long on the rhetoric and short on the facts. It blasts evangelicals for hypocrisy (and to be fair, there is a lot of hypocrisy in the Church nowadays) but it completely omits the reason for the change.
No, actually he doesn't. He elaborates on the reason at length. (So that the Protestant side of the religious right could stir up support against Obamacare, because they have pacted with the Republican Party and signed it in blood. Yes, the imagery is intentional, and appropriate.)
The reason is simply that many people who don't have a problem with condoms or the pill do have a problem with the morning-after pill. The classical pill inhibits ovulation so that there is never an egg to fertilize. The morning-after pills disrupt the pregnancy (usually by inhibiting implantation) after fertilization has taken place. That constitutes abortion. Naturally, those who have a problem with abortion would have a problem with those medications.
Your statement would make sense if that was the stance being taken by Hobby Lobby, and by extension you. It is not. Hobby Lobby doesn't want to pay for the pill either and has taken the stance it's abortion in open court.
It's also wrong. An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. It thus requires a pregnancy to be an abortion. By no stretch of logic is it possible to claim that pregnancy begins until implantation, because asserting otherwise requires some kind of medical magic on the part of the female body equivalent to Todd Akin's legitimate rape.
And, well... Life and hence pregnancy begins at conception is an inherently Catholic argument, though at least more medically sound than the one you're attempting to make.
-
I'm curious, is Hobby Lobby okay with insurers who pay for Vasectomies and... Tubal ligation?
-
If Hobby Lobby has employees that do not share "their" religious views, just by paying them, they are paying for activities that they do not agree with.
I don't see why paying for health insurance with contraceptives is somehow worse than paying their salaries.
-
Pay for your own anti-pregancy stuff, geeze. No company should ever cover that anyway. It plays no role in your health as a human being. If you can't afford condoms/pills/whatever, then simply stop screwing people (shouldn't be hard... If you can't afford that there's no way you can afford booze or to go to a club), or only screw people who have their own. It's not a right to be able to **** with no side effect, and it's certainly a very very stupid ass thing to make a company pay for. Seriously, could you imagine yourself walking into a Walgreens, getting a box of condoms, and saying "don't worry, my job covers this"? Same thing. :rolleyes:
Next thing you know, jobs will be forced to cover Dental and plastic surgery too. :doubt:
---------------------------------------------
Does everyone here understand that, atleast in the US, some jobs don't cover any health insurance? That such a thing, at least until obamacare, was simply a perk of the job you had if it did?
Why are companies being forced to cover anything anyway? Unless you get hurt while on the job or doing work for them, it's your own damn fault, or whoever hurt you, but not the company.
Gov covered medical: Taxes pay for it.
Private medical: monthly payments pay for it.
Not sure where the privately owned companies come into play here. Forcing them to cover it if you're over 30 hours (obamacare) will simply make them either;
A: Not hire you because they don't want the cost.
B: Hire you, but make you part-time under 30 hours, cutting you off from all other benefits too.
C: Take it out of your salary.
None of the above are good, and in this particular case there is zero reason the job should cover something that is so completely not related to the job if they don't want to. The fact they had to pull the religion card is just sad.
I honestly can not see how this becomes the employer's responsibility at all...
-
-snip-
Interesting. I propose this as well then for you:
KyadCK, pay for your own anti-cancer stuff, geeze. No company should cover that anyway. It plays no role in your health as a human being. If you can't afford chemo/radiation/experimental medications/whatever, then simply stop getting exposed to carcinogens (shouldn't be hard... If you can't afford that there's no way you can cigarettes, or charcoal-cooked foods, or paint, or fast food, or drycleaning, or a myriad of those things that cause cancer), or only get exposed to carcinogens in countries that'll pay for it for you. It's not a right to be able to live without cancer, and it's certainly a very very stupid ass thing to make a company pay for. Seriously, could you imagine yourself walking into a Walgreens, getting a box of chemotherapy drugs, and saying "don't worry, my job covers this"? Same thing. :rolleyes:
If that's ludicrous, so is your argument about contraceptives. Oh, cancer affects health you say? SO DOES PREGANANCY. Google "maternal complications of pregnancy and childbirth." OH, you choose to get pregnant but you don't choose to get cancer? Tell that to rape victims, or smokers. Oh wait, now you're going to tell me that it doesn't violate anyone's religious beliefs to provide live-saving drugs for cancer patients. Wrong! It's against my beliefs, and I just started a company that bought the one you work for! Congratulations, you no longer have any coverage for any cancer-related treatments. Hope you don't get sick!
If you have a problem with any of what I just wrote, I expect we shall see your post revised shortly to be a little less simplistic and a little more thoughtful. Now that we've gotten opinion without any factual basis out of the way, let's look at some data, shall we? (http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/spend.php)
The policies you apparently support are why you, and every other taxpayer, and every other man, woman, and hicld pay far more for healthcare and get far LESSER results that virtually every other democracy on the planet. If you're OK with that, well, I can't help you.
-
-snip-
Interesting. I propose this as well then for you:
KyadCK, pay for your own anti-cancer stuff, geeze. No company should cover that anyway. It plays no role in your health as a human being. If you can't afford chemo/radiation/experimental medications/whatever, then simply stop getting exposed to carcinogens (shouldn't be hard... If you can't afford that there's no way you can cigarettes, or charcoal-cooked foods, or paint, or fast food, or drycleaning, or a myriad of those things that cause cancer), or only get exposed to carcinogens in countries that'll pay for it for you. It's not a right to be able to live without cancer, and it's certainly a very very stupid ass thing to make a company pay for. Seriously, could you imagine yourself walking into a Walgreens, getting a box of chemotherapy drugs, and saying "don't worry, my job covers this"? Same thing. :rolleyes:
If that's ludicrous, so is your argument about contraceptives. Oh, cancer affects health you say? SO DOES PREGANANCY. Google "maternal complications of pregnancy and childbirth." OH, you choose to get pregnant but you don't choose to get cancer? Tell that to rape victims, or smokers. Oh wait, now you're going to tell me that it doesn't violate anyone's religious beliefs to provide live-saving drugs for cancer patients. Wrong! It's against my beliefs, and I just started a company that bought the one you work for! Congratulations, you no longer have any coverage for any cancer-related treatments. Hope you don't get sick!
If you have a problem with any of what I just wrote, I expect we shall see your post revised shortly to be a little less simplistic and a little more thoughtful. Now that we've gotten opinion without any factual basis out of the way, let's look at some data, shall we? (http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/spend.php)
The policies you apparently support are why you, and every other taxpayer, and every other man, woman, and hicld pay far more for healthcare and get far LESSER results that virtually every other democracy on the planet. If you're OK with that, well, I can't help you.
Right, so, you have no argument. Got it. That's the only reason you would do something as stupid as you just did.
One more time: Why is it the company's problem?
If it's government handled, then your taxes should cover it. If it's privately handled, then your monthly payments handle it. Why is this the problem, at all, of the business in question? Why should the business be forced to pay for it? Why?
Oh right, you have no awnser. If you did, you'd have presented it.
So, MP, go away. Bring out someone who can present an actual argument, like Battuta or The_E or Zacam.
-
I'd like to point out that a lot of girls I've known have taken/take birth control for regulation of their cycles, rather than preventing pregnancy. I hear having a period is an absolute pain.
However, if the argument is only about preventing pregnancy, for the insurance company, paying for birth control is much less expensive than paying for pregnancy. And if someone is not pregnant they do not get maternity leave, and are still able to work full time. That's the whole point of providing benefits for employees, happier, healthier, more motivated individuals do more and better work.
Also health insurance usually covers vasectomies. Double standard?
So why should business care? I'm too tired right now to put something coherent down. Will come back to this later
-
/me steps in
Kyad, MPRyan analyzed your argument, pointed out its flaws, and even provided data to support his points. I wholly grant that the manner in which he did so could have been a lot better, but dismissing his post as stupidity, asserting that he has no answer, and asking that he leave does not make for a strong response either. It makes it look like you're the one struggling.
People on both sides of this issue should try to calm down. Agitated posts are not very compelling ones and will only make things worse.
/me steps out.
-
Roughly 8% of all women suffer from Endometriosis, a condition where the body does not properly shed the extra layers formed during menstruation and a build up occurs. This leads to extremely painful cramps and a difficulty operating in a work environment because of them. A friend of mine has had several operations to remove excess build-up around the uterus caused by this condition.
One of the treatments for this which can work in some cases is a 12-weekly contraceptive injection that thins the womb lining, reducing the build-up of excess tissue.
My main concern about this ruling is where the line will be drawn. Should women have to suffer for 1/4 of their reproductive lives from pain purely because a company doesn't like the fact that such treatments exist at all?
Whilst this is only a preliminary ruling, people need to understand it's a lot more complex than just 'buy your own condoms'.
-
Right, so, you have no argument. Got it. That's the only reason you would do something as stupid as you just did.
One more time: Why is it the company's problem?
If it's government handled, then your taxes should cover it. If it's privately handled, then your monthly payments handle it. Why is this the problem, at all, of the business in question? Why should the business be forced to pay for it? Why?
Oh right, you have no awnser. If you did, you'd have presented it.
So, MP, go away. Bring out someone who can present an actual argument, like Battuta or The_E or Zacam.
Because something critical as health care should not be a multi-tiered system. The basic coverage available to everyone should provide for adequate care in all areas, regardless of how much money they make. That's the socialist perspective on it.
Here in Germany, the Employer covers half the medical insurance cost for his employees (the other half is deducted from the wage as part of taxes etc). This is because health care is ****ing expensive, and also because it's in the Employer's best interest to have healthy workers who do not have to worry about something silly like "Can I afford a visit to the Doctor this month".
Given that our system (and the equivalent system of other countries) is much more efficient than yours, both in terms of per-capita costs and in keeping the workforce healthy, I can see no real argument for keeping the Employers out of the loop.
Oh, and I fully agree with MP-Ryan, needless to say.
-
Regarding comparisons with European healthcare systems, keep in mind the differences. As far as I know, here in Europe individually purchased health insurance is the norm. That means the employee chooses an insurance (unless there is a single payer and so no choice) and pays for it with what is already considered a part of his money. While in the US employer healthcare plans are the norm (because they tend to be less expensive than individually purchased), where an employer chooses a plan for his employees and pays for it with what is his own money.
He who pays gets to decide. Thats why this ruling makes sense under US system but not in European system.
-
He who pays gets to decide. Thats why this ruling makes sense under US system but not in European system.
Certainly. But do note that I believe the american system to be fundamentally broken, and this issue right here to be symptomatic of said brokenness.
-
Oh right, you have no awnser. If you did, you'd have presented it.
Read it again. Not only did I point out how facile your argument is concerning why contraceptives should not be covered, I also pointed out the very good policy reasons for why employer health insurance should be mandated to provide a full level of coverage and not pick and choose what they ideologically agree with.
The United States does not have a fully socialized medical system, and in fact relies on employers providing medical benefits - without employers providing coverage, the number of Americans without health insurance would be far greater than the 48.6 million people (approximately 15% of your total population) that were without prior to the ACA. The data posted previously already highlights why this is "bad." Now, when people have to pay out of pocket, several things happen:
1. They destroy their economic prosperity. This is bad, particularly if these people are middle class. The United States has a service economy and relies heavily on purchasing by individuals. This is why the Fed has gone the quantitative easing route since 2009.
2. In extreme cases, medical bills lead to bankruptcy. This has a duplicative effect - not only do people lose their purchasing ability to support themselves, NOW they qualify for government assistance programs. The wonderfully ironic thing about assistance programs in the US is that they provide just enough to ensure it is very difficult for people to escape the income status that qualifies them for them.
3. People who are unable to pay their hospital bills don't - the US system does not turn people away. That said, that cost is then passed onto government and other health insurers in the form of higher taxes and higher premiums. For every person without insurance, YOU pay more for your insurance.
4. The final possibility according to free market theory (which has no validity in the real world, but I cover it here because the previous three points are actually a fiscally conservative argument and I might as well complete it) is that wages for the employed go up to help cover costs because the market labour supply demands it. Now, there are all kinds of economic reasons why this doesn't happen in the real world which have been covered on HLP before, but the free market is essentially not the great arbitrator that some economists in the past thought it was. There is no real-world data that shows when a benefit is eliminated (particularly on grounds as patently ridiculous as these) that wages adjust to compensate. In reality, that tends to lead to a greater race to the bottom (for examples, see defined-benefit pensions in the private sector).
In short, if employers do not provide health insurance, your economic system falls apart unless the government provides socialized insurance (which, judging by your political positions thus far, I'm hazarding a guess you don't want to see). When employers get to pick and choose what aspects of basic healthcare - and contraceptives are absolutely an aspect of basic healthcare - are covered on religious grounds, the tab is ultimately picked up by the US economy. If you are as ideologically "conservative" as your previous post seems to indicate, you should have a problem with that.
-
How many people on this thread are men? Our health is not as affected by the availability of birth control as that of women. Women should be free from dictates of those who have power over them (ie. their employers).
On the topic of freedom, in Alberta we have similar arguments thrusted at us by the conservatives.
"Employers should have a right to their religious views"
"Doctors should have a right to their religious views"
"Government employees should have a right to their religious views"
As individual people, this is true. But doctors, civil servants, and bosses have a power over those around them. They have the power to push their views on others, deny them services, treat them unfairly. Why should they be free to do this, and I have no freedom from them?
-
/me steps in
Kyad, MPRyan analyzed your argument, pointed out its flaws, and even provided data to support his points. I wholly grant that the manner in which he did so could have been a lot better, but dismissing his post as stupidity, asserting that he has no answer, and asking that he leave does not make for a strong response either. It makes it look like you're the one struggling.
People on both sides of this issue should try to calm down. Agitated posts are not very compelling ones and will only make things worse.
/me steps out.
He compared getting pregneant to cancer. He also completely ignored anything below the line. If you would like to point out where exactly he made even an atempt to say why the buisness should be the one to pay for it... I must be blind, I can not see it.
He did not analize anything, nor rebute any claim. He has shown no reason that the buisness should be responsible. As such, he's just Fox News (Sensationalist and has no point).
Oh right, you have no awnser. If you did, you'd have presented it.
Read it again.
I did. You failed to read, let alone rebute, the entire argument. As such, I "Failed" to read this one beyond this line.
Note how The_E actually presented an argument and explained things. Take a lesson.
I'd like to point out that a lot of girls I've known have taken/take birth control for regulation of their cycles, rather than preventing pregnancy. I hear having a period is an absolute pain.
However, if the argument is only about preventing pregnancy, for the insurance company, paying for birth control is much less expensive than paying for pregnancy. And if someone is not pregnant they do not get maternity leave, and are still able to work full time. That's the whole point of providing benefits for employees, happier, healthier, more motivated individuals do more and better work.
Also health insurance usually covers vasectomies. Double standard?
So why should business care? I'm too tired right now to put something coherent down. Will come back to this later
I didn't say "care", I asked why they should be involved at all. "Caring" is a whole different thing. The_E explained why, at least in Germany's system (which applies to most of europe I guess?) why they are.
Right, so, you have no argument. Got it. That's the only reason you would do something as stupid as you just did.
One more time: Why is it the company's problem?
If it's government handled, then your taxes should cover it. If it's privately handled, then your monthly payments handle it. Why is this the problem, at all, of the business in question? Why should the business be forced to pay for it? Why?
Oh right, you have no awnser. If you did, you'd have presented it.
So, MP, go away. Bring out someone who can present an actual argument, like Battuta or The_E or Zacam.
Because something critical as health care should not be a multi-tiered system. The basic coverage available to everyone should provide for adequate care in all areas, regardless of how much money they make. That's the socialist perspective on it.
Here in Germany, the Employer covers half the medical insurance cost for his employees (the other half is deducted from the wage as part of taxes etc). This is because health care is ****ing expensive, and also because it's in the Employer's best interest to have healthy workers who do not have to worry about something silly like "Can I afford a visit to the Doctor this month".
Given that our system (and the equivalent system of other countries) is much more efficient than yours, both in terms of per-capita costs and in keeping the workforce healthy, I can see no real argument for keeping the Employers out of the loop.
Oh, and I fully agree with MP-Ryan, needless to say.
Thankyou. That explains why the buisness should be involved from the European point of view.
Note however that we did not get a "tax hike" to cover any of that. Our system is not set up for that at all.
So now we have businesses that are refusing to hire more people desipe the ever so slightly improving economy becasue they don't want to cover those costs. We have buisnesses that refuse to hire full time employees becasue if they can keep them under 30 hours, they don't have to pay for this. People can not get jobs becasue of this, and the ones that can don't get this anyway. It isn't truly universal, and as with all our tax laws, there are easily exploited loopholes to avoid doing it anyway.
If you actually believe getting cancer is the same as getting pregnant... Whatever, more power to you. That is all Ryan actually claimed in his first responce in between bouts of thinking he's god and knows best for everyopne, including the ones who don't want his way.
He who pays gets to decide. Thats why this ruling makes sense under US system but not in European system.
Certainly. But do note that I believe the american system to be fundamentally broken, and this issue right here to be symptomatic of said brokenness.
If we were going to copy the European system for this, we would have to actually do it right. The current way is... bad.
Obamacare is not the "medical care for all" that you have in europe, so cheering for it, as it actually harms us due to it's very poor implementation, is foolish. You can see the loopholes in it already from this threrad alone, do you honestly think this system will be any less stupid than our tax system?
-----------------------------------------------
As for personal views, I do belive that someone who does not get hurt as much should not have to pay as much as someone who gets hurt all the time. Why should the ones who take care of themselves pick up the tab for those who don't? So yes, I do not believe in a "cover everything" universal plan with one cost for everyone, since if I break a bone once every 10 years I am less of a drain on the "Medical pool" than someone who breaks one every 2. As such, I should pay less.
Few Europeans seem to understand this. And that's fine. But understand that we have two completely different systems, and this "attempt" is certainly not the same as what you get anyway.
-
He compared getting pregneant to cancer. .
You haven't established he was wrong to make that comparison, or why it would be wrong to. (Indeed, from an employer's standpoint the only thing that matters is lost productivity, so all illnesses are more or less the same as a pregnancy.) Until you do, everything you've said is useless and his statement stands by default.
You can't merely state these things. You must demonstrate them. What MP-Ryan did was demonstrate that the foundationals of your argument do not make sense from the business standpoint. (What you have failed to do is demonstrate why his statement was wrong.) That's why he ignored the rest of it; it was irrelevant if the parts he discussed didn't stand.
-
He compared getting pregneant to cancer. .
You haven't established he was wrong to make that comparison, or why it would be wrong to. (Indeed, from an employer's standpoint the only thing that matters is lost productivity, so all illnesses are more or less the same as a pregnancy.) Until you do, everything you've said is useless and his statement stands by default.
And you failed to read too. What was said right after that? Here's a hint:
He also completely ignored anything below the line. If you would like to point out where exactly he made even an atempt to say why the buisness should be the one to pay for it... I must be blind, I can not see it.
Would you like to actually see the entirety of the post he so conviniently snipped too? Read it all perhaps? Provide a less useless and sensationalist responce then he did?
-
KyadCK, I see you still haven't actually realized why comparing pregnancy and cancer is perfectly valid in this context, nor bothered to actually click the link to the data that renders your entire post meaningless, nor actually read where I spelled out the economics for you after you failed to read the previous post which - at last count - at least five other people have read and understood, then posted in this thread.
At this point, you have been provided with a coherent argument and raw data, neither of which you have responded to, instead choosing to continue on with this belief that you've presented a rational argument (you haven't, since its all your opinion without a shred of supporting information) and you haven't gotten a response (you have). I have now spelled it out for you twice - address the argument.
-
KyadCK, I see you still haven't actually realized why comparing pregnancy and cancer is perfectly valid in this context, nor bothered to actually click the link to the data that renders your entire post meaningless, nor actually read where I spelled out the economics for you after you failed to read the previous post which - at last count - at least five other people have read and understood, then posted in this thread.
At this point, you have been provided with a coherent argument and raw data, neither of which you have responded to, instead choosing to continue on with this belief that you've presented a rational argument (you haven't, since its all your opinion without a shred of supporting information) and you haven't gotten a response (you have). I have now spelled it out for you twice - address the argument.
I said that Businesses should not be required to pay for any health insurance. The topic on hand is for the morning after pill, which I added an extra section for.
Your entire argument that "Pregnant = Cancer" is a starwman argument, and I will not be pulled into such stupididty. Get over it.
-
He also completely ignored anything below the line.
Would you like to actually see the entirety of the post he so conviniently snipped too?
That's why he ignored the rest of it; it was irrelevant if the parts he discussed didn't stand.
You're stating again. You're not demonstrating. You're not offering evidence for your position. You have to demonstrate via evidence you are correct. You can't state it or nobody will take you seriously. (And rightly so.)
Worse yet, you are making a very obviously irrelevant straw-man statement, by pretending I did not address why MP-Ryan ignored the rest of your post when no such thing happened. It was addressed. I can quote it being addressed and I just did. You're making a decision to argue in bad faith, to obviously argue in bad faith, so why should we address you at all?
-
Actually, you said this:
Pay for your own anti-pregancy stuff, geeze. No company should ever cover that anyway. It plays no role in your health as a human being. If you can't afford condoms/pills/whatever, then simply stop screwing people (shouldn't be hard... If you can't afford that there's no way you can afford booze or to go to a club), or only screw people who have their own. It's not a right to be able to **** with no side effect, and it's certainly a very very stupid ass thing to make a company pay for. Seriously, could you imagine yourself walking into a Walgreens, getting a box of condoms, and saying "don't worry, my job covers this"? Same thing. :rolleyes:
Next thing you know, jobs will be forced to cover Dental and plastic surgery too. :doubt:
---------------------------------------------
Does everyone here understand that, atleast in the US, some jobs don't cover any health insurance? That such a thing, at least until obamacare, was simply a perk of the job you had if it did?
Why are companies being forced to cover anything anyway? Unless you get hurt while on the job or doing work for them, it's your own damn fault, or whoever hurt you, but not the company.
Gov covered medical: Taxes pay for it.
Private medical: monthly payments pay for it.
Not sure where the privately owned companies come into play here. Forcing them to cover it if you're over 30 hours (obamacare) will simply make them either;
A: Not hire you because they don't want the cost.
B: Hire you, but make you part-time under 30 hours, cutting you off from all other benefits too.
C: Take it out of your salary.
None of the above are good, and in this particular case there is zero reason the job should cover something that is so completely not related to the job if they don't want to. The fact they had to pull the religion card is just sad.
I honestly can not see how this becomes the employer's responsibility at all...
Which can be summed up as:
- Pregnancy isn't a real illness and it shouldn't be up to the employer to cover it.
- Companies shouldn't have to cover medical expenses anyway.
At which point I demonstrated why pregnancy is no different than any other medical condition, then gave you a link to data that shows exactly why employers should have to cover medical expenses. (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84930.msg1696846#msg1696846)
After that, you then ignored the entire rebuttal.
Then I laid out, point-by-point, the exact economic reasons why employer-coverage is necessary in the United States unless you want to switch to a socialized system, and why your medical system is so bloody expensive compared to literally every other democracy for which there is data. (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84930.msg1696903#msg1696903)
And then you ignored all of it.
And now here we are. Oh, right - three other forumites told you what you've missed and you ignored them too.
Now, if you'd like to take your fingers out of your ears and quit with the "lalalalalala" approach to debate, I'd be happy to address any response you'd like to put together to the points already raised - with supporting evidence. Until then, I'll let everyone else deal with you as they see fit.
-
Your entire argument that "Pregnant = Cancer" is a starwman argument, and I will not be pulled into such stupididty. Get over it.
Given that MP-Ryan and others have stated and shown that it isn't a strawman argument, you would be wise to reconsider your stance, and actually try to understand what they are saying and why.
As a moderator, I would advise you to chill a bit. Right now, you're digging yourself into an argumentative hole that is very hard to escape from. You're starting to debate the people, not the points they raise, and that's not going to do you or the points you're trying to make any good. Take a step back from your beliefs, and try to see the other side of the debate here.
-
Your entire argument that "Pregnant = Cancer" is a starwman argument, and I will not be pulled into such stupididty. Get over it.
Given that MP-Ryan and others have stated and shown that it isn't a strawman argument, you would be wise to reconsider your stance, and actually try to understand what they are saying and why.
As a moderator, I would advise you to chill a bit. Right now, you're digging yourself into an argumentative hole that is very hard to escape from. You're starting to debate the people, not the points they raise, and that's not going to do you or the points you're trying to make any good. Take a step back from your beliefs, and try to see the other side of the debate here.
I said I do not want any buisness to pay any health insurance. I added that paying for things like condoms and the morning after pill are paticularly stupid due to the thread topic. He is trying to invalidate my claim by saying that pregnancy is no different from concer, so it should count.
One more time, becasue no one gets it; I said I do not want any buisness to pay any health insurance.
What, exactly, does his claim prove? What does it have to do with what I said? How does it invalidate me at all?
It doesn't. So if any of you would like to look at the fact that agreeing with what he said does not mean disagreeing with what I said, I would welcome you to try again. Step away from your beliefs, The_E, and see what was writen.
If you would like to know how calm I am, I'm always on IRC and would love to explain to you in realtime if you like. The argument Ryan is presenting is like someone saying "Cheese sucks" (me) and everyone else going "Ya, well, Cheddar is as bad as Swiss, so you're wrong". Do you understand?
He also completely ignored anything below the line.
Would you like to actually see the entirety of the post he so conviniently snipped too?
That's why he ignored the rest of it; it was irrelevant if the parts he discussed didn't stand.
You're stating again. You're not demonstrating. You're not offering evidence for your position. You have to demonstrate via evidence you are correct. You can't state it or nobody will take you seriously. (And rightly so.)
Worse yet, you are making a very obviously irrelevant straw-man statement, by pretending I did not address why MP-Ryan ignored the rest of your post when no such thing happened. It was addressed. I can quote it being addressed and I just did. You're making a decision to argue in bad faith, to obviously argue in bad faith, so why should we address you at all?
Right, so let's look at my "argument".
Pay for your own anti-pregancy stuff, geeze. No company should ever cover that anyway. It plays no role in your health as a human being. If you can't afford condoms/pills/whatever, then simply stop screwing people (shouldn't be hard... If you can't afford that there's no way you can afford booze or to go to a club), or only screw people who have their own. It's not a right to be able to **** with no side effect, and it's certainly a very very stupid ass thing to make a company pay for. Seriously, could you imagine yourself walking into a Walgreens, getting a box of condoms, and saying "don't worry, my job covers this"? Same thing. :rolleyes:
Next thing you know, jobs will be forced to cover Dental and plastic surgery too. :doubt:
---------------------------------------------
Does everyone here understand that, atleast in the US, some jobs don't cover any health insurance? That such a thing, at least until obamacare, was simply a perk of the job you had if it did?
Why are companies being forced to cover anything anyway? Unless you get hurt while on the job or doing work for them, it's your own damn fault, or whoever hurt you, but not the company.
Gov covered medical: Taxes pay for it.
Private medical: monthly payments pay for it.
Not sure where the privately owned companies come into play here. Forcing them to cover it if you're over 30 hours (obamacare) will simply make them either;
A: Not hire you because they don't want the cost.
B: Hire you, but make you part-time under 30 hours, cutting you off from all other benefits too.
C: Take it out of your salary.
None of the above are good, and in this particular case there is zero reason the job should cover something that is so completely not related to the job if they don't want to. The fact they had to pull the religion card is just sad.
I honestly can not see how this becomes the employer's responsibility at all...
What exactly do I have to prove again? Most of my "Argument" is questions.
-
Congratulations, Kyad, you have an opinion. That does not entitle you to summarily dismiss others' opinions, to ignore actual discussion directed toward you, and deliberately discuss the issue in bad faith.
We get that you don't want a company to pay health insurance. Others disagree. There in lies the potential for discussion. However, you are refusing to discuss, and instead choosing to insult and avoid any actual discussion by instead trumpeting your beliefs over everything else in the conversation.
Much closer to what's actually happening, MP-Ryan is saying "Cheddar and Swiss are both kinds of cheese" and you're yelling loudly "I DON'T LIKE CHEESE AND NEITHER SHOULD MY BOSS".
-
Congratulations, Kyad, you have an opinion. That does not entitle you to summarily dismiss others' opinions, to ignore actual discussion directed toward you, and deliberately discuss the issue in bad faith.
We get that you don't want a company to pay health insurance. Others disagree. There in lies the potential for discussion. However, you are refusing to discuss, and instead choosing to insult and avoid any actual discussion by instead trumpeting your beliefs over everything else in the conversation.
Much closer to what's actually happening, MP-Ryan is saying "Cheddar and Swiss are both kinds of cheese" and you're yelling loudly "I DON'T LIKE CHEESE AND NEITHER SHOULD MY BOSS".
No, you understand that. So did The_E, and he explained too. Ryan never got the picture.
The grand majority of my my first post was asking. The rest was explaining why what Ryan said had nothing to do with what I said. Which it still doesn't.
I'm saying, fairly calmy actually, "I don't like cheese, so why do I care if Cheddar and Swiss are the same?" and "Why should my boss be forced to like cheese?"
You on the other hand seem to think that I said that buisnesses should never pay for anything. Unfortunetly for that arguemnt, I've said repeatedly that they should not be forced to pay for anything. I've also said that jobs have for the most part had perks that included health insurance, but they were just that, perks.
Care to revise what you "think" I'm saying?
As for my inability to discuss... I take it you didn't actually read any of my responce after The_E explained. Of course, my arguement didn't immediately change to "Hey this is great!" but you know what? Yours didn't change to dislike cheese either, now did it.
-
Pregnancy is to Cancer as Cheese is to:
A) Cheese
B) Analogy
C) American Cheese
D) B and B
-
Well, cancer is when you have a bunch of cells growing in your body, maybe making a tumor shaped lump.
Pregnancy is when you have a bunch of cells growing in your body, making a baby shaped lump.
-
Well, cancer is when you have a bunch of cells growing in your body, maybe making a tumor shaped lump.
Pregnancy is when you have a bunch of cells growing in your body, making a baby shaped lump.
It doesn't even have to be thought of on that level of detail. Cancer is a not-always-preventable medical condition that arises only in part due to the behaviour of the individual diagnosed with it. So is pregnancy, and the maternal complications that can result from it. One is not quantitatively different from the other in this regard.
It's amusing that Kyad is now backtracking from the whole pregnancy argument in the first place as if he thinks that I haven't also addressed his belief that employers shouldn't pay for health care. (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84930.msg1696986#msg1696986) Even if he wants to correct his original post, that ship has sailed. Now he's just trying to obfuscate and avoid addressing the uncomfortable realization that he hasn't provided any sort of foundation for that argument, whereas there exists quite a bit of data that clearly shows his position is economically and medically unsound which was provided on page one in a convenient link. Now he's on the I-can't-argue-the-facts-the-opposite-side-is-presenting-so-I'll-just-attack-the-presenter-instead. I could give a **** at this point. I think it's been made abundantly clear that KyadCK is unable to support his assertions and is now just trying (and failing) to save face.
So on that note... I'll post again if someone actually adds anything new to the discussion, but I suspect further attempts to convince KyadCK to actually debate are basically pointless at this juncture.
-
The grand majority of my my first post was asking. The rest was explaining why what Ryan said had nothing to do with what I said. Which it still doesn't.
Right, so, you have no argument. Got it. That's the only reason you would do something as stupid as you just did.
One more time: Why is it the company's problem?
If it's government handled, then your taxes should cover it. If it's privately handled, then your monthly payments handle it. Why is this the problem, at all, of the business in question? Why should the business be forced to pay for it? Why?
Oh right, you have no awnser. If you did, you'd have presented it.
So, MP, go away. Bring out someone who can present an actual argument, like Battuta or The_E or Zacam.
There's not a word of explanation in this post. There's a lot of opinion. You're trying to assert that businesses shouldn't have to pay for healthcare, but there are two problems with that. The first is that businesses do pay for healthcare, so you're arguing against the existence of something that is real. The second is that it's already been addressed why it makes good sense for businesses to pay for healthcare, as time sick (or pregnant) is time not working for the business.
So you haven't explained why MP-Ryan is strawmanning. It's been repeatedly explained why he's not. It's been repeatedly explained to you that your argument is not only false in comparison to reality, but that it would actually serve the interests of the business, as a business, to cover these costs. You still have not addressed these points, thus they continue to stand by default.
You're not discussing. You're stating a position by route. Again.
-
It doesn't even have to be thought of on that level of detail. Cancer is a not-always-preventable medical condition that arises only in part due to the behaviour of the individual diagnosed with it. So is pregnancy, and the maternal complications that can result from it. One is not quantitatively different from the other in this regard.
???
Except in cases of rape, pregnancy "arises due to the behaviour of the individual diagnosed with it". I mean, I'm aligned with you on this issue, but Jesus this analogy is an absolutely awful way of expressing your point, and you completely deserve the page of stupid quibbling that's just taken place. Frankly the rest of you who dogpiled on Kyad should be embarrassed with yourselves; just because you agree with the point an argument is making doesn't mean you should go on the defensive when someone criticises it.
-
Phantom Hoover:
It is indeed "Only in part" because getting pregnant is not a sure thing even without contraceptives, and a female (unfortunately) does not get to decide whether she's especially fertile on a given day before having sex. There's a huge amount of chance involved with it, and as such, that analogy is entirely accurate.
Further, no one dogpiled on Kyad because we disagreed or agreed with any argument presented; Kyad was chastised (by several posters with histories of not doing such things, including at least two mods) because he was arguing in poor form and poor faith.
-
It is indeed "Only in part" because getting pregnant is not a sure thing even without contraceptives, and a female (unfortunately) does not get to decide whether she's especially fertile on a given day before having sex. There's a huge amount of chance involved with it, and as such, that analogy is entirely accurate.
No, that analogy is completely ****ing bogus. You know why? You need to have sex to get pregnant, you can get cancer without any exposure to carcinogens. Don't smoke? You can still get lung cancer. Don't have sex? You're not getting pregnant, barring divine intervention. And you know what? When someone throws an argument that stupid at you, I can understand why you'd be arguing in bad form and bad faith.
-
It is indeed "Only in part" because getting pregnant is not a sure thing even without contraceptives, and a female (unfortunately) does not get to decide whether she's especially fertile on a given day before having sex. There's a huge amount of chance involved with it, and as such, that analogy is entirely accurate.
No, that analogy is completely ****ing bogus. You know why? You need to have sex to get pregnant, you can get cancer without any exposure to carcinogens. Don't smoke? You can still get lung cancer. Don't have sex? You're not getting pregnant, barring divine intervention. And you know what? When someone throws an argument that stupid at you, I can understand why you'd be arguing in bad form and bad faith.
Except when and if you have sex are not always controllable, nor is the getting pregnant from it (as Scotty said). Similarly, when and if you are exposed to carcinogens is in many ways uncontrollable, as is the getting cancer from it. Biologically, the two are remarkably similar in this. Having sex is usually necessary to getting pregnant (wave hello to IVF, however); carcinogen exposure is usually required to actually develop cancer (cancers that develop without carcinogen exposure are limited mainly to cases of predisposition; if you'd like to talk more about cancer generally, start a new thread; genetics was the subject of one of my degrees and is a personal passion I'm happy to discuss, just not here).
Regardless, KyadCK claimed that pregnancy "plays no role in your health as a human being" (his exact words), and by the very same logic he presented I assert that cancer then plays no role in your health as a human being. Obviously, I disagree on both counts. Biologically, the comparison is quite sound in this thread's context. The analogy is neither "****ing bogus" nor "stupid," as any 2nd year molecular biology student could easily demonstrate for you.
-
I... you know what? Fine. This is obviously just one of those 'arguments' where you're just out to prove to yourself that you're right. I could keep picking holes in your analogy, but... we both know that was never the point of it in the first place.
-
I... you know what? Fine. This is obviously just one of those 'arguments' where you're just out to prove to yourself that you're right. I could keep picking holes in your analogy, but... we both know that was never the point of it in the first place.
Obviously the analogy isn't perfect (no analogy is). Cancer is, however, about as close as you can get to an analogue of pregnancy. You are correct that the analogy was never the point of the discussion, though; it's purpose was solely to demonstrate the ridiculousness of the notion that contraceptives and pregnancy play "no role in your health as a human being," on which it would seem you and I agree.
-
[modhat]This is a terrible thread. Both sides are trying to win without actually acknowledging the weaknesses of their arguments. That said, one side is pretty clearly worse than the other in this regard.
Kyad: If you want to be taken seriously, respond to MP's points, don't just keep repeating your assertions.
MP, NGTM-1R: If Kyad's refusing to debate on your terms, then tell him what you think of his arguments then be the bigger men and walk away. Don't keep ratcheting things up until they explode and we have to come in and start moderating people.
Some self restraint people?
-
I continue to be amazed at the volume of posts HLP can generate in a short amount of time.
Let me try to respond to some of the points on page 1...
Versus you apparently feel an employer is free to choose whatever medical benefits they want to provide to their employees based solely on the employers religious convictions. Can't wait until some Jehova's Witnesses decide not to insure all procedures related to blood transfusions for their employees - I'm curious what your tune will be then.
The same as it is now. They shouldn't be forced to violate their religious principles. If I want my insurance to cover blood transfusions, I'll simply look for another employer.
Regardless of whether a corporation itself has the right to freedom of religious belief, its employers and owners most certainly do. And its employers and owners are the ones who would be forced to implement this unjust regulation.
No, they wouldn't. The owner may own the corporation, but the corporation is the entity to which the law applies. If the owner doesn't like that their corporation has to comply with certain laws, they are free to unincorporate themselves and take all the business risks as individuals with sole proprietorships, in which case they may argue that such benefits violate their rights (and I agree with them then).
Business owners cannot have it both ways - you cannot have all the protections of incorporating a business to legally protect yourself, and then try to say that laws shouldn't apply to your corporation because of your individual rights. The whole purpose of incorporation is to legally dissociate the person from the business.
Just because a corporation is a legal entity separate from its owners and officers does not mean that it is wholly disassociated from them. Restrictions and requirements on a corporation imply that the people who belong to that corporation are going to have to modify their behavior in some manner. For example, if the corporation has to follow ITAR regulations against selling satellite technology to China, then a salesman can't claim immunity from prosecution on the grounds that the law applies to the corporation and not to him. Or, to use a more timely example, if a corporation commits financial fraud, then that opens the owners up to criminal prosecution. The owners are not immune simply because the corporation pays a fine.
If you agree that certain penalties must apply to owners if a corporation violates the law, then you must also agree that the legal rights of owners bubble up to establish boundaries on what a corporation can be required to do.
That article is long on the rhetoric and short on the facts. It blasts evangelicals for hypocrisy (and to be fair, there is a lot of hypocrisy in the Church nowadays) but it completely omits the reason for the change.
No, actually he doesn't. He elaborates on the reason at length. (So that the Protestant side of the religious right could stir up support against Obamacare, because they have pacted with the Republican Party and signed it in blood. Yes, the imagery is intentional, and appropriate.)
Perhaps I should have said it another way. He cites Merritt's reason for evangelical behavior, elaborates on it at length, and attacks that. But nowhere does he mention the reason claimed by evangelicals themselves.
The reason is simply that many people who don't have a problem with condoms or the pill do have a problem with the morning-after pill. The classical pill inhibits ovulation so that there is never an egg to fertilize. The morning-after pills disrupt the pregnancy (usually by inhibiting implantation) after fertilization has taken place. That constitutes abortion. Naturally, those who have a problem with abortion would have a problem with those medications.
Your statement would make sense if that was the stance being taken by Hobby Lobby, and by extension you. It is not. Hobby Lobby doesn't want to pay for the pill either and has taken the stance it's abortion in open court.
I'm making a distinction between "the pill", i.e. the one that inhibits ovulation, and the morning-after or week-after pills. From everything I've read, Hobby Lobby makes the same distinction. See here (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865582352/Court-gives-Hobby-Lobby-reprieve-from-fines-for-not-complying-with-contraception-mandate.html) for example:
The company does provide preventive contraceptives through its insurance plan, but claims the “morning-after” and “week-after” pills also required under the mandate are tantamount to abortion and violate their religious belief that life begins at conception.
If you're saying that Hobby Lobby is claiming, "in open court", that the classical pill is abortion, then I'm going to need to see your source.
It's also wrong. An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. It thus requires a pregnancy to be an abortion. By no stretch of logic is it possible to claim that pregnancy begins until implantation, because asserting otherwise requires some kind of medical magic on the part of the female body equivalent to Todd Akin's legitimate rape.
And, well... Life and hence pregnancy begins at conception is an inherently Catholic argument, though at least more medically sound than the one you're attempting to make.
I'm wondering by what stretch of logic you thought that I claimed pregnancy begins at implantation. I'm operating on the "life and hence pregnancy begins at conception" premise, which is shared by many evangelicals as well as Catholics. The "morning-after" pill operates by inhibiting implantation after the egg has been fertilized. Since the egg cannot be implanted, the pregnancy -- which exists at this point -- is disrupted. By the same token, if the mother uses the "week-after" pill, the pregnancy is disrupted even if the egg has already implanted.
-
So... you'd be OK with, say, Quakers refusing to pay the portion of their taxes that goes towards military expenditure?
-
The same as it is now. They shouldn't be forced to violate their religious principles. If I want my insurance to cover blood transfusions, I'll simply look for another employer.
Well, at least you're consistent, though I still think it's wrong and economically bad policy. Did you happen to look at the link and follow-up I showed to KyadCK? I'm curious if the terrible economics of that positions have any impact on what you think.
Just because a corporation is a legal entity separate from its owners and officers does not mean that it is wholly disassociated from them. Restrictions and requirements on a corporation imply that the people who belong to that corporation are going to have to modify their behavior in some manner. For example, if the corporation has to follow ITAR regulations against selling satellite technology to China, then a salesman can't claim immunity from prosecution on the grounds that the law applies to the corporation and not to him. Or, to use a more timely example, if a corporation commits financial fraud, then that opens the owners up to criminal prosecution. The owners are not immune simply because the corporation pays a fine.
Actually, a corporation is wholly dissociated from its owners and officers for most matters. You have a bit of a fundamental misunderstanding which you show in your example. Common Law-derived rights (those spelled out in the US Constitution) apply [mostly] to persons. Laws apply equally to persons and corporations. Incorporation legally differentiates an owner person from an organization - if an owner breaks a non-criminal law in their direction of their company, the company is liable. If an officer or employee breaks a non-criminal law in the course of their employment, the company is liable. On criminal matters, it differs (sometimes by statute). Typically, criminal law allows the 'directing mind' of the criminal activity to be charged. If the 'directing mind' is not substantially different from the company, the owner/director can be charged personally and so can the company. If the 'directing mind' is rogue from the company, then they can be held solely liable.
Criminal law and rights work differently, but the purpose of incorporation is to separate an owner from their company financially, and does so effectively, providing numerous tax and liability benefits. The tradeoff is that the owner's rights and the company's rights are now separate matters. Thus, while an owner may have religious rights in accordance with the US Constitution, the corporation should not. If the owner is a sole proprietor, then I absolutely agree they should not be forced to pay for benefits for their employees that they object to on religious grounds because it would amount to them personally paying for them. Conversely, if they incorporate to gain tax and liability benefits, then they are no longer paying personally, a non-human corporation is, and a corporation does not have religious rights.
Normally I'd have some confidence that the SCOTUS would side with me on this matter, but they went into uncharted territory with Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010 and now I really don't know which way they'll go. Constitutionally, they should go with what I've said, but Citizens United was a reversal of that doctrine and an expansion of corporate rights that really is unprecedented.
If you agree that certain penalties must apply to owners if a corporation violates the law, then you must also agree that the legal rights of owners bubble up to establish boundaries on what a corporation can be required to do.
No, I musn't because criminal charging definitions are defined by individual statute and are unrelated to the financial/property liability restrictions that incorporation provides. Incorporation is a civil matter of property law; what you're talking about is technically criminal law, where civil property protections carry essentially no weight. An owner cannot be held civilly-liable for the actions of a corporation because they are two distinct financial entities. Similarly, owners should not be able to claim their religious rights that free them from certain financial obligations apply to their corporations because they are two distinct financial entities. Criminal law, which you're using in your example, is irrelevant to this context.
-
So... you'd be OK with, say, Quakers refusing to pay the portion of their taxes that goes towards military expenditure?
So obviously this.
Hey I know, I'm gonna fund a new religion. In my religion it is a sin that the government does anything at all. Therefore I have to pay zero for that ****. According to this kind of thinking, I should start paying zero IRS from now on, FOR SURE.
-
So am I the only one seeing a bigger picture here? If these corporations are allowed to do this for contraception on religious grounds based on their religion how long before other corporations start stating that they are established under religions that not only could limit other health care areas but who they hire. If their religion says that women belong in the home and are property not people does that give them the right not to hire them based on the established religion of the corporate entity? If their religion says that only race X is the true race and all others are inferior then do they have the right to deny hiring everyone that isn't a member of race X? If the established religion of the corporation is one that believes that homosexuality is wrong can they refuse to hire gays/lesbians? Back to health care if their religion believes that doctors and medicine are not needed and that all healing is done through the power of prayer or mediation can they deny health insurance entirely based on religious grounds?
-
So am I the only one seeing a bigger picture here? If these corporations are allowed to do this for contraception on religious grounds based on their religion how long before other corporations start stating that they are established under religions that not only could limit other health care areas but who they hire. If their religion says that women belong in the home and are property not people does that give them the right not to hire them based on the established religion of the corporate entity? If their religion says that only race X is the true race and all others are inferior then do they have the right to deny hiring everyone that isn't a member of race X? If the established religion of the corporation is one that believes that homosexuality is wrong can they refuse to hire gays/lesbians? Back to health care if their religion believes that doctors and medicine are not needed and that all healing is done through the power of prayer or mediation can they deny health insurance entirely based on religious grounds?
No, you aren't the only one, I just tend to avoid slippery-slope arguments. I agree with you that precedent in this area can have some pretty awful consequences if the courts don't inject some sense into the issue, though.
The argument against what you're suggesting is that refusing to pay for certain health care is not a Constitutional violation (as there is no "right to healthcare" enshrined in the Constitution of the US). Conversely, discriminatory business practices would violate the rights of those individuals, and the courts have ruled in the past that one Constitutional right does not automatically trump others - e.g. freedom of religion cannot trump freedom from discrimination.
At any rate, I think most of us around here agree that this is very bad judicial precedent.
-
So... you'd be OK with, say, Quakers refusing to pay the portion of their taxes that goes towards military expenditure?
I think that's a reasonable position. And a quick Google search reveals that there has been plenty of history of litigating that very point.
Well, at least you're consistent, though I still think it's wrong and economically bad policy. Did you happen to look at the link and follow-up I showed to KyadCK? I'm curious if the terrible economics of that positions have any impact on what you think.
I glanced at it, but the economics of the US healthcare system is an entirely separate discussion, and one that only tangentially affects this one. The question in this case concerns Hobby Lobby's right to refuse to fund certain insurance plans, not whether it makes economic sense for them to do so. Indeed, using the Jehovah's Witness example, I imagine that their policy would cause both their potential employee base and their potential customer base to shrink by a not-insignificant amount.
This is the sort of dilemma that inevitably arises when people treat religion seriously, when they have to wrestle with the deeper implications rather than the superficial aspects of browsing through a catalog. Jesus called it "counting the cost". The owners of Hobby Lobby believe so strongly that funding these medications is morally wrong that they are willing to incur significant legal, financial, and political risk to defend their case.
The really interesting things would happen if Hobby Lobby ends up losing. I would speculate that Hobby Lobby is prepared to implement dramatic changes to their benefits package or go bankrupt rather than continue under the present regulations. I hope we don't have to find out.
Actually, a corporation is wholly dissociated from its owners and officers for most matters. You have a bit of a fundamental misunderstanding which you show in your example. Common Law-derived rights (those spelled out in the US Constitution) apply [mostly] to persons. Laws apply equally to persons and corporations. Incorporation legally differentiates an owner person from an organization - if an owner breaks a non-criminal law in their direction of their company, the company is liable. If an officer or employee breaks a non-criminal law in the course of their employment, the company is liable. On criminal matters, it differs (sometimes by statute). Typically, criminal law allows the 'directing mind' of the criminal activity to be charged. If the 'directing mind' is not substantially different from the company, the owner/director can be charged personally and so can the company. If the 'directing mind' is rogue from the company, then they can be held solely liable.
Criminal law and rights work differently, but the purpose of incorporation is to separate an owner from their company financially, and does so effectively, providing numerous tax and liability benefits. The tradeoff is that the owner's rights and the company's rights are now separate matters. Thus, while an owner may have religious rights in accordance with the US Constitution, the corporation should not. If the owner is a sole proprietor, then I absolutely agree they should not be forced to pay for benefits for their employees that they object to on religious grounds because it would amount to them personally paying for them. Conversely, if they incorporate to gain tax and liability benefits, then they are no longer paying personally, a non-human corporation is, and a corporation does not have religious rights.
I'm not familiar with the finer points of incorporation, nor do I really care to learn them, but I'm arguing from a "this ought to be the case" perspective rather than "this is what the law says" perspective. The corporation itself is morally neutral, but the "directing mind" is a moral actor. And all I'm really saying is that the corporation should not be regulated in such a way that it infringes on the rights of the directing mind. To use a silly example, the owner of a corporation does not lose his right to vote if the corporation is less than 18 years old.
Incorporation is a civil matter of property law; what you're talking about is technically criminal law, where civil property protections carry essentially no weight. An owner cannot be held civilly-liable for the actions of a corporation because they are two distinct financial entities. Similarly, owners should not be able to claim their religious rights that free them from certain financial obligations apply to their corporations because they are two distinct financial entities. Criminal law, which you're using in your example, is irrelevant to this context.
I understand the difference between civil and criminal law and why incorporation is a matter of civil law. But I think you're misapplying that to the owner's legal rights because you're essentially saying that civil law trumps a person's religious rights. You say above that in a sole proprietorship, the owner should not be forced to pay for benefits they object to on religious grounds, which is great -- we agree halfway at least. But I'm saying that the owner does not -- or should not -- lose his religious rights just because he's the owner of a corporation, not a sole proprietorship. Religious rights are not a matter of civil law.
Suppose a Muslim owned a shop, and his sales policy was that every customer who bought something from the store had to say a prayer to Allah. I would argue that if he tried to sue a customer for not saying that prayer, his sales policy would not hold up in court because a person's religious rights are not waived simply because the customer decides to participate in a civil contract.
-
But I'm saying that the owner does not -- or should not -- lose his religious rights just because he's the owner of a corporation, not a sole proprietorship. Religious rights are not a matter of civil law.
I picked this line to quote because I think it sums up your entire argument and because it's legally misunderstood.
The point is, the owner individual is not required to follow the ACA and executive policy directives that accord with it. The corporation is. The owner still has free ability to exert his religious rights. The corporation, which is an entirely separate financial entity, does not have religious rights. Just as the owner cannot be held liable for the finances of the corporation, the corporation cannot claim its finances are those of the owner for the purpose of exerting a religious rights argument. They are two entirely separate legal entities - Constitutionally, civilly, and even criminally (though criminally they may be treated in the same manner based on statute).
Incorporation is a legal dissociation of financial liability of person and corporation. Once that step has been taken, the owner can no longer claim it is a violation of his religious rights to provide for certain health care of employees, because s/he is no longer providing them - the corporation is the entity providing them, and corporations are not historically protected by freedom of religion because they are not people. The reason that a sole proprietorship owner can exercise religious rights is because the owner is the sole legal entity, and they cannot be forced to pay for something they disagree with on religious grounds. Incidentally, that sole proprietorship scenario is what the 10th Circuit appears to have contemplated in their kosher butchering example.
Reversing my earlier comment, having thought about it some more I don't think Citizens United actually sets precedent for this issue, either - that case was not about corporations but rather individuals working cooperatively. There wasn't the legal liability of corporations thrown into the mix. With that in mind, I'm not aware of any previous precedent in the US of religious exemptions being applied to corporations, so I have a fair bit more confidence this Hobby Lobby case will be quashed in short order.
-
The freedom to enforce one's religious hooey on rational adults is a freedom we don't really need.
-
I don't support Hobby Lobby for this and having the most terrible and ****ty collection of art supplies. Their brushes suck, their gesso cheap second rate gruel and their staff has as much inspiration as two wal-mart greeters duct taped together and displayed like a Christmas ornament.
-
The point is, the owner individual is not required to follow the ACA and executive policy directives that accord with it. The corporation is. The owner still has free ability to exert his religious rights. The corporation, which is an entirely separate financial entity, does not have religious rights. Just as the owner cannot be held liable for the finances of the corporation, the corporation cannot claim its finances are those of the owner for the purpose of exerting a religious rights argument.
Hmm. This is a pretty strong argument.
The way I see it though, even though the corporation and the owners are two separate legal entities, the corporation can't actually do anything of its own accord. Even though the finances of the owner and the corporation are legally separate, the owner still provides those finances. And the owner is the one that has to make all the contracts and arrangements with the insurance companies, etc. So he is acting as the "hands and feet" of the corporation, in carrying out its operations. And in the Nuremberg trials, officers were still held to have moral responsibility even if they were following orders from a superior.
The freedom to enforce one's religious hooey on rational adults is a freedom we don't really need.
You're being completely dishonest here. Hobby Lobby isn't forcing anything on anyone. Employees can purchase their own insurance while remaining employed by Hobby Lobby. They can seek employment elsewhere. They can choose to purchase their hobby supplies elsewhere.
and having the most terrible and ****ty collection of art supplies. Their brushes suck, their gesso cheap second rate gruel and their staff has as much inspiration as two wal-mart greeters duct taped together and displayed like a Christmas ornament.
How is this at all relevant to the thread? This is purely ad-hominem.
-
You're being completely dishonest here. Hobby Lobby isn't forcing anything on anyone. Employees can purchase their own insurance while remaining employed by Hobby Lobby. They can seek employment elsewhere. They can choose to purchase their hobby supplies elsewhere.
This is not completely true. If these guys are able to not pay what they otherwise would due to "religious disagreements", then they will have an economic advantage over their competition, which in case will drive all the other companies to do likewise. Even if their CEOs are bhuddists or atheists or satanists or whatever, you would see how quickly they would convert to christianity if that meant they would save their company millions of dollars a week.
Although I agree with the general idea that completely socialized medicine would be way way way way way better, however this is the least bad thing the states have come up with, let's not destroy it with utter shenanigans that will make people look to religion as, again, a force against the common people.
-
Pretty sure that this does not constitute millions in savings. Let us not get caught up in hyperbole here.
-
Pretty sure that this does not constitute millions in savings. Let us not get caught up in hyperbole here.
Hobby lobby has (according to wikipedia, so not the strongest source) 21,000 employees. Assuming half of them are female and say, two thirds are on the pill, which goes for, for the purposes of argument $15 / month - that would be $105,000 per month on the pill alone.
-
The point is, the owner individual is not required to follow the ACA and executive policy directives that accord with it. The corporation is. The owner still has free ability to exert his religious rights. The corporation, which is an entirely separate financial entity, does not have religious rights. Just as the owner cannot be held liable for the finances of the corporation, the corporation cannot claim its finances are those of the owner for the purpose of exerting a religious rights argument.
Hmm. This is a pretty strong argument.
The way I see it though, even though the corporation and the owners are two separate legal entities, the corporation can't actually do anything of its own accord. Even though the finances of the owner and the corporation are legally separate, the owner still provides those finances. And the owner is the one that has to make all the contracts and arrangements with the insurance companies, etc. So he is acting as the "hands and feet" of the corporation, in carrying out its operations. And in the Nuremberg trials, officers were still held to have moral responsibility even if they were following orders from a superior.
That isn't true, either. In most corporations, owners have virtually no responsibility for day-to-day operations. The owner doesn't provide corporate finances either - typically, owners are paid by the corporation, be it in the form of salary, dividends, royalties, stock options, etc - after a corporation is established, an owner may then invest in his corporation, but the corporation may not use the owners' funds without a business arrangement such as an investment agreement in place.
In point of fact, corporations do things of their own accord all the time, under the direction of the various staff it employs, from directors/CEO/etc down to the lowliest janitor. The owner doesn't sign for contracts either; the corporation is the legal entity that is responsible for the contracts because it is financially separate.
Say MP-Ryan establishes General Discussion Sense Enterprises Ltd. As soon as that act of incorporation is completed, there are now two legal entities. There is MP-Ryan, and there is GDSE Ltd. Each has their own finances. MP-Ryan takes a salary of $100,000/year and maintains ownership of 100% of the corporation. If GDSE Ltd makes $5 million this year, the remaining $4.9 million in revenue belongs to GDSE Ltd. MP-Ryan has no claim to it except if he sells his stake in ownership or a portion thereof. MP-Ryan does nto even have a right to dictate how the corporation uses that money unless he is a director or officer of the corporation in addition to being its owner.
Corporations are legal entities entirely independent of their owners, and they cannot shirk their legal obligations by trying to hide under the guise of the rights afforded to their owners.
-
Feel the Puritan's dead hand as it throttles all life
Anyway, as far as the "abortifaceant" "debate" goes (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/health/research/morning-after-pills-dont-block-implantation-science-suggests.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0):
The F.D.A. declined to discuss decisions about the effect on implantation or to say whether it would consider revising labels. But Erica Jefferson, an F.D.A. spokeswoman, acknowledged: “The emerging data on Plan B suggest that it does not inhibit implantation. Less is known about Ella. However, some data suggest it also does not inhibit implantation.”
e: Oh, and that conservative "principled" and "religious" opposition to Obamacare (http://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/Abstract/2012/12000/Preventing_Unintended_Pregnancies_by_Providing.7.aspx)?
RESULTS: We observed a significant reduction in the percentage of abortions that were repeat abortions in the St. Louis region compared with Kansas City and nonmetropolitan Missouri (P<.001). Abortion rates in the CHOICE cohort were less than half the regional and national rates (P<.001). The rate of teenage birth within the CHOICE cohort was 6.3 per 1,000, compared with the U.S. rate of 34.3 per 1,000.
Turns out that if they were actually interested in reducing the number of abortions performed, they'd be all for free contraception.
-
Pretty sure that this does not constitute millions in savings. Let us not get caught up in hyperbole here.
Hobby lobby has (according to wikipedia, so not the strongest source) 21,000 employees. Assuming half of them are female and say, two thirds are on the pill, which goes for, for the purposes of argument $15 / month - that would be $105,000 per month on the pill alone.
I doubt that two-thirds of Hobby Lobby's female employees are on the "morning-after" or "week-after" pills, which are the ones under consideration here.
Corporations are legal entities entirely independent of their owners, and they cannot shirk their legal obligations by trying to hide under the guise of the rights afforded to their owners.
This isn't somebody "shirking their obligations", though, this is somebody trying to avoid being compelled to act contrary to their moral principles.
It's evident that this argument boils down to whether corporations have First Amendment rights, either on their own or by virtue of the fact that their owners do. I'll have to re-examine my premise.
Feel the Puritan's dead hand as it throttles all life
wat
Anyway, as far as the "abortifaceant" "debate" goes (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/health/research/morning-after-pills-dont-block-implantation-science-suggests.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0):
The F.D.A. declined to discuss decisions about the effect on implantation or to say whether it would consider revising labels. But Erica Jefferson, an F.D.A. spokeswoman, acknowledged: “The emerging data on Plan B suggest that it does not inhibit implantation. Less is known about Ella. However, some data suggest it also does not inhibit implantation.”
The FDA's own website (http://www.fda.gov/drugs/drugsafety/postmarketdrugsafetyinformationforpatientsandproviders/ucm109795.htm) disagrees with her:
Plan B acts primarily by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary (ovulation). It may prevent the union of sperm and egg (fertilization). If fertilization does occur, Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb (implantation).
e: Oh, and that conservative "principled" and "religious" opposition to Obamacare (http://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/Abstract/2012/12000/Preventing_Unintended_Pregnancies_by_Providing.7.aspx)?
RESULTS: We observed a significant reduction in the percentage of abortions that were repeat abortions in the St. Louis region compared with Kansas City and nonmetropolitan Missouri (P<.001). Abortion rates in the CHOICE cohort were less than half the regional and national rates (P<.001). The rate of teenage birth within the CHOICE cohort was 6.3 per 1,000, compared with the U.S. rate of 34.3 per 1,000.
Turns out that if they were actually interested in reducing the number of abortions performed, they'd be all for free contraception.
Your argument is utterly incoherent. First of all, this study looked at long-acting reversible contraceptive methods, not short-acting on-demand medication, so it's inapplicable here. Second, you're using a "the ends justify the means" argument, whereas this discussion is entirely about the morality of the act itself, not its secondary consequences. Third, the opposition to this medication is based on the premise that its mechanism is tantamount to abortion, so your statement simplifies to the nonsensical "if they were actually interested in reducing abortion, they would be in favor of medication that causes abortion".
-
If increased abortion via said contraceptives reduced the overall abortion rate, would it not be a net moral gain as far as abortion is concerned from your POV?
-
do you really expect conservatives to be utilitarian
-
If increased abortion via said contraceptives reduced the overall abortion rate, would it not be a net moral gain as far as abortion is concerned from your POV?
If that's your mode of argument then you'll have to provide data that this is true. Somehow I very much doubt it.
Moral arguments such as this are likely to not move the discussion forward. By sticking to the legal issues I think MP-Ryan and Goober have been providing the strongest debate points so far.
-
Your argument is utterly incoherent. First of all, this study looked at long-acting reversible contraceptive methods, not short-acting on-demand medication, so it's inapplicable here. Second, you're using a "the ends justify the means" argument, whereas this discussion is entirely about the morality of the act itself, not its secondary consequences. Third, the opposition to this medication is based on the premise that its mechanism is tantamount to abortion, so your statement simplifies to the nonsensical "if they were actually interested in reducing abortion, they would be in favor of medication that causes abortion".
No. It doesn't. Because one of the things Hobby Lobby doesn't want to cover is "certain IUDs". Which as it happens are a long-acting reversible contraceptive method that primarily operate by preventing fertilization. They can also be used as an emergency contraceptive, but they're not exactly ideal; pills are slightly less involved than the insertion of an IUD (http://becauseiamawoman.tumblr.com/post/22321727674/iudinseration).
I have to admit being harsher than was warranted; Hobby Lobby has provided some contraceptive in the past and their suit states they will continue to do so. I've not been able to locate specifics on what they have and would like to continue covering, but oh well.
However. It doesn't matter if Hobby Lobby provides some contraceptive coverage. They're going after the law, and if they succeed then other businesses will be free to prohibit contraception altogether. Which would increase the abortion rate. Which would be contrary to the goal of saving zygotes and foeti.
Incidentally, something like a quarter (http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/jun99/wilcox2.htm) of zygotes fail to implant all on their own. If a zygote is a person, you'd think the anti-abortion movement would be pouring money into researching methods to reduce the rate at which innocent zygotes are killed by their mothers' bodies. Strangely, this doesn't seem to be something they've done.
-
No. It doesn't. Because one of the things Hobby Lobby doesn't want to cover is "certain IUDs". Which as it happens are a long-acting reversible contraceptive method that primarily operate by preventing fertilization. They can also be used as an emergency contraceptive, but they're not exactly ideal; pills are slightly less involved than the insertion of an IUD (http://becauseiamawoman.tumblr.com/post/22321727674/iudinseration).
I think I found the source (http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/hobbylobby.asp) of your claim:
The lawsuit says the family also has "a sincere religious objection" to providing coverage for certain kinds of intrauterine devices and alleges they can cause the death of an embryo by preventing it from implanting in the wall of a woman's uterus.
So that diminishes, but does not refute, point one of my earlier paragraph. The lawsuit is primarily concerned with coverage of the morning-after and week-after pill, and on those primary points the study is still inapplicable. In any case, Hobby Lobby is concerned that those "certain kinds of IUDs" could prevent implantation, which is consistent with their overall position against abortion, not contraception per se, as you eventually realized:
I have to admit being harsher than was warranted; Hobby Lobby has provided some contraceptive in the past and their suit states they will continue to do so. I've not been able to locate specifics on what they have and would like to continue covering, but oh well.
Even so, this shouldn't distract from the central point of the lawsuit, which is a moral one, not a utilitarian one. Hobby Lobby is morally opposed to covering abortion. However, certain other businesses (likely Catholic-run ones) may be morally opposed to covering contraception, as you again agreed:
However. It doesn't matter if Hobby Lobby provides some contraceptive coverage. They're going after the law, and if they succeed then other businesses will be free to prohibit contraception altogether. Which would increase the abortion rate. Which would be contrary to the goal of saving zygotes and foeti.
The problem is that "the goal of saving zygotes and foeti" isn't a simple question of minimizing or maximizing a mathematical function. It's a moral dilemma. It's the same thing they ask you in philosophy class whether you want to flip the train switch so that one person dies, or leave the switch as-is and let 10 people die.
Incidentally, something like a quarter (http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/jun99/wilcox2.htm) of zygotes fail to implant all on their own. If a zygote is a person, you'd think the anti-abortion movement would be pouring money into researching methods to reduce the rate at which innocent zygotes are killed by their mothers' bodies. Strangely, this doesn't seem to be something they've done.
It's not strange at all. For natural implantation failures, as well as natural miscarriages, they are content to let the reproductive process run its course according to the mechanism God designed. What they are against is willful termination of a pregnancy. The willful nature of the act causes it to become the moral responsibility of the actor.
-
This isn't somebody "shirking their obligations", though, this is somebody trying to avoid being compelled to act contrary to their moral principles.
It's evident that this argument boils down to whether corporations have First Amendment rights, either on their own or by virtue of the fact that their owners do. I'll have to re-examine my premise.
A full read of Citizens United might be a good place to start.
On a related tangent, Ken over at PopeHat published a blog piece today that somewhat relates to the broader debate in this Hobby Lobby litigation: http://www.popehat.com/2013/07/09/a-few-questions-about-the-socially-acceptable-range-of-discrimination/
So if Hobby Lobby's owners religiously disagreed with same-sex marriage, should they be able to refuse to hire same-sex couples? What about treat AIDS? (Which many groups believe is a disease predominantly confined to gay sex). The recent SCOTUS rulings on DOMA and Prop 8 suggest that no, they cannot legally discriminate there either, so why should they be able to discriminate against so women's health requirements?