[mxlm]

Feel the Puritan's dead hand as it throttles all life

Anyway, as far as the "abortifaceant" "debate" goes:

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?

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.

[Goober5000]

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:

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 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?

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".

[redsniper]

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?

[Phantom Hoover]

do you really expect conservatives to be utilitarian

[watsisname]

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.

[mxlm]

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.

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 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.

[Goober5000]

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.

I think I found the source 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 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.

[MP-Ryan]

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?