General News US Employers win birth control case

i've been lurking this thread now and i still can't figure out the future backlash or how bad it could be in the future /i suck at debate

 

Ah right, that's about the same here if you get them from the chemist without a prescription. It just confused me when someone said they were "very expensive" - I was thinking something absolutely unaffordable. Don't get me wrong it sucks that people can't get them for free if it helps them but $120 a year doesn't seem that extreme? Hell, many people spend more on supplements (for example protein) they believe help their health and improve their wellbeing.

Back on topic. I think contraceptives are always going to be a tricky area. I think the big issue is that some contraceptives (emergency contraceptives like the "morning after pill") can act after the egg is fertilized which some may consider an abortion. Am I right that Hobby Lobby are only refusing to fund a small handful of contraceptives such as the morning after pill? If that is the case, I think as long as they offer to fund some contraceptives, it really is up to the individual if they want to purchase other forms of contraception. I see myself as largely pro-choice but do not believe a company should necessarily be forced to fund a drug which may "potentially" can be seen by some as an abortifacient. I do understand there is a big debate whether a fertilized egg counts as pregnancy, but I think with it being such a sensitive area perhaps a little discretion is for the best?

 

The big debate is whether any for-profit corporation, as opposed to a natural person, can have sincerely held beliefs and thus affect someone's health choices. Sounds like religious oppression to me, no matter how narrowly defined.

 

Well the recent Starbucks thread seemed to indicate that plenty believe big corporations can hold sincere beliefs. Corporations do carry a public image, for better or worse.

On the health choices, again it was my understanding that Hobby Lobby did agree to provide certain contraceptives but not others. The types of contraceptives they appear to be against (emergency contraceptives like Plan B) aren't necessarily what I would deem "required" healthcare - they have no off label or therapeutic use like more long term contraceptives could be argued to have.

I really don't see it as affecting their health choices. If an employee is unhappy with the range of contraceptives their company will fund there is nothing stopping them purchasing their own.

I'll give a real world example. My employer offers to pay for eye tests (which they are required to by law), but they will only provide a voucher at the value of the cheapest eye test from optical practitioners in the area. Now I'm welcome to go and choose my own optical practitioner and cover the additional costs myself (which I do), that is my decision.

Whilst I'm largely pro-choice (in that I believe contraceptives and abortion should be accessible to those who want them) it is important to remember that not all who believe in pro-life are hardcore Christians. Many athiests are uncomfortable with abortion and contraceptives. I won't lie, even as a non-religious person I am slightly uncomfortable with emergency contraceptives (like the morning after pill) being used as a first-line defence against pregnancy (sometimes because it "beats using a condom" or is "easier than going on the pill"). Particularly, when there are so many other contraceptives available that can prevent fertilization occurring in the first place. However thats just my opinion and people have every right to choose what is best for them.

 

I also do not agree with using abortion or anything like abortion as birth control, especially since there are, as you say, perfectly acceptable and effective birth-control methods...but this is not the issue. How does a "Superior" court come up with the idea that a corporation, not actual persons, but what is basically a legal fiction have "sincerely held beliefs"? What if the owners of Hobby Lobby go public, or sell their company to someone who doesn't hold these beliefs, what happens to the employees?

 

This company has now been given the ability to have "religious freedom" and make decisions about what their company does and does not do based on their religion.

Now let's say that a Jewish company owner, who is against eating any pig products, owns a small company. They are morally opposed to the consumption of any medication that is covered in a gelatin made from pig. They want to stop providing coverage for these medications. If Hobby Lobby can stop, why can't they?

Now let's say a Christian business owner does not want to hire any gays because they don't agree with gays. Or they are willing to hire them, but don't want to have to provide their spouse with any spousal benefits provided to other employees spouses. Is this okay? It's a sincerely held religious belief.

How about this one: Rastafarians believe that blacks are the chosen people and are superior to whites. Can they refuse to hire white people? Can they pay them less because they are inferior? Again, a sincerely held religious belief.

Here's another: Some religions believe that the only way to heal is through prayer. They don't believe in seeing modern doctors or taking medication. When they want to prevent access to all medical treatment, can they do that?

Can you see now where it's a slippery slope?

 

preaching to the choir here friend.

 

You might be the choir, but someone asked where it could lead to future problems. So I was explaining for them.

 

I am sorry that I am really bad when it comes to logics and arguments on politics and social issues. T_T

thanks for the replies

that prayer instead of medicine though, i hope it doesn't go there.

 

So it a Jehovah Witness owns a company should they be able to deny their employees coverage for blood transfusions because it goes against their religion?

Because this is the same sort of deal.

 

EXACTLY! This is the concern is that now it could be used to argue that.

 

This is probably the best explanation I've seen so far. It definitely has put things in perspective for me.

 

oh I know...I'd just added my silly 2 cents

 

Here is some of the reaction from the healthcare community:

Doctors, nurses urge action following Hobby Lobby decision | Modern Healthcare

To a man or woman, all the republicans are uttering the same idiotic, mendacious message: "a victory for religious freedom"...what bullshit! It's a victory for the freedom of religion to oppress, nothing less.

 

If one doesn't like the policy, why even work there? If they have no work force, they can't make money. I may have a simplistic view of this, but if they can't find employees to embrace the policies set forth, they cannot remain open to conduct business. Problem solved.