Hobby Lobby

[PreachersWife2004]

Yes, "deny access" was the wrong wording. But you get my gist, right?

It's the wrong wording for sure - but it's what A LOT of people are using as their argument, unfortunately. I had a conversation with someone who thought that Hobby Lobby wouldn't LET their employees use birth control at all, all because all of the misinformation over what HL is actually asking for.

So let me ask you this: Is it the fact that they don't want to pay for it or the reasons why they don't want to pay for it that you don't like?

IOW, would you have a problem with a company like mine who pays for eye insurance but not contact lenses?

 

[Resha Caner]

It is what you said, in that you object to the provision of birth control because you consider it immoral even though it is used in relation to things that I doubt you consider immoral.

Yes, but while I have no problem with a couple who wants to address fertility issues, neither do I think they have a right to demand their employer help them in that venture.

But you are pushing to deny people access to certain things that will address their health issues, so no, you don't "want" to do it.

I think it was covered that "deny access" is not the right phrase.

I'm not talking about a hot meal and a nurse to give out band-aids. I'm talking about fully functional and specialized hospitals that deal with a broad spectrum of health, medical, and emergency issues for any and all who require it. Does your ministry provide chemotherapy for people with cancer? Does it provide ongoing care and medication for people with HIV? Does it perform life-saving surgery on people injured in a car accident and near death? Does it perform ultrasounds on pregnant women to assess the health of the fetus? Does it provide prescriptions? Can a person get an MRI at your church? Does your ministry provide ongoing palliative care?

Yep. Are you not aware of the many church-supported hospitals?

Oh, and you left out providing shelter for the homeless, protection for single mothers fleeing abusive boyfriends, ...

[edit] I should note an exception about the ultrasounds. Ultrasounds are only necessary if it leads to treatment. If it is only to help a decision about ending life, then no, that would not be provided.

 

[Skaloop]

It's the wrong wording for sure - but it's what A LOT of people are using as their argument, unfortunately. I had a conversation with someone who thought that Hobby Lobby wouldn't LET their employees use birth control at all, all because all of the misinformation over what HL is actually asking for.

So let me ask you this: Is it the fact that they don't want to pay for it or the reasons why they don't want to pay for it that you don't like?

IOW, would you have a problem with a company like mine who pays for eye insurance but not contact lenses?

It's the reasons. For birth control, especially, because they are refusing to cover it even though it serves legitimate medical purposes other than strictly birth control. If your company were to not cover contact lenses because the higher-ups said that people who wear contact lenses can use that to be more efficient at stealing and so all the people who would legitimately have a use for contact lenses for improving their sight should also not be covered, then yes, I would have a problem with that.

 

[Skaloop]

Yep. Are you not aware of the many church-supported hospitals?

Church supported, sure, but not church run, church managed, or church based. And definitely not what your ministry is doing.

Oh, and you left out providing shelter for the homeless, protection for single mothers fleeing abusive boyfriends, ...

Which are both great endeavors, but not exactly directly related to the sort of health care we're talking about.

[edit] I should note an exception about the ultrasounds. Ultrasounds are only necessary if it leads to treatment. If it is only to help a decision about ending life, then no, that would not be provided.

And how would anyone know that was the reason? Ultrasounds are an important part of pregnancy and maternity health for all expectant mothers. How would it be determined that an ultrasound should not be provided? How can they determine the necessity of treatment without performing the ultrasound to determine the necessity of treatment? And what if the ultrasound convinces a pregnant woman to to have an abortion? You'd still say that shouldn't be provided?

 

[PreachersWife2004]

It's the reasons. For birth control, especially, because they are refusing to cover it even though it serves legitimate medical purposes other than strictly birth control. If your company were to not cover contact lenses because the higher-ups said that people who wear contact lenses can use that to be more efficient at stealing and so all the people who would legitimately have a use for contact lenses for improving their sight should also not be covered, then yes, I would have a problem with that.

But ideally, ultimately, it's really none of your business.

And actually, I'd say having a religious conviction about something means more than simply saying "it's too expensive for us to cover".

That's just me I guess.

 

[Skaloop]

But ideally, ultimately, it's really none of your business.

Nor is it any of yours. Or anyone's other than the patient and the doctor. Definitely not the employer's business, unless there is some specific job-related reason, which wouldn't apply to the vast majority of employees. A woman being on birth control does not generally affect her ability to work.

And actually, I'd say having a religious conviction about something means more than simply saying "it's too expensive for us to cover".

That's just me I guess.

Should employees really be subject to the religious whims of their employer when it comes to their physical well-being?

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Nor is it any of yours. Or anyone's other than the patient and the doctor. Definitely not the employer's business, unless there is some specific job-related reason, which wouldn't apply to the vast majority of employees. A woman being on birth control does not generally affect her ability to work.

Nor is Hobby Lobby saying there is a problem with women using birth control. Do you not understand that?

Should employees really be subject to the religious whims of their employer when it comes to their physical well-being?

Should they be subject to the economic whims of their employer when it comes to their physical well-being?

The employer is only responsible for their well-being when they're on the job. It is not my employer's responsibility to provide contact lenses for me just as it is not an employer's responsibility to provide me with birth control.

 

[Resha Caner]

Church supported, sure, but not church run, church managed, or church based. And definitely not what your ministry is doing.

How do you know that? Maybe I am unaware of some technicality by which churches aren't technically managing some of these hospitals, but that wasn't my impression. For example, the Order of St. Francis. It sure seems to me they're managing the hospital.

In fact, they refuse to do some of the very things we're talking about because it's against Catholic doctrine.

And how would anyone know that was the reason? Ultrasounds are an important part of pregnancy and maternity health for all expectant mothers. How would it be determined that an ultrasound should not be provided? How can they determine the necessity of treatment without performing the ultrasound to determine the necessity of treatment? And what if the ultrasound convinces a pregnant woman to to have an abortion? You'd still say that shouldn't be provided?

Indeed. This does drive a lot of silliness and much invasion of privacy, doesn't it? However, I am personally aware of several cases where the parents ask the doctor why he wants to do an ultrasound, and the answer is, "In case you want to abort."

You can't generalize that it's always about "health" (however euphemistically you're trying to use that word). My wife got upset last night, saying, "Why do people always equate 'women's health' with reproductive issues?" There was an interesting study recently that showed many drug tests have been done using men because they're supposedly more "stable" (no raging estrogen), and the result is that doctors are overdosing women because the dosing information doesn't work for women. Maybe that's what we should talk about.

 

[Skaloop]

Nor is Hobby Lobby saying there is a problem with women using birth control. Do you not understand that?

No, I get that just fine.

Should they be subject to the economic whims of their employer when it comes to their physical well-being?

The Hobby Lobby situation is not one of economic whims.

The employer is only responsible for their well-being when they're on the job. It is not my employer's responsibility to provide contact lenses for me just as it is not an employer's responsibility to provide me with birth control.

But Hobby Lobby has chosen to take on responsibility for the well-being of their employees. Something like contact lenses are a perk but not necessarily something they need to cover, since it is unlikely to involve general health and well-being. However, since they have chosen to offer coverage to their employees, birth control should fall under that coverage since it is not necessarily being used for birth control. If they were to just not cover any form of birth control because they don't want to carry that expense, it would be different than the actual situation of them not covering birth control because of their morality regarding some uses of birth control. If they care about their employees, why would they not cover birth control pills used for reasons other than birth control?

 

[abdAlSalam]

I am incredibly uncomfortable with the idea that a business can choose a religion, as if the entity itself is therefore religious. I also have a problem with employers being able to pick and choose precisely what worker compensation can and cannot cover. It is none of the employer's business what an employee spends their money on. Why should it be an employer's business to determine what kind of drugs are covered by their health insurance compensation?

Further, if a company can have a religion as would be suggested by a positive ruling by the Supreme Court, what's to stop companies from converting to Seventh Day Adventists and thus deny their employees the right to form a union based on Seventh Day dogma? Or what if they convert to Christian Scientists and get rid of insurance as a form of compensation altogether?

 

[poolerboy0077]

I mean, you mention the choices Hobby Lobby has. The employees also have choices - such as not working for a company who does something they disagree with.

Sure but now you're getting into some philosophical territory we need not go into. The point is that businesses currently have an option: either provide their employees with certain health coverage or pay the tax that's imposed on everyone.

 

[Resha Caner]

Sure but now you're getting into some philosophical territory we need not go into. The point is that businesses currently have an option: either provide their employees with certain health coverage or pay the tax that's imposed on everyone.

I don't see "either pay or pay" as an option.

 

[sculleywr]

I'm not preventing women from seeking that treatment. If they can pay for it, they can get the treatment. The way you phrase it, however, you are claiming a right - an entitlement - to take my money and use it to pay for someone else's treatment even if I think that treatment is immoral.

If my money is involved, I have a right to participate in the decision for how it is spent - unless you're going to deny me that right.

So...You would rather they DIE so you can save money? They ARE paying! They pay taxes JUST AS MUCH AS YOU DO. They pay premiums JUST AS MUCH AS YOU DO!

You call that an entitlement? Then your gifts must come with bills. Do you give a Christmas present with an invoice on the inside or something?

1. I am going to deny ANYONE the "right" to tell a woman she can stay sick when that person is paying for insurance.
2. A treatment that saves lives and restores fertility in women is not immoral.
3. You don't pay for her insurance. She does. She's the one paying the premiums.

I don't give a crap about opinions here. This is a blanket denial of coverage for life-saving and fertility-restoring treatments, simply because some people use it for personal reasons. That's like taking a machine gun and blowing every head in a room because you think a few of them are zombies.

It was. Pluralism is certain to always have this conflict. You seem to think employers are not the right people to offer health care benefits (and I agree), so who would you offer as the alternative? In reality, it's not employers anymore, but government working through employers. So, I don't see (secular) government as a solution either. IMO churches would be the better option. I haven't studied the history of church hospitals, but they used to be the major caregiver in western nations.

Government isn't doing anything more than subsidizing poor people's insurance and setting base standards. They are not forcing Hobby Lobby to fund abortions. They are telling insurance agencies that women deserve equal care to men for the same value. A woman on a Bronze plan should receive the same coverage, providing her needs at an equal level to a man on a bronze plan.


And yes, that includes access to the Birth Control Pill, because it does a whole lot more than just birth control. It restores the ability to give birth in many women just in the same way as it prevents conception in other women.

 

[Supreme]

Fair enough, but I wonder if that will mark a bad trend.

Not really. Sometimes the Supreme Court rules against religious conservatism (ie with its recent rulings on homosexuality), so it follows that sometimes it will rule in favour of religious conservatism. It's the exact opposite of a trend.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

No, I get that just fine.

I'm not so sure, since you keep bringing that into the argument.

The Hobby Lobby situation is not one of economic whims.

The principle is the same.

But Hobby Lobby has chosen to take on responsibility for the well-being of their employees. Something like contact lenses are a perk but not necessarily something they need to cover, since it is unlikely to involve general health and well-being. However, since they have chosen to offer coverage to their employees, birth control should fall under that coverage since it is not necessarily being used for birth control. If they were to just not cover any form of birth control because they don't want to carry that expense, it would be different than the actual situation of them not covering birth control because of their morality regarding some uses of birth control. If they care about their employees, why would they not cover birth control pills used for reasons other than birth control?

But they DO offer birth control, most of which can be used for purposes other than birth control. The four they don't want to offer are not generally used for purposes other than birth control.

I am incredibly uncomfortable with the idea that a business can choose a religion, as if the entity itself is therefore religious. I also have a problem with employers being able to pick and choose precisely what worker compensation can and cannot cover. It is none of the employer's business what an employee spends their money on. Why should it be an employer's business to determine what kind of drugs are covered by their health insurance compensation?

Further, if a company can have a religion as would be suggested by a positive ruling by the Supreme Court, what's to stop companies from converting to Seventh Day Adventists and thus deny their employees the right to form a union based on Seventh Day dogma? Or what if they convert to Christian Scientists and get rid of insurance as a form of compensation altogether?

If a business can be painted as racist, why can't they also be religious?


For me, personally, I tend to check out the companies I am applying for. If I don't like something about that company or if it doesn't hit me the right way, I have the ability to say "I won't compromise my principles to work there". Certainly other people have the same ability.

Companies ask employees to do things they don't want to do all the time. Like...wear certain clothing. Or take drug tests. No one seems to really care about that.

And in this case, Hobby Lobby isn't making its employees do anything. Its employees can still use birth control all they want. But if they want a certain kind, they might just have to fork over the money for it.

I don't see where that's a problem, especially considering how much I have to shell out for the various meds my kids take. Trust me, it's way more than birth control will ever cost someone.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I don't give a crap about opinions here. This is a blanket denial of coverage for life-saving and fertility-restoring treatments, simply because some people use it for personal reasons. That's like taking a machine gun and blowing every head in a room because you think a few of them are zombies.

And yes, that includes access to the Birth Control Pill, because it does a whole lot more than just birth control. It restores the ability to give birth in many women just in the same way as it prevents conception in other women.

You obviously have no clue what this suit is actually about.

Hobby Lobby is not denying anyone anything in regards to birth control.

If a woman wants to use birth control, she is welcome to use what Hobby Lobby's insurance pays for, and she'll get it free. Or she is welcome to use an IUD or Plan B, but that she'll have to pay for.

If Hobby Lobby were saying that none of its employees could ever use birth control, your argument might have SOME merit. But that is not the case here.

 

[poolerboy0077]

I don't see "either pay or pay" as an option.

You're deceptively omitting the actual choice: either pay for the contraceptive directly, or pay the tax and have the government do it. Yes, their money can technically be apportioned indirectly to pay for it ultimately, but that's how taxes work. None of us get to decide not to pay taxes because we don't like the government's decision about how it gets to spend it. Otherwise, I want my money back for the Iraq War and faith-based program subsidies. Christian taxes also go to pay for government salaries of which some officials officiate gay marriages! The outrage!!!

 

[Resha Caner]

You're deceptively omitting the actual choice: either pay for the contraceptive directly, or pay the tax and have the government do it. Yes, their money can technically be apportioned indirectly to pay for it ultimately, but that's how taxes work. None of us get to decide not to pay taxes because we don't like the government's decision about how it gets to spend it. Otherwise, I want my money back for the Iraq War and faith-based program subsidies. Christian taxes also go to pay for government salaries of which some officials officiate gay marriages! The outrage!!!

Did I say you couldn't oppose the Iraq War or faith-based initiatives? Have at it.

 

[poolerboy0077]

Did I say you couldn't oppose the Iraq War or faith-based initiatives? Have at it.

You'd be proposing an untenable "solution" to the problem. People don't (and shouldn't) get to vote out of paying taxes or the like on the basis of having some moral qualms. We live in a first-world republic, not a libertarian's anarchistic wet dream.

 

[TLK Valentine]

They should have taken this case IMO because otherwise, Hobby Lobby would be fined millions of dollars by a tyrannical anti-Christian government.

A drop in the bucket, considering how much they make from another tyrannical anti-Christian government.

Maybe they're just against American abortions?