I'm sure by now everybody knows about the Supreme's court decision to allow Hobby Lobby to not provide birth-control for their employees, due to their religious beliefs that some forms of birth control cause abortion.
I'm not even going to get into how angry this decision makes me. And how anti-women it is. That's a whole other discussion.
But what I think makes me angriest is that hobby lobby doesn't want to provide birth-control for religious reasons, yet what do they do for their employees that do get pregnant? Do they provide paid maternity leave for their poor female employees who can't afford to take time off to be with their babies, like a good Christian should?
Of course not.
They have religious beliefs when it suits them. When it's financially beneficial to them.
Hobby Lobby, man up and give your female employees the paid maternity leaves they deserve, like the good Christians you claim to be!
Actually, Hobby Lobby already pays for birth control pills, it just refuses to pay for morning after pills and one week after pills.ReplyDelete
And they mostly cater to crafty women customers... Its just business, nothing personal.ReplyDelete
I don't understand why there is this expectation that the government (or employer) will pay for everything. They are not denying access to birth control, they are just saying that in these 4 cases, because a egg may already be fertilized they won't pay for it. Good grief. Use one of the 16 out of 20 they will pay for. I totally respect religious companies adhering to their beliefs in what they provide. And I'm a woman.ReplyDelete
Paying for this birth-control is a federal mandate. You and I don't get to pick which laws we get to follow. If they're going to use the moral high ground to get out of it, then they should take the moral high ground when taking care of their employees as well.Delete
Apparently the Supreme Court disagrees with you about this!Delete
Do a Google search on the column,"What does the Left think the Supreme Court Is?"ReplyDelete
Odd, I don't see any complaints that their insurance doesn't cover pregnancy, some maternal leave.ReplyDelete
checkout " Religious Freedom Restoration Act" on Wikipedia.ReplyDelete
It's not about that what they must legally do. About what they should morally do if they are actually good Christians.Delete
I believe that the whole point of the lawsuit was that some "actually good Christians" followed their moral beliefs and challenged what they were told they must legally do, and they won.Delete
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was signed into law by President Clinton after being strongly advocated by Senator Ted Kennedy.
They did do what they believe in as morally good Christians, hence the lawsuit.Delete
I've been saying that it should be fine that companies don't want to cover birth control as long as you provide free childcare. I mean, if you are "pro-life" you should support life financially.ReplyDelete
I understand the argument about the government not being responsible for birth control, but I just think this is something that will benefit society in the long run when taxes aren't needed to support unplanned pregnancies. I would also understand if it could be offered with a co-pay and insurance companies have had the opportunity to do this, but never have. At least no insurance I have had covered it.
I would certainly be more sympathetic to these companies if there were more Christian goodwill behind their behavior and not just paternalism.Delete
I have a bigger problem with the fact that they will pay for viagra for men and vasectomies for men, giving men the option of having as much sex as they want, but they won't pay for certain types of womens' birth control. To me, that is the more absurd part of their policy.ReplyDelete
They offer one type of birth control to men (vasectomy) and offer 16 choices of birth control to women and that is absurd?Delete
Why not offer 30 types? Heck why not 100?
Sounds like this is definitely a "first world problem"
What sort of birth-control would you like them to start offering to men?Delete
I never thought that not being able to afford to feed your children is a first world problem. But that's just me.
Limiting to access to emergency contraception does increase the rate of pregnancy. Ironically, even though the morning after pill doesn't cause abortion, it increases the rates of real abortion when women don't have access to the birth-control they need. So hobby lobby is not going with their best interest if they're limiting female access to birth control.
I think it's very frightening that a company should be able to pick which health care products their employees should have access to based on religious reasons with no grounding in science. I think you should be frightened too, Christian or not.
++They offer one type of birth control to men (vasectomy) and offer 16 choices of birth control to women and that is absurd?Delete
Why not offer 30 types? Heck why not 100?
Sounds like this is definitely a "first world problem"++
Different forms of birth control carry different risks. Even different brands/types of birth control pills carry different risks. You do know that some types of birth control can kill a woman, by increasing the risks of stroke and other serious side effects, right? If so, then how is this any different than an employer taking a position on which chemotherapy drugs I should take with regard to cancer? Or which heart drug? Or which antibiotic? Outrage for the latter examples, but not the former? Makes no sense. If there was no risk to taking any of the various methods of birth control, then perhaps you would have a point. But they can be very dangerous. Therefore, only my physician and I should have a say in what form of birth control is right for me, and I want to have available all options out there before I make a choice.
In addition, who cares that there are more types of birth control for women than men. Did it ever occur to you that this fact might have something to do with the related fact that conception takes place in the woman's body, not the man's, so there happen to be more ways to stop a pregnancy from happening with regard to the woman.
Finally, perhaps most of us are just sick and tired of religious people selectively choosing portions of their holy book to follow versus others, just to serve selfish needs. For example, most would no longer agree with biblical verses indicating it is ok to stone people for blasphemy, yet let's all be discriminatory to homosexuals just because we can interpret the bible to say homosexuality is a sin. In the case of Hobby Lobby, if their stance on birth control is because they are pro life, then shouldn't they also be discouraging sex for pleasure, which is how most unwanted pregnancies happen, and therefore shouldn't they also not pay for viagra. Because I'm pretty sure most men on viagra are not using it to make babies. They are oftentimes using it to have sex just for the pleasure of having sex, without necessarily wanting the responsibility of raising a child that might be the accidental consequence of these sexual encounters.
the funny thing is they invest their 401K plans in the companies that make some of these items/drugs. some of the taxes they pay to the feds provides these very items as the VA provides both IUDs and morning after for their female veterans.ReplyDelete
Hobby lobby pays it's full time employees a minimum of 14 dollars/hr. which is nearly twice the national rate.ReplyDelete
They forgo profit by closing on Sundays to give their employees the opportunity to attend church with their families
They offer their female employees 16 different choices of free birth control, yet there are few approved plans on the Obamacare exchanges that give you 16 different choices of doctors to see.
They are still a step behind the rest of the industrialized world if they don't provide paid maternity leave. If they truly cared about abortion and wanted to decrease the rate based on actual scientific evidence, they would increase access to birth control and offer paid maternity leave.Delete
While I completely disagree, I do understand the REASONING behind the morning after pill objection, but I do NOT get the IUD objection. IUDs actually end up being cheaper (and more effective, because there is no compliance issue nor is there issues with interference of other drugs rendering the OCP ineffective) in the long-run than paying for months upon months of daily pills. They are being advocated as great contraceptive methods for adolescents, for example, and are also recommended for treatment of medical issues that might be treated with oral contraceptives (PCOS, PMDD).ReplyDelete
If the concern is long-term avoidance of procreation then…why cover vasectomies? Do they cover tubal ligations?
This is setting a precedent for all kinds of lunacy, like a company owned by a Scientologist refusing to pay for mental health treatment.
Most of the women I know use an IUD, so not covering it seems outrageous to me. And it's not based on any science about the drug actually causing abortion. It's just based on incorrect beliefs. These people ought to be educated not encouraged. This opens up the door to Jehovah's Witnesses not allowing blood transfusions or Scientologist not allowing antidepressants. Whatever you decide you believe in, you can now subject your employees to that.Delete
The court ruling was very narrow on its judgement and only ruled on those 4 contraceptive methods. It even stated that fact. If Scientologists or Jehovah Witnesses want to deny coverage for blood transfusions or antidepressants, then they will have to take it to court on their own. That is a scare tactic used by those who disagree on the ruling.There is so much disinformation out there, I think if people would read the judgement, which is 95 pages, then the talking points would be moot. Since the emergency contraceptives are not suppose to be used as a regular form of birth control, then I guess paying the $41.87 out of pocket for it should not be a burden since it is used only as an emergency.Delete
I have to shrug at the signs I saw about how contraceptives are not the boss' business, however, when you believe that the boss needs to cover it 100% and supply it free of cost, don't you invite the intrusion?
It's a sign of the times, "it's my right, I want it free, but you have to provide it to me and I will take no responsibility."
I sincerely hope it's not true that the fact that my employer contributes to my health insurance means that they have the right to know whatever they want about my medical care.Delete
And once again, an IUD is not emergency contraception. It's a common form of contraception preferred by monogamous female patients.
The copper T IUD is a form of emergency contraception and is cited as such in various educational sites.Delete
Many of those 16 options have woeful success records, I think some of them fell out of favour in the rest of the first world in about the 70s.ReplyDelete
I think the selective interpretation of beliefs and imposing them is a scary, scary precedent.
"It's a sign of the times, "it's my right, I want it free, but you have to provide it to me and I will take no responsibility."ReplyDelete
"Free" is an interesting choice of words. If the employer provides something "free" it comes out of the income brought in by (sales to customers) or earned by the employees as salary. Ultimately the employees are paying for any of their benefits themselves through their work for the employer. If their morals differ from the employer's they can simply refuse the benefit.
Funny how none of the three women on the court voted in favor of this decision.
It would be easier to support the decision if it didn't seem like corporate power dressed up as religious liberty.ReplyDelete
And since when did religious liberty flip from being free to practice your religion to let's control the behavior and choices of others?
I missed where IUDs where outlawedReplyDelete
Actually, it isn't just Hobby Lobby. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22688596ReplyDelete
My American friends thought it was insane that I had nine months paid (six months full, three months half) maternity leave. My colleagues thought I'd come back to work early (you can take another three months on govt maternity pay roughly £400/month). America, as a nation, is not known for good maternity policies.
That's not to say Hobby Lobby are right on their stance, more that maybe the cultural view on maternity needs to change?
I think the cultural views need to be changed. Hobby Lobby is not the sole company responsible for this view. I think society as a whole is the culprit.Delete
"And since when did religious liberty flip from being free to practice your religion to let's control the behavior and choices of others? "ReplyDelete
Agree 100%. I think this is a very dangerous precedent and we will be seeing the ramifications of it for some time.
The primary issue here is this assumes employers even pay for health care to begin with. It has been shown in multiple economic analyses that this is not the case as essentially employees take a pay cut larger than truly necessary for their employers to buy insurance. So this shouldn't even be a discussion until employers actually pay for coverage.ReplyDelete