That’s about what you’d think, given the spittle-flecked outrage.
Hobby Lobby is blocking access to nothing. Hobby Lobby employees have 16 contraceptive options in their health plans. Fact. Fact.
Hobby Lobby does not want to be forced to pay for four drugs its owners consider abortifacients.
That’s it.
This should be a market decision in the first place. Hobby Lobby should be free to offer whatever it wants in a health plan, just as its competitors should. Do corporations not compete for employees?
The real tragedy of yesterday is not a fake assault on women’s rights. It’s how readily this massive and suffocating statism is settling into the narrative.
You might also like:
- Viral image du jour
And I do love a good double standard, don’t you? If you’re going to make a rage-filled, spittle-flec… - Obama’s new story on government health care
I’m going to hit Obamacare again tonight. Apologies to those looking for something lighter, but I’m … - Only filthy, rude hippies can possibly be real protestors
The airways and intertubes are awash with stories of what are obviously the staged, insincere, destr… - The scowling hobby shop owner
I’ve never been particularly tempted to try turning a leisure pursuit into a living, and part of the… - The retail assault on Thanksgiving Day
For years and years, Black Friday was enough. Not too long ago, Thanksgiving night stuck its nose un…
Awesome! I know a few people I need to line up for that procedure.
My insurance (my jacked-up totally lame insurance that got so shitty when Obamacare came into effect and my company could no longer afford to offer me the wonderful insurance it used to…even though I was promised that I could keep my insurance plan if I liked it) doesn’t pay for anything allergy related. Period. I think that sucks because I have allergies for every season of the year. And I have to pay for doctors visits and medications out of pocket.
And you know what? If and when I get fed up with that, I will start looking for a company that still offers great insurance…if there are any still out there.
If you are an employee of Hobby Lobby that really, truly wants their insurance plan to cover the four types of “birth control” that are not covered by Hobby Lobby’s plan, then find a company that has a more expansive insuance policy.
You know…once upon a time, health insurance benefits were just that….benefits. It was one of the things that companies used to attract employees. Companies with shitty benefits didn’t attract the same caliber of people that companies with great benefits did.
And BTW, ‘seester, you are evil.
Except that the four forms of birth control (not all are drugs) it opposes aren’t abortifacients (but bad science is okay because religion?). And that the logic upon which the Supreme Court’s ruling rests sets a terrifying precedent. (Any employer which can claim religious objection to something can then simply choose not to follow a law?!)
Is some of the backlash hyperbolic and excessive? Yes. Is some of the celebration the same? Yes. But fundamentally, I find this ruling extremely troubling.
As I said, I find the ruling troubling as well, not because of a pretend war on women, but because this insidious statism has already mostly settled into the narrative. The federal government compelling an employer to purchase drugs for its employees at all is the obscenity.
Secondly, “any employer which can claim religious objection to something” is written very narrowly in this decision. Most employers of any size whatsoever won’t count.
“Bad science is okay because religion?”? I dare say that’s a disingenuously simple way for you to express it, but basically, yeah. We still have a First Amendment, for the moment. Don’t like it? Buy the drugs yourself or go work somewhere else.
Finally, you really don’t want to get off in the weeds about terminology when it comes to what is and isn’t an abortion, Amanda. The militant pro-choicers have abused the language in the name of abortion more than any other single cause I can name, perhaps outside the regimes of Stalin or Hitler. That’s how opposing sinking a pair of scissors into the brain stem of what is, to any rational creature, clearly a human being becomes an “attack on health care.”
I am pro-choice. It is a qualified, torturously-arrived-at, guaranteed-to-piss-absolutely-everyone-off position on abortion, but it is unambiguously a pro-choice one, because I do not advocate making abortion illegal.
But I don’t ever encounter any pro-choice activist I’d stand next to and claim solidarity with. Anyone standing up with this first and foremost on his/her mind invariably turns my stomach, because of the disingenuity of his/her language and the depth of the delusion s/he has internalized to rationalize horrific and subhuman carnage as “women’s health care.” The reasonable pro-choice voice is a very, very rare thing.
It’s a small victory. But it’s a counterclockwise turn on the knob of statism, however tiny. I’ll take it. Bring more.
MrsDragon, Terry MacAuliffe ran on that very premise, that Ken Cuccinelli’s “personhood at conception” bill would outlaw birth control because it stopped a fertilized egg from implanting. Can’t have it both ways.
What do I appear to want both ways? I’m not following?
Scalia seems to want to believe that his decision was written very narrowly. The results of the additional cases moving through the courts will tell us if that is true. I don’t think it will be. Less than 24 hours after this decision was handed down another group is suing because their religious freedoms are being “violated” by having to hire gay people. This whole thing is a massive train wreck of precedent.
“We still have a First Amendment, for the moment. ”
I do not see how the First Amendment excuses the Supreme Court from making decisions based on incorrect scientific data. Hobby Lobby was disputing several forms of birth control on the basis of their religious belief that they are abortificants. They do not fit the scientific definition of abortificants. (The copper IUD for instance is tantamount to spermicide, how is this causing an abortion?). For the court to rule that Hobby Lobby can choose to define abortificant however it likes and then refuse to offers basic medical care because it has a religious objection to something that is only an “abortificant” because they believe it to be so…it’s a breathtaking sweep of power to have handed companies. Once again, I do not think this precedent will be as limited as Scalia thinks.
“Finally, you really don’t want to get off in the weeds about terminology when it comes to what is and isn’t an abortion”
I don’t think this is off in the weeds. I think it is a key point in this case. If Hobby Lobby was opposing paying for abortions, I would have more sympathy with their position. I would still disagree vehemently, but I would at least see the logic.
I realize I’m far to your left with my position on abortion, but that’s not why I’m so upset about this ruling. This has nothing to do with abortion and everything to do with corporations rewritting laws to suit themselves pretty much anytime they want.
The owners of Hobby Lobby draw a line at the destruction of a zygote–a reasonable distinction if you believe life begins at conception. I think that’s what Miria is getting at too.
I’m not sure why you seem to be so offended at a religious belief being “bad science.” It’s kind of like being mad at a pork chop because you can’t wash clothes with it. Religion and science answer different questions.
I believe the creator of the universe became a living man on Earth; was crucified and buried; and rose from the dead, and that this is the mechanism by which I can be forgiven for my sins and eventually be with God. Bad science, right?
No. It’s not science at all.
You are either ignoring or overlooking the “closely held” distinction here, as well. Hobby Lobby is basically owned by one family, with unambiguously identifiable religious beliefs. No public company could ever be subject to anything in this ruling. A “breathtaking sweep of power to have handed companies” is therefore wildly overstating what has happened. Moreover, remember, employers compete for employees. Even if it were legal, any employer mandating something truly questionable is going to severely limit the people it attracts.
The market works.
In the end, no one is forced to work for Hobby Lobby. If you choose to work for Hobby Lobby and want one of these four drugs (BTW, your calling them “basic medical care” above is exactly the kind of English abuse I was talking about), you can certainly have it. You just have to buy it yourself.
My goodness, how outrageous.
“The owners of Hobby Lobby draw a line at the destruction of a zygote–a reasonable distinction if you believe life begins at conception. I think that’s what Miria is getting at too.”
Yes. Plus that the Democrat governor of Virginia won his election by playing incessant ads that the “personhood at conception” bill would outlaw birth control. You can’t say it does destroy an embryo then turn around and say it doesn’t.
(Bo, have you ever considered adding email notifications for comments? It would be appreciated by this reader at least. : )
The birth control methods opposed by Hobby Lobby do not destroy zygotes, they stop them from forming:
Plan B, Ella and the Hormonal IUD: Prevents ovulation (if the egg never meets sperm, there is no zygote)
Copper IUD: Acts as spermicide (if the sperm never meet the egg, there is no zygote)
This is what I mean by bad science. If Hobby Lobby wanted to object to RU-48, I would have more sympathy for them. But they have basically said “We don’t like these because we have willfully misunderstood how they work. And we don’t want to pay for them.”
Yes, religion and science answer different questions but our government is not a faith based one, so if it is going to be making decisions which affect people’s medical care then I would like them to base it on science (which applies to everyone).
Over 90% of companies are closely held, so yes, I think “breathtaking sweep” is accurate.
http://www.inc.com/encyclopedia/closely-held-corporations.html
As far as the market…I have considerably less faith than you in the fact that the market will be untainted by this decision. If the entire marketplace shifts in this direction, then there is little to no choice left.
Birth control is basic medical care. Yes, it is used to avoid pregnancy. It is also used to manage a myriad of other health conditions from acne to disabling pain during menstruation.
I also find it interesting that small govenrment conservatives aren’t upset about Scalia’s discussion of the fact that the court could decide this way because the least restrictive application of the ACA would be for the government to pay for the birth control in the instances that the company wouldn’t. I would think that it would be seen as more upsetting to have tax dollars used here.
The law says nothing about providing birth control free of charge to any employee. That was an addition more than a year later by HHS.
Wow. I remember that, now that you mention it, ‘seester. I remember it because of all of the discussion about how narrowly the definition of an exempt organization was written. Basically nothing but a church qualified.
Hard to keep all of the tyranny straight, isn’t it? I think that’s kind of the point.
So we’re clear, from a perspective of liberty, all of this is how many angels can dance on the head of a pin for me. If Hobby Lobby, or any other company, wants to have a health plan that covers only German measles, and requires doctors that will accept payment in goose feathers, that should be no one’s business but Hobby Lobby’s and the employees’.
Consider that reductio ad absurdum when I talk about market forces. Would that ever happen? Of course not. That same “of course not” is a natural competitive check that is always present in a free market. If one company gets too ridiculous with its offered medical plans, another can outflank it competing for people with something better. Keeps everyone honest.
Each of the four methods can work by preventing fertilization. Each of the four methods can also prevent implantation of a zygote. I offer this well-cited blog post. It is most certainly not the case that none of these methods ever kill a zygote.
No, our government is not a faith-based one, but there’s that goshdarn pesky First Amendment to deal with, isn’t there?
“Over 90% of companies are closely held” sounds dramatic, until you consider that every mom-and-pop of any size would qualify. The quantity of companies is irrelevant. As anyone working for a publicly held company by definition does not work for a closely held company, I think it’s a fair assumption that most people do not work for closely held companies.
Yes, birth control pills can be basic medical care, for the cases you describe. Are any of these four methods used for those cases? Does Hobby Lobby cover the drugs that are used for those cases?
Small government conservatives remain outraged at the mere terms of the discussion.
I think we have reached the point of having to agree to disagree. We are about to start beating dead horses.
I’ll say that yes, IUDs are very often used as basic health care, you’ll retort that surely one of the other covered forms of contraceptives could be used instead. I’ll point out the cost savings and efficacy advantages, and you’ll point back at the market and how people could have other options if they really wanted them….
Suffice it to say, I respectfully disagree with your points above. I expect you would do the same with my counter arguments.