Supreme Court Rules with Hobby Lobby on Contraception

As is usually the case, John Oliver is relevant and entertaining:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSQCH1qyIDo

 

It doesn't but you are precluding the idea that this is the only avenue for birth control. It isn't.

Cancer. Once it gets expensive people don't want to continue to pay for it especially when the patient is diagnosed as terminal. It isn't arbitrary, it may seem like it to you but to bean counters it's far from arbitrary.
--- merged: Jul 1, 2014 at 10:11 AM ---

But that isn't all that they manufacture. They make more that just contraception. The media and others are making it sound like they are directly investing in contraception and they aren't. It's a bold faced lie to say that they are making investments in contraception. It's at best a mischaracterization to incite more hatred and indignation.

 

The Daily Beast has a guide to the corporations that could drop coverage after this ruling: After Hobby Lobby, These 82 Corporations Could Drop Birth Control Coverage - The Daily Beast One that surprised me was Eden Foods; I won't be buying from them again.

 

no.

you do not have freedom FROM religion.

There is a big difference between freedom from religion and freedom of religion.

and people impose their beliefs and practices on everyone all the time. It doesn't matter if it is religious based.

Think about that for a moment.

 

I think suggesting that retail workers should rely on charity for birth control is probably a bit misguided. Especially for those who take it for medical reasons instead of just as contraception. That seems like a dangerous precedent to set.

As for the cancer thing, well. First, just to get it out of the way, the person best qualified to determine what therapies are appropriate or likely to be effective is the patient's physician. In the Canadian system that's who makes the choice. The beancounters don't have a say. Somehow we make it work.

But even setting that aside, there's a big difference between choosing to discontinue therapy for a terminal cancer patient on the grounds that it's not likely to prove effective, and choosing to withhold hormonal birth control because it's against your personal belief system. There are women who are at a heightened risk for cancer without it, not to mention a whole host of other ill effects. There are also women who take it just to avoid being in debilitating pain once per month. But you know what, preventing unwanted pregnancy is also a valid reason in and of itself. A baby at the wrong time can have a massive deleterious effect on a woman's life. Choosing to avoid that seems pretty reasonable as far as I'm concerned, even the responsible decision. Denying women coverage because of religious grounds is stupid.

We all agree that it's wrong to discriminate in the workplace based on race. You can believe black people are inferior all you want but you can't let it shape corporate policy. Why is this different? What is it about religion that makes it this sacred cow, where we're willing to trample over others in such haste to not interfere?

 

But that's the point. The sacred cow isn't trampling over anything. It is stating that the cow doesn't want to pay for it.

So Planned Parenthood is a charity? One can easily get access to birth control via them for low cost or even free.

You get to say that denying women coverage is stupid, just like they get to say paying for it is morally wrong. The difference is that they don't want to pay for it. You want to compel them to do so. Is your opinion better because you think their position is stupid?

The Supreme Court Isn't Waging a War on Women in Hobby Lobby - Emma Green - The Atlantic

That last paragraph is the most important. Stop for a moment and let that sink in. Stop with the umbrage and the indignation and remember that you don't get to impose anything on anyone in just the same manner as you don't want someone to impose upon you.

 

That would be charity the act, not charity the entity. Planned Parenthood is a non-profit. Giving out free birth control is a charitable act. I have a problem with forcing people to rely on charity for healthcare needs.

But privately held companies are forced to pay for all kinds of things. They're forced to pay for safety equipment. They're forced to pay wages at or above a fixed minimum. They're forced to pay to dispose of harmful goods or chemicals properly, they're forced to pay taxes. And now with ACA they're expected to pay for healthcare. It is good and necessary and proper that a corporate entity should be held to specific standards. It's the cost of doing business in a first world nation. And if you want to run your business here you need to also be aware of that. You can privately believe whatever you want, but you still have to follow the rules.

No person is being restricted. Nobody has said to the owners of Hobby Lobby "you can't believe that." They're entitled to their beliefs. What's being said is "if you want to run a business here there are rules you have to follow. If they go against your beliefs you can either suck it up or choose to run your business in a different country." Except apparently that's not the case, because religion. I don't get it.

I'll be the first to say that employers shouldn't be paying for healthcare to begin with. It's like suggesting that your employer should pay for your kid to go to school, it makes no sense. But since universal apparently just isn't politically feasible, if you're going to do it this way then you have to hold corporations to standards here, just like you do with wages and safety regulations.

And that's where I'm stuck. Why is birth control different from asthma medication or blood transfusions or whatever else people come up with? Why do we get to deny one because religion? What if my religions is against paying taxes, can I choose to not be affected by that law as well?

 

ask any athiest how much freedom from religion they experience on a daily basis.

further, freedom of speech doesn't mean you have freedom from speech from other people. See how that works there? It's not useless. It's working as intended.

They aren't forced to, they decide to comply. You can decide if you want to call it forced or coerced. Notre Dame university objects on the same moral reasons but doesn't want to pay the fines and penalties, so they paid for the coverage while the Hobby Lobby case was being fought how.

AND, even companies move based on what makes sense for them. Companies are moving out of California in droves because of regulations and taxation that isn't beneficial to the business. It's been like that for a long time, why should this be any different?

From what I'm reading this is being followed by the law that Bill Clinton signed passed by the Democratic Congress. Unintended consequences? Perhaps.

 

That's semantics. Every law on the books comes with an "or else" either explicit or implied. The point of the law in the first place is to create a situation where contravening the law is disadvantageous. If I steal, I go to jail. So I don't steal. If a corporation pays less than minimum wage they're subject to fines and penalties. So corporations choose to pay minimum wage.

The system of laws isn't optional. That's the whole point.

Do you think, if the decision had gone the other way, that Hobby Lobby would have chosen to not provide birth control. Do you think it would have been economically feasible for them to do so?

Of course they do. That's the problem. A corporation, as an entity, does not have a conscience. A corporation will pay it's employees as little as possible. It will choose to overwork and exploit them if it can. It will charge as much as possible for it's goods. If those goods are essential, so much the better. It will completely disregard environmental health or integrity.

We have over a century of capitalism that bears this out. That's why establishing a regulatory framework is essential. We have to impose boundaries because they won't do it for themselves. Giving a corporation unrestricted freedom of operation is madness.

I don't think this is a controverisal position. Nobody is really against EPA standards. Nobody is against labour laws. These things exist for a reason. So why is this different? Why is it so difficult to say that yeah, you have to provide this medication as well?

EDIT: It just occurred to me that you mean "move" as in a literal, physical relocation. To which I would counter that the market in North America is sufficiently fertile that Hobby Lobby is unlikely to bail on it just because they have to pay for IUDs. And if they do, so much the better. A better adapted entity will take their place.

 

Weird. When companies treat their employees well like ZocDoc and Google, it's amazeballs and nothing to do with capitalism.

Not all companies operate as you're describing. Many today want to have some sort of "integrity" code. How is that different than a morality code based on religion? See again, when a company meets those needs of "integrity" isn't not capitalism it's "what a cool company!"
--- merged: Jul 1, 2014 at 4:34 PM ---

That is correct. It isn't optional. They didn't put a stick in someone's eye. They said, "This law isn't right, I'm challenging it in court!" The same would go for any other regulation. You want regulation? Who is to say what regulation is right or wrong? So they took it all the way up the court system and it kept going up to the Supreme Court. See how that worked? It worked as intended and 5-4 said it goes this way. That's kind of the point of the balance of the 3 branches. Maybe in Canada, they make a law and there is no way to redress. Great! That's Canada.

 

I would suggest that it's arguable whether Google actually treats their employees well. Most of what Google does is designed to keep their employees in the office longer and working harder. They've found this is a successful strategy. I don't know what ZocDoc is so I can't comment on that. But this is also wholly irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Corporations may decide to go above and beyond the minimum where there's an economic incentive to do so. In the case of firms like Google offering better perks and pay means they can attract top talent. If you're part of that top talent it works out pretty great for you. The regulations don't exist for your benefit. If you don't have that advantage you may have a harder time finding an employer who provides you with those kinds of perks, in which case government mandated minimums are quite possibly going to dictate how well you get to live. The fact that some might choose to do more doesn't mean that the regulations are unnecessary.

It's neat that Google treats their employees well (if we take it as given that they are doing so). But it's a mistake to assume that they're doing it out of the goodness of their hearts.
--- merged: Jul 1, 2014 at 4:41 PM ---

The Supreme Court made a decision and that decision is legally binding. That doesn't necessarily mean it's right. I disagree with the decision they made, and I'm clearly not the only one.

 

ZocDoc
Crain’s Best Places to Work in NYC 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013
Modern Healthcare Best Places to Work 2011, 2012, 2013


Both Zocdoc and Google aren't doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, they are doing it out of the competitiveness for the pool of employees. Again, capitalism.