Ginsburg on Hobby Lobby

[SoulBiter]

Thats the extreme.....

40% of rapes women under the age of 18.
80% are under the age of 30

Were all these women wearing skimpy clothes? Your statistics work well enough on the ages for me, though. I was in my 20s.

Merely refuting the idea that somehow because in the extreme cases older women were raped, that somehow age (younger) doesn't factor in.

In 45% of reported rapes, there was alcohol involved (the victim had been drinking). Most occur between 7PM and midnight. 70% of the time the victim knows the perpetrator. Of those most women describe freezing or feeling paralysed with shock or fear. If they fight back at all, its only initially and then they go into a mode of trying to limit harm to themselves.

Yet 80% of fight back hard, will escape without being raped and unharmed. Its the fear of harm more so than the reality of harm.

[aliantha]

how is it a "social contract" when slightly over half the country opposes "Obamacare"?

Because it's the law of the land? Let's take a popularity poll on taxes, while we're at it. If more than half of us oppose paying them, can we do away with them?

Yes, that's how a democracy works.

BTW, you might find this information about political donors and the party they donate to interesting. Or not.

Interesting, sure. But not surprising. Unions donate to Democrats and business groups donate to Republicans.

Gee, I wonder why Republicans want to break the unions?

[Icarus Unfallen]

Perhaps I have bad information, but I thought both parties relied on donations from across the spectrum, and that the real result was that the monied of both persuasions were assured of favorable treatment -- while maintaining the false rivalry between the parties that perpetuates the whole illusion of choice for those who have no real influence.

[Cail]

Because it's the law of the land? Let's take a popularity poll on taxes, while we're at it. If more than half of us oppose paying them, can we do away with them?

Yes, that's how a democracy works.

BTW, you might find this information about political donors and the party they donate to interesting. Or not.

Interesting, sure. But not surprising. Unions donate to Democrats and business groups donate to Republicans.

Gee, I wonder why Republicans want to break the unions?

Yeah, I figured that'd be your takeaway. Of course that's why the GOP wants to get rid of unions, but it's perfectly fine to want to limit what corporations can do.

Point being, the Democratic Party gets far more money in political donations from special interests than the GOP. But I'd hate to let facts get in the way of the approved narrative.

[Rawedge Rim]

Still, all in all, how often would a woman need any of the 4 mentioned methods of birthcontrol, if they being responsible and using one of the other 16 methods not objectinal to Hobby Lobby(and this doens't even include use of a condom)? After all, lets be realistic, the major use for "Plan B" is "oops, I had sex and didn't use protection".

[rdhopeca]

Still, all in all, how often would a woman need any of the 4 mentioned methods of birthcontrol, if they being responsible and using one of the other 16 methods not objectinal to Hobby Lobby(and this doens't even include use of a condom)? After all, lets be realistic, the major use for "Plan B" is "oops, I had sex and didn't use protection".

It is unclear to me why this is anyone's concern other than the lady's doctor and the lady herself. I have 6 different family members on BCs for various conditions related to health and not birth control.

If you are going to offer health insurance, offer it. I get why some company might think they should be objecting based on moral grounds, but since it's not any of their business why anyone needs any medication of any type, seems they'd offer the insurance and be done with it.

[Rawedge Rim]

Still, all in all, how often would a woman need any of the 4 mentioned methods of birthcontrol, if they being responsible and using one of the other 16 methods not objectinal to Hobby Lobby(and this doens't even include use of a condom)? After all, lets be realistic, the major use for "Plan B" is "oops, I had sex and didn't use protection".

It is unclear to me why this is anyone's concern other than the lady's doctor and the lady herself. I have 6 different family members on BCs for various conditions related to health and not birth control.

If you are going to offer health insurance, offer it. I get why some company might think they should be objecting based on moral grounds, but since it's not any of their business why anyone needs any medication of any type, seems they'd offer the insurance and be done with it.

Hobby Lobby has no choice but to offer health insurance since the passing of the ACA. All they can do is attempt to limit the parts of the ACA that would be morally objectional to them.

And frankly, Plan B is not a "life saving" medication, anymore than Viagra is.

[SerScot]

RR,

But Hobby Lobby has no objection to offering Viagra to their employees.

[SoulBiter]

RR,

But Hobby Lobby has no objection to offering Viagra to their employees.

Viagra isnt considered an 'abortion' type of drug, which is what the objection was.

[Rawedge Rim]

RR,

But Hobby Lobby has no objection to offering Viagra to their employees.

Could you get me a link to that?

[rdhopeca]

Still, all in all, how often would a woman need any of the 4 mentioned methods of birthcontrol, if they being responsible and using one of the other 16 methods not objectinal to Hobby Lobby(and this doens't even include use of a condom)? After all, lets be realistic, the major use for "Plan B" is "oops, I had sex and didn't use protection".

It is unclear to me why this is anyone's concern other than the lady's doctor and the lady herself. I have 6 different family members on BCs for various conditions related to health and not birth control.

If you are going to offer health insurance, offer it. I get why some company might think they should be objecting based on moral grounds, but since it's not any of their business why anyone needs any medication of any type, seems they'd offer the insurance and be done with it.

Hobby Lobby has no choice but to offer health insurance since the passing of the ACA. All they can do is attempt to limit the parts of the ACA that would be morally objectional to them.

And frankly, Plan B is not a "life saving" medication, anymore than Viagra is.

My main point remains:

It's not any of the employer's business why anyone needs any medication of any type.

[Rawedge Rim]

It is unclear to me why this is anyone's concern other than the lady's doctor and the lady herself. I have 6 different family members on BCs for various conditions related to health and not birth control.

If you are going to offer health insurance, offer it. I get why some company might think they should be objecting based on moral grounds, but since it's not any of their business why anyone needs any medication of any type, seems they'd offer the insurance and be done with it.

Hobby Lobby has no choice but to offer health insurance since the passing of the ACA. All they can do is attempt to limit the parts of the ACA that would be morally objectional to them.

And frankly, Plan B is not a "life saving" medication, anymore than Viagra is.

My main point remains:

It's not any of the employer's business why anyone needs any medication of any type.

If I'm paying for it, then it's my business.

[Ananda]

Hobby Lobby has no choice but to offer health insurance since the passing of the ACA. All they can do is attempt to limit the parts of the ACA that would be morally objectional to them.

And frankly, Plan B is not a "life saving" medication, anymore than Viagra is.

My main point remains:

It's not any of the employer's business why anyone needs any medication of any type.

If I'm paying for it, then it's my business.

But, the business is paying the employee what they earned in exchange for work. Once they have worked, it is no longer your money, but theirs, I would think?

[rdhopeca]

Hobby Lobby has no choice but to offer health insurance since the passing of the ACA. All they can do is attempt to limit the parts of the ACA that would be morally objectional to them.

And frankly, Plan B is not a "life saving" medication, anymore than Viagra is.

My main point remains:

It's not any of the employer's business why anyone needs any medication of any type.

If I'm paying for it, then it's my business.

I will disagree. Point me to the provision in my health insurance contract that says I have to disclose to you that I am on asthma medication. Per HIPPA, the employer has no right to medical information on their employees. So once insurance is provided, it is no longer the employer's business what happens between patient and doctor. Denial of medication coverage based on what it *might* be for should not be allowed, IMO. In particular when we're talking about BC's being provided for polyovarian cystosis, or endometrius, or what have you.

[SoulBiter]

Show me in the contract that the employee signed with Hobby Lobby where it said they had to cover any other insurance than what they offered to begin with?

This is what happens when the govt tinkers around with private industry mandates.

[rdhopeca]

That's not what was said. What was said is, if the employer is paying for it, then it's the employer's business, and that's not true. Once the employer agrees to provide the insurance, it's not their business what the employee is doing with it.

Once that's established, if there's a medication that does multiple things, such as BCs, then I disagree with an employer choosing not to cover it on moral ground when it might be used for something entirely different.

[SoulBiter]

That's not what was said. What was said is, if the employer is paying for it, then it's the employer's business, and that's not true. Once the employer agrees to provide the insurance, it's not their business what the employee is doing with it.

Once that's established, if there's a medication that does multiple things, such as BCs, then I disagree with an employer choosing not to cover it on moral ground when it might be used for something entirely different.

What I bolded above in your statement. The employer did NOT agree. That's why it ended up in court. That coverage was mandated by the govt but was not in their original insurance. The employees knew what was covered when they accepted their jobs.

Whether they should or should not due to moral grounds is not for me to say. But I cant argue with his right to object and take it to court.

[aliantha]

Yes, that's how a democracy works.

BTW, you might find this information about political donors and the party they donate to interesting. Or not.

Interesting, sure. But not surprising. Unions donate to Democrats and business groups donate to Republicans.

Gee, I wonder why Republicans want to break the unions?

Yeah, I figured that'd be your takeaway. Of course that's why the GOP wants to get rid of unions, but it's perfectly fine to want to limit what corporations can do.

Point being, the Democratic Party gets far more money in political donations from special interests than the GOP. But I'd hate to let facts get in the way of the approved narrative.

What part of my answer indicated that *only* the GOP should lose corporate funding? Pretty sure I said "equal playing field for political funds", or words to that effect.

[Rawedge Rim]

My main point remains:

It's not any of the employer's business why anyone needs any medication of any type.

If I'm paying for it, then it's my business.

I will disagree. Point me to the provision in my health insurance contract that says I have to disclose to you that I am on asthma medication. Per HIPPA, the employer has no right to medical information on their employees. So once insurance is provided, it is no longer the employer's business what happens between patient and doctor. Denial of medication coverage based on what it *might* be for should not be allowed, IMO. In particular when we're talking about BC's being provided for polyovarian cystosis, or endometrius, or what have you.

1. I have no idea what your health insurance guidelines where before or after ACA. I know that in most plans you have to disclose whether you smoke or not, and are charged accordingly. There may be other pre-existing conditions prior to ACA that may have put you in a position of having to pay a higher premium.

2. Prior to ACA, Hobby Lobby probably offered insurance that did not cover medications that they considered "abortificants", which include the "Plan B". With the imposition of ACA, Hobby Lobby is being put in the position of at least tacitly supporting, with thier money these medications, without thier consent. They are not saying thier employees cannot have these meds, just that they are unwilling to pay for them. If the employee wants to take the money Hobby Lobby pays them for work, and go out and purchase these directly, Hobby Lobby at least considers that acceptable. They cannot control what a person does with thier money.

3. What other medical condition is treated with Plan B? Heck show me a condition that is treated with Plan B that could not be treated with one of the 16 other BC's that Hobby Lobby doesn't object to.

4. Of course there is one other think that Hobby Lobby can do, that others already have, and that is reduce thier employee's hours down sufficiently so that they do not have to offer health insurance. Don't know how the employees would like that however.

[Cail]

Interesting, sure. But not surprising. Unions donate to Democrats and business groups donate to Republicans.

Gee, I wonder why Republicans want to break the unions?

Yeah, I figured that'd be your takeaway. Of course that's why the GOP wants to get rid of unions, but it's perfectly fine to want to limit what corporations can do.

Point being, the Democratic Party gets far more money in political donations from special interests than the GOP. But I'd hate to let facts get in the way of the approved narrative.

What part of my answer indicated that *only* the GOP should lose corporate funding? Pretty sure I said "equal playing field for political funds", or words to that effect.

Why stop at corporate? Only 11% of workers are covered by unions, and they certainly don't represent 100% of that 11%. Unions are an elite special interest that don't have the best interest of the country in mind.

Quite frankly, I'm appalled at how unbalanced those donations are, yet all the news reports on is how much money those damned Republicans are getting from those evil corporations.