Julie Rovner follows up on a report she did for NPR in 2012 noting that Hobby Lobby and other corporations who want to deny women coverage for birth control are still discriminating on the basis of sex and pregnancy under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, as determined by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 2000. Furthermore, 28 states require insurers to cover FDA-approved contraceptive drugs and devices; 20 of those states offer religious exemptions, just as the Affordable Care Act did before yesterday's Hobby Lobby ruling, but few if any go as far as saying private corporations can hold religious beliefs and get out of covering contraception.
South Dakota has no such independent contraceptive requirement for insurance policies. Rep. Joni Cutler tried to create one with House Bill 1156 in 2010, but the bill did not pass the House. Senator Ed Olson offered a more general defense of contraception in 2008 with Senate Bill 164:
...It is the public policy of this state that the interest in freedom from unreasonable government intrusions into the private lives of citizens, and specifically the right of consenting individuals to obtain and use safe and effective methods of contraception without interference by governmental entities, shall be safeguarded and that the laws of this state shall be interpreted and construed to recognize and protect these rights [2008 SB 164, Section 2(3)].
Senator Olson's bill also would have clarified that contraception is not governed by South Dakota's abortion statutes, including the statute that allows pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions if they think those prescriptions will be used for abortions... the same false pretext under which Hobby Lobby won its battle in the war on women before the Supreme Court yesterday.
Worth noting: both Olson and Cutler are Republicans. They are no longer in the Legislature, but they demonstrate that when South Dakota Democrats blast the Hobby Lobby ruling and demand that health care decisions be made by women and their doctors, not their bosses, they can find a few allies and win a few votes across the aisle.
I think this is part of the bigger GOP discrimination picture hear and abroad. This ruling will be used to allow business to avoid serving LGBT people. They can argue that their religious beliefs are violated and that LGBT people could always go somewhere else for the products. Options exist for the government to utilize and therefore, businesses and corporations can be protected. They are more important than the little people anyway.
Nothing in the ruling or in Hobby Lobby's policy prevents women from obtaining contraceptives of whatever sort they desire that are legally available. The issue is not availability. The issue is who pays for it.
The issue is not so simple as to who pay for birth control, it is that the Supreme Court has now established a preferred God and possibly rendering Freedom of Religion to be pointless.
This decision is directly pointed at women and has now set a precedent for any corporation to ask for a religious exemption to whatever medical treatment they choose not to pay for or believe in.
Hobby Lobby also contradicts itself in that are also investors in the very birth control pills they choose not to cover. And for a country that waves its Freedom of Religion in the faces of women, probably purchase or have manufactured 90% of its products in Communist China where there is no Freedom of Religion.
This decision is about giving corporate bosses the right to make medical decisions for women, keep in mind that birth control pills are often used for a variety of medical issues for women.
The precedents established by the Supremes ruling have long and lasting consequences.
As I stated, the biggest outrage is not about who pays it, it is that the Supremes have chosen a God for Americans that once believed in Freedom of Religion.
Roger C -
Huh? They've established a preferred God? Who? How? The ruling is in fact very narrow and pertains to the freedom of religious exercise. It does not restrict access to or the availability of any treatment. It simply allows Hobby Lobby to not pay for some specific treatments.
SCOTUS hasn't chosen a God for anyone and I fail to comprehend any stretch of logic that might so understand their ruling.
No, Hobby Lobby is not making medical decisions for women - not in the least. Hobby Lobby is making a decision about what they will and will not pay for. A woman who wants an abortion can still get one and she neither does nor ought to have the right to demand somebody else pay for it.
From what I understand the Hobby Lobby insurance will still be paying for Viagra, and other medications of that type, as well as vasectomies. Talk about discrimination.
If the SCOTUS decision was simply about who pays for what type of birth control, why have groups supporting Hobby Lobby been protesting at the federal courthouse for months on end demanding their Freedom of Religion? The protest I've seen made to mention about choice or cost.
To be clear, I say SCOTUS has established a preferred God because Hobby Lobby is a Christian organization of some type that apparently follows biblical beliefs. Since SCOTUS held with Hobby Lobby in their religious beliefs, is it now acceptable for other corporations that have a different belief other than Hobby Lobby to restrict medical costs for whatever may not fit their faith? Can you imagine the outrage if a Muslim corporation asked for the same religious exemption. Keep in mind that the Muslim culture also control women in the same way the GOP and SCOTUS does.
What God were the Supremes referring to in making this decision, or did anyone even ask?
Joan, the irony of this decision is that the 5 males (note: I did not say men) favored discrimination against women and decided legislate one more aspect of women's healthcare.
All three women of the Supremes opposed it, can we now logically assume that the women justices can legislate male enhancements and vasectomies?
Okay, erectile dysfunction in old men is more important than women wanting to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. It's really kind of amusing and sad at the same time.
Maybe all guys should be castrated. That would level the playing field. Steers would have no need for vasectomies or viagra and it would certainly lower the need for abortions and birth control.
PNR, Your statement that they don't prevent access to contraception is false. An IUD, one of the main contraceptions objected by Hobby Lobby, is one of the best forms of contraception, but also one of the more expensive options. The June 30 New Times reported:
"The cost of an IUD, one of the most effective forms of birth control, is considerable. It requires a visit to the doctor, and a procedure to have the device put in place. Medical exams, insertion, and follow-up visits can run upward of $1,000. Without insurance coverage, it’s likely that many women will be unable to use them."
Are IUDs still available, MJL? Of course. Can women obtain them? Yup.
Can Hobby Lobby employees get them? Yes to that one, too.
The mere fact that an optional procedure or device is expensive does not (a) establish a right to have someone else pay for it or (b) render such devices or procedures unavailable.
The fact that a Christian received a favorable ruling from SCOTUS does not constitute establishment of Christianity or full acceptance of the plaintiff's reasoning.
Speak for yourself on that castration one mike from iowa. The President will figure this one out just like he has had to do with all the rest of the crap the republicans have dumped on the country.
Women and children should just get in line to receive the hate like the immigrants do along with folks of color. When he does get it solved, I hope your remember who solved the problem for you and let your vote be cast that way. The only way to change this is to get rid of them, simple as that.
I'm talking exclusively about the Christian God Hobby Lobby has chosen to establish their discriminatory beliefs. It is that Christian God that the Supremes have chosen to side with.
Change the word Christian to Islam in this ruling to determine which God is being referred to.
PNR: Under your reasoning that there are options or exist despite the fact that a person that is supposed to have access be protected under law doesn't and won't be able to afford it simply leads to massive slippery slope. It is acceptable to discriminate people of other religions or being LGBT based on religious differences because they could just go somewhere else.
A business could offer paid time off for families that adopt a child in the form of sick days, but now can deny those to LGBT person because they disagree with the practice, even if they live in a state that allows and protects the rights of the LGBT community. The business could say that if they really want the time off, they can take unpaid leave. It would be their choice.
Here is from a senator that is quite the ladies man I reckon,
So this is what it is all about. It has never been about abortion or birth control, it is all about women who screw. Only a republican could come up with that and only another republican would support it.
Jerry, that is only one of many idiot comments made by tea party and Republicans since the Supremes ruling.
This is exactly the kind of thing that makes me crazily irrate. It combines deliberately twisting and distorting the Holy Bible, excessive patriarchy, white male ignorant privilege, and discrimination.
What Roger said.
And does anyone doubt that if Muslims had brought a suit identical in every way, that they would have lost? I'm not talking theoretically here. Roger is absolutely right about the Christian part of this. Scalia, Alito, Thomas? Seriously.
Deb, I'm sure you can't put "Scalia, Alito, Thomas and the word seriously in the same sentence. They just don't fit.
The majority of women in this country do not want corporations or the government making their reproductive health decisions. The majority of Hobby Lobby customers are women. It will be interesting to see Hobby Lobby's next quarterly sales report.
I doubt that it will affect HL's profit. There are many who are in favor of the decision that HL has made. Or even if there is a negative impact, it will not last long.
I have not been inside of HL since they started their protest, just as I have not been inside of Lewis Drug since they made the policy of allowing employees not to sell prescribed birth control pills.
Once the publicity fades, the memories tend to fade, the business will continue as usual.
Jerry,according to Andrea Wilkow(in your link),korporations shouldn't have to give vacation time to employees because they are generally used for recreation. Of course the korporations would have to have deeply held religious beliefs against vacations-to make it look and smell legal.
Same goes for weekend off,too.
Toobin nails the narrow decision garbage.
"Maybe all guys should be castrated"
There is a cultural Neo-Marxist argument that promotes hatred of males. Now we can better understand this statement:
" It combines deliberately twisting and distorting the Holy Bible, excessive patriarchy, white male ignorant privilege, and discrimination. "
It is the ELCA who is distorting the Bible due to its Neo-Marxist worldview.
What does the Evelyn Lundberg Counseling Agency have to do with anything, Sib?
Whatever happened to the SibbyOnline blog?
The neo-confederate Mr. Sibson,must have been Appomattoxed Lynn.
Permitting the owners of Hobby Lobby to exercise their religion does not constitute federal establishment of a religion.
And yes, if a Muslim were to show that Obamacare regulations constituted a "substantial burden" on the free exercise of their religion in the way they go about running their business, I would expect (and hope) SCOTUS would rule similarly. This is not an outrage. This is what the U.S. Constitution's first amendment means. For example, if a particular treatment were derived solely as a byproduct of pork/pig production, and the government required coverage of that treatment, Muslim business owners could very well show a "substantial burden" and be exempted.
This would bother me not in the least.
mike from iowa, I see where you are coming from. As Bachman Turner Overdrive says, "We're all self-employed and love to work at nothing all day" So for me, I am out of that loop of being dependent on an employer. Your Tobin article is spot on. We shall miss Ms. Ginsburg and her intelligence on this dumbass court as time goes by.
PNR, are you serious? Do you really believe that a white man is going to sit on his ass and be told by a Muslim what he can or what he cannot do? If a foreign company like Volkswagon for instance, tried to put a union in Tennessee, look what happened. It even brought out US Senators to the fight. You must be drinking so early in the morning to come up with that kind of silly talk, in South Dakota yet. Funnnnnnny
That is correct. If I choose to offer paid time off for adoption, I should be able to - for religious reasons - restrict that to adoption by legally married heterosexual couples.
But in this case - Hobby Lobby - women still have access to all of the treatments mandated by Obamacare. Nobody is denied access to the treatments in question. Some people are denied access to their employer's wallet for optional treatments. That is all.
Yes, I am serious.
Actually, in Tennessee, based on various interviews with workers at the plant, they did not object to Volkswagen bringing in a union. They objected to the particular union - the UAW. It had nothing to do with a sense that Volkswagen was a foreign corporation and everything to do with the fact the UAW is a bloated, unresponsive institution that does not protect workers so much as it siphons money from workers to pay bloated plutocrats in both the union and the government. Your example, therefore, is irrelevant to the questions of free exercise of religion, race, or Islam.
Thanks for making my point, republicans cannot help themselves in being the tool for your overlords. There is no way a so called Christian like yourself would ever follow orders from a Muslim owner regarding Islam. You can lie your fanny off and tell it differently, but your words give you away.
" There is no way a so called Christian like yourself would ever follow orders from a Muslim owner regarding Islam."
Jerry, "a so called Christian" is usually an apostate Christian.
Watch these so called christians freak when an atheist or Muslim boss says no crosses can be worn to work.
Mike, thanks for pointing out atheism is a religion. So much for separation of church and state with our government schools.
This activist,wingnut suckpreme court majority is actively making law-the exact accusations right wing nut jobs accused the liberal wing of doing. They are presently showing other wingnuts how to frame arguments that will pass rw litmus tests with this court.
If I remember the Volkwagen union vote,wingnuts were threatening the workers by saying if they voted in the union,parts would be made in Mexico instead of Tennessee,which companies reps denied. Nothing like coercion on the part of the family values party.
"thanks for pointing out atheism is a religion"
To paraphrase Bill Maher, atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sexual position.
In either case, promoting a lack of preferential religion in our schools and government does not equate to atheism. Many of our founding fathers who promoted the concept of separation of church and state weren't atheist but rather deist. Yet they still felt the concept had merit.
Since you make it a conditional statement, Mike from Iowa, I would contend that the condition is not met - you are not correctly remembering the VW union vote or the primary reasons for opposition to UAW representation as expressed by actual workers at the plant.
As for Jerry, your assumption of bigotry is itself rather bigoted, based on abject ignorance, does not address the argument, and succumbs to the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. As it happens, I served for a time under the orders of a Muslim senior chaplain (Kuwait, '03). We got along fine.
so-called christians? Folks, you can't have it both ways. Christian or not christian. If someone self-identifies as a christian, who are you to say they are not? Just because they don't meet your criteria of a good christian does not allow you to deny their christianity. You can't make christianity an exclusive club just for the "good" people.
Just boycott these businesses:
"If someone self-identifies as a christian, who are you to say they are not?"
No one can do that, it is God's Word that determines that.
PNR, I think you might be overlooking an aspect of what the Court has permitted Hobby Lobby to do, namely, restrict how their female employees may choose to spend their compensation. Employee health insurance is part of the compensation package. If Hobby Lobby can prevent an employee from using that insurance to pay for contraception, then it appears equally logical that the employer should next argue that its religious beliefs permit it to prevent the employee from using any part of her paycheck to buy contraception.
Can you provide a rationale to explain why an employer should be able to restrict the use of insurance benefits, but not the use of wages? And what about the company's contribution to an employee's 401k - should the employer be allowed to restrict how an employee chooses investments based on a religious objection?
Sidenote - Hobby Lobby has a 401k plan for its employees that invests in the makers of the same contraceptives it objected to allowing an employee to use her insurance to buy. see:
PNR, what gender are you? I ask this as you say you served under a Muslim chaplain, I assume then that this was the military and as you indicate, a subordinate. If you were a woman, did you wear the habib? Also regarding Hobby Lobby, what they also wanted was that there be no counseling from doctors in reference to birth control. How do you explain this?
8. The administrative rule at issue in this case ("the Mandate") runs roughshod
over the Green family' s religious beliefs, and the beliefs of millions of other Americans,
by forcing them to provide health insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs and
devices, as well as related education and counseling.
88. The Mandáte also requires group health care plans and issuers to provide
education and counseling for all women benefíciaries with reproductive capacity.
93. No religious groups or other groups that oppose government-mandated
coverage of contraception, sterilization, abortion, and related education and counseling were among the invited presenters.
103. The Mandáte requires that Plaintiffs provide coverage or access to coverage for
abortion-causing drugs and related education and counseling against their consciences in a manner that is contrary to law.
119. Providing thts counseling and education is incompatible and irreconcilable
with Plaintiffs' express messages and speech.
I do not deny ignorance on many issues, but you look foolish.
PNR is a GenX white supremacist male.
I remember the threats quite well,PNR. They were all over the news except for the fake news media.
Jessie-they don't meet the basic smell test of being christians. Look at what wingnuts say and do and compare that to what you know of jesus and his teachings. Not even in the same universe.
Mike, I'm atheist. Don't rely on any knowledge of what I regard as myths and nonsense. My point is that you don't get to deny that a bad person is a christian just because they don't meet your criteria for what a christian should be. When people do that, christianity becomes an exclusive club of only those who follow the teachings correctly. BTW if that were so, what would happen to the wonderful idea of everyone being a sinner, excuse me that's miserable sinner, needing redemption? Or is original sin enough?
Jerry - I am a man. Again, you are grasping at straws to justify an unbecoming bigotry.
bearcreekbat - actually, I'm not neglecting it. I posted to that effect on my own blog. I haven't addressed it here as it hasn't come up yet. Nevertheless, the practice of employer-provided insurance as in-kind compensation creates the circumstances in which these sorts of problems come up. I would prefer to dispense with that model of obtaining insurance (similarly re: government mandated/single-payer "insurance" creates such issues).
I remember the argument that UAW representation would drive down productivity, that they bankrupted the big 3 US automakers and would do the same to VW - perhaps not persuasive arguments to you, but they persuaded the VW voters. And remember, these were the actual workers at the plant who voted. That the UAW failed to persuade them is not evidence of conspiracy or bogus ads. We cannot say every time somebody we dislike wins an election that it's the result of an evil conspiracy. That way madness lies.
PNR, I am not familiar with your blog so I have not seen what you may have posted there. I do understand that you do not think employees should accept, or employers should offer, insurance coverage as part of the employee's compensation. But that doesn't answer the question:
Once an employer agrees to pay both wages and provide insurance, can you provide a rationale to explain why an employer should be able to restrict the employee's use of insurance benefits, but not the employee's use of wages?
And if there is no rationale to distinguish the treatment of wages from insurance, once both are part of the employee's compensation package, then would you agree that under the Hobby Lobby ruling, corporate employers have been elevated to an overlord status, while the employees have been reduced to serfs, since the employer can now claim that a religious viewpoint (that Justice Alito seems to say cannot be questioned as to factual accuracy, validity or sincerity) gives the employer the right to tell the employee what she can buy and presumably when and where she can spend her pay?
Who the F$%^ said anything about a conspiracy or what union was involved? There were news stories galore about wingnut pols getting involved trying to keep the plant union free and not at the behest of the owners. Stop changing the subject. You are sounding like another Sibby.
Jessie,I don't have any criteria for what does or does not make a christian. I think the whole jesus concept is non-sense. However,when these so called christians throw their bs out in public,I'm going to hand it right back to them. That is what we have a gubmint for. To protect free speech.
Ah. So this wasn't a christian calling other christians "so-called." So much depends on context, doesn't it?
Mike from Iowa - Didn't change the subject. There were arguments - not threats - made by some opposed to unionizing the VW plant. These were persuasive to the majority of VW workers. Nothing nefarious about that at all.
Bearcreekbat- if one agrees to accept in-kind compensation, then one accepts the in-kind compensation offered. That is, Hobby Lobby should be allowed to offer whatever insurance plan they wish to their employees. This is irrespective of religious beliefs. If an employer offers a car as in-kind compensation, can he not determine which car he will offer, or should the government dictate that - or the employee even? So also for insurance. Once employees have it, however, they may use it as they wish. Of course, this sort of freedom undermines the whole obamacare project.
PNR, so if Hobby Lobby (or some other business) decided that their religion required them to pay less than the federal minimum wage, and employ children too young to work under the law, then would that be fine so long as the workers and children agreed to accept less than the minimum wage law and child labor laws required all businesses, including Hobby law to pay?
And if Hobby Lobby (or any other business) decided to have their employees handle dangerous chemicals in their business, without following EPA and OSHA safety requirements, because Hobby Lobby had sincere religious objections to following EPA rules or OSHA rules, would this be fine with you so long as the employees knew about, and agreed to, Hobby Lobby's decision to require the employees to be exposed to dangerous chemicals contrary to EPA and OSHA regulations?
Finally, do you think businesses like Hobby Lobby have equal bargaining power with those women who need to work to support their families? Or perhaps the lack of equal bargaining power is a key reason we pass laws to protect employees and their families from exploitation by those companies with substantially more bargaining power than entry level employees, such as Hobby Lobby?
Some argument. Sounds more like threats and coercion.
No grasping at straws here PNR, the simple truth is that you are a man that was dealing with a Muslim Chaplain, another man, perhaps in the military or a military setting. That is much different than in the retail, corporate world. If you were a woman, in Kuwait, even as a westerner, you would be mindful of his position and wear your head covered and not speak unless you are specifically addressed.
Now, picture yourself here in the United States, working for a Jewish organization that has an issue with the use of anything derived from a pig, be it for anesthesia or for vaccines and they and the Muslim organization across the street, who also shares that belief, deny your health coverage access to that medicine or procedure. Do you see what I mean? Or what if it was Jehovah's witness and their aversion to blood transfusions? You are in the emergency room and you have to pay for the blood you need, that ain't cheap either. This is a big deal and the ones that it directly will hurt are women, why do you hate them so much?
And so it begins PNR, here is the latest "religious" bullshit to come out. It does kind my post relevant and yours just plain horse pucky. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/hobby-lobby-is-already-creating-new-religious-demands-on-obama/373853/
I think the federal minimum wage (and minimum wage laws in general) are bad policy. When it comes to child labor, who are the responsible adults? What is their take?
I think there is a material difference between necessary safety (although in this regard, I do think EPA/OSHA regulations go way overboard far too often) and paying for optional medical treatments. I would not, for instance, argue that a religious conviction that ritual human sacrifice alone will appease the gods is sufficient for granting an exemption to murder statutes. The RFRA requires that the government's regulations not impose a substantial burden on the citizen when there are other viable options which do not violate the religious conviction. I think Hobby Lobby was easily able to demonstrate that (a) the government's regulations in this case imposed a substantial burden; and (b) there are viable alternatives.
I think, to the extent there are alternative employers, expansive federal and state welfare programs (especially for mothers), and a fairly mobile population, the market position of employers like Hobby Lobby vis-a-vis employees is not oppressive as long as we prevent collusion among employers (which is already illegal under the Sherman Antitrust Act and other legislation). A woman working full time at $12/hr is grossing $24,960/year. If she is single and has children, add Earned Income Tax credits, WIC, and more, and her net take-home pay is more than that. If she is not working at all, she will qualify for various other welfare payments in both cash and kind that bring her net income to somewhere around that figure, too. If a person can make as much by not working as she does by working, I think she is in a fairly good bargaining position with employers.
mike from iowa - I could show you other sources that dispute it, but you would be as likely to discount my sources as biased towards conservatives as I am dismissive of your particular source for being biased liberal. The vote was a fair vote. UAW lost. The rest is sour grapes.
Jerry - I find your assumption of bigotry continues. You assume there were no women chaplains on that base in Kuwait in '03. You assume there were no women chaplain assistants. You assume much that simply is not so.
You might take it upon yourself to actually learn something of Islam, Judaism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christians, and the variations within all of these religions before drawing ignorant conclusions from half-informed stereotypes of all and sundry.
It ain't me that hates here.
Oh - as for the Atlantic piece, those demands are not new. If you don't want me, as a Christian, imposing my religious morals on you, then it is reasonable to expect that you will not impose your religious morals on me, either. Threading that needle when there are broad societal morals in conflict is not easy.
PNR anti-organized labor? What a shocker: as a retiree he enjoys Tricare benefits that pay for birth control and most abortions. His former employer, the US military industrial complex, is the most socialized bloc in the industrialized world.
Say it isn't so, PNR: resistance is futile.
There is nothing to dispute. Did the guv tell Volkswagen they would get 300 million if they kept the union out,or didn't he? That isn't an argument. Sen Corker didn't have an argument either. They pressured(coerced) the vote they wanted and they got it. No sour grapes-just facts. Your side doesn't give a damn how they achieve the results they want. They just want to win.
Unions are dead, just like the borgs
Tell it to the People's Republic of Brookings, Pat.
Pat's assault on Angelia Schultz is unforgivable: is it not, grud?
PNR now waving the flag after soiling himself at Madville: how conservative.
You sort of threw that poor young woman to the wolves, don't ya think, Lar?
I'm the one who knocks, grud.
Indeed, Lar. You are the original sheep in wolf's clothing.
and you are a coward, grud.
Death is a natural fear that consumes us all, Lar. See you at breakfast.
tim hickley says hi, grud.
PNR, lets be clear. The discussion is about what your religion will do to the rights of women now and also how the ruling will now have problems regarding other social issues that are now surfacing today as well. I could give two shits about all religions and what complete harm they have done to society as a whole and especially these days. While your religion rapes our young and abuses our women for their own pocketbooks and their own sexual greed, we humans suffer your work. Finding out more about religion is something that I have done in my life and I find it completely useless and boring.
I find the Atlantic article very telling as it speaks to the truth that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg spoke of and how your hateful religions destroy all that they touch. You people need to pay taxes on your houses of ill repute and stop sucking the marrow from the bones of the poor. There is no shame for what you do and what you stand for, only disgust.
bloody eff: Hinkley.
PNR, after further research, no, not on your religions, I see that the Supreme Court may have helped consumers find the way to sue corporation owners. We all know that if a company falls, the owners of the company can get away scott free under the Corporate Veil. Turns out that the Supreme Court now makes it possible to go after the actual owners of the company. http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/07/hobby-lobbys-other-problem
Sometimes, folks are just too damn clever and that is where they hang themselves. Big business, hello Hobby Lobby and big bank owners, your screwed with the court you wanted. gwhahaha.
Jerry, thanks for that point and the link. Major changes in corporate law coming down the pike.
It ain't so, Larry. I did not retire from the Navy. I resigned my commission after 12 years.
Jerry, my religion is not a threat to anyone's rights. In this instance there is no right to require someone else pay for unnecessary, optional medical care.
Is that true for "male enhancement" medications and devices too, because both are optional rather than a need?
Let's make guys wait three days before receiving their weiner enhancement products,force them to listen to constant bombardments of why they shouldn't have weiners,not allow weekends to count in their 72 hour wait,make them undergo invasive,up the weiner ultrasounds and allow virulent protesters to harass them outside the clinics where they are humiliated at.And then,for good measure,deny them their pills.
" That is correct. If I choose to offer paid time off for adoption, I should be able to - for religious reasons - restrict that to adoption by legally married heterosexual couples."
Wow, in one statement you have managed to explain why religion should never be allowed to have any control of anything at any time.
In your example, you want an employer to be able to exert their own religious beliefs on their employees based solely on the fact that the employees genitalia dont match the description in your book of fables. Once you have made that decision, it becomes intrusive to your employees religion, or lack thereof.
Once you set foot into that bedroom as an employer, you show your true colors. It doesn't matter what religion were talking about when that happens, it is the employer trying ti force the people working for them to either view life through glasses colored by that religion or move on to another job.
There are no laws about being homophobic, you can think about it all you want to. You can talk it up, and shout it from the rooftops, that's your right. If you want to be a bigot, well that's just fine. Again, you can brag about it all you want to, that's called free speach. That free speach is just that, "free speach. It is after all a protected right.
The SP has ruled that an employers religion trumps that of their employees. So much for the protections granted to practice, or not to practice religion "as the person sees fit."
Anyone that believes in this type of religious control over other people is a homophobic, bigoted, religious whore whose only interest is controlling other people's minds and bodies.
It doesn't make any difference what religion we are talking about, the court has decided that an employer has the exclusive right to use "mind rape" to force their views on their employees.
It sure looks like, if there is a god, that he, she, or it, doesn't love unconditionally, but with strings attached.
Careful, PNR: you could argue that every medical procedure is optional. One can always choose not to go the doctor.
According to the Guttmacher Institute, 1.5 million women in the U.S. use the birth control pill exclusively for noncontraceptive purposes like dealing with menstrual pain and acne. I can think of no religious objection for helping women pay for such treatments (unless we're going for Eve's punishment?). Are those uses entirely unnecessary and optional? Shall we make that decision for women? Or shall we accept a general neutrality in funding health insurance and leave decisions like that to patients and doctors?
Everybody knows the Hobby Lobby case is about their fear of white women terminating pregnancies. Having said that, the Pill is directly linked to spikes in transmission of HPV as the stem of menstrual flows that evolved to flush the female reproductive tract have been all but eliminated in far too many women.
Mike from iowa, you are my newest hero!!!!!! And . . . I think I'm in love with you. Yes, indeed. All my adulation stems from your "weiner enhancement products" comment.
The thing is, too many males will just snort and say, "That's ridiculous." But in fact, that's life for women.
The misogyny in this decision is thick, gooey, smelly and completely repulsive. In today's Strib an article describes the 3 women on SCOTUS as "irate." But they're not so angry specifically due to the misogyny, but because Scalito lied to them. Yeah, that's just what we want in a law giver with a lifetime appointment!
The deceit was in the Wheaton College decision handed down. Read the article to see how those males further damaged the Court.
Watch out Roe. The suckpreme court has determined that life begins with sex and the morning after pill is now an abortifacient. I believe these nutjob justices made pretzels while playing Twister in a contortionist school.
Comments are closed.