Friday, July 4, 2014

Hobby Lobby

In the news this week, the Supreme Court made a decision on the Hobby Lobby case. Hobby Lobby is a company that asked for an exemption for providing abortifacients to its employees, as part of their health care plan. The exemption was granted to them, on the grounds that they have religious/ethical objections to abortifacients.

Abortifacients are a type of birth control, but it should be noted that Hobby Lobby is not opposed to birth control in general. Their health care plan still provides 16 types of birth control to their employees.

This is a dilemma that is basically impossible to avoid. When the laws say birth control coverage is mandatory, the pro-life people get upset. When the laws say birth control coverage is optional, the pro-choice people get upset. And if an employer and their employees are on different sides of the debate, conflict over the health care plans is inevitable.

Do any of you readers have suggestions, on how to peacefully resolve the issue? Right now, both sides are going for the extremes of "mandatory birth control coverage" and "no birth control coverage". Hobby Lobby providing 80% birth control coverage seems to make both sides unhappy.


Anonymous said...

Make birth control a must. People who want it can use it and people who disagree can not excerise that part o the healthplan. I don't see why they care what OTHER people do so much. It doesn't effect them.

Anonymous said...

Yes, I agree. You can just give the extra birth control to someone else.

Anonymous said...

the problem is, that might be completely contrary to what the employer believes, and he would be violating his conscience, thus no freedom of religion. Honestly, I think I agree with those liberals, how bout the bosses keep out of their bedrooms by not paying for their birth control?

Anonymous said...

As someone who has used birth control for medical issues--and is mostly going back on them for continuing medical issues--it's a must for me. There are too many reasons to *use* it than *not* to use it. The majority of women who routinely use a form of birth control medication use it for, well, medical issues, not for pregnancy prevention. Birth control nearly saved me back in the day (and it was not my choice to go on it--what seven year old wants to go on birth control?), and I know it's certainly helped my best friend, who has ovarian cysts.

There really is no happy medium, Michael. It's like gay rights; the pro-marriage people will not be happy until ALL of the United States lets gay people marry freely, while the anti-marriage people will push for stays on the overturned marriage bans and continue to protest Pride events.

To my knowledge, and correct me if I'm wrong, but Hobby Lobby's main beef is with the Plan B pill, aka the "morning after" pill. Which, for the record, is not abortion, as all it does is work magic with your hormones. At that point, there is no fertilized egg. And again, not every sexual encounter results in pregnancy, ejaculation or not.

And to the crazies who think that birth control is murder--what planet are you on?!

Pip said...

Generally speaking:

I think "religious freedom" is something that should only be granted for natural persons, NOT corporate bodies (exception: Institutions funded AND run by the religious institutes themselves and even then with clear borders what is covered under "religious freedom" and only if there are nonreligious alternatives in certain branches)

Granting religious freedom for corporations is just another way to imbalance the relationship employer<->employee and actually RESTRICTING religious freedom: If corporations can legally enforce certain religious customs and behaviour (and this is what this comes down to if applicated in other aspects) the employees can't express their religious identity and changing jobs might be hard if >>every<< corporation can choose to abide religious laws.

Seeing how corporate bodies are normally not defined by the individuals running them (or at least both are not bound together), their right should not override the rights of others.

Therefore I think the argument "corporate religious objection" should not apply, with most arguments also applicable to ethical objections.


Specific case:

I think the whole healthcare-plan became such a prestige-object for Obama that he had to get it through however fractured and splintered it got. Now we have the situation where we have a law which is at constant quarrel with other laws and gets attacked at every opportunity.

I think this is where we have to attack this issue: Either amend the law to specify where it applies//how it interacts with other laws or let it be reevaluated in its current standing. In the moment we not only have a conflict between the extremists on both ends, we also have a conflict with two laws which should protect basic rights. With the latter conflict cleared we'd reduce the quarrel by a good amount as mostly the extremists remain who will protest whatever the result.

To ease their conflict the recipe would be either "decision+time" or "ignore+contain".