Hobby Lobby

[amIblue?]

Originally Posted by shirley1929

Both very fair points. In my mind, I was thinking more of a hourly employee that could probably walk across the street to Michaels and get a job fairly easily. It definitely is much deeper than that.

Which is feasible IF there is a Michaels in the area and IF Michaels is hiring for comparable wages and hours.

[GDIMom,GreekDot]

It's not that easy. I am a medical professional who worked for a for profit hospital from many years. A Catholic hospital purchased us and has taken our reproductive freedom away from us. Yes, we could go look for a new employer but it's not that easy in a smaller town and forfeiting years of service, etc.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by GDIMom,GreekDot

It's not that easy. I am a medical professional who worked for a for profit hospital from many years. A Catholic hospital purchased us and has taken our reproductive freedom away from us. Yes, we could go look for a new employer but it's not that easy in a smaller town and forfeiting years of service, etc.

This is the situation I was thinking of where the employer denying insurance paying for BC (NOT denying BC, as many people are incorrectly saying) would be truly disastrous and unfair. Let's be honest, if your ass has been working at Hobby Lobby for 25 years, you probably are past the point in life where you need birth control.

[Dnpgopenguins]

Originally Posted by 33girl

This is the situation I was thinking of where the employer denying insurance paying for BC (NOT denying BC, as many people are incorrectly saying) would be truly disastrous and unfair. Let's be honest, if your ass has been working at Hobby Lobby for 25 years, you probably are past the point in life where you need birth control.

Except for medical conditions that require you to take BC, or it you have a dependent who wants to take BC maybe for a medical condition.

[DubaiSis]

A worker shouldn't HAVE to vote with her feet. If they employ people in the US they should follow the rules of the land. And the rule of the land is you can't cram your religious viewpoint down the throat of your employees. I think (hope, pray) that the supreme court learned their lesson with Corporations are People and will vote the correct way on this one, which will be cause to re-address Citizens United and make that asinine ruling go away. And, by the way, why doesn't asinine have 2 s'es.

But back to my initial thought, while the workers shouldn't have to vote with her feet, the consumer certainly can. I haven't bought fabric in a dog's age, but I will definitely keep this in mind when in need of craft items of any sort. You can't get on your soap box over every friggin issue that comes up, but when a corporation takes their political viewpoint all the way to the top, yes, that is a good time to vote with my wallet.

[BraveMaroon]

Originally Posted by DubaiSis

And, by the way, why doesn't asinine have 2 s'es.

I mistakenly spelled it that way first, but I got spell checked. And I agree, the people working at Hobby Lobby probably don't have tons of options, and shouldn't have to suck it up because their employer wants to make a statement.

[DrPhil]

Yeah they can't deny BC (I assume they couldn't even if they wanted to). They are making sure BC remains the financial responsibility of employees.

[pinksequins]

I think GDI makes a valid point in two ways. For the older worker, the precedent of denying a form of coverage could lead to denial of other coverages on the premise of violating religious convictions. But more to GDI's point, the younger workers who are in the process of earning those years of service face the dilemma of losing those years or of not having other employment options (small town) so as to be able to vote with their feet. Personally, I sense a bit of misogyny in some of these claims of violations of religious principles.

[Low D Flat]

The government has made a determination that it is good for society for birth control to be available with zero co-pay. This is a rare government action that is actually based on empirical evidence -- people use birth control more reliably, and use more effective forms, when this policy is in place. A corporation shouldn't be able to undermine that policy where its employees are concerned.

I agree that getting rid of employer involvement in health care altogether is the best policy, but that wasn't politically feasible.

[WCsweet<3]

Hobby Lobby sets more people off on this topic than any other. I was watching this thread and few others on another message board I frequent that were about this same topic. It is interesting to see how many people comment on it. I'm not sure if it is because people really care about the issue or if Hobby Lobby has a big following. Weren't there other companies involved with the lawsuit?

[AOII Angel]

Conastoga Wood. Not many woman frequent their stores

[DeltaBetaBaby]

To be clear, birth control is very closely tied to (white) women's liberation. An attack on birth control is an attack on women in the workplace and gender equality more broadly.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

To be clear, birth control is very closely tied to (white) women's liberation. An attack on birth control is an attack on women in the workplace and gender equality more broadly.

Well, there is a big movement of white Christians that want to see white women stop using birth control to stop the "take over" of America by those "Non-Americans". There are many arguments against birth control and they aren't all just religious. Religion is a nice way to package all of them so you can hide behind the 1st amendment. These same people feel the role of women is in the home as mothers and wives so aren't swayed by any arguments to the contrary. It feels like 1900 sometimes.

[Low D Flat]

It's pretty troubling that Hobby Lobby getting a lot of political sympathy in part because they're framing the disputed medications as abortifacients instead of contraceptives. OBGYNs say that they aren't abortifacients, but Hobby Lobby says that they can decide biochemical questions according to their religious faith. According to their argument, if an employer decided that ibuprofen is an abortifacient, motivated by sincerely held religious belief, then they can refuse to cover it.

I cannot wait for the case where an employer says they'll only cover maternity care for married women. It's coming.

[LAblondeGPhi]

Originally Posted by Low D Flat

It's pretty troubling that Hobby Lobby getting a lot of political sympathy in part because they're framing the disputed medications as abortifacients instead of contraceptives. OBGYNs say that they aren't abortifacients, but Hobby Lobby says that they can decide biochemical questions according to their religious faith. According to their argument, if an employer decided that ibuprofen is an abortifacient, motivated by sincerely held religious belief, then they can refuse to cover it.
.

Yeah- this seems to be the crux of the case. Hobby Lobby isn't refusing to pay for all BC, they're refusing to pay for some BC based on an extreme minority opinion. They only want to not cover birth control that prevents implantation (IUDs and morning after pills).

It's an interesting spin to the now-classic "religion prevents my acceptance of BC" argument.

So now this case becomes part religious freedom, part science, part religion-vs-science.