Hobby Lobby Wins! Gets To Exclude "morning After" Pill From Employee Coverage

[Calm]

Yes, and it doesn't seem to sink in, or at least to be honestly pointed out by the screamers, that HL provides 16 of 20 types of birth control for employees through insurance programs. HL chooses to opt out of ones providing the few drugs that are designed to abort, i.e., the "morning after" pill.

To hear opponents tell it, HL is taking away or infringing on the rights of women to have access to birth control, period, which is totally false.

And to even suggest that this is at all like trying to impose Sharia Law, or LDS beliefs, on anyone is nonsense, not when other forms of birth control through HL are readily available. If women can't be responsible enough to give a thought to birth control before taking off their panties, shame on them.

GG

Which appears in most cases to simply require women to think and plan ahead how to prepare for sexual activity, whether married or not. Besides rape victims, there were plenty of women managed for decades without it. I am not talking about birth control in general, but this type of morning after version. I can understand not wanting to have to think about something unless I needed to, but one could at least plan ahead enough to have the $40? on hand to buy the morning after pill for oneself or to keep one around. If one needs it frequently enough that it becomes a financial hardship, it is probably better medically speaking for the woman to switch to an ongoing form. Edited July 2, 2014 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

USU 78:

 

"Please take it elsewhere".

 

 

I wasn't the person whom brought it up. To quote and affirm california boy "One side of your mouth you talk about free agency and the other you talk about restricting peoples choice".

The scriptures speak of "agency" or "moral agency."

 

"Free agency" is a modern-day colloquialism. The Church in more recent years has distanced itself from that phrase and teaches the more scripturally correct "agency" and "moral agency."

 

And I suspect neither you nor california boy understand the concept as well as you think you do.

[Scott Lloyd]

False Equivalency. Plus the only six pack I drink is root beer. Spread out over a week or two. I don't smoke. But YES I do expect you to pay taxes to fund hospitals in chance that both of us will at some time in our lives need a doctor.

 

Are you by chance the Senator from Utah Mike Lee that yesterday compared women having sex and wanting contraceptives to sluts? 

 

 

Link, please. I'd like to read and evaluate precisely what was said and how it was said.

Still waiting for that link. I want to know what it was Lee actually said.

[Calm]

If you keep repeating the same nonsense long enough and loud enough some people will believe it.

Yes it does. Any corporation can now tell its female employees how to spend their wages. Employers medical health plan is just part of the wages paid to their employees. Any corporation can now impose their religion on their female employees. Now the female employees of any corporation have to go to their boss and ask permission to use any type of birth.

oh, please...you lose credibility with this kind of drama. People have to check approved list of medications now. We had to appeal to have a different kind of insulin for our daughter because the insurance company favoured a different type. I know plenty of people with rls who struggle because the usual meds don't work for them and they need others that have been proved to work but are not on the insurance company's list.

At least sex is a voluntary act and not something that will kill you if you have to go without if you can't get the meds that allow you to not be concerned about physical consequences.

Edited July 2, 2014 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

I disagree. Employers don't pay for food and rent, are they in any way telling their employees how to spend their money in these areas?

 

Depends on the employer. Most people eat and rent/buy in areas proximal their employer. Also most employers hire within their local community thus ensuring a local employee work force.

 

Add in that wages accurately reflect lifestyle. If you are Poor you are pretty well confined to live poor. Less money for food, shelter, clothing. Middle Class those become much less of an issue, the Rich don't have those concerns, and the Super Rich can live anywhere and any how they want. IE; The Green Family of HL fame is worth an estimated  $5.1 Billion. While the average Green Family employee earns $9.41 per hour(poverty wages). The annual cost of BC pills for those in poverty can be equal to or greater than one months pay. It isn't like you can go down to your local 7-11 and pick them up like Catholic Cardinal Timothy Dolan said that Christian businesses like Hobby Lobby should not be forced to obey government rules that require all health care insurance plans provide access to contraceptives because women can already buy birth control at 7-11.

[Calm]

"The annual cost of BC pills for those in poverty can be equal to or greater than one months pay"

And if they were restricting all forms of birth control you might have a point about it being a hardship.

[thesometimesaint]

Which appears in most cases to simply require women to think and plan ahead how to prepare for sexual activity, whether married or not. Besides rape victims, there were plenty of women managed for decades without it. I am not talking about birth control in general, but this type of morning after version. I can understand not wanting to have to think about something unless I needed to, but one could at least plan ahead enough to have the $40? on hand to buy the morning after pill for oneself or to keep one around. If one needs it frequently enough that it becomes a financial hardship, it is probably better medically speaking for the woman to switch to an ongoing form.

 

The old Foster Freiss aspirin between the legs argument.

[Calm]

"Depends on the employer"

And they have to go get permission from their employer where and what to eat according to you then? the employer tells them they can eat at McDonald's and not at Wendy's, they have to eat ramen and not spaghetti, they have to buy iceberg and not romaine lettuce etc....because that is what you are implying with your overdramatic 'reasoning'.

[Calm]

The old Foster Freiss aspirin between the legs argument.

Right...because there are no other forms of viable birth control besides the morning after pills and the abstinence method.

This attitude is a real insult to women, treating them like children incapable of thinking a couple of hours in advance to include a diaphragm and insist on their partner using a condom.

It is a miracle that for the past 50 years all women haven't been barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen apparently in your view.

Edited July 2, 2014 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

Of course we can always go with the Mormon Senator from Utah Mike Lee that women whom have sex and want birth control are sluts. Then wonder why we're perceived as ignorant fools.

I noticed after my last post that you are repeating the above while ignoring my earlier request that you provide a link so we can see precisely what it was that Lee said and how he said it, so we can evaluate his words for ourselves.

 

I need to know: Do you intend to go on ignoring my CFR?

Edited July 2, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[thesometimesaint]

"The annual cost of BC pills for those in poverty can be equal to or greater than one months pay"

And if they were restricting all forms of birth control you might have a point about it being a hardship.

 

Again you support the idea that for profit corporations are people with religious rights to tell their employees how to spend their wages; As long as those are the approved religious beliefs of the US court system. What is it about the "Or preventing the free exercise thereof" that you don't understand?

 

Would you object if your boss demanded that you could only buy certain types of hamburger. Not based on any science, or economic concerns, but based on his/her religious belief?

[Scott Lloyd]

Again you support the idea that for profit corporations are people with religious rights to tell their employees how to spend their wages; As long as those are the approved religious beliefs of the US court system. What is it about the "Or preventing the free exercise thereof" that you don't understand?

 

Would you object if your boss demanded that you could only buy certain types of hamburger. Not based on any science, or economic concerns, but based on his/her religious belief?

If he were buying me the hamburger, I would be inclined to abide by his wishes without objection.

[ELF1024]

What if HL owners were Muslims trying to impose Sharia Law on its employees? Equally important health care benefits are just part of a wage agreement, and now the employer gets to tell its women employees how to spend their own money.

 

I will refer you back to the same answer I gave back at #86.

 

 

As for a theoritical business that was closely held by JWs or Christian Scientists, people would still have the right to get their medical done on the open market. Or better yet, people can vote with their feet and get a job elsewhere. (Yes, I know with the Labor Participation Rate being as lousy as it is, that's easier said that done... but I hope that it won't always be that way)

 

Islam, JW, Christ Scientist... makes no difference.

 

And by the way, it not "Their Own Money" when you are asking the employer to include it as part of the benefits package. It's the employers money. Any HL employee is still free to pick up whatever form of Birth Control they choose from whatever Abortion Provider, or Drug Store they choose.

[Scott Lloyd]

 As long as those are the approved religious beliefs of the US court system. What is it about the "Or preventing the free exercise thereof" that you don't understand?

 

Why is it that you fail to comprehend it?

 

Forcing someone to pay for something that violates his religious beliefs is the very essence of prohibiting the free exercise of his religion.

[ELF1024]

Would you object if your boss demanded that you could only buy certain types of hamburger. Not based on any science, or economic concerns, but based on his/her religious belief?

 

This is false equivlency. They are not telling you that you can only buy one kind of birth control. They are willing to provide as part of their insurance, over a dozen different ones.

 

So, it would be more like your employeer offering to buy you any Hamburger from McDonalds, Hardees, Carl's Jr., or Jack In The Box; but you would have to buy your own burger if you went to Five Guys, Burger King, or Red Robin.

[Calm]

Again you support the idea that for profit corporations are people with religious rights to tell their employees how to spend their wages

Would you object if your boss demanded that you could only buy certain types of hamburger.

No I don't and I think that people have pointed out the faultiness of your argument to the point you are approaching lying about our positions.

They can purchase whatever bc they want.

The proper comparison is if the employer said I will buy hamburger for you and supplied only certain varieties and you protested that.

The us government only allows certain products to be bought with their welfare funds. Some insurances, including government provided ones in other countries will only cover certain procedures such as tummy tucks and breast reductions if they are needed for physical health and not for purely cosmetic procedures.

I had the same procedure as a friend done in Canada, I got in instantly and it was completely covered by government insurance. She had to wait 6months and pay some costs. The difference? Her doctor saw it as optional, mine saw it as necessary even though it was purely a comfort issue for both of us.

Why is it horrible when it comes to birth control and private cooperations to the point you feel the need to inflate what is actually going on contrary to the facts?

Edited July 2, 2014 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

"Depends on the employer"

And they have to go get permission from their employer where and what to eat according to you then? the employer tells them they can eat at McDonald's and not at Wendy's, they have to eat ramen and not spaghetti, they have to buy iceberg and not romaine lettuce etc....because that is what you are implying with your overdramatic 'reasoning'.

 

I was in the US military. They quite regularly declared certain off base eating establishments as off limits to military personnel. Further every military base, post, fort, depot, etc, has a list of approved housing for military personnel. I also went to BYU. They too have a list of approved locations for their students to use to live in. For the unmarried students their meal cards wouldn't work off campus. I also worked with a young boy that lived with his mother in a dumpster. The organization that I worked for got that young boy out of there as fast as we could. Believe me I've worked in and/or have seen every dark hell hole in every community I've lived in as an adult, and many that I didn't live in. That being said I'm still optimistic that we can still do better with our fellow Children of God. 

 

I don't have to imply anything about it. All I have to do is pay you so poorly that the choice of which pasta and/or lettuce is purely academic. Much like McDonald's telling its employees to break up your Ramen noodles and saltines into smaller bits. 

[thesometimesaint]

If he were buying me the hamburger, I would be inclined to abide by his wishes without objection.

 

He's not giving you anything. You are working for him. You are his employee. He is demanding that you can only buy certain types of hamburger with your wages that you worked for. Get it now?

[Scott Lloyd]

 

Are you by chance the Senator from Utah Mike Lee that yesterday compared women having sex and wanting contraceptives to sluts? 

 

 

Link, please. I'd like to read and evaluate precisely what was said and how it was said.

 

 

Of course we can always go with the Mormon Senator from Utah Mike Lee that women whom have sex and want birth control are sluts. Then wonder why we're perceived as ignorant fools.

 

 

Still waiting for that link. I want to know what it was Lee actually said.

 

 

I noticed after my last post that you are repeating the above while ignoring my earlier request that you provide a link so we can see precisely what it was that Lee said and how he said it, so we can evaluate his words for ourselves.

 

I need to know: Do you intend to go on ignoring my CFR?

 

sometimesaint, I went on Google and typed in the search terms "Mike Lee" and "slut" to try to find what it is you are talking about.

 

In no instance did I see a quote from Lee calling any woman a slut. I did see instances where people of ill will were putting words in his mouth, as you seem to be doing here.

 

Are you going to provide a link? Or is this an instance of bearing false witness that you are going to let stand?

Edited July 2, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[ELF1024]

He's not giving you anything. You are working for him. You are his employee.

 

Well, aren't you just part of the entitlement generation. You think the employer owes you birth control? You think the employer owes you anything? Hate to break it to you, but employment is a contract, and you get exactly what you signed up for when you signed on... don't like it? Work for someone else and make a better deal.

 

 

He is demanding that you can only buy certain types of hamburger with your wages that you worked for.

 

No, he is not. You can purchase whatever kind of hamburger you want... from where ever you want. You just have to buy it yourself.

[Scott Lloyd]

He's not giving you anything. You are working for him. You are his employee. He is demanding that you can only buy certain types of hamburger with your wages that you worked for. Get it now?

I can buy any kind of hamburger I want with my wages.

 

This would amount to my demanding an extra benefit from him, which he is willing to provide but wants to have a say in the nature of that extra benefit.

 

I'd say that, as an employer, he is within his right to do so.

 

Edited to add:

 

It would be similar to an employer offering a retirement plan but choosing to offer a stock option in the company as opposed to a 401K plan. Certainly his right to do so.

Edited July 2, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[MorningStar]

He's not giving you anything. You are working for him. You are his employee. He is demanding that you can only buy certain types of hamburger with your wages that you worked for. Get it now?

Benefits aren't wages.  They're benefits.  People are free to choose a different employer if they don't like what they offer.  If a woman is foolish enough not to use birth control and feels she has to take the morning after pill, if it's really that expensive, I think she would learn better than if she had her employer's insurance pay for use of the morning after pill repeatedly.  Or I'm sure the guy she was irresponsible with would be happy to pay for it so he won't be financially obligated to support a child. 

[Garden Girl]

 

I don't have to imply anything about it. All I have to do is pay you so poorly that the choice of which pasta and/or lettuce is purely academic. Much like McDonald's telling its employees to break up your Ramen noodles and saltines into smaller bits. 

 

Hello TSS...

Here again your argument goes off the rails... Hobby Lobby pays its employees double the minimum wage... and has for quite some time...

And I ask you... 16 forms of birth control provided through HL aren't enough?  Sheesh...  Oh, I forgot... those 16 forms of BC require responsibility of the users to plan ahead and take them consistently... not just whip off their panties and forge ahead mindlessly and phooey on the consequences...

 

GG

Edited July 2, 2014 by Garden Girl

[ELF1024]

TSS;

 

I do believe that a better solution to what your objecting to, would be to remove the responsiblity for health care insurance from the employer. I have long supported unlinking Health Care Insurance and Employment. I believe you should be able to buy Health Insurance from someone like Geico, State Farm, Progressive, or AllState instead of having it being attached to employment.

 

(Notice I do not support Single Payer/VA Care)

 

That way, when you lose your job, you do not lose your heath coverage. Also, the employer can pay you more, and should pay you more since they are saving money by not having to carry insurance for the employees.

 

You could then buy insurance from whatever insurance company would cover the most benefits you needed, at the lowest cost. And unless you are buying insurance from say... "Made up Christian Right Wing Insurance Company", you could likely get your Baby Murdering Pills/Procedures and Mark of the Beast Tattoo Removal both covered.

Edited July 2, 2014 by ELF1024

[Calm]

All I have to do is pay you so poorly that the choice of which pasta and/or lettuce is purely academic.

If this is the situation, the employee has more things to worry about than morning after pills.