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

[Pahoran]

Touche'   I have a dislike for psychobabble myself.

 

Having conceded that, I ask again: Do you have any thoughts on Hobby Lobby (not only a person according to Citizens United, but now one with "religious freedom") utilizing Chinese labor?

 

Okay, in the interests of full disclosure I should tell you that I'm not an American, so I'm not overly worried about protecting American jobs.

 

In general terms: if company A refuses to buy cheaply made Chinese goods and company B does buy them, and if the customers choose to buy the cheaper product, company A will go out of business, so their policy only benefits company B.  They're not helping American workers (especially their own) nor are they helping Chinese workers.

 

The government of China is not elected by the people.  They are already suffering under the communist government's draconian population control laws; any sort of trade boycott will impact the ordinary people far more than the insulated rulers.  I agree that there needs to be some way to tell the government that their laws are unacceptable, but punishing the ordinary workers may not be the most effective way.  And arguably it's not the place for a private company to do so.  Others may disagree, of course.

 

(And last I heard, in China it's a one child policy.)

 

If you're concerned about the pay and conditions in Chinese factories: yes, it's true that they're vastly inferior to what we are used to in the west.  If we refuse to buy their products, will that enrich the workers?  I don't think so.

 

But assuming that both companies A and B refuse to buy cheaply made Chinese goods, and prefer to buy expensive locally-made products instead, (and assuming no other competitors in the marketplace) the higher cost base will force the prices up.  American manufacturers, enjoying a kind of de facto sentiment-based protectionism, will get fat and happy and not worry about trying to compete with the Chinese.  That doesn't benefit American consumers; nor does it benefit the Chinese workers.  Their bosses aren't going to pay them more because their business has taken a hit.  Remember, however dreadful their pay and conditions are by our standards, they are better than they would get if the factory wasn't there.

 

If US companies continue to buy goods from Chinese manufacturers, US producers will be forced to find ways to compete with the lower-cost production model.  Not only that, but (all else being equal) the pay and conditions for the Chinese workers will improve over time.  That's because, as production increases, the demand for skilled labour will increase, and that will increase the value of that labour.

 

Expanded trade, not reduced trade, will do more about the sweat shop conditions in the long run.

 

Remember, factory workers in the "enlightened" West also endured sweat shop conditions until relatively recently.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

Why do you assume that insurance w/o the morning after pill will cost less than with? If the women continue to use a different form of bc, it may cost the same or even more.

[cipriano]

 

In general terms: if company A refuses to buy cheaply made Chinese goods and company B does buy them, and if the customers choose to buy the cheaper product, company A will go out of business, so their policy only benefits company B.

.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

I appreciate your response. Not to get too cute with mine, but I believe that the selected sentence above proves my point. "If we don't benefit from this terrible situation, somebody else will". This was a decision cloaked in terms of religious freedom but was essentially about human constructed business entities and the regulation (or lack) thereof.

 

So, to summarize your argument, "closely held companies" can choose to opt out of laws and regulations that offend them (except for taxes as noted by the majority). May I, as an individual, opt out of laws and regulations according to my conscience? Of course not. This is an example of the corporation in ascendence over individuals. This is what I meant elevating things like "free trade", "globalism" and "corporations" into our modern Molechs.

 

And this decision had nothing to do with the individual and their religious freedom. It is simply an empowerment and enrichment of our Molech.

 

If you haven't guessed already, Nibley's Approaching Zion, is one of my favorite books.

[LDSGuy]

What kind of person uses the morning after pill to the point that it's breaking their budget? If you're a Hobby Lobby employee, you can take one of the forms of birth control that they do offer. Repeated use of the morning after pill is irresponsible.

LOL. That's awesome. I'm not sure if this was meant to be funny or serious, but both were accomplished. But, seriously a person would have to have a serious problem to need that many morning after pills.

[Pahoran]

I appreciate your response. Not to get too cute with mine, but I believe that the selected sentence above proves my point. "If we don't benefit from this terrible situation, somebody else will".

It's not just a case of "benefiting." It's more a case of, "we won't survive if we don't do business on a level playing field."

But here's the thing: why is it un-Christian, or morally questionable, to do business with people whose employees are paid less than ours? They're paid what the market will bear in their country.

You're comparing apples and onions with this one. Sorry.

This was a decision cloaked in terms of religious freedom but was essentially about human constructed business entities and the regulation (or lack) thereof.

Not quite.

It was a decision wherein the court recognised that certain religiously-based principles were clearly genuine.

 

So, to summarize your argument, "closely held companies" can choose to opt out of laws and regulations that offend them (except for taxes as noted by the majority). May I, as an individual, opt out of laws and regulations according to my conscience? Of course not. This is an example of the corporation in ascendence over individuals. This is what I meant elevating things like "free trade", "globalism" and "corporations" into our modern Molechs.

I think you're getting carried away. The "Sole trader" or "Mom and Pop" kind of business establishment is still very widespread. Aren't they, under this decision, entitled to seek similar exemptions?

Are "corporations" (ptuh!) really the only entities that can claim any form of conscientious objection in the present US legal climate?

 

And this decision had nothing to do with the individual and their religious freedom. It is simply an empowerment and enrichment of our Molech.

 

If you haven't guessed already, Nibley's Approaching Zion, is one of my favorite books.

I really enjoy Brother Nibley's work. I have almost everything of his (except for One Eternal Round.)

But polymathic as he was, I don't regard him as infallible in all subjects. I'm not entirely convinced he understood how the market economy works.

Do you really think it a bad thing that an employer won't be forced to fund certain abortifacient medications?

Regards,

Pahoran

[cipriano]

Do you really think it a bad thing that an employer won't be forced to fund certain abortifacient medications?

Regards,
Pahoran

 

To answer that question would give credence to what was a calculated move on the part of Justice Roberts and his cohorts. It's really quite brilliant - Wrap a pro-big business decision in first amendment language. Who can be against it?

 

The ultimate goal of the Roberts Court is simple. Allow employers access to the largest labor pool imaginable and make sure that said labor pool is captive, without any protections whatsoever. If this sounds like histrionics to some, so be it. It's easy to predict what the courts decisions will be beforehand. Any decision that can hand more power and money to big business, will be made in that manner. The decision can be rationalized in endless ways by the oligarchic justices. In the U.S. there is even a burgeoning movement to overturn our child labor laws. When that decision is made, it will probably be decorated in patriotic, quasi-religious language.

 

Also, I pointed out the China angle in order to point out Hobby Lobbys duplicitousness. They exert control over their employees, claiming some types of birth control offend them. But their entire business model is based on selling goods from a totalitarian country which has strict reproductive policies, including mandated abortions. It is a glaring inconsistency. 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

Remember, factory workers in the "enlightened" West also endured sweat shop conditions until relatively recently.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

This seems to get forgotten, here, among some groups. You sounded like Milton Friedman here.

Edited July 3, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Ok, you are really pushing the logic envelope. If what you say is true than my employer is telling me how to spend my wages when they don't cover hearing aid or batteries. For those of us who are HH, hearing aids are essential...but almost all insurances exempt themselves from paying even a portion of the cost. To meet your criteria of fairness, all insurances would have to pay 100% of every single medical need there could possibly be, to keep employers from "telling employees how to spend their wages". Ridiculous!!!!!

Well, there goes another argument from the TSS. You are of course correct.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I used bc for at least 15 years. I couldn't use the pill, still never got pregnant when I didn't want to and we never used abstinence or the 'natural method'.

Wish (not really) that my wife and I had the same luck. We had twins while on BC. Ha.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Wow, that is shockingly misogynystic and judgemental. Bordering on the hateful.

 

Re double the minimum wage - wow, big deal. That barely crosses the 30k/year line. And that's if the employee gets a steady 40 hours a week. That's doubtful at a business like Hobby Lobby. If one has a couple dependents at home you can qualify for some social safety net programs at that wage. The entrance into the American middle class is 75k/year for a household.

 

Let us not kid each other. This decision is not about religion or freedom. It's about big business. The opinions of religious folks are being co-opted by corporations (easily I might add, judging by this thread), appealing to memes such as personal responsibility, chastity and the like.

 

One more point. Will Hobby Lobby stop carrying Chinese sweat shop products because of forced abortions and 2-child policy in that country? I won't hold my breath.

1) Lame

2)75K is not middle class sorry.

3) No it is about religious freedom.  You really think not covering the morning after pill is what is leading to hobby lobby's business success? Or that it is part of their business model for growth? Rofl.

 

4) so you are one of those that thinks raising the minimum wage is how to get people out of poverty?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Apparently in Stone holm's world, a religious reason for making a decision is never a valid one.

That sums it up quite nicely. Ha. You can do what ever you want as long as it is not based on religion. How progressive, and ironic, in that it is not really progress that is made here, in that view?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

I repeat: This is a decision about money, not religion or freedom.

I would love for you to seriously make the case for this. Something tells me you really don't know much about business. How is this about making money?

 

Do you know what a premium is? Do you know who pays most if it when it comes to larger businesses?

[Calm]

Wish (not really) that my wife and I had the same luck. We had twins while on BC. Ha.

And I know women who have that problem. Including one that no form work, either because of side effects or her hormones just ignored them. In her case I don't know if the larger dose of the morning after pill would have worked though if she had to use it as her primary form, it would likely have made her ill given the side effects of lower dosages. It is not an easy life.

[USU78]

Why do you assume that insurance w/o the morning after pill will cost less than with? If the women continue to use a different form of bc, it may cost the same or even more.

 

Good point.  I have found that if I want an a la carte meal, it costs far more than what's there on the menu.

[Walden]

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.

 

Yes, I will tell that to the IRS when they try to force me to pay taxes to help fund a war that violates my religious beliefs.

[MorningStar]

Wow, that is shockingly misogynystic and judgemental. Bordering on the hateful.

 

Re double the minimum wage - wow, big deal. That barely crosses the 30k/year line. And that's if the employee gets a steady 40 hours a week. That's doubtful at a business like Hobby Lobby. If one has a couple dependents at home you can qualify for some social safety net programs at that wage. The entrance into the American middle class is 75k/year for a household.

 

Let us not kid each other. This decision is not about religion or freedom. It's about big business. The opinions of religious folks are being co-opted by corporations (easily I might add, judging by this thread), appealing to memes such as personal responsibility, chastity and the like.

 

One more point. Will Hobby Lobby stop carrying Chinese sweat shop products because of forced abortions and 2-child policy in that country? I won't hold my breath.

I completely agree with GG. Women who use the morning after pill (unless they have been raped) have no excuses.  There is no explanation for their behavior except irresponsibility.  As for Hobby Lobby, it's clearly a moral/religious decision for them because it's not like covering the morning after pill would make insurance much more expensive.  Let's hope though that it covers STD's because any woman who "needs" the morning after pill exposed herself to more than pregnancy. 

[cipriano]

I would love for you to seriously make the case for this.

 

Really? Have you not been reading my posts?

 

Is this called drive-by posting?

[Calm]

Yes, I will tell that to the IRS when they try to force me to pay taxes to help fund a war that violates my religious beliefs.

The relationship is reversed. In this case a limited number of employees would benefit, should the company be forced by their need to pay for a favourite form of bc? (with the government stepping in as the enforcer, not as the one who benefits from the company being forced as it does when you pay taxes)

The government provides you with benefits in return for your taxes...you may not approve of all the benefits they give (war being supposedly for defence or security) and they undoubtedly don't provide you with all the benefits you might desire.

An employer provides you with wages and benefits in return for your work, you may not approve of all of their choices but it is not appropriate for one employee to dictate to the employer a customized package any more than one gets to dictate to the IRS.

Instead, if unhappy one can choose to leave the country or the company and when that creates a hardship or even if it doesn't, one can attempt to gather enough citizens or fellow employees to influence the choices of one's employer's. If a government refuses to listen, they run the risk of losing their jobs next election. If an employer ignores his employees, he may lose them or morale and commitment to the company drops and profits will as well. It is in the interest of the business owner to listen to significant numbers of his employees, but if most employees are comfortable with the status quo then not much reaon to change on a benefit that has a high (moral in this case) cost.

No one is forcing people to work at HL. They can't be put in jail, they can't be prevented from looking for another job.

Edited July 3, 2014 by calmoriah

[MorningStar]

LOL. That's awesome. I'm not sure if this was meant to be funny or serious, but both were accomplished. But, seriously a person would have to have a serious problem to need that many morning after pills.

I'm accidentally funny all the time. 

[Walden]

Women who use the morning after pill (unless they have been raped) have no excuses.  There is no explanation for their behavior except irresponsibility. 

 

I hope this statement is meant to be facestious/antagonistic/tongue-in-cheek, or you are seriously lacking in the area of sex education or are just completely naive.

 

Have you ever heard of birth control failures, even when contraceptives are used per the instructions for use? You've never heard of a broken condom or a diaphragm being inadevrtently displaced during sexual activity? Even a diaphragm used with spermicide has a failure rate around 5%.

 

Please tell me you statement was made in jest; otherwise, you have been seriously short-changed when it comes to being educated on the topics of birth control, sex education and statistics.

[rongo]

Let's be honest, Walden. The vast majority (overwhelming majority) of morning after users are not "hedging their bets" in case of statistically small regular contraceptive failures. The overwhelming majority use it as a morning after measure after casual, recreational sex.

[ELF1024]

I hope this statement is meant to be facestious/antagonistic/tongue-in-cheek, or you are seriously lacking in the area of sex education or are just completely naive.

 

Have you ever heard of birth control failures, even when contraceptives are used per the instructions for use? You've never heard of a broken condom or a diaphragm being inadevrtently displaced during sexual activity? Even a diaphragm used with spermicide has a failure rate around 5%.

 

Please tell me you statement was made in jest; otherwise, you have been seriously short-changed when it comes to being educated on the topics of birth control, sex education and statistics.

 

Right, because you know... using "The Pill" (not the morning after pill) and a condom would surely be too much to require of someone who didn't want to get pregant or some horrible STD. After all, we can't require people to plan ahead, be responsible for their own actions, or even think! Instead, we must offer them whatever birth control options are convienent for them, at no cost to them... after all, we can just tax everyone else for it ... or if, Heaven forbid, they choose to have the baby, we must pay additional funds to keep them from killing the child in it's sleep.

 

After all, it's the American way.

 

/off sarcasm

Edited July 3, 2014 by ELF1024

[Walden]

Right, because you know... using "The Pill" (not the morning after pill) and a condom would surely be too much to require of someone who didn't want to get pregant or some horrible STD. After all, we can't require people to plan ahead, be responsible for their own actions, or even think! Instead, we must offer them whatever birth control options are convienent for them, at no cost to them... after all, we can just tax everyone else for it ... or if, Heaven forbid, they choose to have the baby, we must pay additional funds not to kill the child in it's sleep.

 

After all, it's the American way.

 

/off sarcasm

 

Wow, the level of naivete and ignorance regarding the use of birth control is almost frightening here, though I temper my expectations with the fact that this is an LDS-centric board. ELF1024, you do realize that not everyone can take the pill or that there are factors that decrease the effectiveness of the pill, no? And Rongo, yes, I would imagine that the morning after pill is used more for convenience than actual emergency, but I guess those who do have an actual emergency and cannot afford the morning after pill are just out of luck.

 

And no ELF1024, unfortunately we cannot "require people to plan ahead, be responsible for their own actions, or even think!," as much as the responsible amongst us would surely like to mandate. I mean seriously, the level of stupidity I see amongst many parents makes me think that there should be some type of license to have a child, but the fact is, there is a lot of stupidity and naivete out there, more than most of us would like to imagine in this great country. I simply propose that as the responsible members of society, we do what we can to ensure that the naive and stupid amongst us who do not "plan ahead, be responsible for their own actions, or even think," are not reproducing at a disproportionate rate compared to the responsible sector.

 

Giving the unprepared amongst us the option to avoid a pregnancy is not the same as participating in the act of them avoiding or even terminating the pregnancy, any more than an LDS store owner is responsible for the drinking habits or alcoholism of those who purchase liquor from his store.

[Vance]

Sure; Laizzez Faire Capitalism gave only the owner of the Corporation property rights. The employees of that Corporation do not own their own labor, as was repeatedly affirmed by USSC decisions.

So, they are not really employees but rather slaves?

Because if the company owns their labor then the company doesn't have to pay them for it. And if the company owns their labor they can NEVER quit.

It is rather obvious that you are clueless.

[ELF1024]

I simply propose that as the responsible members of society, we do what we can to ensure that the naive and stupid amongst us who do not "plan ahead, be responsible for their own actions, or even think," are not reproducing at a disproportionate rate compared to the responsible sector.

 

Giving the unprepared amongst us the option to avoid a pregnancy is not the same as participating in the act of them avoiding or even terminating the pregnancy, any more than an LDS store owner is responsible for the drinking habits or alcoholism of those who purchase liquor from his store.

 

That's interesting... on the one hand you say that we should be responsible for the stupid irresponsible among us... but at the same time you argue that we aren't responsible for their actions....

 

So, which is it?

 

Addendum:  I mean, I realize that this is an LDS board, so we're all intellectually hampered    compared to someone with such a classical education as Henry David Thoreau. But is seems to me that you can't have it both ways... either you are your brother's keeper or you are not.

 

Using your example, why should we be selective about a pregancy issue, but not the alcoholic?

Edited July 3, 2014 by ELF1024