U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-02-2014, 01:09 PM
 
Location: SW Florida
9,177 posts, read 6,365,776 times
Reputation: 12786

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Delahanty View Post
The fact is that any drug (or device) which keeps a fertilized egg from implanting is an abortifacient. Even the Catholic church has denounced them for that reason (despite the fact that they don't plan to cover even contraceptives). Hobby Lobby chose to cover plenty of true contraceptives, BTW.

Because the FDA refuses to classify something as an abortifacient, doesn't mean that it isn't one.
Actually, the Catholic Church used to ban all forms of contraception except for what they considered to be a natural form of the practice, which was abstinence at the time of the month in which the couple determined the woman was most likely to become pregnant- ( which reminds me of the old joke, "what do you call people who practice the "rhythm" method of birth control"?- answer "parents"). They banned any other form of birth control as interfering with the natural processes of pregnancy. This included the pill, although since that is supposed to prevent ovulation I'm not sure of their rationale for banning the pill, although I had read somewhere that the pill may also prevent implantation of a fertilized embryo if one happens to get through in a woman on the pill. The IUD prevents implantation of a fertilized embryo on the wall of the uterus- due to a chronic inflammatory process set up by the IUD, and the "morning after pills" also prevent implantation of a fertilized embryo after unprotected sex.

The Catholic Church, as well as many others who aren't Catholics believe that life begins at conception- as a scientist by education, training and work experience I tend to believe that it starts at conception based on the fact that if allowed to go through the natural process of development without interference, a fertilized embryo that's actively dividing will develop into a human being. If that isn't life, I don't know what is.

That's a topic for wide debate- as to when "life" actually begins. I think differences of opinion ( and rationalization on the part of those with an agenda) in that regard lead to opinions as to what constitutes an "abortifacient". If an entity, be it the government, an abortion clinic, Big Pharma, or anyone else in the business of telling a woman what she ought to do with her body ( or giving her a "choice", depending on their perspectives) decides that life begins somewhere after fertilization, be it at the two cell-embryonic stage, up to when the kid emerges at birth and utters that first cry, they'll likely determine according to their own criteria what's actually an "abortifacient".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-02-2014, 01:10 PM
 
3,493 posts, read 1,706,436 times
Reputation: 2219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delahanty View Post
The fact is that any drug (or device) which keeps a fertilized egg from implanting is an abortifacient. Even the Catholic church has denounced them for that reason (despite the fact that they don't plan to cover even contraceptives). Hobby Lobby chose to cover plenty of true contraceptives, BTW.

Because the FDA refuses to classify something as an abortifacient, doesn't mean that it isn't one.
I don't think you understand what abortifacient means, and you also seem to be ignorant of the human physiology of pregnancy. A pregnancy occurs when a fertilized egg is implanted in the uterus. An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. Fertilized eggs that are not implanted in the uterus do not result in pregnancy. This occurs naturally, and can also be induced by medical technology.

What you are suggesting is an unsupported and radical definition of abortion. Fertilized eggs do not implant naturally. Failure to implant is not an abortion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2014, 01:10 PM
PJA
 
2,387 posts, read 2,382,086 times
Reputation: 1123
Quote:
Originally Posted by NLVgal View Post
Lets put this another way, because at first-blush it seems like a non-issue, right?

Hobby Lobby was not "being forced to pay for contraceptives". They chose to participate in an ACA qualified insurance plan, meaning that they drop some pennies in the bucket for health care.This bucket spreads the risk/ cost across many insureds, hopefully decreasing costs for the entire insured pool. It also gets you tax breaks.

Now these people have decided that they want to selectively choose where their pennies go, even though they get tax breaks for providing care. That doesn't work.

If you and I wrote our checks out to the IRS every year and said, "Yeah but I don't want mine to go to Iraq, and I don't want mine to go for stupid fish studies trying to save a teeny little fish that nature has obviously selected for extinction."- that wouldn't work either. They are not going to sort the pennies in the big bucket.

We are ALL in this together. Contraception is an important part of healthcare. I don't need it, but other people do. I also don't have diabetes or cancer, but other people do.

If Hobby Lobby wanted to opt-out they could have incorporated as a non-profit and chosen to pay their employees a little bit more to make up the difference in not providing healthcare benefits. They CHOSE not to.

Actually they didn't choose to participate in ACA, they are required to participate.

They are not a non-profit company so they wouldn't be able to incorporate as such.

And for the record HL pays their employees generously compared to similar stores.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2014, 01:13 PM
 
Location: Upstate NY
30,639 posts, read 9,156,162 times
Reputation: 29180
Quote:
Originally Posted by PJA View Post
Actually they didn't choose to participate in ACA, they are required to participate.

They are not a non-profit company so they wouldn't be able to incorporate as such.

And for the record HL pays their employees generously compared to similar stores.

Hobby Lobby pays twice the minimum wage. The bottom line is that it's one's own responsibility to pay for one's birth control
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2014, 01:14 PM
 
3,493 posts, read 1,706,436 times
Reputation: 2219
Quote:
Originally Posted by PJA View Post
They don't have any input and this ruling isn't giving them any input. The employee can use whatever form of BC they want to use. If its not covered by their insurance, then they will have to pay out of pocket just like others do for prescriptions that are not covered under their insurance plan.
If an ordinary group insurance plan for 50 employees is required to include coverage for insulin injections, then the employer who refuses to acquire coverage for insulin injenctions is inappropriately inputting itself in the employee's medical care. The fact that the medical care is birth control does not change the inappropriateness of the employer's interjection.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2014, 01:16 PM
 
Location: Cold Springs, NV
4,576 posts, read 9,108,817 times
Reputation: 4997
Quote:
Originally Posted by PJA View Post
Actually they didn't choose to participate in ACA, they are required to participate.

They are not a non-profit company so they wouldn't be able to incorporate as such.

And for the record HL pays their employees generously compared to similar stores.
No, they could provide their own plan. Employers that provide healthcare are not forced into the ACA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2014, 01:16 PM
 
13,488 posts, read 9,635,705 times
Reputation: 17437
Quote:
Originally Posted by PJA View Post
Actually they didn't choose to participate in ACA, they are required to participate.

They are not a non-profit company so they wouldn't be able to incorporate as such.

And for the record HL pays their employees generously compared to similar stores.
You avoided the major points, and focused on the minutia. The larger point was the precedent.

You and I are going to have to agree to disagree about this one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2014, 01:17 PM
 
Location: SW Florida
9,177 posts, read 6,365,776 times
Reputation: 12786
Quote:
Originally Posted by Juram View Post
Find me one example of an employee that was blind-sided by Hobby Lobby being a Christian company? They aren't subtle at all about it. They are closed on Sunday's for religious reasons, they regularly hold fundraisers for various churches and are very active in the Christian community.

Beyond that, they aren't refusing to provide birth control which they had provided in the past, they would still cover 16 of the 20 ACA required contraception drugs/birth control etc.

Not to mention that they've got religious-based items all over their stores- it's pretty obvious. I'd imagine that unless an employee there is totally oblivious, he/she wouldn't be at all surprised by Hobby Lobby's owners deep religious beliefs. And if all that bothered someone a whole lot, I'd doubt they'd ever choose to work there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2014, 01:17 PM
PJA
 
2,387 posts, read 2,382,086 times
Reputation: 1123
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge View Post
If an ordinary group insurance plan for 50 employees is required to include coverage for insulin injections, then the employer who refuses to acquire coverage for insulin injenctions is inappropriately inputting itself in the employee's medical care. The fact that the medical care is birth control does not change the inappropriateness of the employer's interjection.

Jobs have been doing that for years, dropping certain benefits when they deem necessary. When one of my jobs years ago decided to stop covering vision, while I was disappointed, I didn't feel like they were inputting themselves into my medical care. I just had to pay out of pocket until I got a job that actually had vision.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2014, 01:20 PM
PJA
 
2,387 posts, read 2,382,086 times
Reputation: 1123
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWillys View Post
No, they could provide their own plan. Employers that provide healthcare are not forced into the ACA.

Meaning they are still being forced to do something. I think that this all sets a dangerous precedent which is why IMO if the government wants to get involved, they should take over completely. Then we won't have to worry about personal freedoms and liberties being taken away.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top