Hobby Lobby Argument from The Right

[citizen blues]

This is the argument made by the right. My southern cousin shared it off a FB page called "The Revolution." Essentially it says, "What's the big deal? You have 16 others to choose from." Here's what the big is: After not being able to continue taking birth control pills, I ended up having two miscarriages. To prevent this from happening again, the doctors recommended the second most effective form of contraceptive - an IUD. Yes, IUDs are one of the four included in this decision.

[link:|


Last year I had an ablation done following the removal of a uterine fibroid. Technically, I'm still ovulating, so could have a sperm and egg meet. but be unable to implant because the uterine lining was cauterized. Under this SCOTUS decision, this procedure may not be covered as well. My only other option would have been a full hysterectomy. I would have had far more medical bills and a much longer recovery time.

My boss does not belong in my doctor's office. The personal and private decisions that I make with my medical care professionals is none of my employer's damn business!

Hobby Lobby is a corporation. Corporations are not people. Corporations do not have rights, people do. You want to run a business? Then you get to deal with the messy diversity of this nation. You do not get to dictate your employees' medical care by deciding what will and what will not be covered by their insurance. Period.

Ultimately, the only way to stop crap decisions like this one is to pass the amendment to end corporate personhood. Many who support this amendment are also calling for a constitutional convention. Up until now, I have opposed that because I believe we would not survive it as a nation. I still believe that if we go to a constitutional convention, the United States of America will no longer exist. It would open a floodgate that would be impossible to close. This Great Experiment will have failed.

[Liberalynn]

1. It's already failed even if we leave things as they are.

As long as the House remains in Puke hands nothing can pass not even reform attempts and that's not likely to change because of gerrymandering. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try, we should, cause nothing gets better if we do nothing either.

[customerserviceguy]

2. Your procedure

had the side effect of possibly making your uterus unable to accept an implantation. The purpose of your procedure was to deal with an adverse medical condition.

The difference between that and the four contraceptive methods at issue is one of intent, and that is a part of relgious/moral/philosophical interest.

Corporate 'personhood' goes back in English common law to a time before the American Revolution. Its structure was well known to the framers, and they seemed to have no problem with it when forming the Constitution. I suppose at some point it may go the way of the buggy whip and the newspaper, but I don't see that happening any time soon.

[GeorgeGist]

4. I find it revealing that you have never recommended an OP.

[customerserviceguy]

5. There are a lot of things here that I consider extras

For instance, I don't use the ignore feature, either. I very, very rarely send DU mail to an individual off the boards, the only real exception is to give very specific advise to someone seeking that advice in a private one-on-one communication that I know is welcomed, because I get thanked that way.

I feel that responding to an OP or one of the comments down the thread is sufficient participation in DU, along with serving on a jury if asked.

[Justice]

7. Intent of who? How does the employer know what an employee's intent is?

If the difference between a medically needed procedure and a choice to take contraception is one of intent - who gets to decide what a person's intent is? To me, we are each responsible for our decisions - our souls if you will.

Here, the employer gets to decide - not the employee. Intent doesn't matter - all that matters is what the employer wants.

[customerserviceguy]

9. In this case

the operation to deal with the fibroid is something done by a doctor specifically to deal with a medical issue. The contraceptives at issue in this case have only contraception as their purpose.

That was the argument HL and Conestoga made, and they prevailed.

[BrotherIvan]

13. *SIGH*

Please learn more before you cheerlead for this abomination. It's obvious you think that this will not affect you and that the decision is limited, but as we are already seeing--in a very short time-- that it has created a huge precedent for discrimination from all kinds of religious groups.

A) The decision struck down coverage for *all* forms of contraception as was seen on the decision about Wheaton just a few days after. It now allows a company to deny ALL forms of contraception. And it is also allowing them to refuse to sign a waiver because that also somehow infringes upon their rights. This is not about the idea, originally stated in HL, that corps do not want to contribute toward insurance that covers contraception. It is in fact about making sure their employees cannot get it at all except by shouldering the unfair costs themselves.

B) Birth control/hormone therapy is used for MANY reasons besides contraception. It is used to regulate a woman's hormones. It is used to prevent conception in women where it would be life threatening to carry a baby to term or they are taking medication that causes severe birth defects. (As a man, you may not know that there are many medicines a woman must take a pregnancy test every month while she is on it and doctors recommend an immediate abortion).

C) A woman's health is determined in great part by her reproductive organs which are where hormones are created. It is medically necessary to make sure that everything is working properly as disfunction can lead to things such as cancer and other issues. Should a man not be allowed to take testosterone if he needs it? Do you understand how many forms of women's birth control even work?

D) Pregnancy is potentially LIFE THREATENING for every woman. If a woman does not wish to take the risk to give birth to a child, she should not be *forced to* by her employer. It is a major health concern, hence the mandate to cover it.

E) And last but not least, a corporation or any person should not have the right to inflict their beliefs upon others. In this case, health insurance, is an earned benefit and part of a package of compensation. What an employee chooses to do with that compensation is none of anyone's God Damn Business. NO ONE can be allowed to have a religious objection to something another person does.

[customerserviceguy]

17. I've done my homework, have you?

Here's your points, one by one:

A) It remains to be seen just how many forms of contraceptives are covered by this decision. The OP referred to the inability of the uterus to accept implantation, and that's the basis for the specific contraception methods that were named in the Hobby Lobby case, it was alleged (based on information from HHS, no less) that these methods might prevent implantation of a fertilized embryo, as was possibly the case with the OP's surgical procedure. Also, the Wheaton decision involved only the form of paperwork used to establish that the religious-based employer did not want to cover contraception. The exception for such organizations was already part of the regulatory scheme of handling contraception coverage by certain non-profits.

B) Again, only four forms of birth control were involve in the Hobby Lobby case, and none of them have any known medical use other than to prevent pregnancy by what are still not fully understood means. BC pills for hormonal regulation are still in HL's plan, and were not the subject of that case. They are the subject of the regulations designed to exempt religious non-profits from having to pay for contraception, but it is unclear whether or not BC pills prescribed specifically for hormonal therapy are covered or not.

C) Yes, I understand how BC products work. Not only was I a volunteer for Planned Parenthood in Seattle some forty years ago, I also offered myself up twice as a guinea pig for research into chemical means of male contraception. You're arguing with the wrong person here.

D) Again, no one is forcing pregnancy on anyone. In the HL case, the SCOTUS suggested that either morally opposed employers in closely-held corporations be allowed into the plan that HHS set up for religious non-profits, or that the government could itself supply contraceptives to people wishing to avail themselves o f them, without the employer being involved. It would just change who the payer is for the products and services related to them, that's all.

E) When someone goes to work for an organization, they submit themselves to that employer's philosophies, especially in a closely-held corporation or family business that has non-mainstream religious beliefs. If I went to work for a Jewish hospital, it would be reasonable to expect that they ask me not to bring ham sandwiches in my brown bag lunch that I eat in the cafeteria. Sometimes those philosophies and beliefs are illegal to impose, other times they are not. In this case, Hobby Lobby's lawyers skillfully used a twenty year old law to gain exemption for their clients. Congress had the chance to specify in the ACA that RFRA doesn't apply to any of it, they neglected to use their authority to do so.

Further, how Hobby Lobby employees spend their take home pay is still their own business, and they can buy any legal product they want to with it, including marijuana in Colorado and Washington. As far as no one being allowed to have a religious objection to something another person does, well, you're just talking out of your ass there. Religion is all about having a list of thou-shalts and thou-shalt-nots that each person decides whether or not they're going to follow, and that includes a believer saying, "I'm morally opposed to what you do," whether that involves legal or illegal behavior.

Finally, where did you get the idea that I was a cheerleader? I simply read the decision in its entirety, and it's not the all or nothing that extremists on both sides are making it out to be. Yes, it may take some further Court decisions to clarify that, but for now, I can read the words, especially Anthony Kennedy's. He is the swing vote, and it's clear that he wants this decision to have a very limited effect.

[BrotherIvan]

19. I won't take a lot of time to reply as you seem to want to continue to spread these falsehoods

Limited effect? The decision on Wheaton who opposes ALL FORMS of contraception just days after the decision. To keep spreading the RW trope that this is about only 4 forms of birth control is disingenuous at best. There are companies lined up who are using this decision to oppose all forms of contraception.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025193067

E) When someone goes to work for an organization, they submit themselves to that employer's philosophies, especially in a closely-held corporation or family business that has non-mainstream religious beliefs.

THIS IS NOT TRUE. In fact, just the opposite. There was no law previously that allowed corporations to discriminate according to their religion. As an employee, you may wish to avoid offending your employer, but there is nothing that says you must abide by their religious beliefs. Asking an employee not to do something offensive while at work isn't too hard to deal with. If someone was fired for eating a ham sandwich outside of work, that would be a problem. This ruling applies to employees OUTSIDE of work--it applies to medical decisions and allows religious companies to discriminate based on gender. And they will use it to discriminate against LGBTs, race, women for more than just medicine, as well as other forms of treatment. They already are trying to use it against Obama's executive order for equal treatment for LGBT employees!

But you are still giving the same arguments that this decision will not have far reaching effects for everyone, when ample evidence has been given, so we're done here.

[jeff47]

21. Boy, you're trying really, really hard to look dumb.

A) It remains to be seen just how many forms of contraceptives are covered by this decision

Nope. The SCOTUS clarified the day after the Hobby Lobby decision was released that it applied to all forms of contraception.

The OP referred to the inability of the uterus to accept implantation, and that's the basis for the specific contraception methods that were named in the Hobby Lobby case, it was alleged (based on information from HHS, no less) that these methods might prevent implantation of a fertilized embryo, as was possibly the case with the OP's surgical procedure.

Pregnancy doesn't start until implantation. That's the massive medical error behind the owners of Hobby Lobby. Why? Implantation fails about half the time in healthy women.

B) Again, only four forms of birth control were involve in the Hobby Lobby case,

Nope, see you erroneous statement from A.

and none of them have any known medical use other than to prevent pregnancy by what are still not fully understood means.

Three massive piles of stupid here.

First, there are other uses for the banned devices/drugs. For example, the hormonal IUD banned by Hobby Lobby, shockingly enough, regulates hormones!

Second, the means are completely understood. Anti-abortion morons talk up them not being understood in an attempt to make them sound dangerous.

Third, you're still in your "only 4!!!" pile of stupid.

They are the subject of the regulations designed to exempt religious non-profits from having to pay for contraception, but it is unclear whether or not BC pills prescribed specifically for hormonal therapy are covered or not.

When we men have to discuss the intimate details of our medical conditions with the HR department, you can start demanding women do so too.

C) Yes, I understand how BC products work.

Not according to your answer to B. Remember "not completely understood"? If they're "not completely understood" you can't know how they work. So, lying then or lying now?

D) Again, no one is forcing pregnancy on anyone.

Yeah! Birth control pills grow on trees! Just plant one in your backyard and get them for free!!!!

In the HL case, the SCOTUS suggested that either morally opposed employers in closely-held corporations be allowed into the plan that HHS set up for religious non-profits, or that the government could itself supply contraceptives to people wishing to avail themselves o f them, without the employer being involved. It would just change who the payer is for the products and services related to them, that's all.

Here in this place we like to call "reality", we are aware of the current makeup of the House of Representatives. Thus we understand the likelihood that Congress will pass a law making up for Hobby Lobby's bigotry are zero.

E) When someone goes to work for an organization, they submit themselves to that employer's philosophies, especially in a closely-held corporation or family business that has non-mainstream religious beliefs.

Nope.

You don't have to keep kosher at home if you work for a business owned by observant Jews.
You can have blood transfusions even if your boss is a Jehovah's Witness.
You can go to a psychiatrist if your boss is a Scientologist.
and so on.

If I went to work for a Jewish hospital, it would be reasonable to expect that they ask me not to bring ham sandwiches in my brown bag lunch that I eat in the cafeteria.

Guess what? Women don't have IUDs installed in the cafeteria. Or anywhere on the company's property, or while on the clock.

Congress had the chance to specify in the ACA that RFRA doesn't apply to any of it, they neglected to use their authority to do so.

That's because the argument behind this decision is insane. Congress expected the SCOTUS to be filled with adults. Unfortunately, there are 5 children on that bench who think lady parts are icky.

Further, how Hobby Lobby employees spend their take home pay is still their own business, and they can buy any legal product they want to with it, including marijuana in Colorado and Washington.

If Hobby Lobby paid all of it's staff better, this might defuse that particular issue somewhat. But a month's birth control pills costs about a 8 hours for a Hobby Lobby employee. The IUDs that Hobby Lobby is refusing to cover cost about 2 weeks pay. And these damn employees have the idea that they should be able to eat during those two weeks.

However, this argument also continues with your pile of stupid where you think the decision is only limited to Hobby Lobby, and only these 4 treatments.

Finally, where did you get the idea that I was a cheerleader?

Largely from the pile of stupid and error you are vomiting forth in an attempt to cover for the decision.

I simply read the decision in its entirety, and it's not the all or nothing that extremists on both sides are making it out to be.

Pssst....you should bother to read the clarifications released the next day.

especially Anthony Kennedy's. He is the swing vote, and it's clear that he wants this decision to have a very limited effect.

If that were true, then he wouldn't have joined a broad decision.

But lastly, your massive, gigantic error is believing that this is Hobby Lobby's health care plan. That it is something they own. It is not. It is part of their employee's compensation. Demanding that female employees (and only female employees) not receive particular medical treatments is the same as your boss insisting that none of your paycheck can be spent at Exxon stations. This decision is an attempt to go back to company scrip.

[A Little Weird]

23. Excellent response

[bettyellen]

35. THIS!!!

[Ilsa]

14. Corporate personhood is several centuries old?

I had not read that. I don't know where to start in researching it.

I had heard on Hartmann's radio program ages ago that US corporations originally had to have charters renewed every five years to determine if existence of the corp was in the public interest. Is this ability or requirement to "expire" what you are referring to?

[customerserviceguy]

18. The concept of the corporation

as a separate entity from its shareholders is indeed centuries old. Of course, we have only recently used the term "corporate personhood" as a way of creating what sounds to many like an oxymoron that is absurd on it's face. The legal standing of a corporation as a fully distinct entity has been well developed in law, and as corporate forms appear (like the closely held family corporation) the statute and case law regarding them has expanded to cover their nuances. Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby just expanded those notions a bit.

Its what happens when laws are not negotiated between the political parties, when one party manages to pass a law all on its own, the courts get called in to do the reining in of that law as a substitute (granted, a poor one) for the compromising that would normally take place in a legislative process, especially one that includes the executive branch having a line-item veto.

My corporate law class was over three decades ago, but I don't recall any sort of five year filing. Corporations do have to file annually (and pay filing fees) in order to continue doing business in the jurisdictions that they are created under. They also have various necessary tax filings to prepare to keep their corporation valid and in good standing. And while a non-profit corporation may have requirements under some states' laws regarding "the public interest", I've never heard of (nor can I conceive of any reason for) that being required for a for-profit corporation.

In any case, this form of business is not going away within either of our lifetimes.

[jeff47]

22. We didn't create corporate personhood.

Of course, we have only recently used the term "corporate personhood" as a way of creating what sounds to many like an oxymoron that is absurd on it's face.

We didn't create the term "corporate personhood". Conservatives did to try and justify giving civil rights to corporations.

The legal standing of a corporation as a fully distinct entity has been well developed in law, and as corporate forms appear (like the closely held family corporation) the statute and case law regarding them has expanded to cover their nuances. Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby just expanded those notions a bit.

Here's the big stinking problem:
The corporation is supposed to be separate from the owners. Even closely held corporations. That's one of the major reasons corporations exists - to create a shield between owners and the business. If the corporation goes bankrupt the executives don't have to cover the debts, for example.

Demanding the corporation follow the religious beliefs of the executives makes no sense if they are separate entities. Yet that's what this decision is trying to do.

Its what happens when laws are not negotiated between the political parties, when one party manages to pass a law all on its own, the courts get called in to do the reining in of that law as a substitute

The relevant law was passed by both parties. In fact, it was nearly unanimous from Congress, and Clinton signed it.

[customerserviceguy]

26. Not sure who invented the term,

but it's not a new one.

And the law I was talking about was not the RFRA, which was indeed passed by a bipartisan majority, but the ACA which was one party legislation. Without the ACA, RFRA wouldn't have been an issue in this case.

[jeff47]

30. No, without massive hypocrisy from Hobby Lobby's executives, there wouldn't be an issue.

Hobby Lobby covered these methods of birth control before the ACA required them to do so.

Their claim is they didn't know. If they didn't know, it can't be a major religious affront. People keeping kosher ask if there's pork in their food. If Hobby Lobby's executives really believed this was slaughtering children, and really cared, they would have asked their insurance company what was covered.

Instead, they only cared when a conservative group approached them two years ago.

[customerserviceguy]

31. Agreed, they were oblivious to it at one time

However, many businesses (and individuals) do things that are against their stated beliefs until those things are pointed out. I remember a story my ex told of going to KFC with her vegetarian girlfriend, and the friend did not partake of the fried chicken, just some potatoes and gravy. I said, "Didn't she know what gravy is made of?"

Here's another example: A corporation wishes to present as green an image as possible. Someone points out that their suppliers do things in an environmentally destructive way. It may take a lot of doing and convincing to get the corporation to acknowledge the fact, and further to either switch suppliers or persuade the same suppliers to produce the supplies in a better (and possibly more costly) way.

[jeff47]

33. Only when it doesn't really matter to them.

The claim Hobby Lobby made is that this is a massive affront to their religion.

How can that be if they didn't bother to find out if they were doing it?

[customerserviceguy]

34. Yes, they went over the top

I don't expect much from fundie executives (who feel their workplaces must reflect their stated, if not lived by, values) beyond ignorance and bluster.

[Gormy Cuss]

24. If ablation prevents implantation then it would be no different to them.

The OP had a choice that would prevent fertilization but instead chose a procedure that preserves that possibility without a chance that the fertilized egg can implant. Choosing the less invasive procedure after being told of this possibility is exhibiting similar intent and thus should also be objectionable to the Hobby Lobby fans.

If you think that argument makes no sense, you're right but neither does the argument that Plan B, Ella, and IUDs shouldn't be funded because of the possibility that they will prevent a fertilized egg from implanting.

[customerserviceguy]

32. True

But all I can say is, if a nation with 35-40% vegetarians decided to start a food stamp program, there would be heavy lobbying to exclude meat from being able to be purchased with the aid.

That's the political reality of this issue. It seems to have been fixed in the four decades since Roe vs. Wade. I see the opposition to equal marriage melting away, and that can be attributed to both generational change and education, but I don't remember an election since 1973 where abortion wasn't an issue for a candidate for Federal office.

[GeorgeGist]

3. Wouldn't it be wonderful if God punishes Hobby Lobby.

[mercuryblues]

6. the common

misconception is that it is only the 4 methods that are not required to be covered an women can still choose to use the other methods. Not so, even the graphic says THE MANDATE was struck down. -But people gloss over that to say well - other methods are covered. NO they are not.


http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/188983-appeals-court-rules-against-birth-control-mandate
Court strikes down birth control mandate

[Justice]

8. absolutely correct. Employers can refuse to provide coverage of all forms.

[pamela]

10. Exactly. Hobby Lobby USED women's health to make a political point.

It has always been about right-wing politics-not religion. They covered those same birth control methods for YEARS until the ACA was passed and they were looking for some way to go after it. They threw ALL women under the bus in order to promote their right-wing politics.

[BrotherIvan]

12. YES!!

Anyone who says it is only about four forms of birth control are LYING. It is about all of them as shown by Wheaton in the very next decision. There are companies lined up to take advantage of this decision.

[Ilsa]

15. +1. Glad you called it. nt

[Squinch]

27. ALSO, they issued orders that cases involving ALL FORMS of birth control are to be reheard:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/supreme-court-scotus-hobby-lobby-all-forms-contraception

[Triana]

11. The Great Experiment HAS failed, IMO.

Strangled on ignorance, narcissism, and unmitigated greed.

[Ilsa]

16. Women need Single Payer healthcare as an option.

Our health should not be subject to religious whims of nutcases.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

20. Carly Fiorina was on TV this morning squawking about 16 contracepties, 16 contraceptives

16 contraceptives being available. That's where she was getting it from. These conservatives can't think for themselves but I have to admit their talking points get thoroughly and immediately circulated for some of their dandy knee-jerk automaton responses.

[Jim Lane]

25. The decision was based on a statute, not on constitutional rights.

The issue about corporate personhood is that, under current law, a corporation may invoke some of the provisions of the Bill of Rights to have a law (such as campaign spending limits, or a confiscation of corporate assets) declared unconstitutional.

Hobby Lobby, by contrast, did not hold that the ACA was unconstitutional because it infringed the rights of corporate persons. Hobby Lobby's successful argument was not based on its right or its owners' right to free exercise of religion under the First Amendment. Instead, the Court held that a different statute, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, provided an exemption that Hobby Lobby could invoke to be relieved from full compliance with the ACA.

With or without a corporate personhood amendment, Congress would have the power to enact a statute that would provide such an exemption from another statute. It would just be a matter of wording the statute appropriately (e.g., if a corporate personhood amendment has been ratified and Congress wants this particular statute to apply to corporations, then it would have to spell that out instead of just using the term "person&quot .

The real issue in Hobby Lobby was whether reading the RFRA to provide an exemption from the ACA under these circumstances was a correct interpretation of the interplay between the two statutes. I agree with the dissenters that it was not.

[Skidmore]

28. Bottom line is that it isn't HL's businesses owners decision

as to what health care decisions their employees make. They have made the best argument possible for why the health care system should remove employers from the equation entirely.

[FSogol]

29. +1 n/t