Flat Earth Birth Control

[Ryan Hughes]

Oh, I know. I actually studied the story of the first Caliphates a bit and their presence in the Iberian peninsula, and though the term Kafir (which means non believer) dates to the Qu'ran, it was not necessarily derrogatory, at least not at first, and Islam was far less proselitist towards other faiths of the book than Christianity (partly because non muslims were numerous and a profitable source of taxable income). It wasn't until militant sects of both faiths arose that the term became derrogative.

Just thought all of this is a bit of a side note to the actual discussion, hence the simplified version.

You may just know more about it then I do, then. My expertise is in literature and history, and by extension the history of language. In any event, the word "Infidel" is darkly fascinating, kinda like the word "coolie." I am not aware of any other word where the meaning and true purpose remains as consistent, but the voice with which it is spoken changes so dramatically. It is like if Native Americans were portrayed as calling European Americans "redskins," with the intent of the fiction being to slander Native Americans. So overall, Cory and Grey are still cool guys, but they should take my advice and not use the word.

On Topic: I dislike this supreme court decision, as many have said, this gives some rather dangerous leeway to supposedly public corporations to pick and choose what to cover and what to not cover. Arguments can be made for strictly religious organizations to do this, as it tends to be better to err on the side of religious freedom, but allowing for this in corporations where people of all beliefs are supposed to be equal is dangerous, and clearly infringes on the rights of the individual. That being said, I still think that equal pay is a much more important issue for women right now, for whatever my opinion may be worth.

 

[weirdee]

It's funny, once you start reading the court opinions/scientific studies/essays instead of just the partisan comments on them, you start seeing just how dumb and sheepish everyone is. The Hobby Lobby opinion actually shifts the cost for birth control to the government/insurance companies rather than the companies themselves and only applies to closely held companies (companies that have (I believe the number is) 15 or less controlling shareholders, mostly family-owned companies). Even then, there has to be evidence of the sincerity of their beliefs to get the exemption, which is a pain to prove in court for anyone trying to skip in on it.

Bottom line is: if you want birth control and work for Hobby Lobby, you can still get it at the same cost to the end person, just the money for it comes from a different source. I will add that there is the slight wrinkle that there's some kind of sign up that's been referred to that makes it annoying, but not really harder.

If you have an issue with this case, the real "bad guy" ideology isn't Christianity or religion in general, but the doctrine of corporate personhood, which causes immense problems in the US, but would cause even worse problems were it to go away. One of the major catch-22s of the current state of law.

Then again, I heard there's an order that went out yesterday that might alter Hobby Lobby a bit, haven't read it yet.

The main issue I take is that the ruling exists in the first place. Already I am seeing politicians and evangelists trying to push for more religious exemptions to laws, and days after the ruling the main pushers of bigotry against minorities switched their platform focus towards this end (well, more so than they were before). Even as discrimination is slowly being outlawed throughout the country, they're gonna push as hard as they can to wriggle through this last loophole, and every inch handed to them will result in more pointless lawsuits, waste of time and money, and the chance that somewhere, a conservative judge will enact yet another boneheaded ruling that will take years to undo like all of the gay marriage bans. Meanwhile, many people will have harder circumstances just because somebody else decided that they should, for no reason besides belief.

The First Amendment has the two clauses pertaining to this case...the Free Exercise Clause protects religion from laws that "unduly burdens the practice of religion" without a compelling interest, and the Establishment Clause, which forbids making laws that respects a specific religion. Hobby Lobby requested an exemption to an existing law that applies to all businesses under it, and even though the law wasn't specifically discriminating against their beliefs and does not incur the Free Exercise Clause (even if we are making the ridiculous assumption that any for profit organization can claim to be an entity with religious rights equal to that of any individual), they were given this exemption even though this violates the Establishment Clause, because they are getting a free pass from the law specifically because they have a religious belief that the plaintiff doesn't.

Saying that people won't be able to do something just because they shouldn't be able to is inviting Murphy's law to dinner.

 

[Cerebrawl]

To be honest I expected an off-colour joke about using a different hole when having intercourse with a close family member.

Though I'm also reminded of a female comedian who made an observation along the lines of:

"2 out of 3 of these are persons in Oklahoma. A) Corporations. B) Fetuses. C) Women. Yeah women is the odd one out, can't make this shit up."

 

[weirdee]

Update: "hey, remember when we said it was narrow, well never mind, spread those cheeks"

http://m.thenation.com/blog/180509-supreme-court-has-already-expanded-its-narrow-hobby-lobby-ruling

 

[Edith The Hutt]

I realize this is a little naive but: Why is it considered reasonable for your employer to be responsible for your healthcare?

I'm British and I'm used to my taxes paying for my healthcare. If I'm sick I go to my doctor and I don't worry if my employer doesn't approve of whatever treatment I'm getting, it's none of their business. It's usually a lot easier on the paperwork too, no bills, no claim form, I just have an NHS number I take along to register with my General Practitioner.

My grandfather's generation set up a system whereby there was a common pool of resources for health, everyone pays in, everyone takes out. You don't get pampered, but you usually get what you need.

I'm just not understanding why your employer should have anything to do with it.

 

[The Material Sheep]

Apparently need is legitimate moral grounds to impose a duty on another. It's getting so odd that just wanting something enough is enough to impose a duty on others in society.

It's not abusing employees to not give them free things. It's just not. You don't have to work at Hobby Lobby and they already pay well over min wage to their full time employees and still over it to their part time. It's like 9.50 for part time and 14 for full time last I looked. They pay their employees well for the work they do.

If you don't like working for them, or their company policy you can always look for another job. I know for a fact they aren't the only opportunity out there right now by a good margin.

 

[The Lunatic]

So, wait... We're screwing over women, by disallowing contraception, with no specific mention of only women's contraception.


... What?

I mean, don't get me wrong, the whole thing is fucked up, but, to make this a "women's issue"? What does that serve exactly?

 

[mega lenin]

The ruling basically finds that your employers', sorry that was the wrong word, owners' religious views get to dictate your medical decisions provided you work for a closely held corporation.

No. Categorically wrong and already corrected earlier in the thread. The court ruled Hobby Lobby could not be compelled to pay for those particular pieces of the health plan. They then recommended that the regulators extend the same exemption (i.e. having to pay for that portion) that they extended to religious non profits. Essentially their employees get that coverage, it's just that Hobby Lobby doesn't pay for it. Generally the insurers are absorbing this hit from the exempted non profits themselves because they see long run it's cheaper than paying for pregnancies.

The real test will be Wheaton College who is challenging that being exempt from paying for that coverage is not enough to satisfy their religious rights under RFRA. They are arguing that allowing their employer insurance plan to offer those contraceptions for even free is forcing them to support this aberrant and immoral practice (from their perspective). That case will have the farther reaching implications on this issue.

 

[Bosque]

As alcohol is expressly prohibited by Islam, I hope the cocktail in panel 3 is a virgin(or it shall be put to death by stoning).

 

[The Material Sheep]

The ruling basically finds that your employers', sorry that was the wrong word, owners' religious views get to dictate your medical decisions provided you work for a closely held corporation.

No. Categorically wrong and already corrected earlier in the thread. The court ruled Hobby Lobby could not be compelled to pay for those particular pieces of the health plan. They then recommended that the regulators extend the same exemption (i.e. having to pay for that portion) that they extended to religious non profits. Essentially their employees get that coverage, it's just that Hobby Lobby doesn't pay for it. Generally the insurers are absorbing this hit from the exempted non profits themselves because they see long run it's cheaper than paying for pregnancies.

The real test will be Wheaton College who is challenging that being exempt from paying for that coverage is not enough to satisfy their religious rights under RFRA. They are arguing that allowing their employer insurance plan to offer those contraceptions for even free is forcing them to support this aberrant and immoral practice (from their perspective). That case will have the farther reaching implications on this issue.

Can someone answer me how the employer is dictating anything to the employee in anyway. Sorry but I was merely getting at the person you quoted, curious how not paying or providing something is dictating anything to anyone. Agree with it or not, I certainly don't but their refusal to provide something is not an imposition on me or anyone. To imply they imposed on anyone in this case is to imply that the employees of the company had some ownership of said company that was being wrongfully withheld. Whats funny is people are talking about the employer enforcing beliefs on the employees but coercive force is only being applied on behalf of he employee not the employer. If the state mandates something its pulling out a gun and saying do it or else. Whether you think that's justified or not, you still have to admit the employer is not the one resorting to coercive force in throwing around their religious beliefs.

 

[The Material Sheep]

So, wait... We're screwing over women, by disallowing contraception, with no specific mention of only women's contraception.


... What?

I mean, don't get me wrong, the whole thing is fucked up, but, to make this a "women's issue"? What does that serve exactly?

It's not so much a women's issue as the company having backwards ass beliefs about abortion and the sanctity of life. They didn't even refuse to allow all contraceptives, just like four that they made a bad case for basically being the same thing as abortion. However it's their company, their stupid religious beliefs, and they pay their workers quite well outside of all this mess. It's not screwing over anyone really unless you were absolutely required to need Hobby Lobby to pay for four specific forms off contraception and through no fault of your own couldn't get it outside of the company even with your better than average income for that kind of work, to maybe get some on your own.

 

[mega lenin]

Can someone answer me how the employer is dictating anything to the employee in anyway.

On it's own the ruling doesn't really do a whole lot in this regard since it did not say that a closely held corporate entity can ignore a government regulation based on religious protection via RFRA. They merely can't be compelled to pay their own money to fund it's implementation within their own company, the feds have to find a way to do it themselves. The court didn't really explicitly acknowlege that religiously influenced organizations closely held or non profit have full protection as individuals under RFRA, either. They ducked that question and instead looked at the fact that the Obama Administration already created an exception for non profit religious organizations to circumvent paying for the implementation of this portion of Obamacare and said that the same ought to be extended to Hobby Lobby et. al.

The court will deal with the latter question in the Wheaton University since that essentially is the heart of the matter. Can a religious non profit institution use RFRA to ignore government regulation to deny benefits to employees based on religious freedom rights. It will be very interesting how this will turn out. The ruling on Hobby Lobby generally points that it is unlikely that the court will rule in Wheaton's favor as that ruling will be quite sweeping. Not only would it apply to all religious non profit institution, but by extension of Hobby Lobby being placed in the prior ruling in a similar category to them to closely held for profit companies as well. The government will likely argue that RFRA's purpose was not to protect institutions from general government regulation, but to protect individuals and their religious institutions from freely observing their religious beliefs without undue government interference. They will also argue the hazards of the slippery slope and advocate for employees who though they work for Wheaton Universities and Hobby Lobby's of the world don't necessarily share their institutions' religious beliefs. It's easy to see when looking at this issue how muddy this can get and why the conservative majority of the court tried to sidestep ruling on as much of that as possible in the Hobby Lobby case.

 

[wAriot]

It's "affect". Not "effect".

America and religion always had a strange relationship. I doubt that will change any time soon. But I'm not sure how many US citizens actually support this measure.

On a side note, I'm still surprised how many people still defend Islam in general as a "religion of peace". Especially feminists. Seriously, what the hell (and for the record, I'm not an atheist, or a Christian).

 

[Boba Frag]

I puked a little bit. I thought it was making fun of private companies that somehow gotten religion involved.
Didn't imagine it actually relating to a public company where now... they can use religious beliefs as an excuse to abuse people. I mean, didn't the Supreme Court realize how easy it'll be for companies to take advantage of this?

I'm not even a scholar, or someone with a high degree in law ... let alone politics. But as a person with common sense, I see this going downhill fast. Religion is free to those who believe in what they want, but don't let companies to use religion as a source of power. THAT is going to screw people over, just you wait.

Hobby Lobby isn't a public company, it's a closely held private company that is essentially owned by one family. The Supreme Court recognized that access to contraception is a legitimate government interest, but ruled that there were other, less restrictive methods to provide it than requiring employers to do so.

This decision is a lot narrower than people want to pretend it is. The law already stipulates that the government will purchase contraceptives for religious non-profits, now they just have to do so for closely held private companies as well. And it requires a "sincerely held religious belief," so you could safely challenge a mysterious conversion to Christian Science / Wahhabi Islam / Scientology / etc.

Thank you for being the sole voice of reason on this awful thread of rage.

I'm disappointed in the comic. Again.

I must be the only one who is bewildered by any law that requires businesses to pay for the employees' contraception?

Granted, the USA works differently in that health benefits from your job make up for the horrendous health insurance system, but come on...

 

[Schadrach]

So, wait... We're screwing over women, by disallowing contraception, with no specific mention of only women's contraception.


... What?

I mean, don't get me wrong, the whole thing is fucked up, but, to make this a "women's issue"? What does that serve exactly?

There's no specific mentions of only women's contraception because the law they are required to cover that contraception under is inherently sexist and only demands coverage of contraception for women (and demands coverage of all FDA-approved contraception for women if a doctor prescribes it, even things like diaphragms and cervical caps). There is no legal mandate to cover male contraceptive options. Literally, even if the contraceptive mandate were entirely revoked, it would only put women on a level playing field with men on that item.

 

[Thyunda]

Hobby Lobby covers the following forms of contraception:
Male condoms
Female condoms
Diaphragms with spermicide
Sponges with spermicide
Cervical caps with spermicide
Spermicide alone
Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin (?Combined Pill)
Birth-control pills with progestin alone (?The Mini Pill)
Birth control pills (extended/continuous use)
Contraceptive patches
Contraceptive rings
Progestin injections
Implantable rods
Vasectomies
Female sterilization surgeries
Female sterilization implants

The forms of contraception that were opposed were:
Plan B (morning after pill)
Ella (another emergency contraceptive)
Copper Intrauterine Device
IUD with progestin

The reason they were opposed was because these forms of birth control can cause or are akin to abortion.

Only if you believe life begins at conception - that's the issue here. The court has essentially given corporations permission to decide when life begins according to the personal beliefs of their owners. Their religion is against abortion - those forms of contraception are not medically classified as abortifacients but Hobby Lobby says they are, and the Supreme Court has allowed them to make that decision.

 

[mike1921]

Apparently need is legitimate moral grounds to impose a duty on another. It's getting so odd that just wanting something enough is enough to impose a duty on others in society.

It's not abusing employees to not give them free things. It's just not. You don't have to work at Hobby Lobby and they already pay well over min wage to their full time employees and still over it to their part time. It's like 9.50 for part time and 14 for full time last I looked. They pay their employees well for the work they do.

If you don't like working for them, or their company policy you can always look for another job. I know for a fact they aren't the only opportunity out there right now by a good margin.

We live in a country where your employer is the one who provides you health care. If we want their medical needs taken care of than sorry: It needs to be their employers, and unless you want more STDs and unwanted pregnancies spreading I'm pretty sure we want their reproductive contraception paid for.

I mean I would love if we went single payer, your boss shouldn't be involved in your medical coverage and your medical coverage shouldn't get more expensive if you leave your job (when you're more financially vulnerable anyway due to lack of income), but in the mean time while we have this dumb system : I don't want more STD prevalence and I don't want more unwanted pregnancies.

$9.50 is good pay? Really? That's barely over minimum wage. Who exactly is making less than $15 and is able to afford contraceptives other than condoms? $31,000 a year fulltime. The median wage is $55k a year. And it's pretty irrelevant if the pay is good for what the work is :If you're working full time you're probably trying to live off of it.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

Hey, haven't seen the boss in awhile.

Just a note though, it would unlikely this would be able to happen. Hobby Lobby was able to get away with it because it is a family owned company that doesn't have any public stock. The ruling seems to indicate that if even one stock is public, the religious argument goes straight out the window.