Flat Earth Birth Control

[Jacco]

This issue makes me so angry. It shouldn't be an issue. Shouldn't be a question. In short, the people who got this law through, and the companies who use it, are scum, complete, sub human, worthless little shits who should, at very least, be chased out of civilised life and forced to survive on their own. I give it three days until they kill each other.

Because they have different opinions and values than your own? You are so open minded it is scary.

 

[Doclector]

This issue makes me so angry. It shouldn't be an issue. Shouldn't be a question. In short, the people who got this law through, and the companies who use it, are scum, complete, sub human, worthless little shits who should, at very least, be chased out of civilised life and forced to survive on their own. I give it three days until they kill each other.

Because they have different opinions and values than your own? You are so open minded it is scary.

They're free to have their damn opinions, but so should their workers. That's exactly why church and state are separate and always should be.

 

[mike1921]

It's called health insurance, ever heard of it?

Yeah, I'm from Canada, it's sort of a big thing up here. I don't understand how having sex and getting pregnant is the same thing as getting into an accident and breaking your leg.

Would you rather pay for the condoms or the birth they would have prevented?

Hang on just one fucking second. Since when do companies provide birth control to their female employees? When did that become a thing? Can't women buy the stuff at the local pharmacy?

Welcome to America- Land of the "Give me everything for free because I said so." Whether it's Viagra, condoms, dental care, birth control, getaways or whatever tickles your fancy, I better get it for free from my boss because I'll be damned if I'm paying for it with my own money.

Dude, fight against the system where you're expected to get insurance from your boss then. When you allow the country to adopt a standard where insurance costs you several times more through yourself than through your boss than you allow your boss to be responsible for certain things as well as being a major obstacle for anyone who wants to switch jobs (especially to create a startup on their own which is my big issue).

 

[Agent Monocle]

It's funny considering a lot of the Hobby Lobby's products are made in China and the company refuse to give a list of factories they have there. I guess companies are like people in sense they can be hypocrites.

 

[lacktheknack]

Is the escapist even a video game site anymore?

No.

If you look at the top, you'll see five tabs. Only one of them is labeled "Video Games". The Escapist is now a general geekery site.

Furthermore, you're in a forum labeled "Off Topic".

What are you expecting?

 

[Spearmaster]

It is still an infringement of the separation of church and state, whichever way you want to look at it, and a way for those who hold a "sincerely held religious belief" to effectively wield power over their employees. Even if only some forms of contraceptive are denied,it is still an infringement of that principle, and a way to allow one group to actively enforce its practices over the other.

Wait...how is this an infringement of the separation church and state?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I'm just not seeing it.

 

[Something Amyss]

My post was more aimed towards the people who thought birth control was purely related to recreational sex and why it was covered in the health insurance. Thanks for pointing out, I'm editing my post to make it more clear.

Fair enough. Several people have responded as though Hobby Lobby is no longer funding any birth control, so I erred to caution.

I guess I should have also pointed out for women over 40, IUD is the safest form of birth control (excluding condoms and invasive surgeries) because the risk of stroke from using the pill starts to get significant.

Also fair.

And while I don't find any of this ruling particularly good, I find the IUD bit particularly baffling, since they're not considered abortifacient.

How are things like birth control pills/injections/implants/operations, which are prescribed, administered and fitted by medical professionals, not a medical expense?

That's the million dollar question.

What does this have to do with video games?

Since when has Critical Miss been exclusively about video games?

I don't get what a Christian company lobbying to get something they want has to do with Wahhabi Muslims...anyone want to explain or was it just a silly makes-no-sense leap?

It really does make sense. If all one has to do to gain insurance exemptions is argue it's against your religion, that opens a door. Is it extreme, possibly even absurd, to jump that they could get away with this? Yeah, but it's a comic strip. Exaggeration is one of the key elements of comedy. Take the "religious exemption" to an extreme, and....

 

[RA92]

It is still an infringement of the separation of church and state, whichever way you want to look at it, and a way for those who hold a "sincerely held religious belief" to effectively wield power over their employees. Even if only some forms of contraceptive are denied,it is still an infringement of that principle, and a way to allow one group to actively enforce its practices over the other.

Wait...how is this an infringement of the separation church and state?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I'm just not seeing it.

Hobby Lobby just changed a federal law of providing emergency contraceptives to its employees and undermined civil rights based purely on church doctrines, not medical science. That's not very secular, is it?

 

[Spearmaster]

It is still an infringement of the separation of church and state, whichever way you want to look at it, and a way for those who hold a "sincerely held religious belief" to effectively wield power over their employees. Even if only some forms of contraceptive are denied,it is still an infringement of that principle, and a way to allow one group to actively enforce its practices over the other.

Wait...how is this an infringement of the separation church and state?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I'm just not seeing it.

Hobby Lobby just changed a federal law of providing emergency contraceptives to its employees based purely on church doctrines, not medical science. That's not very secular, is it?

Hobby Lobby made a case that being forced to fund certain birth control methods was a violation of the free exercise of their religious beliefs and won. Apparently in this case the Supreme Court decided that the ACA was infringing on the separation of church and state. The Supreme Court reviewed the section of the law and made a ruling, Hobby Lobby didn't change a thing.

 

[RA92]

Hobby Lobby made a case that being forced to fund certain birth control methods was a violation of the free exercise of their religious beliefs and won. Apparently in this case the Supreme Court decided that the ACA was infringing on the separation of church and state. The Supreme Court reviewed the section of the law and made a ruling, Hobby Lobby didn't change a thing.

IUDs don't cause abortions, they prevent fertilization, so Hobby Lobby's case was on shaky grounds from the beginning. The Supreme Court ruling has validated a myth and denied objective science in the name of religious freedom. It's the kind of shit theocracies pull.

 

[Spearmaster]

Hobby Lobby made a case that being forced to fund certain birth control methods was a violation of the free exercise of their religious beliefs and won. Apparently in this case the Supreme Court decided that the ACA was infringing on the separation of church and state. The Supreme Court reviewed the section of the law and made a ruling, Hobby Lobby didn't change a thing.

IUDs don't cause abortions, they prevent fertilization, so Hobby Lobby's case was on shaky grounds from the beginning. The Supreme Court ruling has validated a myth and denied objective science in the name of religious freedom. It's the kind of shit theocracies pull.

Actually they can prevent an already fertilized egg from attaching to the walls of the uterus if implanted within 5 days after unprotected sex which is what Hobby Lobby's problem with it was.

Also, they don't want to ban them or prevent employes from getting them they just don't want to support them by paying for them.

 

[JediMB]

Also, they don't want to ban them or prevent employes from getting them they just don't want to support them by paying for them.

Thing is, regardless of if the employees use their health benefits or their regular salaries, Hobby Lobby is still effectively "paying" for the contraceptives. Now they're just leaving their employees with less money.

And, as mentioned earlier, these closely held religious beliefs aren't preventing them from investing in companies that produce those very same contraceptives.

 

[RA92]

Actually they can prevent an already fertilized egg from attaching to the walls of the uterus if implanted within 5 days after unprotected sex which is what Hobby Hobby's problem with it was.

But isn't abortion the removal of the fetus or embryo? Doesn't the embryo itself form only after the egg attaches itself to the uterus wall? How's preventing the egg from attaching to the wall abortion?


Also, they don't want to ban them or prevent employes from getting them they just don't want to support them by paying for them.

Think of the precedence it sets. Imagine how many corporations would be trying to weasel out of paying as much as possible citing religious freedom and offloading the cost on the government.

 

[Spearmaster]

Actually they can prevent an already fertilized egg from attaching to the walls of the uterus if implanted within 5 days after unprotected sex which is what Hobby Hobby's problem with it was.

But isn't abortion the removal of the fetus or embryo? Doesn't the embryo itself form only after the egg attaches itself to the uterus wall? How's preventing the egg from attaching to the wall abortion?

Yes but Hobby Lobby says their religious belief is that life begins at fertilization of the egg.

Also, they don't want to ban them or prevent employes from getting them they just don't want to support them by paying for them.

Think of the precedence it sets. Imagine how many corporations would be trying to weasel out of paying as much as possible citing religious freedom and offloading the cost on the government.

But that's all just a slippery slope fallacy, I believe it was Justice Alito that said in his notes that the section of the ACA didn't meet the compelling interest requirement, meaning basically there are better ways for the government to provide these things rather than forcing the religious to do it against their belief system. So it may lead to more private companies making similar claims and the courts will have to determine if its the companies burden to bear or not.

I will say the Hobby Lobby is a unique case due to its ownership structure.

 

[Spearmaster]

Also, they don't want to ban them or prevent employes from getting them they just don't want to support them by paying for them.

Thing is, regardless of if the employees use their health benefits or their regular salaries, Hobby Lobby is still effectively "paying" for the contraceptives. Now they're just leaving their employees with less money.

The Supreme Court didn't rule that employees have to pay out of their own pocket that I'm aware of.

And, as mentioned earlier, these closely held religious beliefs aren't preventing them from investing in companies that produce those very same contraceptives.

Those are the 401k investment plans and are usually for employees and managed by a bank that decides which companies to invest in.

 

[Spearmaster]

It is still an infringement of the separation of church and state, whichever way you want to look at it, and a way for those who hold a "sincerely held religious belief" to effectively wield power over their employees. Even if only some forms of contraceptive are denied,it is still an infringement of that principle, and a way to allow one group to actively enforce its practices over the other.

Wait...how is this an infringement of the separation church and state?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I'm just not seeing it.

I was beaten to the punch to that one, but quite simply, this allows for an employer to deny healthcare coverage to an employee based on a religious tenet

No, it does not, it only keeps Hobby Lobby from paying for these certain forms of birth control. Nobody is denied health care coverage.

(never mind that it's scientifically wrong, as that seems par for the course when discussing religion),

Wait, What exactly is scientifically wrong?

effectively giving the employer the right to enforce his beliefs upon a third party.

Where is this happening?

Which, you know, violates the whole " shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" thing.

Well the Supreme Court decided that in Hobby Lobby's case that the ACA was "prohibiting the free exercise" of their religious beliefs and didn't meet the compelling interest requirement to do so.

 

[Requia]

I'm sure this comic has context, but I don't know what it is.

The US supreme court has ruled that companies (most notably Hobby Lobby) are not required to provide birth control to female employees due to religious grounds because they are a "closely-held company".

No, they held that closely held corporations couldn't be treated differently than other profit seeking entities when religion comes up. The real problem here is that congress saw fit to exempt non corporations.

 

[cthulhuspawn82]

Where do people keep getting this dumb idea that courts are awarding person-hood and first amendment rights to brick and mortar buildings? There is no physical entity called "Hobby Lobby". The court didn't rule to protect the free speech of some abstract company, they ruled to protect the free speech of a small group of people who own and run that company. You can still disagree with the ruling, just stop trying to say that it awards "person-hood" to a building, that's ridiculous.

 

[Worgen]

Where do people keep getting this dumb idea that courts are awarding person-hood and first amendment rights to brick and mortar buildings? There is no physical entity called "Hobby Lobby". The court didn't rule to protect the free speech of some abstract company, they ruled to protect the free speech of a small group of people who own and run that company. You can still disagree with the ruling, just stop trying to say that it awards "person-hood" to a building, that's ridiculous.

Because the court recently ruled that companies have the same rights as an individual when donating to political campaigns, they had the free-speech that a person had to use money to influence politics.

 

[Something Amyss]

Because the court recently ruled that companies have the same rights as an individual when donating to political campaigns, they had the free-speech that a person had to use money to influence politics.

The building here, of course, is meant to represent a corporation. But that's just an aside.

This isn't even a recent idea. The Citizen's United ruling was based in part on precedent dating back to the glory days of railroads. But in a more recent time frame, you've had many people support "corporate personhood."

And this is obligatory:


OF course, based on the context, he probably meant it in a different sense. But still, I'd be remiss if I didn't take a jab.

Just adding to your example.