*shaking head*
 

Much gnashing of teeth here...

http://jezebel.com/why-women-arent-p...are-1598061808

...which is interesting considering the Supreme Court only sez Hobby Lobby can refuse to provide abortion chemicals to its employees.

That’s all the SC said.

The SC doesn’t say HL can prevent employees from buying those drugs with their own dough

The SC doesn’t say HL can force anyone to carry babies to term.

The SC only sez an employee can’t force HL to buy something HC doesn’t want to pay for.

Big disconnect between what 'is' and the anger in the piece.

If you have a system where healthcare/insurance is effectively part of the employment package - then you really do need to ensure that healthcare/insurance provided by employers covers the needs of employees.

That's just one angry article. There are many articles addressing this issue that don't have the teeth-gnashing.

But Holly Hobby Lobby has no problem paying for vasectomies, and also for Viagra (for the poor hard-on challenged men. Boo fucking hoo.)

You don't see the problem with that?

Hypocrites, is what I would call them. Male crap crap crap. We big men, we beat on chest and yell! We are in charge. There's your gnashing of teeth, they just hide it behind 'religious freedom.'

This bit suggests good reason for anger:

It's not just about not wanting to be implicated in the sin of providing birth control, it's about actively placing barriers to women being able to access birth control.

And the fact that a fairly large percentage of women who use 'birth control' are actually using it for general reproductive health (e.g endometriosis and other ailments affecting women) seems of less relevance to them than the general sense that women shouldn't be allowed to control their reproductive system through anything except abstinence when unmarried, and once married not at all.

"it's about actively placing barriers to women being able to access birth control...women shouldn't be allowed to control their reproductive system through anything except abstinence when unmarried, and once married not at all."

Not seein' how you get that.

If Jane wants the pill but Jane's employer won't pay for it, nuthin' is stoppin' Jane from gettin' it herself, by way of her own cash.

#

"religious freedom"

Never saw how the whole HL thing was a religious issue (was disingenuous to frame it as such).

Seems to me: HL (as business) is the property of the owners who can use their property as they see fit (including deciding how much to pay employees and/or deciding what benefits to offer).

That is: it’s a property rights issue.

#

"If you have a system where healthcare/insurance is effectively part of the employment package..."

Such a thing should be the choice of the business-owner.

And you don't see the hypocrisy of allowing viagra but not an IUD?

Surely the benefit they offer is healthcare insurance? In which case it should be up to the employee how to use/spend that insurance, according to what is covered by the insurance company?

The employer doesn;t get to tell them how to spend their wages - they don;t get to say: yes we'll pay you $x per hour but you cannot buy pork.

The issue boils down to this simple question. Can an employer impose his religious beleifs on employees. The Court has said yes in general. But details apply. And not just that this is an privately held company. This may not apply to publically held companies since a public does not have a religion. Or do they? This court reversed years of principles in saying companies are people too.

Viagra is for having sex and IUDs are for having sex, so they are the same.

Viagra is for fixing something that's broken, and IUDs are for breaking something that works. They are opposites.

Which is it?

"And you don't see the hypocrisy of allowing viagra but not an IUD?"

How a body uses his or her property may not make any sense to me, but it doesn't have to make sense to me cuz it ain't 'my' property.

If I don’t like the way a body uses his or her property then...

1-I can choose not to associate with 'em.

2-I can choose not to work for, buy from, or sell to, 'em.

Not seeing how this is a complicated notion.

The former - because not all birth control is about 'breaking' the reproductive system.

Maybe the pill is a better example - it is used for many reasons beyond a desire not to conceive:

So, if a woman has a family history of ovarian cancer, the pill is one way of reducing her high risk factor.

http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-contr...-take-the-pill

It also, by stopping ovulation can reduce period pain. For women who suffer very bad periods and blood loss this can be a serious health benefit.

And one of the most common medical reasons for taking the pill:

I don;t see how it is a complicated notion that the health insurance given to employees becomes their property - and it should be up to them how they use it.

My employer doesn't have to right to tell me how to spend what it pays me.

"Surely the benefit they offer is healthcare insurance?"

Yep, but the owner is the contractor of service, not the employee.

As the 'owner', he or she or they should decide the nature, depth, and breadth of services offered.

#

"The issue boils down to this simple question. Can an employer impose his religious beleifs on employees."

I disagree.

The issue boils down to: can employees force an employer to provide a benefit said employer finds morally repugnant?

#

"The Court has said yes in general."

Nope.

All the SC said is that a closely held company (one not publically traded; one owned by one or a few) cannot be forced to offer a product or service the owner(s) of the company find morally reprehensible.

#

My own view (again): 'Never saw how the whole HL thing was a religious issue (was disingenuous to frame it as such). Seems to me: HL (as business) is the property of the owners who can use their property as they see fit (including deciding how much to pay employees and/or deciding what benefits to offer). That is: it's a property rights issue.'

I believe a bad precedent was set (though, obviously, not for the same reason you folks think).

"I don;t see how it is a complicated notion that the health insurance given to employees becomes their property - and it should be up to them how they use it."

When the employee leaves the business, does the insurance follow him or her, or does it end with employment?

If the employee loses the coverage with their employment then the benefit is a privilege offered by the employer, not the property totally controlled by the employee.

#

"My employer doesn't have to right to tell me how to spend what it pays me."

No, but your employer can stop paying you (for just cause).

And: if the employer acts as conduit for the coverage (it contracts with the insurer, not you; it bears the burden of meeting requirements, not you) then the employer is 'owner' of the coverage.

Again: the owner determines (or should determine) the nature of compensation he or she offers, not the employee.

What's opposite is covering Viagra AND vasectomies. Whatever the male wants, is good with them.

In other words: Viagra is for having sex and vasectomies are for having sex (without those pesky pregnancies.)

Viagra is for fixing something that's broken and vasectomies are for breaking something that works.

Which is it?