E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
Opinion Archives
Social Media:
Facebook
Twitter
Tumblr
Google Plus
YouTube
Flickr
PhotoBucket
Monthly Archives:

January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017
April 2017
May 2017

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Friday, July 11, 2014

Hobby Lobby, FDA labels and entitlements

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM (#)

The Supreme Court's decision in the Hobby Lobby case was hailed as a victory for religious freedom - and it was - but it is troubling that the case was decided on the basis of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act instead of on the First Amendment. Laws can always be superseded by more laws, but the Constitution is much more difficult to change.

There was one particularly troubling part of the majority opinion:

The owners of the businesses have religious objections to abortion, and according to their religious beliefs the four contraceptive methods at issue are abortifacients.

This is one of the worst aspects of modern society: The rejection of objective truth and the deference to subjective opinion. It is worrisome that this sort of nonsense has infected the "conservative" SCOTUS majority. The morning after pill and other birth control methods either act as abortifacients or they do not. It is simply irresponsible for the "conservative" majority to punt this question and make it a matter of "belief" rather than fact.

According to the website for the drug Plan B, it does act as an abortifacient:

It is possible that Plan B One-StepĀ® may also work by preventing fertilization of an egg (the uniting of sperm with the egg) or by preventing attachment (implantation) to the uterus (womb).

See screenshots posted on Twitter and Photobucket.

One of the most common justifications for forcing employers to purchase birth control for employees is that the insurance policy is owned by the employee. This is true, but the policy (and what it covers) is constructed by the employer. Even within many companies, there are different levels of policy and what is covered. By the logic of "the employee owns the policy," health insurance would be mandated to cover everything from elective cosmetic surgery to over-the-counter painkillers and cold medicine to sex-change operations. It is a silly argument.

The Hobby Lobby case is typical of our national entitlement mentality. "Waah! If someone else does not buy something for me, then I am denied access to that thing." That may be the case for a two year old, but adults can always purchase the drugs they want with their own money. It would have been unthinkable fifty years ago that employers should be forced to pay for employees' birth control, but our society has declined quite a bit since then.

(3 Comments)

Note: All posts must be approved by the blog owner before they are visible on the blog.

Comments:

At July 13, 2014 at 5:26 AM , Blogger Mike Newton said...  

You may want to save the usual hysterical hyperbole for Round 2, when Muslim, Mormon, Christian Scientist, Jehovah's Witness, Scientologist and other employers with "deeply held beliefs" start imposing their crackpot ideas on employees. Need a blood transfusion? Not covered! Need any kind of medicine? Go home and pray for help! Don't like Shariah law? Too bad! The comic potential is unlimited. Enjoy!


At July 14, 2014 at 5:22 AM , Blogger Unknown said...  

"One of the most common justifications for forcing employers to purchase birth control for employees is that the insurance policy is owned by the employee. "

Exactly right. It's part of the compensation for their labor.

"This is true, but the policy (and what it covers) is constructed by the employer."

As is their monetary salary. Employees don't set their own salaries, their employers do. But that doesn't give the employer the right to arbitrarily vary what they pay the employee, for the same amount of labor.

"That may be the case for a two year old, but adults can always purchase the drugs they want with their own money. "

You just made it clear, above, that it IS their own money. Their health insurance is part of their total compensation, along with their salary, their parking spot, discounted food in the company cafeteria, etc.

"It would have been unthinkable fifty years ago that employers should be forced to pay for employees' birth control, but our society has declined quite a bit since then."

It would be interesting to have you enumerate how society has "declined" since the days when black people didn't have the right to eat in the same restaurants as white people. where women could not divorce men who were abusive, when it was illegal to marry someone just because they were not the same race as you.

People enjoy freedoms, today, that would have been unthinkable fifty years ago -- at least unthinkable to anyone who wasn't a white male.


At July 14, 2014 at 5:45 AM , Blogger Mike Newton said...  

Let's begin by acknowledging the obvious: the ACA does not require ANY employer to provide health insurance for ANY employee. Walmart is a perfect case in point, along with the vast majority of restaurants, nearly all farms, etc. It DOES mandate that no discrimination is allowed IF insurance is provided. Why do self-righteous pseudo-Xians always demand the "right" to cherry-pick which rules they will or will not follow, from the Old Testament on down to the present day? This trait ranks as one of the most disturbing aspects of their cult.


Post a Comment


Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.

  1. A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.

  2. This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.

  3. Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name cannot be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you have to subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.

  4. Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post.

  5. All moderation decisions are final. I may post an explanation or I may not, depending on the situation. If you have a question or a concern about a moderation decision, e-mail me privately rather than posting in the comments.

Thank you for your cooperation.