Hobby Lobby invests in abortion pills

[Vic]

Heh. This really is the same thing as what they're fighting against in SCOTUS.

 

[CitizenKain]

Nice try OP! Typical attempt at disingenuous liberal spin.

This thread is done. pcgeek just told you what you need to know.

That you rightwingers are complete idiots, yea we got that from his and your posts.

 

[Pens1566]

So what valid medical purpose beyond preventing pregnancy do IUDs and Plan B have?:whiste:

EDIT: And you really think that Democrats made the BC mandate so that women could free acne treatment?

Web MD is your friend. It might help more than your ignorance on just this subject.

 

[kia75]

I didn't see the other thread, but even if I had I would have thought this revelation of hypocrisy deserved its own.

The revelation of Hypocrisy did have its own thread. There were at least 2 others, the first one dealt with birth control (but also evolved to talk about 401k's) and the 2nd one dealt with 401ks (but also evolved to talk about Birth Control).


The reason I mention the other one was that a lot of time was spent on those threads debunking various myths. Hobby Lobby isn't investing in abortion Pills, it's providing a benefit to employees who have the option to invest in companies that provide abortions and also provide contraception. Much like Hobby Lobby isn't purchasing contraception, it's providing a benefit to employees who utilize their health care, and those employees have an option to utilize the birth control methods Hobby Lobby doesn't approve of. A lot of time was spent showing that both form of benefits were exactly the same, and that thinking Hobby Lobby was morally responsible for their employees 401k's was as stupid as thinking that Hobby Lobby was morally responsible for their employee's health care choices.

Also, the fact that Hobby Lobby had been providing the birth control in question for over a decade, that various states require that form of birth control and required it for over a decade, and that the plans they want to provide (all forms of birth control except those) don't exist, at the moment there is only Health insurance that includes birth control, and catholic insurance that doesn't were all brought up in those threads, so everything sort of feels like de ja vu.

 

[kia75]

You're missing the point. Democrats inserted the birth control provision into ACA knowing it would be a poison pill for some (admittedly ridiculous) stakeholders such as Hobby Lobby. Even without considering its merits as a policy (and I think it's monumentally stupid, akin to mandating auto insurance cover the purchase cost of gun racks for rednecks' pickup trucks) that's political malpractice. You don't risk blowing up the entire law for table scraps like "free" birth control, the benefit simply isn't worth either the blowback or the larger risk.

You have the sequence of events wrong.

Hobby Lobby has been providing the birth control in question for literally over a decade. That section of the law was copied almost word for word from the various state laws that have been in place for over a decade. For over a decade these forms of birth control have not been controversial. It's only in 2012 with the passing of Obamacare that birth control that had been fine for years and years all of a sudden became controversial, and laws which were perfectly fine for years and years became religiously questionable.


There were no poison pills, it was applying state laws which nobody had any problem with on a national level. The Health insurance plans that Hobby Lobby wants to provide don't actually exist, there are health insurance plans that provide for birth control, and there are catholic plans that don't. If Hobby Lobby wins its case then a special Health Insurance plan that nobody has wanted for decades will have to specially be made for Hobby Lobby.

 

[bradly1101]

The revelation of Hypocrisy did have its own thread. There were at least 2 others, the first one dealt with birth control (but also evolved to talk about 401k's) and the 2nd one dealt with 401ks (but also evolved to talk about Birth Control).

My mistake. The mods. should delete this duplicate thread then.

 

[nehalem256]

Web MD is your friend. It might help more than your ignorance on just this subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IUDs

I don't see any other medical uses mentioned.

 

[Pens1566]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IUDs

I don't see any other medical uses mentioned.

Keep looking, you'll eventually find it. Research is fun.

Silly me, forgot who I was responding to.

http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/intrauterine-device-iud-for-birth-control

Want me to read it for you too?

 

[Newell Steamer]

I oppose all methods of abortion,.. unless said methods make me some money.

Yup, business as usual, from the usual suspects.

Carry on.

 

[glenn1]

You have the sequence of events wrong.

Hobby Lobby has been providing the birth control in question for literally over a decade. That section of the law was copied almost word for word from the various state laws that have been in place for over a decade. For over a decade these forms of birth control have not been controversial. It's only in 2012 with the passing of Obamacare that birth control that had been fine for years and years all of a sudden became controversial, and laws which were perfectly fine for years and years became religiously questionable.


There were no poison pills, it was applying state laws which nobody had any problem with on a national level. The Health insurance plans that Hobby Lobby wants to provide don't actually exist, there are health insurance plans that provide for birth control, and there are catholic plans that don't. If Hobby Lobby wins its case then a special Health Insurance plan that nobody has wanted for decades will have to specially be made for Hobby Lobby.

Fine - I'll stipulate for sake of argument that such state laws exist. But in return I'll ask you to stipulate that of the 26 states with such laws, 21 of them provide for exactly the kind of religious exemption that Hobby Lobby is requesting now. So I return to my original point - this was an easily forseeable conflict point within the ACA that its creators could and should have avoided. If you honestly think that this provision was worth risking the whole of Obamacare for, or even the possibility of being humiliated by the SCOTUS about, then you're playing for some *really* low political stakes.

http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_ICC.pdf

 

[fskimospy]

Fine - I'll stipulate for sake of argument that such state laws exist. But in return I'll ask you to stipulate that of the 26 states with such laws, 21 of them provide for exactly the kind of religious exemption that Hobby Lobby is requesting now. So I return to my original point - this was an easily forseeable conflict point within the ACA that its creators could and should have avoided. If you honestly think that this provision was worth risking the whole of Obamacare for, or even the possibility of being humiliated by the SCOTUS about, then you're playing for some *really* low political stakes.

http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_ICC.pdf

Why do you keep saying 'risk the whole of Obamacare over'?

 

[glenn1]

Why do you keep saying 'risk the whole of Obamacare over'?

Because whenever a portion of a law is challenged, you risk having the whole thing invalidated. Just because SCOTUS didn't completely scuttle ACA in 2012 doesn't mean they might not in 2014 because of the Hobby Lobby case. Even if they don't completely overturn the law, they could strike out additional portions of it and cripple it even further.

Even if the risk of the SCOTUS invalidating the law was low (I'll use the made-up number of 5%), I would say the value of the "pre-paid contraceptives" provision wasn't worth that risk to an ACA suppporter. It's an extreme low-reward/high-risk type of thing to include in the law besides just being stupid policy on its face.

 

[fskimospy]

Because whenever a portion of a law is challenged, you risk having the whole thing invalidated. Just because SCOTUS didn't completely scuttle ACA in 2012 doesn't mean they might not in 2014 because of the Hobby Lobby case. Even if they don't completely overturn the law, they could strike out additional portions of it and cripple it even further.

Even if the risk of the SCOTUS invalidating the law was low (I'll use the made-up number of 5%), I would say the value of the "pre-paid contraceptives" provision wasn't worth that risk to an ACA suppporter. It's an extreme low-reward/high-risk type of thing to include in the law besides just being stupid policy on its face.

I'm not aware of any coherent legal theory that thinks the ACA is at risk of being invalidated due to the contraception mandate. It simply isn't a plausible outcome.

 

[Atreus21]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...retirement-funds-in-abortion-drugs/?tid=hp_mm

In other news, The Green Family sometimes buys stuff from McDonald's, who donates money to United Way, who has ties to Planned Parenthood, who is a major provider of abortions.

Freaking hypocrites, man.

 

[Thebobo]

I'm sure Hill Billy Lobby makes sure all their suppliers are gay free otherwise they are supporting the gay.

 

[Thebobo]

Interesting article

Hobby Lobby: Check your Judaism at the door

 

[kia75]

Fine - I'll stipulate for sake of argument that such state laws exist. But in return I'll ask you to stipulate that of the 26 states with such laws, 21 of them provide for exactly the kind of religious exemption that Hobby Lobby is requesting now.

http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_ICC.pdf

You're misreading the pdf. Check the 2nd page under highlights, 2nd subection, 3rd sub-subsection. Only Illinois allows the exclusion for secular entities like Hobby Lobby to not provide birth control. The exemptions provide non-secular organizations like Churches to not provide birth control on religious grounds, and the definition of non-secular organizations changes with each state (i.e. some states churches are exempt while charities and schools are forced to provide birth control, other states it's only churches and religious elementary schools, others any religious owned institution). Since Hobby Lobby isn't a religious organization or owned by a religious organization in all those states except for Illinois they're required to provide birth control.

And again, we're not talking about birth control, we're talking about a small section of birth control. If you can provide such a policy then I'm all ears but as far as I know there isn't a Health Insurance plan that only covers non-implantation birth control. There tends to be health insurance that covers birth control, and Catholic health insurance that doesn't. Health insurance that only covers non-implantation birth control as far as I know doesn't exist. That Hobby Lobby in Illinois doesn't exclude non-implantation birth control from their health care, even though by all legal definitions they could shows you what their true agenda is about.

BUT... I don't want to be bogged down in minutiae. You're wrong about the specifics but I'll go ahead and use your numbers because the numbers don't matter.

So I return to my original point - this was an easily forseeable conflict point within the ACA that its creators could and should have avoided. If you honestly think that this provision was worth risking the whole of Obamacare for, or even the possibility of being humiliated by the SCOTUS about, then you're playing for some *really* low political stakes.

In the 5 states (actually 25 or higher but we're using your incorrect numbers) with laws which require Hobby Lobby to provide birth control, Hobby Lobby has had no problems providing the birth control in question and has done so for over a decade. In over a decade it has mounted no legal challenges in those states, even though it has had many years and opportunities to do so.

In Illinois, where Hobby Lobby can legally exclude non-implantation birth control, they still continue to provide it.

I've yet to see a healthcare policy that provides birth control but doesn't provide non-implantation birth control. I'm certain you'll find plans that don't cover IUD's, or don't cover certain pills but none that don't cover non-implantation birth control. I'm not even certain what you'd call such birth control. Pro-lifers call them abortificents, but that's a medically completely different form of drug, something that causes miscarriages. And even Catholic Health care will pay for abortifacents, as long as they're not used for miscarriages (i.e. Look at your medicine cabinet and see how many drugs are not to be taken by pregnant women).

How you could predict that Hobby Lobby, who was has been fine with being forced to provide such birth control in over 25 states, who has been providing such birth control for over a decade, and when given a choice to not provide such birth control chooses to continue to provide it is a bit of a mystery. At the time it was written, the birth control section was completely non-controversial. It's only after the inclusion in Obamacare that people have decided to challenge this section.

 

[alzan]

Interesting article

Hobby Lobby: Check your Judaism at the door

Weird.

HL stocks Halloween items, that's rich. LOL. I'm guessing that they sell chocolate Easter Bunnies and eggs, egg coloring kits and baskets in spring. All in accordance with their "deeply held religious beliefs".

But in the end I'm back to my original question; why would any business owner willingly turn away business?

 

[halik]

I don't think anyone HuffPo understands the difference between a company investing into something and a 401K account

 

[halik]

The only moral thing Hobby Lobby can do here is either divest from all funds that contain companies that produce abortion drugs or eliminate their 401(k) plan altogether.

I know that their sincerely held religious beliefs tell them that they are funding murder and I know they don't want any part of that. Right?

a) The fund selection generally come from the administrator of the 401K (schwab,putnam, whoever), not the company
b) It's the employees money, not the company's.

 

[halik]

The only moral thing Hobby Lobby can do here is either divest from all funds that contain companies that produce abortion drugs or eliminate their 401(k) plan altogether.

I know that their sincerely held religious beliefs tell them that they are funding murder and I know they don't want any part of that. Right?

It wouldn't be Hobby Lobby, but rather their employees who you'd have to make divest. Hobby Lobby has no control over how the employee chooses to allocate their retirement money.

 

[Zaap]

a) The fund selection generally come from the administrator of the 401K (schwab,putnam, whoever), not the company
b) It's the employees money, not the company's.

Shhhhh. Don't ruin all the emo-rage with those pesky things called "reality" and "facts".

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

I don't really see the problem or the inconsistency with this. Sure, it's a violation of belief. But it makes financial sense.

 

[MrPickins]

a) The fund selection generally come from the administrator of the 401K (schwab,putnam, whoever), not the company
b) It's the employees money, not the company's.

a) Correct. The 401k issue is funny, but not really that important.

b) The health care is part of the employees' "money" as well, no different than the 401k.

 

[fskimospy]

It wouldn't be Hobby Lobby, but rather their employees who you'd have to make divest. Hobby Lobby has no control over how the employee chooses to allocate their retirement money.

My guess is that they contribute matching funds of a sort, so they are definitely fueling it.

They also have input into what funds are available. If their financial firm refuses to give them that input they can always change forms or remove their contributions. This is murder we are talking about after all.