Announcement

Collapse

Facebook Forum Migration

Our forums have migrated to Facebook. If you are already an iMSN forum member you will be grandfathered in.

To access the Call Room and Marriage Matters, head to: https://m.facebook.com/groups/400932...eferrer=search

You can find the health and fitness forums here: https://m.facebook.com/groups/133538...eferrer=search

Private parenting discussions are here: https://m.facebook.com/groups/382903...eferrer=search

We look forward to seeing you on Facebook!
See more
See less

SCOTUS and Hobby Lobby

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • SCOTUS and Hobby Lobby

    I just found an article with an interesting religious perspective on the case.

    http://flowerhorne.com/2013/11/26/ge...s-off-my-lawn/


    Conscientious Objectors creating a fire line in 1942. Photo by the US Forest Service.

    The Green Family, owners of the Hobby Lobby chain of craft stores, has asked the US Supreme Court to grant them ‘conscience protection,’ exempting them from their obligations under the Affordable Care Act. They claim that their religious convictions don’t allow them to cover employees’ birth control.

    As it happens, I know a little something about conscience protection. I’m a Quaker–one of the groups for whom the first conscience protection laws were created.

    Back in 2011, I wrote:

    As a Quaker, I believe in Conscience Protection. I believe people should have the right to refuse work that violates their principles. If a draft were called tomorrow, I would wholeheartedly support people’s right not to serve.

    But if someone serving in the military came to me and said they wanted me to defend their right to refuse military service, but that they also wanted to keep their job and be paid as if they were actually serving in combat, I would laugh in their face.

    A pharmacist demanding the right to keep their job even if they refuse to dispense legal medication is like a Marine demanding to keep their job even if they refuse to follow lawful orders. That’s not “conscience protection,” that’s a handout to someone who wants to be paid not to work.

    I feel the same way about Hobby Lobby’s Affordable Care Act stunt.

    I will refrain from asking where Hobby Lobby gets the nerve to claim ‘conscience’ when their shelves are full of products from countries with appalling labor laws. I won’t even ask which version of the bible they’re reading where Matthew 25.36 reads “I was sick and you sued not to cover my medical care.”

    Instead, I want to know exactly where they’re getting the idea that conscience protections are a consequence-free exemption from legal obligations.

    During World War II, men who refused conscription for reasons of conscience didn’t get to go back to their normal lives. They were conscripted instead for difficult, dangerous jobs. They served as forest fire fighters (including smoke jumpers), psych ward orderlies, and subjects in medical testing.

    That program formed the basis of the Alternative Service Program used during the Korean and Vietnam wars. If a draft were called tomorrow, the Alternative Service Program would start right back up again.

    And Alternative Service applies to work that people are required to actually carry out themselves, not to things they’re only required to pay for.

    Every year, I pay taxes to the United States government. I tell myself that I’m paying for roads and schools; food for hungry families and head start programs.

    I am, of course. But I’m also paying for Guantanamo Bay.

    I’m paying for two wars, and for racist immigration laws.

    I’m paying for drone strikes, including those that kill and maim children.

    I’m paying for federal executions, and for lawyers to argue that the government is not obligated to provide comprehensive medical care to Chelsea Manning.

    I’m paying for the prison industrial complex.

    All of those things violate my religious beliefs.

    And if I refused to pay my taxes because of that? I would go to jail.

    There are Quakers whose consciences really won’t permit them to pay federal taxes. Many of them manage that by making sure they don’t make enough money to incur tax liability. They live on far less than they could earn if they were willing to pay taxes, but they’re willing to make that sacrifice, because their conscience demands it.

    Now along comes Hobby Lobby, demanding a consequence-free exemption to paying for birth control on the grounds that it violates their conscience.

    Back in 2011, I wrote:

    If your conscience prohibits you from dispensing legal medication, then your conscience prevents you from being a pharmacist. Full stop.

    If your conscience prohibits you from performing abortions, then your conscience forbids you from taking a position where abortions are part of the job. Full stop.

    I know firsthand that it can be hard to pass up opportunities that violate your conscience. But that is the price you pay for conscientious objection.

    If you’re not willing to pay that price, you’re not a Conscientious Objector. Full stop.

    If the Green family’s conscience really forbids them from meeting their legal obligations under the Affordable Care Act, then they have the option to arrange their lives so as not to incur those obligations. They can choose not to run a two billion dollar corporation.

    But if they’re not willing to make those sacrifices–if their ‘conscience’ only compels them so far as they can follow it for free–then they are not conscientious objectors.

    And they and their fake conscience objection can get the hell off my lawn.

  • #2
    I have to agree with this. I am always very disturbed by the idea the corporations in the US seem to be gaining many of the same rights as citizens. I just don't understand that as a legal construct.
    Kris

    Comment


    • #3
      Interesting fact that seems to be left out of this:

      The company has agreed to all but four of the twenty contraceptive methods approved by the FDA, objecting to two types of intra-uterine device (IUD) and two "morning-after" pills.
      (Because they are abortifacients in the view of Hobby Lobby)

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/feisal...b_4374175.html

      I'll leave it at that.
      Married to a newly minted Pediatric Rad, momma to a sweet girl and a bunch of (mostly) cute boy monsters.



      Comment


      • #4
        None the less, they don't get to decide on the medical preferences of the patient. That's between the doctor and the patient, not the employer buying the insurance that will then be used to pay the doctor to provide the care to the patient - who is in fact the only one that gets a real opinion on what type of BC they want to use.

        To me, this is all the more reason to get the hell away from the employer providing healthcare. It's a conflict of interest and puts a third and fourth party in the decision making process that should be patient-doctor.

        I can't wait until companies start going to court to object to end of life care because it's not moral to them or types of medication because they were tested on animals. Jeesh. Eventually, the patient and the doctor will have no say at all. Money talks. The American Way.

        It's so twisted and wrong this system we've built.
        Angie
        Gyn-Onc fellowship survivor - 10 years out of the training years; reluctant suburbanite
        Mom to DS (18) and DD (15) (and many many pets)

        "Where are we going - and what am I doing in this handbasket?"

        Comment


        • #5
          Yup. I agree, Angie.
          Heidi, PA-S1 - wife to an orthopaedic surgeon, mom to Ryan, 17, and Alexia, 11.


          Comment


          • #6
            I agree. Plus, what about churches? Church schools? Once you say everyone has to provide all healthcare.... slippery slope.
            Originally posted by SoonerTexan View Post
            Interesting fact that seems to be left out of this:

            (Because they are abortifacients in the view of Hobby Lobby)

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/feisal...b_4374175.html

            I'll leave it at that.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by spaz View Post
              I agree. Plus, what about churches? Church schools? Once you say everyone has to provide all healthcare.... slippery slope.
              Churches are already specifically excluded from the BC mandate in the law.

              Comment


              • #8
                Which is one reason of many churches should not be in the hospital business unless they can agree to let their doctors treat their patients by allowing birth control and abortions.

                Corporations should not have religious protected rights and individual civil liberties, IMO.
                Heidi, PA-S1 - wife to an orthopaedic surgeon, mom to Ryan, 17, and Alexia, 11.


                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Vanquisher View Post
                  Which is one reason of many churches should not be in the hospital business unless they can agree to let their doctors treat their patients by allowing birth control and abortions.

                  Corporations should not have religious protected rights and individual civil liberties, IMO.
                  I agree.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by diggitydot View Post
                    I agree.
                    Make that two of us!
                    Wife, support system, and partner-in-crime to PGY-3 (IM) and spoiler of our 11 y/o yellow lab

                    sigpic

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Vanquisher View Post
                      Which is one reason of many churches should not be in the hospital business unless they can agree to let their doctors treat their patients by allowing birth control and abortions.

                      Corporations should not have religious protected rights and individual civil liberties, IMO.
                      Then the hospitals will close.
                      Veronica
                      Mother of two ballerinas and one wild boy

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by v-girl View Post
                        Then the hospitals will close.
                        I actually doubt it. They bring in entirely too much money. Particularly for groups designated as not-for-profit.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          If the hospitals close, they close. But I doubt it. I agree with Wendy. However, if Catholic or Adventist (or whatever religion) wanted out of the business, I'm sure somebody would snatch them up and buy them.

                          I stand by my first statement.
                          Heidi, PA-S1 - wife to an orthopaedic surgeon, mom to Ryan, 17, and Alexia, 11.


                          Comment


                          • #14
                            So true. There are hospital conglomerates that would buy them out in a heartbeat. It would be a boon to them.

                            Angie


                            Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
                            Angie
                            Gyn-Onc fellowship survivor - 10 years out of the training years; reluctant suburbanite
                            Mom to DS (18) and DD (15) (and many many pets)

                            "Where are we going - and what am I doing in this handbasket?"

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I wonder if Citizens United speaks to the issue. There are a lot of legal experts that think that it does.

                              EDIT: I meant speaks to the issue raised in the Hobby Lobby case.

                              In terms of philosophical argument, the reading provided by the OP was interesting. Legally, it is not worth anything.
                              Last edited by GrayMatterWife; 12-17-2013, 04:39 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X