Abortion and Politics

[Brian Stoffregen]

Well, maybe they don't choose to  micromanage the 401k programs of the Hobby Lobby employees, but it certainly appears that they would like to micromanage their sex lives.  Is this not hypocrisy?

I removed my previous post, but you beat me with your response.  You still persist in characterizing this case as a micromanagement of employees' sex lives despite, as I said in my removed post, multiple sourced clarifications and corrections by others.  Why?  I'm beginning to think that there is a larger or different underlying issue in this for you, but cannot even fathom what it might be.

Saying that refusing to pay for someone's contraception amounts to "micromanaging" their sex lives is, well, hard to take seriously.

I don't think that you statement is quite right. Hobby Lobby is refusing to allow their health benefit carrier to provide free contraception. We don't know if that coverage that includes free contraception would cost any more than coverage that does not cover it. Thus, they are not "paying" for it. They are refusing to provide it.

Just how hypocritical are you suggesting that Hobby Lobby is?  Are you suggesting that their real problem is not the morality of providing contraceptives, especially contraceptives with the potential of also acting as abortifacients but the cost?  That if it could be demonstrated that providing those contraceptives through the health plan without it costing the company anything that they would or should say, "fine, if it costs us nothing extra we're OK with providing them?"  Talk about hypocrites!  Oh wait, that is your idea of how they should think about it.

I was not saying anything about Hobby Lobby, but Randy Bosch's statement about them refusing to pay for it. He is the one who brought up the cost issue. I'm arguing that it is a providing issue. It hasn't been shown that it would cost Hobby Lobby anything more to have contraceptive coverage - and I believe that cost is not the issue for them.

[DCharlton]

Nope, I have no concern about surplus humans. I am concerned about reducing the number of abortions. I believe that the best way to do that is to prevent unwanted pregnancies. The proper use of contraceptives does that. Making them free to the people and providing proper education about their use will reduce abortions, in my opinion.

So, the way I see it, those who seek to decrease the use of contraceptions or make them costly or harder for people to get will end up increasing the number of abortions. I believe that every pregnancy should be about a child who is wanted.

But you make my point.  You are more concerned about reducing the number of unwanted human beings, than about sexual freedom and individual rights.  Which makes me wonder whether that the same is true for the Obama administration.  Is the HHS mandate more about population control than women's rights?

   

[Dan Fienen]

Rather than hypotheticals about cars and sun roofs,  how about a hypothetical situation in which Hobby Lobby decides to stock the break room with magazines.   Rather than a bunch of individual subscriptions, they contract with a subscription service to provide a wide selection of popular magazines.  And, hypothetically a package of magazines that they want for their break rooms includes at no additional cost to them a selection of "men's" magazines through some arcane bit of magazine marketing. Now, would it be hypocritical of them not to provide the men's magazines also since they wouldn't cost them anything?  Wouldn't it be micromanaging their employees reading habits to refuse to provide those magazines?

Dan

[Brian Stoffregen]

Rather than hypotheticals about cars and sun roofs,  how about a hypothetical situation in which Hobby Lobby decides to stock the break room with magazines.   Rather than a bunch of individual subscriptions, they contract with a subscription service to provide a wide selection of popular magazines.  And, hypothetically a package of magazines that they want for their break rooms includes at no additional cost to them a selection of "men's" magazines through some arcane bit of magazine marketing. Now, would it be hypocritical of them not to provide the men's magazines also since they wouldn't cost them anything?  Wouldn't it be micromanaging their employees reading habits to refuse to provide those magazines?

I don't believe that providing or not providing a men's magazine will have any affect on the number of unwanted pregnancies - and thus, it does not serve the common good. If you want to decrease abortions - something that is for the common good, offer contraceptives and proper education for their use. I have argued that for 30 years.

[peter_speckhard]

The common good is served by higher fertility rates. I'm shocked and disgusted that you would say a woman ought to subjugate her own ambitions, desires, and even her body for the common good.

[Dan Fienen]

Rather than hypotheticals about cars and sun roofs,  how about a hypothetical situation in which Hobby Lobby decides to stock the break room with magazines.   Rather than a bunch of individual subscriptions, they contract with a subscription service to provide a wide selection of popular magazines.  And, hypothetically a package of magazines that they want for their break rooms includes at no additional cost to them a selection of "men's" magazines through some arcane bit of magazine marketing. Now, would it be hypocritical of them not to provide the men's magazines also since they wouldn't cost them anything?  Wouldn't it be micromanaging their employees reading habits to refuse to provide those magazines?

I
I don't believe that providing or not providing a men's magazine will have any affect on the number of unwanted pregnancies - and thus, it does not serve the common good. If you want to decrease abortions - something that is for the common good, offer contraceptives and proper education for their use. I have argued that for 30 years.

So, would you say that reducing the number of abortions is more important than religious freedom?  That pursuing a course of action that you have decided will reduce the number of abortions should void any religious rights that may be infringed in the course of that action?  Why not mandatory contraception for all women not intending to give birth in nine months?

[Norman Teigen]

A serious consequence of the thinking behind the Hobby Lobby case is where the exemptions sought could end.  The ACA is about public health, specifically contraception.  How about vaccinations?  Blood transfusions?  As Justice Kagan said:  "So one religious group could opt of this, and another group could opt out of that, and everything would be piecemeal and nothing would be uniform."

[Team Hesse]

A serious consequence of the thinking behind the Hobby Lobby case is where the exemptions sought could end.  The ACA is about public health, specifically contraception.  How about vaccinations?  Blood transfusions?  As Justice Kagan said:  "So one religious group could opt of this, and another group could opt out of that, and everything would be piecemeal and nothing would be uniform."

Contraception is a matter of public health? Really? Such fundamentally odd thinking. Our country must be losing its mind if people are starting to think in this manner. Now that is a matter of public health...


Lou

[Norman Teigen]

Unbelievable.  If contraception is not a matter of public health, what is it?  Is it recreation?

[swbohler]

Well, it DOES make sex recreational rather than procreational.

[Team Hesse]

Unbelievable.  If contraception is not a matter of public health, what is it?  Is it recreation?

Unbelievable indeed! There was no public health prior to Margaret Sanger? Pregnancy is unhealthy? Children are a curse? My God man, where did this hatred for the human race come from?


Contraception is (at best) an aid for couples to free them from anxiety and worry. Other than that, when one looks at opening the doors to more promiscuity and the concomitant side-effects of that move it can be argued that contraception is detrimental to public health, particularly when people start seeing pregnancy as unhealthy.


Lou

[Norman Teigen]

It is very difficult to comprehend the misunderstanding of such a response. 

[Donald_Kirchner]

A serious consequence of the thinking behind the Hobby Lobby case is where the exemptions sought could end.  The ACA is about public health, specifically contraception.  How about vaccinations?  Blood transfusions?  As Justice Kagan said:  "So one religious group could opt [out]of this, and another group could opt out of that, and everything would be piecemeal and nothing would be uniform."

If Justice Kagan said that, how disconcerting. A perfect example of the slippery slope fallacy.

[Team Hesse]

It is very difficult to comprehend the misunderstanding of such a response.

Indeed, I clearly live in a different thought world than you do. I suspect that only the return of my Lord will bridge that differential. Maranatha.


Lou

[peter_speckhard]

Contraception has nothing to do with PUBLIC health. Remember, it was only legalized in the first place via the invention of the right to privacy. In other words, the logic was that contraception was entirely private and the law therefore could not interfere. Now contraception is so public a matter as to be necessary for others to be mandated to provide people with it?

A lot can happen in one generation. The year I was born, Connecticut was still arguing before the Supreme Court that its public law against married couples using artificial contraception should stand, and before any of my kids are even adults we're arguing before the Supreme Court whether the government should mandate that free contraceptives be provided to everybody. It is an individualist, self-absorbed, and anti-life agenda.