# I Pit HOBBY LOBBY **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 28, 2012, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335 "2012-11-28T02:45:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 18
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2013, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/341 "2013-12-05T13:49:13Z")
What else does Hobby Lobby object to? Vasectomies? Fertility treatments? Viagra? This case sets a dangerous precedent, subjecting labor to the whims and caprices of the employer’s alleged religious faith. I believe the government has a compelling state interest in requiring contraceptive coverage, and that is the cost savings that providing such coverage provides. How many women could be provided contraception for the health care costs associated with one infant? I’m guessing hundreds. So as a matter of fiscal sanity, we need to mandate contraceptive coverage. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2013, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/342 "2013-12-05T13:58:03Z")
> [@raventhief](#): > > This was not directed at me, but this question gives me pause – I don’t know if insurance should cover every health ailment, but I \*want \*to say it should. Should the employer provide said insurance? Maybe, maybe not, but that seems to be the way the system is set up in this country. > > So I ask the question in return – do you think that insurance should cover a common treatment for [endometriosis](http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/endometriosis/DS00289/DSECTION=treatments-and-drugs)or [polycystic ovary syndrome](http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/polycystic-ovary-syndrome/DS00423/DSECTION=treatments-and-drugs)? Birth control pills are a common treatment for both. While the much more common use of birth control pills is just that – birth control – the Pill is prescribed for other reasons. Should a Christian company provide the benefit of a comprehensive insurance plan for their employees? Should it only be covered if the patient can prove that they aren’t using it for birth control reasons? I can prove that I don’t need it for birth control purposes; my SO has had a vasectomy. Should Hobby Lobby (if I were an employee there) be able to say “Nope, we won’t cover your medical treatment”? Yes, they should be able to. In my view, insurance is a benefit. Some jobs offer no insurance at all; others, bare-bones insurance; others offer reasonably good coverage; still others offer Cadillac plans that involve a private doctor on call. All they should HAVE to do is disclose what kinds of limits and exclusions exist. It’s then up to the rational, individual, free employment candidate to accept or reject the job, using the same kind of analysis he would in deciding between a job that paid $10,000 per year more than one which offered an extra week’s vacation and pre-tax reimbursement for commuting expenses incurred using bus or rail. I can imagine a mass transit enthusiast arguing with equal vigor that all employers should have to offer pre-tax reimbursement for commuting expenses incurred using bus or rail. But in my view, that’s an absolutely foolish view of a free society. An employer should be free to offer whatever compensations he believes will attract employees; an employee should be equally free to accept, or reject, that offer. In my opinion, there is no “right” to health care, any more than there is a “right” to food, television, or sex. If you want to watch television, you should not be able to demand society give you access to one; if you want food, you should not have a legal right to demand that society feed you; if you want sex, you should not be able to demand that society provide you with a desirable sexual partner. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2013, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/343 "2013-12-05T14:00:04Z")
> [@raventhief](#): > > Looking at it, it appears that Hobby Lobby may object specifically to IUDs and Plan B, more so than hormonal BC. I personally cannot take The Pill for my endometriosis, so my doctor has strongly urged me to have an [IUD](http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/intrauterine-device-iud-for-birth-control)implanted. I cannot say how common that is, just that my own doctor wants me to get one. Hobby Lobby (as far as I know) has no objection to hormonal birth control. They have an objection to a fairly limited subset of contraceptives (that they believe are abortofacients). The idea that they object to contraception more broadly (or even just all hormonal contraception) is an intentional misrepresentation intended to make their position seem unreasonable and to advance the “anti-sex” or “war on women” tropes. But, you raise an interesting question. Assume for a moment that we care about people’s religious scruples and assume that Hobby Lobby is right about the way these drugs work (more on that below): What do you do with something that has both offensive and non-offensive uses? My gut reaction is that a system where it’s required for non-offensive uses, but not for offensive uses, would be unsatisfying to all parties (the employee will find it impermissibly invasive of their privacy to “prove” their need and the employer will be concerned that people are lying). It also seems to me to be a theological question as to when the facilitation of something objectionable becomes so attenuated as to be permissible. As a practical (and likely legal) matter, one question ought to be the number of offensive versus non-offensive uses. If 99% of uses are non-offensive, we might rationally conclude that, although the employer’s religious scruples are implicated, the burden on them is slight in comparison with the societal benefit. If 99% of uses are offensive, we might conclude the opposite. (I also don’t know if there are any non-contraceptive uses for the various “emergency contraceptive” drugs that are at issue. Do you?) > [@Karrius](#): > > This is basically the same as the women who die from being denied abortions despite having an already dead fetus inside of them. It doesn’t matter the medical reality - facts don’t get in the way of faith, and their faith tells them that this is wrong, always. Who needs to do things like actually know how stuff works or what it might be used for before making decisions for the lives of others? Jesus wouldn’t want that! I’ve been curious about this. Years ago, when I first encountered the abortofacient argument it was a fringe evangelical Christian position; then it became a mandatory Democratic talking point against “personhood” legislation. I’ve tried to do some reading on the subject and it sounds to me like the factual claims underlying Hobby Lobby’s belief are unclear, but certainly not refuted. There appears to be some evidence for and some against (the strongest argument, which is hardly “factual,” is whether an implantation-preventing drug is an abortofacient at all. But that rests on an opinion of when “life” begins). Since you accuse them of “blatantly lying” or not knowing “how stuff works,” perhaps you can provide some insight. I’ve even read the “Physicians for Reproductive Health” amicus brief, which makes a decent argument but rests awfully heavily on the “it’s not a real pregnancy” argument for it to be clear that the contrary position on implantation is a “blatant lie.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2013, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/344 "2013-12-05T14:04:59Z")
> [@Karrius](#): > > This is basically the same as the women who die from being denied abortions despite having an already dead fetus inside of them. It doesn’t matter the medical reality - facts don’t get in the way of faith, and their faith tells them that this is wrong, always. Who needs to do things like actually know how stuff works or what it might be used for before making decisions for the lives of others? Jesus wouldn’t want that! Are you making that up? Or does some company actually take the position you’ve ascribed to them: denied abortions despite having an already dead fetus inside of them. Roman Catholic doctrine, to choose a faith that drives a fair amount of the anti-abortion effort, certainly would not oppose an operation to remove an already dead fetus. Which groups, faiths, or organizations do? Specifically? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2013, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/345 "2013-12-05T14:08:59Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > What else does Hobby Lobby object to? Vasectomies? Fertility treatments? Viagra? This case sets a dangerous precedent, subjecting labor to the whims and caprices of the employer’s alleged religious faith. I believe the government has a compelling state interest in requiring contraceptive coverage, and that is the cost savings that providing such coverage provides. How many women could be provided contraception for the health care costs associated with one infant? I’m guessing hundreds. So as a matter of fiscal sanity, we need to mandate contraceptive coverage. Does the government have a compelling interest in requiring ALL contraceptive coverage? Or would their interest be met by requiring hormonal contraceptive coverage (“The Pill,”) but not an IUD? (Since your concern claims now to be cost-related, and since IUDs are more expensive, and all.) ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2013, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/346 "2013-12-05T14:17:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Does the government have a compelling interest in requiring ALL contraceptive coverage? Or would their interest be met by requiring hormonal contraceptive coverage (“The Pill,”) but not an IUD? (Since your concern claims now to be cost-related, and since IUDs are more expensive, and all.) The cost increase from pill to IUD is a pittance compared to that of a newborn. So I would have a mandate to cover all contraception (abortion too, but that is a mountain to climb later). ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2013, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/347 "2013-12-05T14:24:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Are you making that up? Or does some company actually take the position you’ve ascribed to them: denied abortions despite having an already dead fetus inside of them. > > \*\*Roman Catholic doctrine, to choose a faith that drives a fair amount of the anti-abortion effort, certainly would not oppose an operation to remove an already dead fetus. > \*\* > Which groups, faiths, or organizations do? Specifically? [Tamesha Means](https://www.aclu.org/reproductive-freedom-womens-rights/tamesha-means-v-united-states-conference-catholic-bishops) [Case from Israel](http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2013/07/woman-with-dead-fetus-in-womb-denied-abortion-due-to-bizarre-issue-of-ritual-purity-345.html) involving Jewish doctrine. [Religious Hospitals and Primary Care Physicians: Conflicts over Policies for Patient Care](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2881970/) ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2013, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/348 "2013-12-05T14:30:00Z")
Couple of more cases. > **['Horrendous, barbaric and inhuman': Widower whose dentist wife died after...](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2311684/Savita-Halappanavar-Dentist-refused-abortion-Irish-hospital-died-medical-misadventure.html)** > > Savita Halappanavar, a dentist who had emigrated to Galway, was having a miscarriage but was denied the termination which could have saved her life because of Ireland's strict abortion laws. [http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/05/30/2077371/beatriz-denied-life-saving-abortion/](http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/05/30/2077371/beatriz-denied-life-saving-abortion/) ---
**Author:** ![Lynn\_Bodoni](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e47c2d/32.png) [@Lynn\_Bodoni](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lynn_Bodoni)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2013, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/349 "2013-12-05T14:39:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Are you making that up? Or does some company actually take the position you’ve ascribed to them: denied abortions despite having an already dead fetus inside of them. > > Roman Catholic doctrine, to choose a faith that drives a fair amount of the anti-abortion effort, certainly would not oppose an operation to remove an already dead fetus. > > Which groups, faiths, or organizations do? Specifically? The Roman Catholic church does refuse to abort an already dead fetus, even if leaving it in the woman will endanger her health. I don’t know if it’s doctrine or not, but at least a few RC hospitals have done this. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2013, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/350 "2013-12-05T14:41:50Z")
> [@runner pat](#): > > [Tamesha Means](https://www.aclu.org/reproductive-freedom-womens-rights/tamesha-means-v-united-states-conference-catholic-bishops) > > [Case from Israel](http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2013/07/woman-with-dead-fetus-in-womb-denied-abortion-due-to-bizarre-issue-of-ritual-purity-345.html) involving Jewish doctrine. > [Religious Hospitals and Primary Care Physicians: Conflicts over Policies for Patient Care](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2881970/) > [@runner pat](#): > > Couple of more cases. > [Savita Halappanavar: Dentist refused abortion in Irish hospital died of medical misadventure | Daily Mail Online](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2311684/Savita-Halappanavar-Dentist-refused-abortion-Irish-hospital-died-medical-misadventure.html) > [http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/05/30/2077371/beatriz-denied-life-saving-abortion/](http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/05/30/2077371/beatriz-denied-life-saving-abortion/) Although these cases are certainly troubling (especially the one from El Salvador), they don’t really deal with the “already dead” fetus. They deal with “killing” a fetus that is doomed. That strikes me as both a different issue and a deeply complicated one. Edit: Also, the idea of aborting a dead fetus sounds like a contradiction in terms. What are we claiming? Catholics won’t removed the remains of a miscarried fetus from the woman artificially? That seems highly implausible to me. ---
**Author:** ![Karrius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/71c47a/32.png) [@Karrius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Karrius)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2013, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/351 "2013-12-05T14:45:29Z")
Don’t have time to dig up many cites right now, unfortunately, but thanks runner pat. To be fair, however, in the Halappanavar case, the fetus was removed as soon as it died - so while the Catholic doctrine cause her death due to their lack of concern about her agonizing pain and infection, and most doctors on the subject had pretty much stated that yes, it was obvious the fetus had to be removed, it didn’t quite apply in this case. It’s important to be specific and accurate! Here are some more: [Republican congressman tells woman she should have carried brain-dead fetus to term.](http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/05/24/2055311/gohmert-fetal-abnormalities-abortion-bill/) [In George, republican says women should be forced to carry dead fetuses to term because cows do. The bit about “medical futile” bit had to be added in after a debate and still threatens to punish doctors for doing so anyway.](http://msmagazine.com/blog/2012/03/31/at-11th-hour-georgia-passes-women-as-livestock-bill/) ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2013, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/352 "2013-12-05T14:45:33Z")
> [@Falchion](#): > > So I’m not sure what you’re saying here. The Hobby Lobby case isn’t a First Amendment case (I mean, Hobby Lobby does claim a First Amendment issue, but I don’t think it’s a winner; in any event that’s a seperate issue). I have to admit, my understanding was a bit woolly. Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2013, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/353 "2013-12-05T14:48:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Are you making that up? Or does some company actually take the position you’ve ascribed to them: denied abortions despite having an already dead fetus inside of them. > > Roman Catholic doctrine, to choose a faith that drives a fair amount of the anti-abortion effort, certainly would not oppose an operation to remove an already dead fetus. > > Which groups, faiths, or organizations do? Specifically? > [@runner pat](#): > > [Tamesha Means](https://www.aclu.org/reproductive-freedom-womens-rights/tamesha-means-v-united-states-conference-catholic-bishops) > > [Case from Israel](http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2013/07/woman-with-dead-fetus-in-womb-denied-abortion-due-to-bizarre-issue-of-ritual-purity-345.html) involving Jewish doctrine. > [Religious Hospitals and Primary Care Physicians: Conflicts over Policies for Patient Care](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2881970/) OK, let’s check out the Tamesha Means story – why didn’t you quote from your link? I know: it’s because your link doesn’t say that Tamesha Means was refused treatment when carrying an already dead fetus. Does it? > [@Link about Tamesha Means](#): > > The directives prohibit a pre-viability pregnancy termination, even when there is little or no chance that the fetus will survive, and the life or health of a pregnant woman is at risk. So – _ **not** _ a case of being refused treatment when carrying an already dead fetus. Correct? Lie #1 for **runner pat**. Let’s look at claim #2… will it also be a lie, or will this one be true? Well, it was a dead fetus – you got that right. But the issue was not anything to do with abortion, but a Jewish law forbidding _kohanim_ – those male Jews that are direct patrilineal descendants of Aaron – from coming into contact with the dead. Specifically, a _kohen_ may not enter an _ohel_, an enclosure (such as a room, or tent) in which there are dead bodies. [Cite.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_of_Kohen_defilement_by_the_dead) The hospital in question does abortions, no problem – just in certain rooms, as your link makes clear: > [@Second runner pat link](#): > > "Out of a desire to honor various sectors [of society] who use it, the hospital is committed to maintaining the purity of kohanim. Therefore abortions are performed according to the halakha, and in a dedicated area [only], in order to allow kohanim to walk around freely in the hospital,” the hospital said in a statement. So, lie #2 to **runner pat**. Gee, what will link #3 bring? Link #3 is to a general study assessing conflict between health care imperatives and religious practices. It does not, so far as I can find, mention any case in which the issue is an operation to remove an already dead fetus, or any opposition to such a thing. When someone’s case is so weak they need to repeatedly lie to buttress it, the conclusion to be drawn is an obvious one. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2013, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/354 "2013-12-05T14:52:32Z")
> [@Karrius](#): > > Don’t have time to dig up many cites right now, unfortunately, but thanks runner pat. To be fair, however, in the Halappanavar case, the fetus was removed as soon as it died - so while the Catholic doctrine cause her death due to their lack of concern about her agonizing pain and infection, and most doctors on the subject had pretty much stated that yes, it was obvious the fetus had to be removed, it didn’t quite apply in this case. It’s important to be specific and accurate! > > Here are some more: > > [Republican congressman tells woman she should have carried brain-dead fetus to term.](http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/05/24/2055311/gohmert-fetal-abnormalities-abortion-bill/) > > [In George, republican says women should be forced to carry dead fetuses to term because cows do. The bit about “medical futile” bit had to be added in after a debate and still threatens to punish doctors for doing so anyway.](http://msmagazine.com/blog/2012/03/31/at-11th-hour-georgia-passes-women-as-livestock-bill/) So what you offer here in your second link is two people suggesting that it should happen – not any kind of an official policy or statement on behalf of any group? And in your first link, you offer a suggestion about a live birth, not a dead body? Is that right? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2013, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/355 "2013-12-05T14:53:38Z")
> [@Lynn\_Bodoni](#): > > The Roman Catholic church does refuse to abort an already dead fetus, even if leaving it in the woman will endanger her health. I don’t know if it’s doctrine or not, but at least a few RC hospitals have done this. Cite, please, for these few hospitals that have done this. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2013, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/356 "2013-12-05T15:00:50Z")
> [@runner pat](#): > > Couple of more cases. > [Savita Halappanavar: Dentist refused abortion in Irish hospital died of medical misadventure | Daily Mail Online](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2311684/Savita-Halappanavar-Dentist-refused-abortion-Irish-hospital-died-medical-misadventure.html) > [http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/05/30/2077371/beatriz-denied-life-saving-abortion/](http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/05/30/2077371/beatriz-denied-life-saving-abortion/) Second link says: > [@](#): > > Several ultrasounds have revealed that, even if Beatriz does survive to carry the fetus to full term, it has virtually no chance of survival because it has no brain. So – it’s alive? Not dead? “Virtually no chance of survival?” That means alive? The case of Savita does not reflect that anyone knew the baby was dead, or even when it died: > [@](#): > > Notes showed that within hours there were mistakes, described by coroner Ciaran MacLoughlin as ‘system failures’. > First the blood tests. On admission Ms Halappanavar had an elevated white cell count of 16.9 - a sign of infection. This was not noted on her chart and not investigated by medics who should have repeated the test. > Second, hospital guidelines were broken when her vital signs were not checked every four hours after her waters broke in the early hours of Monday. Those specific checks are designed to spot early signs of infection. > Thirdly, Dr Ikechukwu Uzochkwu disputes claims by midwife Ms Burke that he was told on Tuesday night of high pulse rates, again another sign of infection. > All specialists agreed on the fourth point - Ms Halappanavar was suffering from early stage sepsis when she was found shivering and her teeth chattering at 4.15am on Wednesday. Instead of a doctor being called she was given a blanket and paracetamol. > About 12 hours later severe sepsis had set in and Ms Halappanavar naturally delivered a dead foetus. The tell-tale signs of the infection had been missed, leading to her death days later. This does not support your claim – the hospital, through a series of failures, did not know there was a problem, or contemplate abortion – they thought she was ready to deliver. This was not a case of a woman seeking an abortion and being denied; this was a case of a woman seeking to deliver her child and dying because the hospital failed to provide proper medical care. Right? Two more lies, eh? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2013, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/357 "2013-12-05T15:06:20Z")
> [@Karrius](#): > > Don’t have time to dig up many cites right now, unfortunately, but thanks runner pat. Neither you nor **runner pat** have substantiated your claim even once. To remind you, here is your claim: > [@Karrius](#): > > This is basically the same as the women who die from being denied abortions despite having an already dead fetus inside of them. It doesn’t matter the medical reality - facts don’t get in the way of faith, and their faith tells them that this is wrong, always. Who needs to do things like actually know how stuff works or what it might be used for before making decisions for the lives of others? Jesus wouldn’t want that! And here was my question: > [@Bricker](#): > > Are you making that up? Or does some company actually take the position you’ve ascribed to them: denied abortions despite having an already dead fetus inside of them. > > Roman Catholic doctrine, to choose a faith that drives a fair amount of the anti-abortion effort, certainly would not oppose an operation to remove an already dead fetus. > > Which groups, faiths, or organizations do? Specifically? Sucks to debate on a message board, where the stuff you’ve said is undeniably and accurately preserved, doesn’t it? So – which groups, faiths, or organizations specifically actually take the position you’ve ascribed to them of wishing to deny an abortion despite having an already dead fetus inside of the patient? Well? ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2013, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/358 "2013-12-05T15:12:05Z")
Miscarriage. > [@](#): > > **A miscarriage is the loss of a fetus** before the 20th week of pregnancy. The medical term for a miscarriage is spontaneous abortion, but the condition is not an abortion in the common definition of the term. [http://www.webmd.com/infertility-and-reproduction/guide/pregnancy-miscarriage](http://www.webmd.com/infertility-and-reproduction/guide/pregnancy-miscarriage) Since the stories used the term and gave no quotes from the hospitals that they detected signs of life from the fetus, why would I not think the fetus was dead? Holy fuck, **Bricker** , you’re a ghoul for even trying to defend this shit. ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2013, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/359 "2013-12-05T15:29:55Z")
I’m not on Bricker’s side on the larger issue re: Hobby Lobby’s case; but I think he is absolutely right about this side issue regarding women allegedly being denied the surgical removal of dead fetuses. Resorting to that kind of fear mongering (“They want you to carry a dead fetus to term!”) is wrong regardless of which side does it. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2013, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/360 "2013-12-05T15:46:41Z")
And irrelevant. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335.md?page=19)