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.
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.
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?)
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.”
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?
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).
Case from Israel involving Jewish doctrine.
Religious Hospitals and Primary Care Physicians: Conflicts over Policies for Patient Care
Couple of more cases.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/05/30/2077371/beatriz-denied-life-saving-abortion/
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.
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.
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.
I have to admit, my understanding was a bit woolly. Thank you.
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?
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. The hospital in question does abortions, no problem – just in certain rooms, as your link makes clear:
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.
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?
Cite, please, for these few hospitals that have done this.
Second link says:
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:
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?
Neither you nor runner pat have substantiated your claim even once.
To remind you, here is your claim:
And here was my question:
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?
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.
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.
And irrelevant.