Sure sounds terrible.
And of course, has absolutely zero relevance to the Hobby Lobby decision.
Hobby Lobby says that those four methods of contraception can prevent implantation.
So does the FDA.
Right?
The use of “may” and “might” is the oldest trick in the book. Cite.
No, I assume they wanted the stairs of their own volition with no concern at all for the innocent fetuses whose lives they put at risk because they want the choice to ascend or descend as is their wont. Jezebels and harlots, the lot of them.
I don’t follow this argument at all.
Hobby Lobby says: “I don’t want to be forced to pay for contraceptive methods which may prevent implantation, because doing so burdens my practice of religion. And happily for me, the RFRA protects me in just that circumstance.”
Now, add in the stairs – how do they fit, specifically?
I’m just saying, if it’s concern for unborn children that’s driving their religious beliefs, there’s a lot of stuff that’s just as if not more dangerous than the Plan B pill that they could be fighting against. But somehow, I don’t think we’re going to see them campaigning against OSHA regulations regarding fire stairs any time soon.
I don’t get why you don’t understand the argument, Bricker.
Hobby Lobby objects to facilitating an employee doing something that may inadvertently result in what Hobby Lobby considers to be an abortion. Why does that logic apply to IUDs but not to other things that may inadvertently result in what Hobby Lobby considers to be an abortion?
They wouldn’t have a viable claim against OSHA regulations regarding fire stairs.
And so far as I can tell, the FDA does not list “fire stairs” as something that can affect the implantation of a fertilized embryo.
And it’s not “concern for unborn children” that drives their beliefs. It’s that they believe it’s sinful to deliberately prevent a fertilized embryo from implanting. Do OSHA regulations involving fire stairs do that?
That’s because you’re making a retarded argument and you know it.
Hey, for fun, let’s go full retard with your argument.
“Oh noes death can cause a womans’ unborn child harm. Why isn’t Hobby Lobby trying to get death outlawed for women?”
I suspect it’s because none of those other things has the right mix of intentionality, utility, and lack of available other options.
What other things, specifically, are you suggesting Hobby Lobby should be doing? Are you on board with the RFRA claim against stairs?
Really? Your view is that Hobby Lobby is considering the utility and alternatives to IUDs in assessing their sinfulness? I don’t see any evidence of that whatsoever. And, indeed, I don’t see how such an inquiry could possibly succeed at distinguishing them from the many things they do facilitate that inadvertently prevent implantation.
Intentionality is another story, but that’s because I think both you and they are simply factually wrong. I gather that you (and/or they) incorrectly think that IUDs are designed or intended to prevent implantation. What I’m not sure about is whether they have a theological belief about that factual matter that therefore requires deference in the context of RFRA. I doubt they have a theological belief on that fact question, but I have been wrong once or twice in my life.
I don’t think they should be doing anything. But I do think they’ve singled out IUDs because of various political and gender-related ideas, and not out of some neutral assessment of what inadvertently causes “abortions”–which was the whole point of this hypothetical.
Odd that they didn’t feign opposition to all contraceptives, then.
And odd that their exceptions to contraceptives that hinder implantation began well before Obama was ever elected.
Was it a TARDIS they used? Or a Delorean at 88 mph?
You seem to be making some unwarranted assumptions with this sarcasm. I don’t think this has anything to do with Obama.
I do think that it has a lot to do with the politics and culture of sex. Why do you think that they don’t care about actual abortions (and not implantation-preventions) being caused by ibuprofen? I think it’s because there’s a political and social history here, quite apart from some neutral application of concern for fertilized eggs.
Even if the FDA were to forthrightly assert that these methods might interfere with implantation of a fertilized ovum, where has the FDA asserted that conception itself is the all-important fact? Personhood as the instant result of conception is a common “pro-life” dogma, but I am unaware that it represents any official position.
From quoted sources. it appears that the FDA regards a failure of implantation to be just that, and an entirely separate thing from abortion.
That’s right. The medical community does not consider this abortion.
But the point is that theological beliefs need not be reality-based. They can believe that women are secret dinosaurs and act accordingly, and so long as it is sincere then the only question is whether the government has a compelling interest in burdening that practice and no less restrictive option.
Their belief about personhood is pretty clearly theological. I’m not sure the same goes for their belief about the science of how IUDs work.
What is to stop them from demanding that they be exempt from providing insurance to employees because they may be prescribed ibuprofen?
Among other things, the lack of an alternative to achieving the government’s goals. Contraception may be unique insofar as it is generally thought to be a cost-saver for insurance companies, so they won’t fight too hard about being required to provide it (though we will see).
Not following you there, Judge Parker. If contraception is a “cost saver” for the insurance companies, and seeing as how they are uniformly members of the Mammonite Church of the Dollar Almighty…wouldn’t they be best served by opposing this? Only marginally, I would expect, but a dime is a dime…
Yes.
Hobby Lobby’s belief is that preventing implantation of a fertilized embryo is sinful.
The word “abortion” is not relevant here. Hobby Lobby says that deliberately or carelessly preventing the implantation of a fertilized embryo is sinful. And Hobby Lobby says that the four methods of contraception it objects to can do that. At present, the FDA also says that those four methods can do that.
Well, that changes everything! Gosh, here I was thinking that this was an unreasonable assertion of a flimsy theological rationale, with the result of making life a bit more difficult for people who do not share that view.
They must have gone to a different Sunday School than I did, I don’t recall Jesus saying anything like “Go forth and be a total pain in the butt.”