# Remedy for Hobby Lobby decision? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 1, 2014, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060 "2014-07-01T02:26:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/41 "2014-07-01T16:26:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > How about agreeing to rely on the FDA? Is that a fair way of determining whether Plan B interferes with implantation? > [@](#): > > But Erica Jefferson, an F.D.A. spokeswoman, acknowledged: “The emerging data on Plan B suggest that it does not inhibit implantation." > > … > > The F.D.A.’s own description was speculative, saying Plan B “could theoretically prevent pregnancy by interfering with a number of physiological processes” followed by a long list, including ovulation and implantation. [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/health/research/morning-after-pills-dont-block-implantation-science-suggests.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/health/research/morning-after-pills-dont-block-implantation-science-suggests.html?pagewanted=all) Various anti-inflammatories have a stronger connection to preventing implantation. I wonder why Hobby Lobby didn’t sue about not having to cover Celebrex? ---
**Author:** ![aruvqan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aruvqan/32/2891_2.png) [@aruvqan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aruvqan)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/42 "2014-07-01T17:06:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The label still makes the claim. > > You can hardly excoriate Hobby Lobby for failing to change their mind when the FDA still requires the label to carry the information you now claim is incorrect. > > If current research has made this point clear, so much so that the FDA agrees and changes their label requirements, you can then certainly claim that Hobby Lobby is not following the science. Right now, you’re saying that a hobby retailer should second-guess the label – ignoring a label would certainly be, in other circumstances, fodder for a lawyer to argue that they were negligent. How about employers keeping their prying out of peoples crotches? Isn’t it some sort of breech of medical privacy? Only thing an employer needs to know about is if a medical condition needs some sort of tweak to the work or workplace [like wheelchair access, or a limit to weight lifted] or time off for routine medical procedures [like a monthly appointment for bloodwork so they need to come in an hour later or something.] Hell, to be blunt about it, my PCP has Saturday hours, so I could get the rabbit test done on a Saturday, my GYN does in office same day surgery on Thursdays and Fridays, so all I would need to do is put in for a Friday off [or go for a whole 2 weeks and say we are headed to Cancun for Spring Break] and a first trimester abortion is accomplished without the office being any wiser. I think if I were working for HL I would consider suing them for interfering with my Dr/Patient privacy in a matter that does not concern them at all. I would love to see a general walkout of female employees just to see what they would do [or some man suing them for alienation of affection because wife won’t put out because she doesn’t want to end up pregnant with no recourse as condoms break and she wouldn’t be able to get Plan B prescribed.] ---
**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:** [July 1, 2014, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/43 "2014-07-01T17:08:54Z")
In what way are they “interfering” with your (or their employees’) privacy? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/44 "2014-07-01T17:18:54Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Various anti-inflammatories have a stronger connection to preventing implantation. I wonder why Hobby Lobby didn’t sue about not having to cover Celebrex? I’m not a fan of Hobby Lobby’s stance, or the recent SCOUTS decision, but that’s a bad comparison. Lots of good medicines have bad side effects. One can support the use of such drugs, while opposing other drugs that have that side effect as their primary purpose. I can be support selling a drug that treats kidney failure, which has the side effect of increasing the patient’s risk of having a stroke, while still opposing a drug designed to cause strokes. Note that I do not in any way think that Plan B contraception is medically or morally similar to a pill that makes people have strokes. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/45 "2014-07-01T17:19:01Z")
**Bricker** rather than citing the FDA, why don’t you cite the primary literature? If you did, you would quickly find there is strong evidence that Plan B doesn’t inhibit implantation. While I don’t personally oppose contraception, I’m certainly sympathetic to those that do (Catholics and otherwise), and I think contraception is a morally complex issue, certainly not cut and dried. having said that, I’m allergic to people making claims that are flatly contradicted by the relevant biology. ---
**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:** [July 1, 2014, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/46 "2014-07-01T17:21:16Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I’m not a fan of Hobby Lobby’s stance, or the recent SCOUTS decision, but that’s a bad comparison. Lots of good medicines have bad side effects. One can support the use of such drugs, while opposing other drugs that have that side effect as their primary purpose. Preventing implantation is not the primary purpose of IUDs. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/47 "2014-07-01T17:37:44Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Sure it does. The four that disagree are four lawyers who follow the “BigT” school of thought: judges should help make new law according to their moral beliefs. My five are the ones who correctly understand that we elect lawmakers in this country; we appoint judges for life and task them with being umpires, not super-senators. Please. Go back and ask James Madison if he thought the Bill of Rights applied to corporations. He’d look at you like you were insane. Corporate personhood is pure judicial invention. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/48 "2014-07-01T17:47:12Z")
> [@aruvqan](#): > > How about employers keeping their prying out of peoples crotches? … I think if I were working for HL I would consider suing them for interfering with my Dr/Patient privacy in a matter that does not concern them at all. And yet, so many of the people that say this would be just as outraged if HL had said “we have no business getting involved with our employees’ medical needs, and so we are going to fight the ACA’s mandate that we do so.” If you don’t want your employer taking an interest in your medical needs, don’t ask them to pay for it. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/49 "2014-07-01T17:48:31Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I’m not a fan of Hobby Lobby’s stance, or the recent SCOUTS decision, but that’s a bad comparison. Lots of good medicines have bad side effects. One can support the use of such drugs, while opposing other drugs that have that side effect as their primary purpose. I can be support selling a drug that treats kidney failure, which has the side effect of increasing the patient’s risk of having a stroke, while still opposing a drug designed to cause strokes. > > Note that I do not in any way think that Plan B contraception is medically or morally similar to a pill that makes people have strokes. > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Preventing implantation is not the primary purpose of IUDs. I’d go further than this and say it isn’t a purpose at all, primary or otherwise. The goal of the IUD is to prevent ovulation and/or fertilization. That’s what the structure and hormones (or copper) are designed to do. If it was secondarily designed to prevent implantation, it would do a whole bunch of things that it doesn’t do. Fertilization while using an IUD is an exceptional and unwelcome occurrence, because it poses risks regardless of whether the IUD were successful at preventing uterine implantation (such as ectopic pregnancy). Moreover, while it is known that some IUDs affect the physiological mechanisms that are associated with implantation, it is unknown whether that actually translates into substantial changes to the rates of implantation of fertilized eggs (in part because the number of fertilized eggs in an IUD user is already extremely low). ---
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/50 "2014-07-01T18:00:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s not that limited. > > However, this is not a constitutional decision. The Court decided this case (correctly, I might add) on the basis of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and that Hobby Lobby was entitled to the protections of the RFRA. > > So all that has to happen here to change that is for Congress to modify the RFRA. If Congress changes the RFRA to say, “…and this applies only to non-profit corporations and natural persons…” then Hobby Lobby is out of luck. I agree. Most people seem to want to debate the various policy issues related to the decision (the ACA or how else to structure the HC system, birth control, abortion, religious rights, etc) but it’s a pretty clear cut case of the USSC interpreting a conflict between a law (RFRA) and a regulation (the ACA itself doesn’t specially say employers have to provide all available contraceptives under their health plans, HHS regulation writers filled that part in, among many others). But while one can also disagree on whether that legal decision is correct (I agree with you it is), it’s kind of ridiculous to talk about all kinds of far flung ‘remedies’ without first focusing on the simplest most obvious one. If the overwhelming bipartisan majority that passed RFRA has ‘evolved’ in their thinking to where they no longer support it, then repeal it. Or else modify it in some coherent way to preclude it being invoked in the business sphere. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/51 "2014-07-01T18:18:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Sure it does. The four that disagree are four lawyers who follow the “BigT” school of thought: judges should help make new law according to their moral beliefs. My five are the ones who correctly understand that we elect lawmakers in this country; we appoint judges for life and task them with being umpires, not super-senators. My argument goes deeper than that. I say that all moral people have to place morality above everything else. I don’t think this is unique to judges. My argument is that it doesn’t matter why you are in what position you are in. You, just like every other human being on the planet, have an obligation to do what you think is right. I do not think judges are “super-senators,” because they can’t actually create law. What they do is interpret law. Textualism involves a detached interpretation of law where one ignores the moral implications and just follows mindless rules to make it work. I say this is immoral. Proper interpretation requires considering the consequences and crafting an interpretation that still agrees with the text but doesn’t cause harm. If I said anything in the Pit that led you to believe otherwise, I apologize. I was essentially blowing off steam at that point. When I get angry, I leave out nuances, sometime to the point of saying things that are incorrect. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/52 "2014-07-01T18:24:36Z")
> [@Corry\_El](#): > > I agree. Most people seem to want to debate the various policy issues related to the decision (the ACA or how else to structure the HC system, birth control, abortion, religious rights, etc) but it’s a pretty clear cut case of the USSC interpreting a conflict between a law (RFRA) and a regulation (the ACA itself doesn’t specially say employers have to provide all available contraceptives under their health plans, HHS regulation writers filled that part in, among many others). > > But while one can also disagree on whether that legal decision is correct (I agree with you it is), it’s kind of ridiculous to talk about all kinds of far flung ‘remedies’ without first focusing on the simplest most obvious one. If the overwhelming bipartisan majority that passed RFRA has ‘evolved’ in their thinking to where they no longer support it, then repeal it. Or else modify it in some coherent way to preclude it being invoked in the business sphere. That’s impossible. You are assuming a lack of a bipartisan majority means a bipartisan majority for the opposite conclusion. Just no majority supports this interpretation of the RFRA doesn’t mean it can get modified. This is exactly why the court needs to consider the implications of a law, instead of following it blindly, treating it like a math problem where you take this law + this law = this law is bad. ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/53 "2014-07-01T18:59:11Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > I do not think judges are “super-senators,” because they can’t actually create law. What they do is interpret law. Textualism involves a detached interpretation of law where one ignores the moral implications and just follows mindless rules to make it work. I say this is immoral. Proper interpretation requires considering the consequences and crafting an interpretation that still agrees with the text but doesn’t cause harm. post snipped. Who, exactly, defines ‘harm’? Slee ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/54 "2014-07-01T20:38:33Z")
Just go single-payer already and Hobby Lobby can go fuck itself. ---
**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:** [July 1, 2014, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/55 "2014-07-01T21:26:49Z")
We’d love to, but the same people celebrating the Hobby Lobby decision are the ones keeping that from happening. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/56 "2014-07-01T21:43:09Z")
> [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](#): > > That’s just, like, your opinion, man. > > I can name four lawyers with qualifications greater than yours who would disagree. While this is doubtless true, is there a meaningful consensus out there among constitutional scholars? If I asked 100 law school constitutional-law professors, how many would say, “Whoa, bad decision, the court muffed it” and how many would say, “Yeah, they made the correct decision?” (I think it was an awful decision. The court should have thrown out the RFRA as a “law regarding an establishment of religion,” something the constitution says that Congress cannot pass.) ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/57 "2014-07-01T22:15:18Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > Since SCOTUS screwed this pooch on this one, and since they’re pretty much where the buck stops, what has to happen to correct their error? The Supreme Court ruled in favor of freedom of religion. If you believe that freedom of religion is an “error”, then you’ll need to pass an amendment which says that the American people no longer have freedom of religion. Right now, the First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion to all Americans. Moreover, the vast majority of Americans want freedom of religion, so passing such an amendment is likely to be difficult. > [@](#): > > Would finally passing the ERA have any effect on such institutionalized misogyny? What “institutionalized misogyny” are you talking about? > [@](#): > > I mean seriously, the fight against such medieval ignorance can’t simply be over. Right? You believe that supporting religious freedom is an example of “medieval ignorance”? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/58 "2014-07-01T22:46:43Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > The Supreme Court ruled in favor of freedom of religion. If you believe that freedom of religion is an “error”, then you’ll need to pass an amendment which says that the American people no longer have freedom of religion. Right now, the First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion to all Americans. Moreover, the vast majority of Americans want freedom of religion, so passing such an amendment is likely to be difficult. No. The Supreme Court used religion as an excuse to make an ideological decision it wanted to make. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/59 "2014-07-01T22:51:19Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > No. The Supreme Court used religion as an excuse to make an ideological decision it wanted to make. All SCOTUS decisions are like this now. Sotomayor’s dissent in the recent Michigan affirmative action case shows that most of the court, left or right, are purely political operators of the politicians that appointed them. SCOTUS has no legitimacy and should not be able to review the laws passed by the legislature. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/60 "2014-07-01T22:58:15Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Amen to that. The worst think about the ACA is that makes a stupid system-- employer provided health insurance-- even more entrenched in our legal and economic system. > > I mean, seriously, do we _really_ need the government to tell employers that they must provide _20 different types of contraceptives_ to their employees? We need to tell employers to **leave that kind of decision up to the doctors.** [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060.md?page=4)