(January 28, 2017 at 2:06 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote:

(January 28, 2017 at 1:10 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Lol, you guys would really hate me if I owned a business. I'd be one of the people on the liberal news that you guys would demonize. Because I too wouldn't want to pay for the specific birth control types that most caused abortions. And I too donate money to my local Church. And while I think gay couples should have all the legal benefits/tax exemptions as same sex couples do as far as the state is concerned, as far as the Church itself is concerned, I agree with their decision to only do marriages between one man and one women who are not previously married.

The point is, you guys would think I was a horrible person without even knowing me. Just bc these ppl don't agree with you on certain things doesn't make them the demon.

C_L. No one is or ever was asking Hobby Lobby to pay for birth control. They refused to allow their employees to pay for it. The contributions come from the employees paychecks. They were objecting because they didn't want their employees to use their own discretion in which BC methods to use.

The worst part is that their claim was based on thoroughly debunked junk science. The 4 methods in question did not, in fact, cause abortion. They prevented endometrial implantation of the fertilized egg. So a woman who uses those drugs was never pregnant in the first place, which is a pretty important precondition for having an abortion, you know.

Either way, would you agree that it is pretty shitty for a company to try and limit its employees' health options?

But they still believe life begins at conception. Not at implantation. So they are morally opposed to drugs that would keep implantation from happening, thus killing the newly conceived human. We're calling it an abortion in that sense.

As for your last question, it's a bit loaded. Their employees can get those 4 birth controls if they'd like, oitside of tje plan. The conflict is the ppl who own HL have a big moral objection to abortion, so they understandably don't want the insurance they provide and pay for to cover that. And again, I don't think omitting 4 types of birth control from the 20 that are available is some sort of "limit to health care." I really don't see how that is so horribly unreasonable.

Hardly understandable.  Entirely unreasonable, and downright cuntish. Why does -anyone- feel empowered to make those sorts of healthcare decisions for other people?  They don't "provide" shit.  They bargain on the collective heft their employees "provide" and then..as ever, the employees pay for the service as well. 

"I think abortions and birth control are icky"
-Well good for you...don't have one, and don't take them.
"So I'm going to obstruct others access as best I can!"
-OFC you are.........

(January 28, 2017 at 2:20 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: But they still believe life begins at conception. Not at implantation. So they are morally opposed to drugs that would keep implantation from happening, thus killing the newly conceived human. We're calling it an abortion in that sense.

This is the problem. They are literally redefining words to meet their political ends. It isn't abortion. The thing was never a living thing. You can't just change the meaning of words. Conception means a very specific thing. It isn't just a sperm touches an egg. The whole process, which includes implantation and hormonal response is a medically defined term.

(January 28, 2017 at 2:20 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: As for your last question, it's a bit loaded. Their employees can get those 4 birth controls if they'd like, oitside of tje plan. The conflict is the ppl who own HL have a big moral objection to abortion, so they understandably don't want the insurance they provide and pay for to cover that. And again, I don't think omitting 4 types of birth control from the 20 that are available is some sort of "limit to health care." I really don't see how that is so horribly unreasonable.

You aren't understanding the legal precedent this sets. What would stop any company that has a moral objection to premarital sex from opting out of FMLA coverage for unwed couples? Or, for that matter, legally married gay couples from family coverage for their adopted child? Or, since we get to redefine terms all over the place, what would stop me from saying that all contraception is abortion, and opting out of coverage for all women employed by me? Why should a business get to make any health decisions for any person, period? Especially when that business is accepting government subsidies to provide said coverage?

(January 28, 2017 at 1:10 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Lol, you guys would really hate me if I owned a business. I'd be one of the people on the liberal news that you guys would demonize. Because I too wouldn't want to pay for the specific birth control types that most caused abortions. And I too donate money to my local Church. And while I think gay couples should have all the legal benefits/tax exemptions as same sex couples do as far as the state is concerned, as far as the Church itself is concerned, I agree with their decision to only do marriages between one man and one women who are not previously married.

The point is, you guys would think I was a horrible person without even knowing me. Just bc these ppl don't agree with you on certain things doesn't make them the demon.

bold mine

Could you provide some documentation for this assertion?

Edit: Again, look at their mechanism of actions.

Where I live is rural as hell so my choices are already limited.

(January 28, 2017 at 2:25 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Hardly understandable.  Entirely unreasonable, and downright cuntish.  Why does -anyone- feel empowered to make those sorts of healthcare decisions for other people?  They don't "provide" shit.  They bargain on the collective heft their employees "provide" and then..as ever, the employees pay for the service as well. 

"I think abortions and birth control are icky"
-Well good for you...don't have one, and don't take them.  
"So I'm going to obstruct others access as best I can!"
-OFC you are.........

+1
I wouldn't personally get an abortion but I believe others should have access to safe and legal abortions and I think companies should keep their noses out of it.

I've used Plan B contraception, which here in California can be bought over the counter at any pharmacy without a prescription, thankfully, without needing "permission" from my bosses at work.
Was I getting an abortion when I used it? No, I don't think so.

In my experience, when people feel as though Other Things™ about them redeem them in light of their constantly shared positions on x y or z......they never stop to consider that they might want to spend more time sharing the redeeming things, and less time opining on the demon's resume bullshit, or...you know, just dropping the latter entirely. OFC, Other Things™ may not be capable of redeeming them, as well, there's always that possibility. The urge to externalize this little interpersonal drama is embarrassing and unproductive. Often framed as:

"Can't you look past my beliefs!"

-Well, no, not when your beliefs are horrid and you allow them to hurt other people...why should anyone look past that ? That -is- who you are.

I'd say boycotts against companies like Chick-fil-A are even more important. Money from the company was being used to directly oppose same-sex marriage. This meant that by spending money on them, you were helping them fund discriminatory action.

(January 28, 2017 at 2:32 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote:

(January 28, 2017 at 2:20 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: But they still believe life begins at conception. Not at implantation. So they are morally opposed to drugs that would keep implantation from happening, thus killing the newly conceived human. We're calling it an abortion in that sense.

This is the problem. They are literally redefining words to meet their political ends. It isn't abortion. The thing was never a living thing. You can't just change the meaning of words. Conception means a very specific thing. It isn't just a sperm touches an egg. The whole process, which includes implantation and hormonal response is a medically defined term.

(January 28, 2017 at 2:20 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: As for your last question, it's a bit loaded. Their employees can get those 4 birth controls if they'd like, oitside of tje plan. The conflict is the ppl who own HL have a big moral objection to abortion, so they understandably don't want the insurance they provide and pay for to cover that. And again, I don't think omitting 4 types of birth control from the 20 that are available is some sort of "limit to health care." I really don't see how that is so horribly unreasonable.

You aren't understanding the legal precedent this sets. What would stop any company that has a moral objection to premarital sex from opting out of FMLA coverage for unwed couples? Or, for that matter, legally married gay couples from family coverage for their adopted child? Or, since we get to redefine terms all over the place, what would stop me from saying that all contraception is abortion, and opting out of coverage for all women employed by me? Why should a business get to make any health decisions for any person, period? Especially when that business is accepting government subsidies to provide said coverage?

Ok. Does it really matter what they call it though? Point is, they believe life begins at conception and are very much morally opposed to drugs that would end that life. Call it an abortion or not, they don't want to pay for insurance that would include these drugs, and forcing them to do so seems a bit unfair.  

As for the second part, I keep stressing lines and reasonable limits. That was one of the first things I said, and keep saying. We're talking here about not covering 4 of 20 types of birth control lol. The slippery slope can always be taken both ways. I don't think omitting 4 types of birth control to the health care insurance you provide crosses any sort of line when there are at least a dozen other types of birth control to choose from.

EDIT TO ADD: To the first part, conception does happen before implantation. Conception is when sperm and egg meet and begin to multiply. That happens a few days before implantation.

Employers don't pay for birth control or abortions, employees do.  Employers -offer- health insurance to escape paying a tax. That's it, that;s all, there is nothing more. It's not a slippery slope, it doesn't matter what anyone wants to call anything, this entire issue is manufactured umbrage from privileged christers.

Never content to be assholes, they have to be assholes about -being- assholes. The plans they -do- offer, now, don;t hinge on any moral or religious objection. It's just cheaper, for insurance providers, not to have to pay for those things...which is great if they can get away with it, I guess.