This thread is a follow-up to the thread at

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1217105,1217105#msg-1217105

Below is the link to Nina Totenberg's report on NPR's All Things Considered about the arguments heard at the U.S. Supreme Court in the Hobby Lobby contraception case yesterday. The subject line (which I took directly from the NPR story) tells it all. Since there are six male and three female Justices sitting on the bench currently, watchingwithinterest's analysis from yesterday may, in fact, be closer to the truth than anybody else's. From my point of view, this would be a tragedy, especially for women.

We are unfortunate enough to have a Holy Lobby in our town. Will never spend a dime there.

And yes, this will be the next step in making this country a corporatocracy if SCOTUS sides with big business.

Looks like you forgot to post the NPR link?

http://thin.npr.org/s.php?sId=294385167&rId=2&x=1

Sorry. My bad.

It will really be telling if it is a 6-3 decision split totally along gender lines. Maybe women will wake up. Two things I really love, Hobby Lobby and Chick Filet-a (their milkshakes). It gives me the willies to even be near their parking lots now. Would never give them business. Not because my little bit of business would hurt them, but because I value my integrity.

I don't see how they can really give Hobby Lobby the right to disregard laws based on religious conviction. It just opens too many doors to lawlessness.

^^ Yes!!

Why is birth control a health issue? I would think that using birth control, especially the pill or intrauterine device is not normal.

We have somehow gotten to the point whereby a normal woman's physicality is somehow abnormal.

Why aren't men on the pill? Why are women taking the chance with their health? Why are we impacting our ground water with hormones? Why are our boys becoming more feminine?

This is a very controversial subject and who knows who is right.

http://www.livescience.com/20532-birth-control-water-pollution.html

Condoms on the other hand are a whole other thing.

I have to take BC pills to keep me from hemorrhaging massively for 60 days straight. I don't consider that to be normal. So the pills are just medicine for me. But I'm a weak female who wants a free ride.

Pregnancy and childbirth always carry some danger, but for some people it's life-threatening. For some women, every pregnancy ends in miscarriage, with the threat of hemorrhaging to death. I have a friend who has two uteruses (uteri?) and there is no way for her to carry a pregnancy to term without it probably killing her. On top of that, just like people have heart, lung, thyroid, skin, etc etc problems, some people have problems with hormones. You know what helps out with that? Hormonal birth control.

Do you think vaccines and antibiotics are "messing the humans' physicality?" No? then get off your high horse and do some research and find out WHY this issue is so important to women. geez.

I have researched this. Get off your high horse and quit spouting talking points.

Hm . . let me see . .

Women want access to medicine to help prevent pregnancy, regulate an irregular cycle, potentially prevent their death in some cases, to allow for family planning, to keep their finances in good order due to the high cost of childbearing and a host of other reasons.

And . . .


Why is birth control a health issue? I would think that using birth control, especially the pill or intrauterine device is not normal.

Which statements seem more informed, real world, not misogynist and less like a talking point?

Life-threatening conditions are "talking points"??? A woman's health is a "talking point"???

Beyond what the posters below say, it should be pointed out that what is considered masculine behavior and what is considered feminine behavior varys from society to society.

And? your point?

So we shouldn't have anymore kids? Because occasionally something may go wrong?

I am female and have had two children, both of them very premature. I have always had issues with pregnancy.

But, there are problems with birth control pills. Have you seen the class action lawsuit adverts lately?

There should be a safer way. But I also don't think that I should have to pay for things that I personally don't believe in.

Birth control pills are NOT EXPENSIVE. You can get them at Target for $9 per month. You can go to Planned Parenthood and get them for a donation or for free.

My gawd. This is astonishing. There are all kinds of hormonal remedies and not everyone can take the $9 pills. They have many different kinds of formulations for many different situations and needs. If you take the cheap pills you are at a higher risk for stroke and blood clots.

And the idea that you shouldn't have to pay for things you don't like? Health insurance is something that I buy with my money. You can do what every you want with your insurance. You're money isn't involved except minutely. I may not agree with people using their insurance (or medicare, medicaid) to purchase penile pumps. But guess what? That's not my decision to make.

astonishing indeed. I'm sitting here slack-jawed.

And what about the women that require an IUD? Good luck finding that at Target for $9.

. . . insurance coverage to your employees when it comes to vaccines because it is not God's will that vaccines be used?

Where does that line of "reasoning" stop?

Clearly this is not a black and white issue... One clue is that it's being adjudicated by the Supremes.

To one of your points, yes the pill can have bad side effects.

But the business model of all types of insurance is that you (or someone on your behalf) pays into a big pot that most people who pay-in will never fully use. There are all sorts of behaviors performed by insureds that you could have a moral objection to, but you will still pay for that insurance. Even with something like car insurance... most people wouldn't support speeding in school zones or construction zones, or impaired driving that leads to accidents. But the money of people vehemently opposed to those behaviors goes to cover insurance claims related to those behaviors. If you were wealthy enough, perhaps you could "self insure" yourself and avoid all of the messiness of being a social creature in a society.

Birth control (and hormone control) are most certainly health issues. Taking birth control is perfectly normal.

Women don't get extra days off to deal with our periods. If we get extreme cramps/bleeding/etc, we're told to suck it up and deal, or we can burn our sick days and not have them available for genuine illnesses that are contagious and can make others ill.

Some women have other health issues unrelated to pregnancy that are regulated through hormone therapy. PCOS, Endometriosis, etc.

Alternatively, there is hormone therapy through birth control pills to help alleviate the symptoms so women don't have to disappear from life for upwards of a week every month.

And you know... some of us just really want to decrease the risk of getting pregnant at this point of our lives.

And men *are* on a pill- to get more erections. If that's not messing with natural physicality, I don't know what is.

But men are not on pills to control their fertility. That's left to women.

Are there pills to counter men's fertility? I didn't think so, but I find I can be incredibly ignorant when it comes to birth control options.

Plus, it seems like most of the options are placing the burden on women for birth control, so isn't it in the interest of men as well to make these options available?

In fact, when it comes to the pain and death, does that really make it an issue everyone should care about? I mean, I don't know about anyone else, but I dislike working with people who are in pain, nor would I want preventable pain to go untreated in anyone. Plus, these arguments have already made it past the law making process, at this point we are arguing if an institution (or rather, a business) with crazy religious dogma gets to opt out of the law.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/26/2014 04:30PM by notnewatthisanymore.

No. It's biologically complex.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/02/male-birth-control-block-sperm-ejaculation_n_4374122.html

My wife and daughter have to take the pill to prevent ovarian cycsts. If they don't take it they don't menstrate and then they get cysts...which can turn into cancer. My wife had one ovary removed years ago because of chronic cysts. Taking the pill is NOT strictly a birth control issue. I don't believe Hobby Lobby really has an issue with paying for insurance that lets women have the OPTION of using the pill. I think they are a corporate entity who has political leanings and they don't like the ACA and this is a way to make it work less well. Eventually they don't want to be in the business of paying for employees health insurance, making a stink over this petty issue will drive us to where we should be...

A single payer system. Getting health coverage through employment never made sense to me.

As noted in several posts above, birth control is used for more than just preventing pregnancy.
Also, pharmaceutical companies often brand the same chemicals with a different name when they are prescribed to treat a different disease or symptom.
A lot of medications have "side effects."
And a lot of medications say that it should not be taken if the person is trying to get pregnant.

So what would if a pharmaceutical company introduced a "new" medication to treat cramps, or excessive bleeding, or whatever, that had the "side effect" of preventing pregnancy? Would these companies be allowed to ban that drug? If so, shouldn't they also ban all drugs that could adversely impact a fetus, cause a miscarriage, or prevent a pregnancy? Caffeine can cause a miscarriage so should they be required to ban all coffee in order to be consistent with their stance against birth control?

Would a company owned by JW be allowed to refuse to pay for blood transfusions? Would a company owned by a fruititarian be allowed to refuse to pay for any treatment that does not involve using fruits and nuts to treat disease? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruitarianism

This whole debate just shows why we need to decouple health care and employment. There should be a basic level of coverage that everyone receives. Companies can enhance that coverage, but they shouldn't be allowed to deny coverage based on the personal beliefs of the owners.

It's a business not a church. In church they can do what they please, but as a business they need to play fair. A doctor who has a religious belief that medicine should not be provided needs to administer medicine to toughs who wish it. If you are a public servant and don't believe a couple should be married still has to marry them. If any of them don't then they should be seek other jobs.

So notamormon -- care to comment on YOUR insurance covering penis pumps, Viagra, and vasectomies?

Viagra can cause heart attacks. See any problems there? Any "controversies"? Possibilities for lawsuits? When he was single, Rush Limbaugh was caught flying into a Central American country with a suitcase full of Viagra. Do you want to support behavior like that?

Vasectomies are very difficult to reverse. What if a guy has one, and all his kids and his wife are killed in one fell swoop of a car accident. He remarries and wants to have kids with the new wife. See any problems?

Yeah. I thought so. No comment.

So they want unwanted babies to be born and they want those babies to know they were not wanted, they want people to become infected with decreases, they want women to be at high risk for delivery, they want couples who can't get pregnant to stay that way, they want women who should not be pregnant to be pregnant.
They also don't seem to get that if they don't have to pay for the insurance, but pay their employees, the employee will just buy the insurance with the same money they got payed from their employer who did not buy the insurance which they in fact did.