The Conservative War On Women

Demyx wrote:

Considering one of the biggest problems facing the world today is rampant overpopulation, I'm not sure how much thought we need to be putting into situations where we're living in mineshafts with ten women to every man.

If your country or tribe is not enduring a crisis of a magnitude that you're going to be wiped out, I see no need for conscription. The general principle of saving women for child-bearing purposes is a strategic overall plan based on prioritizing survival.

LarryC sounds a lot like Leon Trotsky.

Yesterday, the SCOTUS refused to issue an injunction preventing the ACA requirement that employers provide insurance coverage for contraception:

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor on Wednesday turned down a request that she block part of Obamacare that would require companies' health plans to provide for coverage of certain contraceptives, such as the morning-after pill.

Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., and Mardel, Inc. and five family members involved in ownership and control of the corporations had protested the requirement, which is to kick in January 1.

They said they would be required "to provide insurance coverage for certain drugs and devices that the applicants believe can cause abortions," which would be against their religious beliefs, Sotomayor wrote in her opinion.

The applicants said they would face irreparable harm if forced to choose between paying fines and complying with the requirement.

But Sotomayor, who handles emergency appeals from the 10th Circuit, said the applicants failed to meet "the demanding standard for the extraordinary relief," and that they could continue to pursue their challenge in lower courts and return to the higher court, if necessary, following a final judgment.

Pretty simple lesson, you can help your employees based on your faith (better wages, specific days off for religious reasons to the employer, but not necessarily for the employee)... but you cannot be a detrement to them based on your faith (refusing specifc types of care due to religious reasons, discriminating based on religious beliefs).

I really don't get why corporations that are owned by religious people have such a problem with this.

Contraceptives do not cause abortions. Without getting too disrespectful. Just how much can a religion just make up from nothing?

KingGorilla wrote:

Just how much can a religion just make up from nothing?

Whatever they like? After all, most religions begin with the postulate "Assume a being capable of breaking the rules of the universe..."

KingGorilla wrote:

Contraceptives do not cause abortions. Without getting too disrespectful. Just how much can a religion just make up from nothing?

But contraceptives cause extramarital sex, which leads directly to abortions. Must save the unthinking heathens from themselves!

If you're one of those people who think when sperm touches egg constitutes life and anything that a person does to end that life abortion, then the way many contraceptives prevent implantation of the fertilized egg counts as abortion.

I'm not saying they're not idiots that I vehemently disagree with. I'm saying if you're that kind of crazy, that stupidity makes a sort of sense.

Robear wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

Just how much can a religion just make up from nothing?

Whatever they like? After all, most religions begin with the postulate "Assume a being capable of breaking the rules of the universe..."

...

Yet again, Robear says something that makes me think... how did I never think of that before?

If you're one of those people who think when sperm touches egg constitutes life and anything that a person does to end that life abortion, then the way many contraceptives prevent implantation of the fertilized egg counts as abortion.

Right, but that thinking is fundamentally about punishing sex, because otherwise, you'd have to believe that there's a constant, rolling genocide of humanity. Millions of fertilized eggs fail to successfully implant every year.

And anyone thinking that should be up in freaking ARMS about IVF, which directly kills dozens of humans for every one it successfully creates.

Malor wrote:
If you're one of those people who think when sperm touches egg constitutes life and anything that a person does to end that life abortion, then the way many contraceptives prevent implantation of the fertilized egg counts as abortion.

Right, but that thinking is fundamentally about punishing sex, because otherwise, you'd have to believe that there's a constant, rolling genocide of humanity. Millions of fertilized eggs fail to successfully implant every year.

And anyone thinking that should be up in freaking ARMS about IVF, which directly kills dozens of humans for every one it successfully creates.

Yes, they fail on their own, in a natural process. That's not a "rolling genocide" any more than people dying of old age is murder. The issue those people have is the action taken by the mother (i.e. taking the pill) to make it happen when it otherwise wouldn't have. That's the difference.

And yes, many of them are up in freaking arms about IVF. Just Google "IVF kills babies" and click around if you want to be nauseated.

Again, I also think they're batsh*t crazy, but this is probably the closest they ever get to an intellectually consistent position, if you posit the base "life begins at conception" and anything done to end that is abortion.

It's the ones that don't have this notion and apply some sort of selective filter of their own devising to the problem where they get to decide what's right and wrong that really make me angry.

I happened to watch this debate earlier, entitled "Secularists Should Not Support the Right To Abortion." I think it is interesting as it discusses a lot of the relevant issues without the retreat to religious doctrine as basis for the views held.

Warning: during the pro-lifer's opening statement, she plays some extremely graphic video purely for the shock value.

And yes, many of them are up in freaking arms about IVF. Just Google "IVF kills babies" and click around if you want to be nauseated.

Again, I also think they're batsh*t crazy,

Well, you know, that's actually fairly consistent. I don't think it's crazy, I just think it's wrong, because the human cost of enforcing those rules is so terrible. No-abortion countries are incredibly miserable places for women, and they're incredibly miserable with no actual need for the misery whatsoever. And there's plenty of unsafe abortions happening, even with the vagina police. (yes, this is a real thing, vagina police actually exist.)

And, again, if you dig with most of these conservatives, you will hardly ever not hear some variant of 'she should be responsible for her actions'. Fundamentally, that argument comes from thinking that if you had sex outside of marriage, you did something wrong, and something for which you deserve punishment. And women bear the entire brunt of that punishment, which is something I find completely abhorrent.

Me, I would rather see unborn children die by the million, to keep women out of chains. Your (and your daughter or daughters') freedom to run your own sex lives and make your own decisions is much more important to me than any number of fetuses. If the rivers ran red with fetal blood, that would be an acceptable price in my view. If the Tree of Liberty needed watering that way, that would be just fine with me.

Of course, that's silly. That would never happen. In real life, contraception and education reduce abortions more than anything else we've discovered. What conservatives hate about these policies is that they make sex safer, and since making sex dangerous is the real goal, these policies are never acceptable.

If they actually wanted what they said they wanted, they'd do what the liberals suggested, abortions would be reduced to the minimum possible, safety would be maximized, and the smallest possible amount of real harm would be done. Abortions would still happen, but fewer abortions would happen than with any other regime that has yet been invented. But women would be freer to engage in sex and make their own decisions about childbearing and marriage, and that's all wrong.

This is why we keep having this fight. Conservatives say we have problem A, liberals suggest solving problem A, and then conservatives flip out because they really wanted to solve a different problem altogether.

Demosthenes wrote:

Pretty simple lesson, you can help your employees based on your faith (better wages, specific days off for religious reasons to the employer, but not necessarily for the employee)... but you cannot be a detrement to them based on your faith (refusing specifc types of care due to religious reasons, discriminating based on religious beliefs).

For corporations, that's true. Some businesses (e.g., private schools) can still discriminate based on religious beliefs, though.

Hobby Lobby says they will not comply with the contraception mandate despite the court order.

Oklahoma City-based Hobby Lobby will defy a federal law that requires employee health care plans to provide insurance coverage for types of contraception that the firm’s owners consider to be “abortion-causing drugs and devices,” an attorney for the company said Thursday.

With Wednesday’s rejection of an emergency stay of that federal health care law by Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Hobby Lobby and sister company Mardel could be subject to fines of up to $1.3 million a day beginning Tuesday.

“They’re not going to comply with the mandate,” said Kyle Duncan, general counsel of The Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing the company. “They’re not going to offer coverage for abortion-inducing drugs in the insurance plan.”

As for the potential fines, Duncan said, “We’re just going to have to cross that bridge when we come to it.”

I hope Mr. Duncan is a better attorney than he is a medical researcher since Plan B contraception is not an "abortion causing" medication.

The thing is, they were already providing a lot of this coverage, they just didn't know it.

They knew it. They are taking the chance to change the policy, banking on the public thinking that it's a new thing with Obamacare. It's a deliberate strategy.

Robear wrote:

They knew it. They are taking the chance to change the policy, banking on the public thinking that it's a new thing with Obamacare. It's a deliberate strategy.

Because it worked out so well for Papa Johns?

So, do Scientologists and businesses Owned by Scientologists object to health insurance that provides coverage for Psychology and Psychiatry?

Malor wrote:

The thing is, they were already providing a lot of this coverage, they just didn't know it.

HILARIOUS! Love it! Idiots. Really feel like there should be a special brand of prosecution for violating federal law like this wilfully in this way. Forget fining the company, start prosecuting the jerks... that may cause martyrs though, which would be more obnoxious... hmmmm... no good option other than for them to realize that their values are not everyone's values, and either way, as a corporation, they don't have the option of having morals when it comes to other people's care in the negative.

EDIT:

Robear wrote:

They knew it. They are taking the chance to change the policy, banking on the public thinking that it's a new thing with Obamacare. It's a deliberate strategy.

Wow, doubly jerks in my eyes now. Awesome. Back to wishing they could be prosecuted for violating federal law rather than just being fined.

Also if the SCOTUS rules that one can ignore legal obligations to employees due to religious convictions how would the government stop me from either "adopting" a religion that saves me money somehow or even creating my own to benefit my business? I really doubt the courts want to get involved in defining one religion's worthiness versus another due to beliefs, nor if a business owner is truly religious or just in it for the money, as it were.

So yeah, I can't see the religious objections going anywhere.

I really doubt the courts want to get involved in defining one religion's worthiness versus another due to beliefs, nor if a business owner is truly religious or just in it for the money, as it were.

They leave that to the IRS, they got really good at scoping out legit religions vs "I don't want to pay taxes" religions.

I think there's a significant difference between deciding if a religion is legitimate or illegitimate in the eyes of the government and deciding if a person's individual beliefs are legitimate or illegitimate. When it comes to the second we're talking about personal faith, not non-profit status.

How can we expect devout Muslim employers to pay for their employees to see doctors of the other gender?

It violates their religious code, so if you work for a Muslim, obviously they have the right to choose your doctor.

bnpederson wrote:

I think there's a significant difference between deciding if a religion is legitimate or illegitimate in the eyes of the government and deciding if a person's individual beliefs are legitimate or illegitimate. When it comes to the second we're talking about personal faith, not non-profit status.

How do we decide whether another person's "individual beliefs" are "legitimate", anyway? With government, we set conditions and build laws around those, things that everyone can understand and agree are The Way To Tell. But with individual beliefs, what's the objective standard? How would it get beyond "Does the person agree with me?".

For example, a devout Christian might well rule my beliefs as illegitimate. But a devout Jew might be more comfortable with them, and another atheist might be entirely satisfied that they are "legitimate". Who is correct in that scenario, and how do we tell?

The reason this is important is because unless we judge *individual* beliefs by the standards set under the law, we can't expect people to *follow* the law. Being racist is something we can't stop, and perhaps should not be able to. But *acting* on that racism - the *legitimate* individual belief that others are inferior to one's self based on skin color and should therefore have fewer rights - those *actions* should be judged by the rules of the law, not by whether the person's beliefs are sincere, or held by the majority, or whatever other standard is suggested. Any number of standards could be suggested, reasonable and unreasonable, but the ones we *have* are all in the law. Individual's actions must be dictated by their beliefs, until they come into conflict with the law, whereupon they can obey the law, or seek to have it changed, or disobey it and accept the penalty.

We don't get to opt of laws we disagree with, in other words, no matter how sincere our beliefs are. We only get to try to change them, and choose to disobey them if we feel we can stand the consequences.

Malor wrote:

How can we expect devout Muslim employers to pay for their employees to see doctors of the other gender?

It violates their religious code, so if you work for a Muslim, obviously they have the right to choose your doctor.

Bad-a-f***ing-bing.

Jonman wrote:
Malor wrote:

How can we expect devout Muslim employers to pay for their employees to see doctors of the other gender?

It violates their religious code, so if you work for a Muslim, obviously they have the right to choose your doctor.

Bad-a-f***ing-bing.

Really the general logic of "It's against my religion to spend money on this, so it's against my religion to let my employees spend my money--er, I mean, their wages, on this." goes much, much further. For example, a Hindu Employer should be able to forbid any of his workers from buying any meat whatsoever. Work for a Jew? Say goodbye to your bacon motherf*cker. Work for a Muslim? Not only do you not get a doctor of the opposite sex, but you can never go to the bar again.

Would it work to simply monetize the part of the wage that goes to health insurance and then simply allow the employees to select their own?

LarryC wrote:

Would it work to simply monetize the part of the wage that goes to health insurance and then simply allow the employees to select their own?

Depends on what you mean. Would it work as a way to allow the employers to maintain their ideological integrity? No, because I think it's clear that the current system doesn't compromise that, since taking one or two tiny steps in the direction of their logic takes you into the absurd (that is, if you don't already think where they are at is absurd, which I do). Making that separation may be a tiny fiction that helps them live with the status quo, but the government shouldn't be legislating stuff for the purpose of making people on logically laughable ground sleep better at night.

Would it work as a way to start to reverse the enormous inflation of our healthcare costs that this current system has done, where health providers have to compete with each other for the business of corporations instead of people? And weird tax loopholes make money that corporations spend on healthcare cheaper than when people spend on health care? Absolutely, and the change should be made for that reason, not nonsense ones.

LarryC wrote:

Would it work to simply monetize the part of the wage that goes to health insurance and then simply allow the employees to select their own?

No, because the way that health insurance currently works in the US means that individuals purchasing their own insurance are -- not to put too fine a point on it -- completely f*cked.

Farscry wrote:
LarryC wrote:

Would it work to simply monetize the part of the wage that goes to health insurance and then simply allow the employees to select their own?

No, because the way that health insurance currently works in the US means that individuals purchasing their own insurance are -- not to put too fine a point on it -- completely f*cked.

It stands to reason that overhauling the system in the manner of making insurance ala carte also means making it so that individual shoppers for insurance aren't f*cked. Impossible? Is it possible for an MD to just open a clinic offering ala carte services for straight up money? I'm not familiar with the stuff he has to go through to just bill people directly for his services.