Contraception, Explained
Like the moron I am, I’m once again embroiled in a “discussion” on Twitter. I put that in quotes because let’s face it — the very nature of Twitter makes reasoned debate or discussion impossible. It devolves into a series of bromides and platitudes hurled back and forth, with no actual illumination. Hell, “devolves” might be charitable, as it implies things started at a higher plane and then…well, devolved.
Anyway, the issue du jour is, of course, contraception, thanks to a boneheaded and nakedly misogynistic decision by SCOTUS.
Some people are saying this is no big deal. Contraception has not been outlawed or banned, they point out. It’s just that employers with certain religious beliefs no longer have to include it in their employees’ insurance plans. It’s still available, for God’s sake, so everyone just calm down!
Yeah, but… No.
I’m going to try to explain this as quickly as I can, in a way that is easy to follow.
Let’s pretend that you have an illness. And there is a very simple, safe, reliable, and legal medication or procedure that can help you.
But your employer has a religious objection to that medication or procedure. So even though insurance companies routinely and happily cover it…your boss doesn’t.
So now you have to go out-of-pocket to cover this expense. Even though you are paying (through payroll deductions) for health insurance. Even though you’re paying what everyone else pays for health insurance, you’re getting less. You have coverage that is crippled.
Is it crippled because you have a lousy job or live in a lousy area? Because your employer just can’t afford better?
No. It’s crippled because your boss has a religious sentiment that now impacts your life.
Let’s say that again: YOUR BOSS’S RELIGIOUS BELIEFS ARE IMPINGING ON YOUR LIFE.
Your boss goes to church on Sunday and kneels and prays, and because what he prays is a little different than what you pray, you get to lose some of your hard-earned money.
Again, toss contraception out. Imagine it is any other medical issue. Would you accept that? Should you accept that?
No. And hell no.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court was careful to note that its declaration does not apply to vaccines or blood transfusions, two other potential areas where medical necessity could — and, if history is any indicator, will — intersect with religious beliefs.
Lest you have notions to the contrary, those exemptions are incontrovertible proof that this ruling has nothing to do with religious freedom. If it did, then the ruling would apply universally.
No, this is about sex.
It’s about fucking, plain and simple, and paternalistically punishing women who dare to have sex without wanting to get pregnant. It is, therefore, about the very opposite of religious freedom. It is imposing someone else’s religious views on you.
And that, my friends, isn’t just vile. It’s also indefensible.
newest »
Sorry to interrupt your "facts" with actual facts, but...There is no legal, approved contraception on the market that causes an abortion. None. This is FUD spread by people who are misinformed or shamefully lying.
I will assume you're the former. This is science, not opinion. IUDs do NOT cause abortions, and sayin otherwise is like denying the existence of gravity or electricity.
But THEY think it DOES and SCOTUS says that's enough. Read the full decision - it makes sense. The facts are that this ruling won't result in hundreds or even dozens of people losing their 'contraception rights.' What it does mean is that if you want to buy the morning after pill, and you work at Hobby Lobby, you need to pay for it yourself.More than 1/3 of the plaintiffs in this case are WOMEN. I guess those women are the ones denying other women their rights to contraception? Or as a man, you know better?
No one is being denied their rights to contraception. Even Hobby Lobby (admittedly a VERY religious company) offer more than 75% of available birth control options. They just don't offer the ones that THEY think are killing babies. Agree with that logic or not - it doesn't matter. Your thoughts and mine don't matter either, misguided as they are (yours of course, my thoughts are always correct!).
What matters is what SCOTUS thinks - and SCOTUS agreed with Hobby Lobby et al. Case closed (literally).
And just as a note, mifepristone (RU-486) is a drug that would 'cause an abortion' (at least according to a company like Hobby Lobby) and is currently for sale in the US. Plus, depo-Provera, methotrexate and misoprostol would most likely all fall into that weirdly defined category.
People in your country have religious rights. Just because you don't agree with them or perhaps think they are stupid for having them doesn't mean that your made-up right of 'birth control' trumps their actual right of religious freedom. If you don't want your employer in the bedroom, don't ask them to pay for your birth control.
This is why your government should be the one supplying health insurance. That way, if employees paid into a government plan, there would be no hassles. Governments, by their nature, are religiously neutral, so no conflict.
Also, it is important to note that this ruling only affects companies whose owners are indistinguishable from the business itself. While that it a lot of companies, it is not actually a lot of employees. For example, Best Buy could not deny rights to abortifacients, neither could Proctor and Gamble.
Got it -- if someone THINKS something (even if it is demonstrably, scientifically proven WRONG), then that trumps someone else's medical decisions.Really? Really?
As the saying goes: You're entitled to your own opinion; you're not entitled to your own facts. Facts are facts.
RU-486 isn't birth control. It IS used for abortion. We're not talking about that. We're talking about products designed, sold, and prescribed for the purpose of birth control that misguided/misinformed people believe cause abortions. Such as IUDs. (Methotrexate is a cancer drug -- wow, so now women with cancer can be told by their bosses not to get chemotherapy! Nice!)
Allowing people's beliefs to trump scientific fact is WRONG. Look, I'm sorry if reality conflicts with their beliefs -- I understand that must lead to a lot of stress and pain for them -- but that's just the case. I'm sure my own beliefs conflict with reality at some point. The difference is, when it's pointed out to me that something I believe doesn't hold with actual fact, I change my belief.
SCOTUS is not divinely inspired. You refer to "your country" when you address me, so evidently you're not an American and therefore it's understandable that you wouldn't be aware that the Supreme Court isn't some sort of Papally infallible organization. (Catholic humor!) The Court has been wrong in the past, the odious Dred Scott decision being one of the earliest and most famous examples.
(And, uh, if we're going to say that SCOTUS can't be wrong, then I guess all of the anti-abortion organizations should close down, since SCOTUS decided Roe and SCOTUS is never wrong...)
BTW, last time I checked, no one asked their employer to pay for their insurance. We've evolved a serious messed up health system in this country. I would prefer single-payer because it would remove all of this nonsense. We agree on that! In the meantime, though, it's absurd to ascribe religious conviction to a corporation and more absurd to let what you admit is a mistaken belief trump someone else's decisions.
Hey - don't get me wrong - single payer would be much preferable, because then these issues would be moot. But you don't have single payer so you have what you have.And yes, methotrexate IS a cancer drug, but it's off label use is for abortions. Now this cuts both ways, because birth control pills off label use is for regulating hormones (and actually, sometimes preventing pregnancy AFTER intercourse by 'binge' consuming them).
This ruling basically comes down to religious freedom (which is a right) versus a fuzzy, non-right of getting SOME contraceptives for free. You can see why SCOTUS said no - it's not even close.
There is no argument to be made that 'my employer should be forced to pay for my specific birth control even though it violates their religious rights.' Especially since your right to contraceptives is NOT a right, while their freedom to practice their religion as they see fit, IS a right.
You will never win this argument in the public sphere. People (or corporations, apparently) will never be forced to violate their religious beliefs in order to pay for a pack of condoms or for a treatment that violates those beliefs. It just won't happen. And the people working for Hobby Lobby know this. It's not as if the company is quiet or subtle about its religious beliefs.
Once again, I remind you that 1/3 of the plaintiffs in this case are women.
What you need is a system where if the employer will not pay for a specific treatment or drug because of their religious beliefs, the government would pick up the bill and pay for it.
That way everyone wins.
Jack wrote: "Hey - don't get me wrong - single payer would be much preferable, because then these issues would be moot. But you don't have single payer so you have what you have.And yes, methotrexate IS a can..."
Yes, single payer is the way to go. I'm glad we agree on that.
However...
Dude, you're all over the place. So what if a drug is off-label for abortion? Does that mean no one should be allowed to use it at all? If not, then your point is...pointless. Move on.
Also, I notice you decided to skip over everything I said about science, reason, and facts. So, I assume you concede the point, but you're OK with supporting the idea that ignorance (used in its non-pejorative sense of people simply not knowing or understanding something) should not only trump another human being's decision-making process, but also should be elevated to protected status by the Supreme Court.
That's nuts.
Religious freedom =/= "being allowed to impose your religious beliefs on another person." Your right to swing your fist ends at MY nose. The legal fiction that corporations are people is absurd to begin with, but now ascribing religious beliefs to them? It beggars belief. (No pun intended.)
Furthermore, you keep saying "Employers shouldn't be forced to pay for..." Um, employers aren't paying for jack. The insurance company pays. And in most employment situations, the employee contributes to his/her health insurance through payroll deductions. So, the employee is paying, too, and should have a say in what's covered, no? (Employers concerned about their immortal souls can satisfy themselves with the knowledge that the portion of money that paid for the product in question came from the employee, not from the corporation.)
Taken to its logical conclusion, a corporation, then, should be allowed to dictate what an employee can or cannot purchase with the salary paid to him/her. After all, it's the same thing: Corporation gives money to insurance company and decides what can and can't be bought. Why not the same with employee? It's just a different middleman.
Your falling back on "Religious freedom is absolute! Religious freedom trumps everything!" is risible. Try sacrificing a virgin in this country and claiming religious freedom. Religious freedom also means freedom FROM religion. What SCOTUS has done is elevate one religious belief above another -- mine says an IUD is OK, but if my boss's says no, then my boss's religion wins out. In such a conflict, resolving in favor of rationality is the only sensible course of action. "Hey, sorry, but your religious beliefs -- while honestly held -- are being misapplied here. The product you think is doing something contrary to your beliefs actually doesn't. So, you lose. You can either stew in your own misconceptions or educate yourself and realize that nothing offensive to your beliefs is happening."
If your argument boils down to "Irrationality should be cozened at the expense of actual facts, just because a narrow reading of the First Amendment seems to imply so," then we have nothing more to say to each other.
The BLog
- Barry Lyga's profile
- 2184 followers
Actually, it's only about one TYPE of contraception - abortifacients. Agree with these people's religious beliefs or not but they believe that abortion is murdering babies. And by supplying abortifacients (or paying for them), they are complicit in murder.
Hobby Lobby, one of the companies involved in the lawsuit that SCOTUS ruled on, supplies 16 forms of birth control in their health insurance plan: Male condoms, Female condoms, Diaphragms with spermicide, Sponges with spermicide, Cervical caps with spermicide, Spermicide alone, Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin (“Combined Pill), Birth-control pills with progestin alone (“The Mini Pill), Birth control pills (extended/continuous use), Contraceptive patches, Contraceptive rings, Progestin injections, Implantable rods, Vasectomies, Female sterilization, surgeries, Female sterilization implants.
They just refuse to pay for what is considered abortifacients because they believe they are used to murder babies. Now, if you TRULY believed that, I would hope you too would refuse to pay for it.
So, no, this ruling does not mean all companies are going to stop paying for birth control. It does mean, that SOME companies may not pay for the morning after pill, but will pay for condoms.
Sorry for interrupting your rant with some facts. Please, keep ranting.