Hobby Lobby business practices

[PennyQuilts]

This isn't seen as a contraception problem. Please don't package the dispute that way because contraception isn't the issue and if they believed this was about contraception, there wouldn't be a problem. The morning after pill doesn't allow a fertilized egg to implant into the uterus and is believed, by many, that because fertilization has taken place, the morning after pill doesn't prevent conception, rather, it aborts a viable embryo. We can argue until the cows come home about whether this is, medically, abortion but the relevant point is that HL sees it that way.

[Dubya61]

This isn't seen as a contraception problem. Please don't package the dispute that way because contraception isn't the issue and if they believed this was about contraception, there wouldn't be a problem. The morning after pill doesn't allow a fertilized egg to implant into the uterus and is believed, by many, that because fertilization has taken place, the morning after pill doesn't prevent conception, rather, it aborts a viable embryo. We can argue until the cows come home about whether this is, medically, abortion but the relevant point is that HL sees it that way.

To be completely literal about it, the morning after pill isn't contraception, as conception is the fertilzation of the egg. The morning after pill (if a previous poster had it right) creates a hormone surge which causes the uterus to flush the fertilized egg and prevent it from adhering to the uterine wall. My analogy: a chemically induced D'n'C. I think the Green family has it right.

Will this mean an end to Hobby Lobby? I seriously doubt it, but I'll bet it means an end to the great pay structure they had ... at least for the full-time personnel.

[mkjeeves]

This isn't seen as a contraception problem. Please don't package the dispute that way because contraception isn't the issue and if they believed this was about contraception, there wouldn't be a problem. The morning after pill doesn't allow a fertilized egg to implant into the uterus and is believed, by many, that because fertilization has taken place, the morning after pill doesn't prevent conception, rather, it aborts a viable embryo. We can argue until the cows come home about whether this is, medically, abortion but the relevant point is that HL sees it that way.

Prevailing science doesn't support that. It's contraception.

From the NYT:

Studies have not established that emergency contraceptive pills prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the womb, leading scientists say. Rather, the pills delay ovulation, the release of eggs from ovaries that occurs before eggs are fertilized, and some pills also thicken cervical mucus so sperm have trouble swimming.

It turns out that the politically charged debate over morning-after pills and abortion, a divisive issue in this election year, is probably rooted in outdated or incorrect scientific guesses about how the pills work. Because they block creation of fertilized eggs, they would not meet abortion opponents’ definition of abortion-inducing drugs. In contrast, RU-486, a medication prescribed for terminating pregnancies, destroys implanted embryos.

The notion that morning-after pills prevent eggs from implanting stems from the Food and Drug Administration’s decision during the drug-approval process to mention that possibility on the label — despite lack of scientific proof, scientists say, and objections by the manufacturer of Plan B, the pill on the market the longest. Leading scientists say studies since then provide strong evidence that Plan B does not prevent implantation, and no proof that a newer type of pill, Ella, does. Some abortion opponents said they remain unconvinced.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/he...agewanted=all&

[Easy180]

Prevailing science doesn't support that. It's contraception.

From the NYT:

Studies have not established that emergency contraceptive pills prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the womb, leading scientists say. Rather, the pills delay ovulation, the release of eggs from ovaries that occurs before eggs are fertilized, and some pills also thicken cervical mucus so sperm have trouble swimming.

It turns out that the politically charged debate over morning-after pills and abortion, a divisive issue in this election year, is probably rooted in outdated or incorrect scientific guesses about how the pills work. Because they block creation of fertilized eggs, they would not meet abortion opponents’ definition of abortion-inducing drugs. In contrast, RU-486, a medication prescribed for terminating pregnancies, destroys implanted embryos.

The notion that morning-after pills prevent eggs from implanting stems from the Food and Drug Administration’s decision during the drug-approval process to mention that possibility on the label — despite lack of scientific proof, scientists say, and objections by the manufacturer of Plan B, the pill on the market the longest. Leading scientists say studies since then provide strong evidence that Plan B does not prevent implantation, and no proof that a newer type of pill, Ella, does. Some abortion opponents said they remain unconvinced.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/he...agewanted=all&

Case should be closed with this for anyone that has an open mind...Still many unfortunately will defer instead to what they are told by non scientists on Sunday mornings

[zookeeper]

Case should be closed with this for anyone that has an open mind...Still many unfortunately will defer instead to what they are told by non scientists on Sunday mornings

I honestly think it's the other way around, I think it takes an open mind to see Mr. Green's side. I'm not a Christian and I am opposed to this on scientific grounds. Life is incredibly rare in this universe and I don't support anything that takes the life of another. I am anti-war, anti-death penalty, anti-abortion and I think there's too many conflicting opinions about this pill. Really, I would usually never agree with David Green on anything but it takes an open mind to consider his viewpoint. I have.

[Hawk405359]

I honestly think it's the other way around, I think it takes an open mind to see Mr. Green's side. I'm not a Christian and I am opposed to this on scientific grounds. Life is incredibly rare in this universe and I don't support anything that takes the life of another. I am anti-war, anti-death penalty, anti-abortion and I think there's too many conflicting opinions about this pill. Really, I would usually never agree with David Green on anything but it takes an open mind to consider his viewpoint. I have.

I guess I'm just confused as to what the many conflicting opinions are. The arguments against it calling it abortion are based off of old science or old drugs that don't apply to what the current drugs do. Scientific evidence supports that it's not what it's opponents say it is, but there are those who don't want to accept it. An opinion based on the rejection of evidence doesn't really have the same weight as an opinion based on the repeatable observations of facts, as the existence of contrarians doesn't give the contrarians weight.

That said, I'm still not for the mandate. Aside from the current frame of reference still ignoring traditional Catholicism and their opposition to contraception, which still makes it a first amendment issue in my mind, I think the marketplace should be open enough that work-provided insurance doesn't have to provide coverage for certain things. If the government does anything involving insurance regulation, I think it should be to bar companies from forcing workers to take the company-provided insurance as a condition of the job, instead allowing workers to buy insurance from whomever they choose, even if it's outside of the company's system (and, hopefully, making it none of the employer's business). Whether I'm a member of a particular religion doesn't really change anything in those regards, it's just a matter that I don't think the federal government should have the power to say "You must cover this, period, no discussion."

[PennyQuilts]

Prevailing science doesn't support that. It's contraception.

From the NYT:

Studies have not established that emergency contraceptive pills prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the womb, leading scientists say. Rather, the pills delay ovulation, the release of eggs from ovaries that occurs before eggs are fertilized, and some pills also thicken cervical mucus so sperm have trouble swimming.

It turns out that the politically charged debate over morning-after pills and abortion, a divisive issue in this election year, is probably rooted in outdated or incorrect scientific guesses about how the pills work. Because they block creation of fertilized eggs, they would not meet abortion opponents’ definition of abortion-inducing drugs. In contrast, RU-486, a medication prescribed for terminating pregnancies, destroys implanted embryos.

The notion that morning-after pills prevent eggs from implanting stems from the Food and Drug Administration’s decision during the drug-approval process to mention that possibility on the label — despite lack of scientific proof, scientists say, and objections by the manufacturer of Plan B, the pill on the market the longest. Leading scientists say studies since then provide strong evidence that Plan B does not prevent implantation, and no proof that a newer type of pill, Ella, does. Some abortion opponents said they remain unconvinced.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/he...agewanted=all&

I've read similar articles but that isn't dispositive in this debate because, as you say, the HL crowd reject those facts. They aren't opposed to contraception but they see this as more akin to a medical abortion. The claim made by many that HL are opposed to contraception just isn't accurate. If these studies are correct (and it is just odd that they don't seem to really know), then an education blitz would be the way to deal with the issue. At this point, because of the way the pill was marketed, i.e., it was sold, for years, as a pill that kept a fertilized egg from implantation, there is a lot of resistance to footing the bill for this sort of thing. And given the years of marketing, such resistance is understandable.

They've been looking to put Plan B on the OTC market. Because it is so inexpensive and available, I think it is absolutely ridiculous, as policy, to decide to try to force companies to pay for it, regardless of whether they support it morally. Full time employees who have health insurance aren't going to be bankrupted by virtue of being forced to shell out the money to buy a drug that is so cheap and so available. This sort of drug isn't even something anyone would expect to need to take on a regular basis. It is intended to be a backup plan for regular contraception or for rape. To choose, as policy, to place a higher value on including this inexpensive, readily available drug over freedom of conscience, is counterproductive. Shouldn't we, as a nation, be encouraging people of conscience to stand by their convictions? Most of the time, those types of values are a stabilizing influence on society. People with no strong feelings about right or wrong tend to cause a lot more trouble than people who are actively trying to do the right thing as they understand it. That doesn't mean we have to agree with the values of everyone else but, overall, I'd far rather be around people who are tempered by conscience than people who are just making it up as they go along.

[Bunty]

Shouldn't we, as a nation, be encouraging people of conscience to stand by their convictions? Most of the time, those types of values are a stabilizing influence on society. People with no strong feelings about right or wrong tend to cause a lot more trouble than people who are actively trying to do the right thing as they understand it. That doesn't mean we have to agree with the values of everyone else but, overall, I'd far rather be around people who are tempered by conscience than people who are just making it up as they go along.

Good lord, who knows how you would have felt, if you were an adult during the civil rights controversies of the 1960s? Many white Christians back then, especially in the deep South, as the freedom rides too well demonstrated, didn't think it was morally right to do away with the Jim Crow laws. Thankfully, enough people countered that and felt it was wrong to put up with such people trying to stand by their highly questionable convictions about race separation.

[Wambo36]

I've read similar articles but that isn't dispositive in this debate because, as you say, the HL crowd reject those facts. They aren't opposed to contraception but they see this as more akin to a medical abortion. The claim made by many that HL are opposed to contraception just isn't accurate. If these studies are correct (and it is just odd that they don't seem to really know), then an education blitz would be the way to deal with the issue. At this point, because of the way the pill was marketed, i.e., it was sold, for years, as a pill that kept a fertilized egg from implantation, there is a lot of resistance to footing the bill for this sort of thing. And given the years of marketing, such resistance is understandable.

They've been looking to put Plan B on the OTC market. Because it is so inexpensive and available, I think it is absolutely ridiculous, as policy, to decide to try to force companies to pay for it, regardless of whether they support it morally. Full time employees who have health insurance aren't going to be bankrupted by virtue of being forced to shell out the money to buy a drug that is so cheap and so available. This sort of drug isn't even something anyone would expect to need to take on a regular basis. It is intended to be a backup plan for regular contraception or for rape. To choose, as policy, to place a higher value on including this inexpensive, readily available drug over freedom of conscience, is counterproductive. Shouldn't we, as a nation, be encouraging people of conscience to stand by their convictions? Most of the time, those types of values are a stabilizing influence on society. People with no strong feelings about right or wrong tend to cause a lot more trouble than people who are actively trying to do the right thing as they understand it. That doesn't mean we have to agree with the values of everyone else but, overall, I'd far rather be around people who are tempered by conscience than people who are just making it up as they go along.

Very hypothetical, but not impossible. What if tomorrow the Green family decided to convert to Christian Scientist. As such, they end all health care for their employees and, (according to their religious and moral convictions) offer to pray for them instead? Are these really the kind of decisions we want made according to an employers "religious and moral convictions" and not the employees, whatever they might be? I think not.

[Jim Kyle]

In such a case, I believe that they would find it difficult to retain their employees. Providing healthcare insurance was, initially, a voluntary action taken by employers in order to achieve a better competitive position when recruiting. Government has absolutely no business mandating it, either way. If a government can force you to provide such coverage, it can force you to do anything else -- which is the whole point of the problem.

I do think that there's a huge inconsistency here, though. If provision of such insurance is supposed to be universal, then no exemptions at all should be allowed. All churches, also, should be forced to do the same. No group should be "more equal than others" when it comes to "universal" requirements. For that matter, tax-exempt status comes into serious question when you look closely at the underlying conflict...

[Hawk405359]

Very hypothetical, but not impossible. What if tomorrow the Green family decided to convert to Christian Scientist. As such, they end all health care for their employees and, (according to their religious and moral convictions) offer to pray for them instead? Are these really the kind of decisions we want made according to an employers "religious and moral convictions" and not the employees, whatever they might be? I think not.

If they did that, you'd have to assume that one of two things would happen. Either they'd be forced to pay their employees more so employees could get private health insurance, or they'd have to be ok with the massive employee turnover that'd come as soon as any employee of a different faith got a job with health insurance, including any higher managers and executives who'd leave. It'd basically make their entire organization fairly toxic for anyone who wanted a decent job, because any sensible person who got a chance at a job with actual health benefits would jump ship.

[Wambo36]

If they did that, you'd have to assume that one of two things would happen. Either they'd be forced to pay their employees more so employees could get private health insurance, or they'd have to be ok with the massive employee turnover that'd come as soon as any employee of a different faith got a job with health insurance, including any higher managers and executives who'd leave. It'd basically make their entire organization fairly toxic for anyone who wanted a decent job, because any sensible person who got a chance at a job with actual health benefits would jump ship.

What about a little less extreme example. What if they converted to Judaism or Islam and as such, because of their religious beliefs and convictions, refused to provide coverage for any medical procedures or products associated with swine? This would include, but not be limited to, skin grafts and tissue heart valve replacement. Imagine having a family member suffer severe burns to a large portion of their body and finding out that your employer, because of their religious convictions, had excluded from your coverage, the very skin grafts that your child or spouse needs to heal. Or a family member needing a heart valve replacement and, due to their reactions to blood thinners, only being able to accept a tissue heart valve? A tissue heart valve that your employer, due to their religious beliefs and convictions, exempted from your medical coverage. I'll ask again. Are those really the kind of decisions you want made according to your employers religious convictions and not your own? I think not.

[Dubya61]

What about a little less extreme example. What if they converted to Judaism or Islam and as such, because of their religious beliefs and convictions, refused to provide coverage for any medical procedures or products associated with swine? This would include, but not be limited to, skin grafts and tissue heart valve replacement. Imagine having a family member suffer severe burns to a large portion of their body and finding out that your employer, because of their religious convictions, had excluded from your coverage, the very skin grafts that your child or spouse needs to heal. Or a family member needing a heart valve replacement and, due to their reactions to blood thinners, only being able to accept a tissue heart valve? A tissue heart valve that your employer, due to their religious beliefs and convictions, exempted from your medical coverage. I'll ask again. Are those really the kind of decisions you want made according to your employers religious convictions and not your own? I think not.

In fact, the only Judaism prohibition on swine is the consumption of them as a food. Islam is very similar, but often the extreme versions go further.Are Xenotransplants Kosher? - My Jewish Learning

[PennyQuilts]

Very hypothetical, but not impossible. What if tomorrow the Green family decided to convert to Christian Scientist. As such, they end all health care for their employees and, (according to their religious and moral convictions) offer to pray for them instead? Are these really the kind of decisions we want made according to an employers "religious and moral convictions" and not the employees, whatever they might be? I think not.

The likelihood that they would do that, IMO, is relatively low. And I am not even going to get off into the weeds on the notion of praying for their employees vs. providing health insurance (for the full timers only, of course). What is NOT uncommon is for people of conscience willing to try to do the right thing as they see it. And the "right thing," is almost invariably a plus for society. When, as a policy, we decide that people simply can't be trusted to do the right thing so they must be mandated, by law (the right thing is decided by the government, of course - and let's pretend politics and big money doesn't enter into it), we have a much bigger problem, if you ask me. It is one thing to mandate something based on a value in which society has reached a consensus. It is a completely different thing to mandate things concerning values that are in flux or there are competing values. Imposing something that is categorically opposite of a particular moral belief is begging for trouble and, IMO, shouldn't be attempted unless it is practically life or death. Forcing people to pay for a cheap morning after pill, to me, is imposing a value of little worth since the person could certainly get it and afford it (the insurance goes to full time employees) and allowing it to trump a closely held value that is nowhere near a consensus. This is, poor and simple, an ideological mindset that believes people shouldn't have to pay for certain medications. It was adopted without thought or concern about the moral or religious beliefs of anyone else. Mind you, HL isn't fighting Obamacare, overall. It was already providing health insurance for its people. It is disputing a particular, ideologically driven provision that doesn't amount to a hill of beans unless someone is trying to use the power of the government to advance their own particular values. No person eligible for insurance at Hobby Lobby will go without this drug if they want it. It simply isn't that expensive or hard to come by. This isn't a battle worth fighting.