that Hobby Lobby decision...

[Sbee]

This is monumentally stupid. It is not the least bit hypocritical. The plan assets are not the property of HL and HL does not benefit from the investments. HL is merely the 401(k) plan sponsor. The assets are the property of HL employees and investment choices are made by employees. HL employees are free to choose to invest in funds that invest in those companies just like they are free to use any and all of thee contraceptives in question - they're just not free to force HL to pay for them. Their employees can use some of the generous compensation from HL (HL's minimum wage is 193% of the federally mandated minimum wage) - cry me a river. If HL was restricting employees' choices for investing their own money then HL would be foisting their religious beliefs onto their employees and you could (and certainly would) bitch about it.

of course you don't address that they didn't protest these contraceptives being covered prior to the ACA. I think it's just a beachead against Obama and liberalism under the guise of corporate religion

 

[Sbee]

time was when the corporate form made sense as a tradeoff... you surrendered some forms of direct control in exchange for permitting the corporation to shield the individual from liability. the Republican Dream is to give corporations more and more rights, while not touching the shield, of course.

right, like the shield that prevents GM employees from being sued over deaths and injuries due to the ignition switch, they're only individuals with rights when it comes to something they want, never will they have individual liability.

 

[Spartanmack]

of course you don't address that they didn't protest these contraceptives being covered prior to the ACA. I think it's just a beachead against Obama and liberalism under the guise of corporate religion

Try to keep up kid. I'm talking about the 401k here, not their previous insurance plan. But since you bring it up, maybe I did already address this and you're just not paying attention or you just want to accuse me of ignoring what you think is a "gotcha" point about HL because I didn't repeat a point I had already made. You can look back a few pages where I addressed this or I can repeat it here for you - as I recall I said something like 'the Mother Jones piece just said they used to cover it without offering proof AND even if they were correct, perhaps HL was ignorant to fact that their plan covered these treatments and only learned about it when the ACA forced them to review their plans for compliance - like virtually EVERY employer who offered health care coverage prior to the ACA.'

It appears to be the latter - here's what politifact.com (one of your sites) has to say about it...

"The Greens re-examined the company’s health insurance policy back in 2012, shortly before filing the lawsuit. A Wall Street Journal story says they looked into their plan after being approached by an attorney from the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty about possible legal action over the federal government’s contraceptives requirement.

That was when, according to the company’s complaint, they were surprised to learn their prescription drug policy included two drugs, Plan B and ella, which are emergency contraceptive pills that reduce the chance of pregnancy in the days after unprotected sex. The government does not consider morning-after pills as abortifacients because they are used to prevent eggs from being fertilized (not to induce abortions once a woman is pregnant). This is not, however, what the Green family believes, which is that life begins at conception and these drugs impede the survival of fertilized eggs...

...Kohn’s statement is accurate but leaves out that Hobby Lobby says it unwittingly offered this kind of birth control coverage. We rate the claim Mostly True."

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...bby-lobby-once-provide-birth-control-coverag/

 

[Sbee]

Try to keep up kid. I'm talking about the 401k here, not their previous insurance plan. But since you bring it up, maybe I did already address this and you're just not paying attention or you just want to accuse me of ignoring what you think is a "gotcha" point about HL because I didn't repeat a point I had already made. You can look back a few pages where I addressed this or I can repeat it here for you - as I recall I said something like 'the Mother Jones piece just said they used to cover it without offering proof AND even if they were correct, perhaps HL was ignorant to fact that their plan covered these treatments and only learned about it when the ACA forced them to review their plans for compliance - like virtually EVERY employer who offered health care coverage prior to the ACA.'

It appears to be the latter - here's what politifact.com (one of your sites) has to say about it...

"The Greens re-examined the company?s health insurance policy back in 2012, shortly before filing the lawsuit. A Wall Street Journal story says they looked into their plan after being approached by an attorney from the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty about possible legal action over the federal government?s contraceptives requirement.

That was when, according to the company?s complaint, they were surprised to learn their prescription drug policy included two drugs, Plan B and ella, which are emergency contraceptive pills that reduce the chance of pregnancy in the days after unprotected sex. The government does not consider morning-after pills as abortifacients because they are used to prevent eggs from being fertilized (not to induce abortions once a woman is pregnant). This is not, however, what the Green family believes, which is that life begins at conception and these drugs impede the survival of fertilized eggs...

...Kohn?s statement is accurate but leaves out that Hobby Lobby says it unwittingly offered this kind of birth control coverage. We rate the claim Mostly True."

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...bby-lobby-once-provide-birth-control-coverag/

despite the science and evidence, the green family believes these drugs prevent fertilized eggs from implanting as opposed to preventing fertilization in the first place.

again, it's just a front to fight the war against the ACA on. they can backtrack their statements say that they didn't know they offered this, we know what this is about.

 

[Michchamp]

The Beckett Fund for religious freedom... So this "sincerely held religious belief" of the dumb Green family was discovered and pointed out to them by a sleazy right wing litigation fund? Not sure how that's supposed to refute anything I said. In fact it's even worse than I thought.

And I thought the GOP was against frivolous litigation? I guess only when it doesn't serve to further Christian beliefs at the expense of other religions or the non-religious...

 

[Gulo Blue]

despite the science and evidence

Link to science and evidence please. I know most of the pills out there prevent ovulation, but Tinsel keeps saying those aren't the pills this is about.

 

[Michchamp]

Link to science and evidence please. I know most of the pills out there prevent ovulation, but Tinsel keeps saying those aren't the pills this is about.

See post #114.

Do you get your medical opinions from your pastor or your doctor?

 

[Spartanmack]

despite the science and evidence, the green family believes these drugs prevent fertilized eggs from implanting as opposed to preventing fertilization in the first place.

again, it's just a front to fight the war against the ACA on. they can backtrack their statements say that they didn't know they offered this, we know what this is about.

First, when I was arguing the point about the 401k I was ignoring the bit about the Greens providing coverage for these drugs before they challenged the law. Now that I have shown that I had in fact not ignored that, it's about whether these drugs are indeed abortifacients. Talk about moving the goalpost or shifting the argument. Well, it seems pretty clear that the truth is they very well may be. Here like in the abortion debate, you seem to be picking and choosing your science. In order to believe these drugs and particularly IUDs are not abortifacients, you have to define where human life begins. If they do in fact prevent a fertilized egg from planting in the uterus (and there is no proof that they don't and the evidence suggests, particularly in the case of IUDs, that they do), then for those who believe life begins at conception, they are indeed abortifacients.

 

[Gulo Blue]

See post #114.

Do you get your medical opinions from your pastor or your doctor?

I think you must get yours from MSNBC reporters. Or are you telling me that a pill taken as much as two or three days after sex can prevent fertilization, which can take place just hours after sex? Does it emit an inverse tachyon pulse?

 

[Michchamp]

I think you must get yours from MSNBC reporters. Or are you telling me that a pill taken as much as two or three days after sex can prevent fertilization, which can take place just hours after sex? Does it emit an inverse tachyon pulse?

Fertilization, no. My understanding is that the medical community views implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterine wall as when life begins. Mere fertilization does not lead to life. Ergo.., something that prevents implantation prevents life from occurring.

I dunno... I guess we have to wait until Jesus returns and we can ask him then.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Link to science and evidence please. I know most of the pills out there prevent ovulation, but Tinsel keeps saying those aren't the pills this is about.

That's what the articles have been saying. Thumb also made this clarification back in the thread. I think a lot of posters are just making assumptions about "religion," being against all contraception in general.

 

[Spartanmack]

Fertilization, no. My understanding is that the medical community views implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterine wall as when life begins. Mere fertilization does not lead to life. Ergo.., something that prevents implantation prevents life from occurring.

I dunno... I guess we have to wait until Jesus returns and we can ask him then.

If I'm not mistaken, that's when they view pregnancy begins, not life - acknowledging that would throw a major wrench in the works for the pro abortion crowd. "Mere fertilization" does lead to life, without it, you never get life. Just because some fertilized eggs don't implant, doesn't mean it doesn't lead to life. This is just more picking and choosing science for the sake of convenience.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Fertilization, no. My understanding is that the medical community views implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterine wall as when life begins. Mere fertilization does not lead to life. Ergo.., something that prevents implantation prevents life from occurring.

I dunno... I guess we have to wait until Jesus returns and we can ask him then.

We've covered this ground already. To me, it's surprising that you'd try to convolute the issue by swapping definitions when we both know we're talking about fertilization vs. implantation. Weak sauce.

 

[Gulo Blue]

That's what the articles have been saying. Thumb also made this clarification back in the thread. I think a lot of posters are just making assumptions about "religion," being against all contraception in general.

I find it suspect, the recent statements about various pills not being abortofacients. We know these hormones do 2 things, prevent ovulation and cause a thinner endometrium. How you claim it isn't an abortofacient in the case where an egg may be released and the endometrium gets thinner is a mystery to me. I think a statistical argument would be possible; there should be some expectation for plan B success/failure rates that I would think would be significantly different if plan b only prevented fertilization, but I haven't been able to find such a study...or any that explains these new claims.

 

[Michchamp]

We've covered this ground already. To me, it's surprising that you'd try to convolute the issue by swapping definitions when we both know we're talking about fertilization vs. implantation. Weak sauce.

What do you mean "covered this ground already"? I'm not trying to convolute anything, and I freely admit that I might've considered "fertilization" when life began prior to this as well, in a technical sense, though not in a social, legal or philosophical sense. According to expert medical opinion... Implantation is the standard. Am I allowed to change my opinion after learning more or is that somehow dishonest?

 

[Gulo Blue]

What do you mean "covered this ground already"? I'm not trying to convolute anything, and I freely admit that I might've considered "fertilization" when life began prior to this as well, in a technical sense, though not in a social, legal or philosophical sense. According to expert medical opinion... Implantation is the standard. Am I allowed to change my opinion after learning more or is that somehow dishonest?

For starters, there's the post I was responding to:

despite the science and evidence, the green family believes these drugs prevent fertilized eggs from implanting as opposed to preventing fertilization in the first place.

We're clearly differentiating here between fertilizing and implanting and Sbee is implying that these drugs do not prevent implantation.

...or, I could point to this post, where you quoted the differentiation:

http://detroitsportsforum.com/showpost.php?p=427662&postcount=8

 

[Michchamp]

For starters, there's the post I was responding to:

We're clearly differentiating here between fertilizing and implanting and Sbee is implying that these drugs do not prevent implantation.

...or, I could point to this post, where you quoted the differentiation:

http://detroitsportsforum.com/showpost.php?p=427662&postcount=8

I see. That's my understanding as well, that they prevent implantation. That's how they work right? I agree with established medical science here... that is not abortion.

The whole thing gets a little ridiculous, no? It's absurd that what is obviously a religious interpretation as to when life begins could be used as a basis to deny some right to others who don't view things the same way, and even more so when you consider these same people are the most likely to indulge themselves in jingoisms and buzzwords about how free they are, how much they love freedom, etc. if it didn't have such awful results for the country, you'd just have to laugh at the lack of self-awareness

 

[Gulo Blue]

I see. That's my understanding as well, that they prevent implantation. That's how they work right? I agree with established medical science here... that is not abortion.

The whole thing gets a little ridiculous, no? It's absurd that what is obviously a religious interpretation as to when life begins could be used as a basis to deny some right to others who don't view things the same way, and even more so when you consider these same people are the most likely to indulge themselves in jingoisms and buzzwords about how free they are, how much they love freedom, etc. if it didn't have such awful results for the country, you'd just have to laugh at the lack of self-awareness

I am not aware of any medical science that supports that. There are some recent quotes suggesting it is the case, but they are conclusions with no explanation of what scientific criteria was used to get there. In this case it's especially curious because the statements actually conflict with existing science. Previous scientific findings, that these hormones make the endometrium thinner and therefore reduce the chance for implantation, have not been refuted to my knowledge. It smells politically motivated. Sort of like the definition of pregnancy you're hanging your hat on. What's hypothesis was tested to arrive at that conclusion? None. It's a classification, not a scientific conclusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_pregnancy_controversy

In 1959, Dr. Bent Boving suggested that the word "conception" should be associated with the process of implantation instead of fertilization.[19] Some thought was given to possible societal consequences, as evidenced by Boving's statement that "the social advantage of being considered to prevent conception rather than to destroy an established pregnancy could depend on something so simple as a prudent habit of speech." In 1965, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) adopted Boving?s definition: "conception is the implantation of a fertilized ovum."[20]

 

[Michchamp]

...It smells politically motivated. Sort of like the definition of pregnancy you're hanging your hat on. What's hypothesis was tested to arrive at that conclusion? None. It's a classification, not a scientific conclusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_pregnancy_controversy

And the alternative that fertilization = pregnancy doesn't smell politically motivated to you?

I understand that argument, but I don't think it's logical to assume that fertilization is the end of the matter when really implantation is a pretty significant step that must be completed before the zygote can continue to grow.

Also... As a reminder... The hobby lobby decision was complete garbage, terrible legal reasoning and just plain awful.

 

[Gulo Blue]

And the alternative that fertilization = pregnancy doesn't smell politically motivated to you?

I understand that argument, but I don't think it's logical to assume that fertilization is the end of the matter when really implantation is a pretty significant step that must be completed before the zygote can continue to grow.

Also... As a reminder... The hobby lobby decision was complete garbage, terrible legal reasoning and just plain awful.

I think there are a few different definitions accepted by different religions, but to act like one has been determined scientifically is BS.