[quote=scaredyclassic][quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=scaredyclassic]”turns out that Hobby Lobby’s 401(k) employee retirement plan, according to documents filed with the Labor Department and written about by Mother Jones, is heavily invested in the very pharmaceutical companies that manufacture the products the company refuses to cover for its employees.
Yup, Hobby Lobby has about $73 million yuan invested in the company that makes the Plan B morning-after pill, another that makes a copper IUD, the maker of the abortion-inducing drugs and health companies that cover surgical abortions.
In her 35-page dissent, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg quoted from another case that underscores the importance of birth control to women: “The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives” (1992’s Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey).
But the five male justices who ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby just handed employers a powerful tool to opt out of laws they don’t like. Hear that, everyone? If you want the benefits of the Affordable Care Act, you better check out the religious beliefs of your bosses.
How do they feel about your sex life? Are they cool with the monthly birth control pills you take to control your endometriosis? Do they think you or your children should be immunized, or is that against their religion?
The door is now open for all that.”[/quote]
Scaredy: So, if I understand this correctly, because Hobby Lobby invests in those pharma companies that make the products they’re complaining about, what? They’re hypocrites? I’m guessing those selfsame pharma companies make a wide variety of products beyond just those cited, correct? Making that argument risible and a red herring.
Beyond that, Hobby Lobby had no issue with 16 of the 20 birth control products listed, just those four considered abortifacients. So, they’re not really attacking a woman’s right to economic participation, as per Ginsberg, are they?
This is cheap, partisan rhetoric to gin up the Democratic base and continue the notional “War on Women”, which at this point is just a war on common sense and, you know, facts.[/quote]
yes. HYPOCRITES. if you are so sincerely aghast at these products, mr hobby lobby, you wouldn’t invest in their producer. if you are appalled by apartheid in the 80s, you don’t invest in south africa…or if you do, and people call you a HYPOCRITE you have no response other than, yeah, I want to make as much money as possible and have as few expenses as possible… you don’t stack krugerrands and pretend to support Mandela…
and in the current case cloak it all in Christianity for litigation purposes…
risible? red herring?
hobby lobby is the one pretedning to have these overwhelmingly improtant principles…but only insofar as they apply to providing coverage..and they’re not doctors…able to opine on its medical necessity..just a BUSINESS….but when it comes to profiteering and investing…there are NO PRINCIPLES..only profit…if they could get a decent return on a conglomerate that had a diviosn running highly profitable abortion mills and it was ABSOLUTELY CONFIDENTIAL, i suspect they’d pony up the cash…
and where does it end? obamacare is lame, yes, and it’sall ridiculous, and single payer makes much more sense, and maybe it doesn’t matter that our wealthy nation just doesn’t give a crap about it’s people enoughto give them some basic health care,…
i guess the goal is utimately profit…but to couch it all in terms of sicnerely held religious belief…sheesh…
i could vomit..[/quote]
Scaredy: How did we wind up in South Africa in the 1980s? I take your point and I don’t dispute it. However, and I’m not defending Hobby Lobby, but investing in South Africa during apartheid is way different than investing in a large pharma, which markets potentially thousands of products, of which less than four are objectionable. That makes the comparison something of a false equivalence.
Further, Obama had a legitimate crack at single payer and didn’t take it. He did, however, take the opportunity to involve private insurance companies in ACA through a series of backroom deals.
If you want to discuss the profit motive and disenfranchising those who should receive an adequate and free standard of care, shouldn’t we start there?
