Hobby Lobby business practices

[bchris02]

I am personally against abortion, but I don't see anything wrong with the morning after pill.

Hobby Lobby's CEO has his right to believe this contraception is wrong and fight the government mandate, but the courts have spoken and like it or not this is something the Obama administration is forcing.

Now the question is whether or not this CEO will run his company into the ground and send 18,000 people to the unemployment lines to make a statement.

Like I said, I have multiple family members employed with Hobby Lobby and this is making me very nervous for them as well as the economic impact on OKC if the worst case scenario plays out.

[MadMonk]

Isn't it really simply about obeying the law? Hey I don't like funding US military bases in Germany or the incarceration of dope smokers but I'm pretty sure I can't line item those expenses out of my taxes without consequences. Hobby Lobby should be expected to obey the law the same as anybody else.

Oh the irony. Now all the liberals are concerned with being good, law-abiding citizens and not protesting a perceived wrong.

"Fight the power! Resist the tyranny of our government!"
"What's that? I AM the power now?"
"Lock up those no-account law breakers!"

[Stew]

Oh the irony. Now all the liberals are concerned with being good, law-abiding citizens and not protesting a perceived wrong.

"Fight the power! Resist the tyranny of our government!"
"What's that? I AM the power now?"
"Lock up those no-account law breakers!"

That should make you very happy.

[boscorama]

We're going over the cliff in a few days, and you jerks are arguing about who should pay for your birth control and/or your abortion. Lord have mercy!

[bchris02]

We're going over the cliff in a few days, and you jerks are arguing about who should pay for your birth control and/or your abortion. Lord have mercy!

Agreed. Everyone has the right to their religious beliefs and I respect Hobby Lobby for standing firm on them, but law is law. Personally I think its far more of an "unChristian" thing to send 18,000 people to the unemployment line than comply with Obamacare which does not mandate abortions, but a pill which may or may not be considered an abortion depending on how you define abortion.

[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

[Jim Kyle]

Isn't it really simply about obeying the law? Hey I don't like funding US military bases in Germany or the incarceration of dope smokers but I'm pretty sure I can't line item those expenses out of my taxes without consequences. Hobby Lobby should be expected to obey the law the same as anybody else.

At the risk of invoking "Godwin's Law," I have to point out that back in the late 1940s, at Nuremberg, we made the point that "obeying the law" could be a capital offense if the law involved was later overturned... "I was simply following lawful orders" didn't keep quite a few folk off the gallows.

That came back to haunt us a quarter-century later, and now it seems to have returned again. As others have pointed out in this thread, we can't have it both ways. "Law-abiding" and "jury nullification" are mutually exclusive; how can anyone favor both at the same time?

[Bunty]

Nobody is saying women who work for Hobby Lobby can't use the morning-after pill. David Green is simply saying he isn't going to pay for it.

It would be a more interesting case, if David Green was woman. It would have been a bit easier for me to take it more seriously.

[kelroy55]

They are willing to erode the value of freedom of conscience just cause. Morning after pill, today. What tomorrow?

The end of the world? Oh wait, that didn't happen.

[mugofbeer]

It would be a more interesting case, if David Green was woman. It would have been a bit easier for me to take it more seriously.

I bet David Green's wife and daughter are women. I doubt he rules his family with such an iron fist that he is taking these actions against the beliefs of the women of his family. This case has nothing to do with him being a man or a woman. It has to do with whether the government can or should constitutionally force a wholly-owned company to provide a drug that Mr. Green believes is immoral and causes what he believes boils down to murder of an unborn child. It would be a totally different situation if this were a publicly-owned company. I believe the action of defying the order to comply is designed to speed up getting this case in front of the full Supreme Court rather than to prove any points. The fines they incur are a price the Green's appear to be willing to pay.

[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."

[Bunty]

I bet David Green's wife and daughter are women. I doubt he rules his family with such an iron fist that he is taking these actions against the beliefs of the women of his family. This case has nothing to do with him being a man or a woman. It has to do with whether the government can or should constitutionally force a wholly-owned company to provide a drug that Mr. Green believes is immoral and causes what he believes boils down to murder of an unborn child. It would be a totally different situation if this were a publicly-owned company. I believe the action of defying the order to comply is designed to speed up getting this case in front of the full Supreme Court rather than to prove any points. The fines they incur are a price the Green's appear to be willing to pay.

Nevertheless, I still feel it would have been a more interesting case, had Green been a woman.

[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.

[PennyQuilts]

And if the government had decided Jim Crow was king, that should have been the end of it? People of conscience also fought against slavery, if you will recall.

[Ginkasa]

So you believe both David Green and the people who think he is wrong should stand by their convictions?

[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.

[Hawk405359]

The same principal applies, no? People tend to know what their health coverage does or does not cover, and any major restrictions are going to be known well enough that people are going to take it into account when taking the job. While, true, you don't tend to plan exactly for your child's skin graft surgery, you do take what sorts of procedures you can't get under a health plan into account.

To use your previous example, what if, in the next election, congress and the president were all Christian Scientists. Would you want them to be able to pass a law that says no health coverage whatsoever? Because that's sort of what is going on here, the federal government is mandating what employee benefits cover. Yes, that'd run foul of the Constitution, but I think this really pushes the limits as is, especially considering that a lot of birth control options aren't prohibitively expensive.

[Wambo36]

The same principal applies, no? People tend to know what their health coverage does or does not cover, and any major restrictions are going to be known well enough that people are going to take it into account when taking the job. While, true, you don't tend to plan exactly for your child's skin graft surgery, you do take what sorts of procedures you can't get under a health plan into account.

To use your previous example, what if, in the next election, congress and the president were all Christian Scientists. Would you want them to be able to pass a law that says no health coverage whatsoever? Because that's sort of what is going on here, the federal government is mandating what employee benefits cover. Yes, that'd run foul of the Constitution, but I think this really pushes the limits as is, especially considering that a lot of birth control options aren't prohibitively expensive.

That's one way to look at it. The other way to look at it is that the government is preventing an employer from forcing their employees to live according to the employer's religious values.

[RadicalModerate]

Perhaps David Green should just do the John Galt thing: Pack up all his toys and go home . . . and/or move the human-based operation to Mexico or India. Online sales are fairly popular without all of the government interferrence in day-to-day operations.