Quantcast

Comments about ‘Letter: What it doesn't say ...’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, April 1 2014 9:29 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
J in AZ
San Tan Valley, AZ

anotherview wrote "There is no scientific evidence emergency contraceptives prevent implantation of a fertilized egg."

Let me explain to you the difference between regulatory science and science. Regulatory science is governed by the 'approved' documentation that has been supported by evidence. Science in general is not fettered by the regulatory process.

The FDA approved safety documentation for the four products that the Green family does not want to cover in their health plan all state that they may prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. The Beckett Fund, a group of lawyers, is not being deceptive. They are doing what lawyers do and rely on the federally approved safety literature.

If you want to blame anyone, blame the manufacturers who have not filed updates to the safety documents in order to make them in line with current knowledge about the mechanisms used by these drugs and devices.

JenicaJessen
Riverton, UT

Ranch:
*A* corporation is not *A* person, but a corporation is a group of people. You admit yourself that people in corporations can have religious beliefs. I don't see the difference between "the corporation" and "the people in the corporation". It's like trying to distinguish between "the forest" and "that large group of trees". So if people can have a religion, and those people assemble, and in that assembly they earn a profit, and they happen to call that assembly a 'business' or 'corporation', where along the way do they lose their religious rights?

slcdenizen and hutterite: You assume too much. I am all in favor of giving non-Christian religions the same rights. (I find it interesting that you've automatically decided I'm part of a "crowd" of bigots.)

In fact, I am also completely in favor of separating church and state-- it protects the church FROM the state. If church and state had been separated in this case the state would be staying out of the Greens' business. "Separation of church and state" means that government and religion leave each other alone, not that religion should be completely removed from public life.

Copy Cat
Murray, UT

"There SHOULD BE no laws requiring Muslim restaurant owners serve pork."

and in addition:

Nor should be no law requiring every citizen to purchase pork, AKA bloated cost health care, AKA the ACA, AKA Obamacare.

Copy Cat
Murray, UT

Do churches have religious rights?

They are groups of people, who have religious rights, just like corporations.

It seems ridiculous to deny churches religious freedom.

It seems equally ridiculous to deny corporations religious freedom.

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

So I assume you all are fine with companies refusing to cover blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses) or vaccinations, or any other random thing a company deems unnecessary because the owner has some sort of religious view? (Talk about bloating the insurance industry, forcing there to be tons of new plans to comprise each and every little whim of a company...).

Darrel
Eagle Mountain, UT

@Schnee

Or better yet, these Insurance companies suddenly "finding religion" One trustee can be opposed to blood transfusions; another contraception; another prenatal care; another mental health services; and the chairman anything besides faith based healing and prayer.

They'll still gladly take your full premium, they'll just take out what they find objectionable.

anotherview
SLO, CA

re:JinAZ
Here's what the Becket Fund (website)says:
"Most serious is the fact that certain of the mandated drugs and devices can cause early abortions by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg in the womb. The FDA's own birth control guide confirms that this is way certain emergency contraceptives work.

Kyle Duncan, General Counsel for Becket Fund:
"the way they operate is to prevent the implantation of an egg in the womb."

Here is the FDA description of an emergency contraceptive and the monthly oral contraceptive (which Hobby Lobby is not opposed to). See a difference?

Ella:
When taken immediately before ovulation is to occur, postpones follicular rupture. The likely primary mechanism of action of ulipristal acetate for emergency contraception is therefore inhibition or delay of ovulation; however, alterations to the endometrium that may affect implantation may also
contribute to efficacy.

Monthly combination oral contraceptive:
Combined oral contraceptives act by suppression of gonadotropins. Although the primary mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in the cervical mucus, which increase the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus, and changes in the endometrium which reduce the likelihood of implantation.

jsf
Centerville, UT

"So I assume you all are fine with companies refusing to cover blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses) or vaccinations, or any other random thing a company deems unnecessary because the owner has some sort of religious view?"

This argument is a real reach, castigating a religion because it has beliefs you don't agree with. In fact other than a contracted insurance company, I know of no company that covers blood transfusions in the general course of business. And I for one am OK with a company owned by another religion not buying a policy covering something (like blood transfusions), they feel is against their religion.

Confused
Sandy, UT

Ranch,
the employee only pays a "portion" of the insurance (even under ObamaCare) the Employer pays about 2/3 of the real cost...

just so you know, it is not just the employees money being used.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

JenicaJessen says:

"*A* corporation is not *A* person, but a corporation is a group of people."

-- Yes, a group of people, who as individuals have freedom of religion.

"You admit yourself that people in corporations can have religious beliefs. I don't see the difference between "the corporation" and "the people in the corporation". It's like trying to distinguish between "the forest" and "that large group of trees"."

-- Seriously? In the forest, they're all trees. A corporation is a legal entity created to separate real people from the risk. A corporation, while it employs people is NOT a person, and therefore has NO religion or need for religious freedom.

"...where along the way do they lose their religious rights?"

-- When "they" become a corporation. You see, "they" aren't the corporation and the corporation isn't them. "They" become two, separate entities.

@Copy Cat;

Churches are in the "business" of religion, not profit (hopefully).

@anotherview;

If the egg never implants then it isn't an abortion.

J in AZ
San Tan Valley, AZ

Overall Comment: This whole controversy is the fault of the manufacturers of the two drugs and two IUDs in question. NONE of them have acted to get the changes to the legal safety documentation changed to reflect their current understanding that the four products do not prevent implantation. If they had done this, this set of suits, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga, would not have happened.

anotherview - let me restate my point. When it comes to drugs, medical devices, and insurance, current science DOES NOT MATTER if the legal safety filings with the FDA are not in line with that knowledge. the regulatory filings are all that counts. Check the FDA web archives for these products. The FDA approved safety documentation for the four products all state that they may prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. The fact that new information contradicts that does not matter in the insurance coverage world. All that the pharmacy benefits management units of insurance companies care about is the FDA approveed documentation.

Karen R.
Houston, TX

Unfortunately this is not an issue in this case, but I simply don’t believe the owners are sincere in their beliefs, primarily because they purchase products made in China, a country that actively funds and promotes abortion as a means of controlling their population. But maybe the HL owners' god doesn't care about Chinese fetuses.

Two, and this is directed at the lawyers out there, would a decision in the owner's favor have any impact on future attempts to pierce the HL corporate veil? They seem to be saying in this instance, "No, we and our company are one and the same." Could this be used as an argument against them on a subsequent liability issue?

anotherview
SLO, CA

Re:JinAZ
I will restate mine as well.
The FDA includes the same language for emergency contraceptives as the most commonly used birth control pills.

So why is Hobby Lobby not opposed to birth control pills?

Emergency contraceptives are available in Italy, where the Catholic Church is headquartered.

This issue merely provides another argument and need for single-payer.

Furry1993
Ogden, UT

@Karen R. 4:34 p.m. April 1, 2014

...

Two, and this is directed at the lawyers out there, would a decision in the owner's favor have any impact on future attempts to pierce the HL corporate veil? They seem to be saying in this instance, "No, we and our company are one and the same." Could this be used as an argument against them on a subsequent liability issue?

----------------------

Absolutely! Yes !!! That's called a statement against interest. They just asserted that they and the company are one entity. The argument "I only meant that for THIS issue" would be laughed out of court. There's a good chance they have already cooked their goose on that one. Good catch!

the truth
Holladay, UT

First amendment rights are enjoyed by all people groups and organizations, however the people choose to organize themselves.

First amendment rights apply to all. period.

There is no demarcation or definition of who gets rights in the first amendment.

It simply say what congress can not do.

The extreme left here is extremely wrong about the first amendment.
Their interpretation is wildly off the mark.

Whether something or someone is a person or not is irrelevant.

The only question that needs to be asked is congress abridging or interfering, or playing favorites?

Stormwalker
Cleveland , OH

@2bits

This is not about what the business owner provides for customers, this is about business owners and employees.

If a Muslim business owner required all female employees - Christians and Jews, not just Islamic women - to wear a burka, most would be bothered.

If an orthodox Jewish business owner required all male employees to have a full beard and forelocks most would see it as a problem.

Hobby Lobby wants to provide insurance, but then wants to come between female employees and their doctors as to what is prescribed and why. I have a problem with that.

UtahBlueDevil
Durham, NC

I get and agree with the idea of a company owner should have the right to not spend their resources on things they do not believe in.

But that doesn't explain the moral contradiction here where Hobby Lobby has no issues sending their dollars to China to buy cheap products, a country that is well known for its single child policy. I am not sure how you justify the contradiction. It makes their moral stand seem rather conditional rather than based on any deep seeded principles. It makes one wonder if this is more about politics than anything truly moral based.

I am for people and companies having the right to choose who they will do business with. We saw the impact of such decisions had on ending apartheid in South Africa. But this one stinks a little of something else.

Its about being consistent.

Kora
Cedar Hills, UT

Stormwalker- Explain how Hobby Lobby not paying for contraception prevents a doctor from prescribing it and the women going to the drug store to purchase it. I am a physician and. I can write a woman a prescription for birth control even if they don't have insurance. And no insurance has ever told me what I can prescribe or prevented someone from purchasing the medicine out of their own pocket, ever. I treat a lot of uninsured college students, and everyone who wants birth control is able to get it. This being the case, why does insurance have to pay for it? It is $9 at Walmart, or free a many clinics.

What did the Citizens United case that went to the Supreme Court decide? It essentially stated that Corporations had the same Constitutional rights as individuals and are protected by Free Speech rights in the 1st Amendment. If that is the case, why would these same corporations be protected by the rest of the 1st Amendment?

Stormwalker
Cleveland , OH

@Kora:

You are, of course, right. A patient can ask, and a physician can prescribe and neither the insurance company nor the employer can actually stop that from happening.

I still - and this is my opinion - don't think it is the employer's business. They are providing compensation that includes pay and benefits. Trying to restrict the use of the benefits to fit their religion is, in my opinion, no different than if they insisted on paying employees with a pre-paid debit card and then restricted the employee from buying alcohol or cigarettes for religious reasons.

And I disagree with Citizens United for the same reason I would disagree with giving a citizen with Multiple Personality Disorder the right for each personality to make the maximum campaign contribution or for each personality to vote.

A corporation is people, but those people already have the right to contribute to campaigns, to express an opinion, to vote. Extending "speech" and now "religious rights" to a legal construct seems disingenuous at best, especially because the executives and board already have free speech.

Wonder
Provo, UT

Excellent comment on piercing the corporate veil. Either a corporation is a separate entity or it's not. Why do we have the legal structure of incorporation if it doesn't mean anything.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments