Difference between revisions of "Hobby Lobby"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(lots of stuff...) |
(found information for last point; added one more point) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
On September 12, 2012, Hobby Lobby against the US federal government over the [[Obamacare]] [[Obamacare/employer mandate|employer mandate]] to provide [[contraception]] in any [[health insurance]] offered to employees. | On September 12, 2012, Hobby Lobby against the US federal government over the [[Obamacare]] [[Obamacare/employer mandate|employer mandate]] to provide [[contraception]] in any [[health insurance]] offered to employees. | ||
| − | On September 19, 2013, plaintiffs in the original case [[2014/03/25/Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.|petitioned]] the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals for a [[writ of certiorari]] against Hobby Lobby. | + | On September 19, 2013, plaintiffs in the original case [[2014/03/25/Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.|petitioned]] the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals for a [[writ of certiorari]] against Hobby Lobby (''{{wp/alt|Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby}}''). |
At issue are two emergency contraceptives, Plan B ({{wp/alt|Levonorgestrel}}) and Ella ({{wp/alt|Ulipristal acetate}}), which Hobby Lobby claims might cause [[abortion]]s and is therefore opposed to on religious grounds. The suit regards the question of whether employers may be required to violate their religious beliefs, or whether the 1993 [[Religious Freedom Restoration Act]] forbids such a requirement. | At issue are two emergency contraceptives, Plan B ({{wp/alt|Levonorgestrel}}) and Ella ({{wp/alt|Ulipristal acetate}}), which Hobby Lobby claims might cause [[abortion]]s and is therefore opposed to on religious grounds. The suit regards the question of whether employers may be required to violate their religious beliefs, or whether the 1993 [[Religious Freedom Restoration Act]] forbids such a requirement. | ||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
** The vast majority of HL's products, though initially made by the family, are now made in China, a country notorious for human rights abuses -- including forcing members of its female workforce to have abortions. | ** The vast majority of HL's products, though initially made by the family, are now made in China, a country notorious for human rights abuses -- including forcing members of its female workforce to have abortions. | ||
*** It is unclear whether this applies specifically to the workforce which makes HL's products, or if HL has gone to any efforts to vet the manufacturers from which they purchase. | *** It is unclear whether this applies specifically to the workforce which makes HL's products, or if HL has gone to any efforts to vet the manufacturers from which they purchase. | ||
| + | * '''Wanting it both ways''': Obamacare does not actually require HL to provide insurance; they pay a penalty if they don't offer insurance meeting the standards required by Obamacare, but the penalty would likely be less than the cost of the insurance<sup>[[2014/02/19/Hobby Lobby Part VIII|s]]</sup> (and helps to subsidize plans for those who otherwise couldn't afford them). They could offer insurance that doesn't meet the standards and forego the penalty, or they could not offer insurance -- but they want the right to offer only substandard insurance without penalty. | ||
| + | * '''Claiming responsibility where none exists''': Even granting the premise (highly debatable) that Ella might cause abortions, the actual act of deciding to purchase and use Ella would rest with their employees. That HL considers itself morally responsible for the decisions of their employees suggests that they regard their employees as incapable of making moral decisions, and that they are more than willing to interfere with the moral convictions of their employees despite arguing that their own moral convictions must not be interfered with. (This view is essentially [[authoritarian]] in nature.) | ||
There appears to be a sound basis, at least preliminarily, for the claim that Ella ({{wp/alt|Ulipristal acetate}}) might cause abortion, as it is apparently harmful to the fetus. However, it is very unlikely to do so in the doses recommended for emergency contraception. | There appears to be a sound basis, at least preliminarily, for the claim that Ella ({{wp/alt|Ulipristal acetate}}) might cause abortion, as it is apparently harmful to the fetus. However, it is very unlikely to do so in the doses recommended for emergency contraception. | ||
| + | |||
==Links== | ==Links== | ||
===Reference=== | ===Reference=== | ||