Corporate Religion

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

A few cases involving the mandates on employers have come down in the last week, which raise some interesting issues:

* In Tyndale House Publishers v. Sebelius, the Washington, DC district court granted an injunction on penalties stemming from the publishing house's refusal to offer contraceptive coverage, citing religious freedom. Of the key findings from the ruling, it was held that even the indirect burden is enough to cause a religious liberty issue, and that the government lacked a compelling interest in handing down the mandate.

* In Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, an Oklahoma district court ruled in favor of the federal government in part because the ruling differentiated between for-profit and religious corporations, making a distinction between organizations involved in worship and organizations that, at least according to this judge, are for-profit or simply religiously-associated.

We now have 4 lower court rulings in play right now regarding the contraception mandate. All four involved for-profit institutions, only Hobby Lobby ruling in favor of the government on the issue, and none of this has anything to do with the Liberty University case that just made it back to the 4th Circuit.

Why shouldn't corporate entities have religious freedom rights? Especially in the case of places like Hobby Lobby, who outright state that '[T]he foundation of our business has been, and will continue to be strong values, and honoring the Lord in a manner consistent with Biblical principles." Given the first amendment, hasn't the government clearly overstepped their bounds?

Comments

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

I didn't realize that anyone as trying to force people into not using contraceptives. Not forcing a Muslim owned company to pay for people's pork sandwiches is a far thing from allowing that Muslim owned company to prohibit those employees to go and buy pork with their own money.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

I didn't realize that anyone as trying to force people into not using contraceptives

Effectively, they are doing just that, even if the pressure is only light.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

Light pressure does equate to force, and I would also argue that not having someone else pay for a persons contraceptives is not pressure to not have that person use it.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

I believe that women controlling their reproduction benefits our society. This is true worldwide.
I would prefer it be free to all women, as the social costs of unwanted children is very high, and therefore it is fiscally conservative to fund contraception.

I also don't agree that an insurance company or employer should be involved in what amounts to a medical issue between a woman and her doctor.

And what your insurance will and wont cover definitely is pressure on what options are available. I don't want my employer to be a moral arbiter over my health care choices.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

I believe that women controlling their reproduction benefits our society. This is true worldwide.

I have no disagreement with that.

I would prefer it be free to all women, as the social costs of unwanted children is very high, and therefore it is fiscally conservative to fund contraception.

I have no problem with free contraceptives. I'm not entirely convinced that doing so would actually result in a large reduction in unwanted pregnancies here in the US, but again, no problem doing that for those who are less fortunate. The question becomes who should pay for it. If the federal government wants to pay for it, I say do it (I think they do with medicaid).

I also don't agree that an insurance company or employer should be involved in what amounts to a medical issue between a woman and her doctor.

They aren't. Never are. They may provide incentives by paying for certain things and not paying for others. For most women, contraception is fairly cheap or at least can be. My girlfriend's current insurance doesn't cover birth control for instance, and she pays 9 dollars a month. I fully realize that some women may need to be on a more expensive birth control for whatever reason, but then again condoms are fairly cheap also.

I don't want my employer to be a moral arbiter over my health care choices.

They aren't and no one is suggesting they should be. What we are talking about is funding for your health care choices. If hobby lobby wanted to restrict their employees access to birth control, I would be just as pissed off about it as you. They aren't however, they just don't want to pay for it.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

I have no problem with free contraceptives. I'm not entirely convinced that doing so would actually result in a large reduction in unwanted pregnancies here in the US, but again, no problem doing that for those who are less fortunate.

"This good shift is largely the result of an increase in teenagers’ use of birth control — a fact that Congressional Republicans ignore as they seek to dismantle reproductive health programs. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/19/opinion/birth-control-and-teenage-pregnancy.html

If you're gonna say that 'making it free wouldn't make people use it more' then I disagree. You look at any time you increase availability and reduce cost, the usage goes up. It's blindingly obvious that free birth control = more birth control used.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

"increase availability"

Birth control is already widely available and cheap for most methods.

"It's blindingly obvious that free birth control = more birth control used."

It isn't obvious. It isn't like you can go to the corner store and just grab some birth control pills for free. I can buy a 20 pack of name-brand condoms or a month worth of hormonal birth control pills for about as much as it would cost for a dinner for two at Mcdonalds. That is cheap enough that it isn't clear at all that a further reduced price, even to zero, would result in a increase use of birth control when you include other hurdles like getting to a doctor to actually prescribe them. The source of your article claims that the increase in birth control is due to

Anecdotal reports indicate that recent changes in medical recommendations that allow teens and young adults to access hormonal contraceptives without a pelvic exam or Pap test have made it easier for them to start—and continue—using these methods. There has also been a change in the medical community’s thinking around the use of IUDs, which is now seen as a “first-line” option for teens who are sexually active and want to delay childbearing for several years. Additionally, fewer teens reported that they were trying to become pregnant, and the economic recession may have increased teens’ motivation to protect themselves against unwanted childbearing.

In short, doctors changed their view on what is needed to start hormonal contraceptives, and less young woman are trying to have children likely resulted in the increase in contraceptives, not that the cost of actual contraceptives have gone down.

My own anecdotal evidence agrees with this. My girlfriend has no problem paying for her birth control pills. What she does hate is going to the doctor to get a prescription.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

Also, keep in mind that I don't necessarily disagree that free birth control would significantly decrease unwanted pregnancies. I just think it isn't clear that it would. I think it would be a likely result, particularly if more expensive forms were free.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

It's clear if you follow the logic. Free is just another form of 'cheaper', and cheaper birth control has resulted in less teen pregnancy.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

"Anecdotal reports indicate that recent changes in medical recommendations that allow teens and young adults to access hormonal contraceptives without a pelvic exam or Pap test have made it easier for them to start—and continue—using these methods. There has also been a change in the medical community’s thinking around the use of IUDs, which is now seen as a “first-line” option for teens who are sexually active and want to delay childbearing for several years. Additionally, fewer teens reported that they were trying to become pregnant, and the economic recession may have increased teens’ motivation to protect themselves against unwanted childbearing."

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Ah yes, 'anecdotal reports'. It also doesn't disprove what I said, it may add to it, but it doesn't disprove.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

I'm not trying to disprove what you said. I'm merely trying to point out that it isn't clear that free birth control would decrease unwanted pregnancies. So much so that your link provided reasons, however anecdotal, different than what you are trying to claim. Mainly that it isn't reduced cost of contraceptives driving increased use, but a reduction in medical hurdles and a decrease in desires by teenagers wanting to become pregnant.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

You're bending over backwards really hard to try to spin this.

As was linked before: http://www.examiner.com/article/free-birth-control-reduces-number-of-abortions-teen-pregnancies

Any google search and you can find tons of this stuff. I mean it's a no-brainer, women WANT this stuff.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

This study does not mean what you think it does. This study is testing whether or not an increase in more expensive forms of birth control would reduce unintended pregnancies. It is saying that methods that don't require, say a daily pill, are more effective than other methods that are less cost prohibitive. These conclusions are consistent with what I said.

" I think it would be a likely result, particularly if more expensive forms were free. "

However, comparing these results to the national average is erroneous, as the study does not account for woman not taking birth control forms at all. Particular, with young woman, who's hurdles to getting birth control include seeing a doctor, worrying about parents finding out, etc. A study would have to look at how many unintended pregnancies are a result of not using any contraceptives at all. This study did not do this. I also have a few problems with this papers methods. Foremost, they standardized their CHOICE group to the rest of the population, as their demographics were of higher risk as their demographics where 50% black women and median age of 25 (a group at much higher risk). I believe this to be erroneous. These groups are at higher risk because they have less access to birth control for various reasons, a factor that they are 100% eliminating by doing the study, and not simply because of economics reasons. In other words, heavy bias unaccounted for, and even exacerbated.

And yes, I did see this study before I posted the comment you responded to.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Considering that cheaper and more available has resulted in fewer teen pregnancies, I can very easily extrapolate that free (even cheaper) and over the counter (even more available) would only help the situation. I'm just following the trend.

And unless you actually think that it shouldn't be free and over-the-counter, then we're not in any actual disagreement and I don't know why you keep replying to me.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

And unless you actually think that it shouldn't be free and over-the-counter, then we're not in any actual disagreement and I don't know why you keep replying to me.

I've been fairly explicit on my thoughts. So, why have you been replying to me if you felt that way? I've been replying to you because you kept implying I wasn't following logic when that isn't the case at all.

Considering that cheaper and more available has resulted in fewer teen pregnancies, I can very easily extrapolate that free (even cheaper) and over the counter (even more available) would only help the situation. I'm just following the trend.

You are now moving the goalpost. We went from "free" to "free and easy to get". I've been saying for quite sometime that the easy to get would likely drive increase use far more than the free. Did you just stop reading after I said something you disagreed with?

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

I've been saying for quite sometime that the easy to get would likely drive increase use far more than the free. Did you just stop reading after I said something you disagreed with?

These things aren't mutually exclusive.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

They are when the major obstacle isn't cost.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Again, it's not a binary equation. Cost is an obstacle, the fact that you don't think it's a statistically meaningful one is where we disagree.

http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/health/study-free-birth-control-reducing-teen-pregnancies-abortions

http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/04/14224132-free-birth-control-cuts-abortion-rate-dramatically-study-finds?lite

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/10/05/study-free-birth-control-leads-to-fewer-abortions/

http://www.examiner.com/article/free-birth-control-reduces-number-of-abortions-teen-pregnancies

http://www.christianpost.com/news/free-birth-control-lowers-teen-pregnancy-abortion-rates-study-claims-82809/

http://www.battlecreekenquirer.com/article/20121009/opinion/310090022/Editorial-Free-birth-control-would-reduce-abortions-teen-pregnancy-rates

http://www.buffalonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20121006/OPINION/121009441/1074

http://news.yahoo.com/free-birth-control-means-drastic-drops-unplanned-pregnancies-224643988.html

http://news.yahoo.com/free-birth-control-means-drastic-drops-unplanned-pregnancies-224643988.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/10/05/free-contraceptives-reduce-abortions-unintended-pregnancies-full-stop/

"Second, program enrollees included high-risk populations like women and girls who’ve already used abortion services once -- and are more likely to have a second abortion -- and women and girls who are economically distressed and may not have means to obtain contraceptive products and services.

That’s important because an IUD, including the device and the physician’s service to place it in the uterus, can cost between $800 and $1,000. Since an IUD lasts at least five years, it saves money in the long run over a monthly cost of roughly $15-$25 for pills, but the up-front charge is prohibitive for many women."

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

All those articles you linked to reference the exact same study, the study that you already linked to. A study that I already showed had flawed methods, and even if it didn't, doesn't show what you wanted it to.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

I guess we can agree to disagree then. I mean they all have the exact same headline, so either I go with your interpretation or their written word.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

Okay. I'll continue to read the actual studies, and you can just read the headlines of news articles that cover the studies and then say I'm wrong. Brilliant. Sounds like a good plan.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

I also didn't say what I thought was going to be statistically significant. Well, I sort of did, but not that I thought it wouldn't be. I'm merely pointing out that it isn't clear.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

I just think it isn't clear that it would.

It is clear, you could make more of an attempt to educate yourself.

took about 10 seconds to find this one (http://www.examiner.com/article/free-birth-control-reduces-number-of-abortions-teen-pregnancies)

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

This study does not mean what you think it does. This study is testing whether or not an increase in more expensive forms of birth control would reduce unintended pregnancies. It is saying that methods that don't require, say a daily pill, are more effective than other methods that are less cost prohibitive. These conclusions are consistent with what I said.

I think it would be a likely result, particularly if more expensive forms were free.

However, comparing these results to the national average is erroneous, as the study does not account for woman not taking birth control forms at all. Particular, with young woman, who's hurdles to getting birth control include seeing a doctor, worrying about parents finding out, etc. A study would have to look at how many unintended pregnancies are a result of not using any contraceptives at all. This study did not do this. I also have a few problems with this papers methods. Foremost, they standardized their CHOICE group to the rest of the population, as their demographics were of higher risk as their demographics where 50% black women and median age of 25 (a group at much higher risk). I believe this to be erroneous. These groups are at higher risk because they have less access to birth control for various reasons, a factor that they are 100% eliminating by doing the study, and not simply because of economics reasons. In other words, heavy bias unaccounted for, and even exacerbated.

And yes, I did see this study before I posted the comment you responded to.