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'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.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

I don't think they were wrong if they were offering people IUDs, but anyway.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

If you were trying to convey a point, you utterly failed.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

It's okay, eventually we'll have free contraceptives and cut teen pregnancy even more. This study is only the first of many, so you can hold your skepticism.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

If there are more studies, I hope they are better than this one. But I think a study, if done correctly, will show that there will be a far greater effect on teen pregnancy with increase access to birth control (less doctor visits, less parental oversight, etc), and more education. The majority of pregnancies occur with people not using contraceptives at all, and cost is not the major factor in them not using contraceptives, particularly with teens.

[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.