lets discuss this hobby lobby bull shit

MinnesotaMomma91 · July 2014

Okay, since its around and were women lets discuss this.

My stance on the issue. Its not the cost of paying for my bc out of pocket that is the issue. Its the fact now my employer has the right to say oh its against my religion for women to be on bc so we wont cover it on the insurance you buy through us.

Um not fucking okay. This sets a bad presidence @jellybean529 and @20thirteen i believe you both touched upon this on facebook but. Now that hobby lobby has set the bar for this. If you work for a corporation owned by jehovahs whitnesses they can say they wont cover blood transfusions, or cancer treatment or whatever.

Im not going to touch the war on women side of thia fight because i think this is bigger then that, i think its more then just a woman problem, its a human problem.

Also for the record. No corporation has the right to dictate the medications i take for my sexual reproductive health. That is between myself, myself, and in a way my sexual partner.

Discuss.

20thirteen · July 2014

I think treating corporations as if they are people is wrong. They are not people. We celebrate religious freedom in this country which means we are free to practice what religion we choose. We don't have laws based on any religion's rules, and for good reason. This decision, to me, sort of makes the decision in NY moot. I don't know if you know that the anti-vaxxers lost a court case regarding their unvaxxed children going to public school. Some anti-vaxxers don't vaccinate due to religious reasons.

Also, I know several women that need BC not as BC but other medical reasons. To deny them coverage is disgusting. What any woman does with her vagina is her own business.

I would also like to point out that Viagra is covered by insurance. Which is some more bullshit.

MinnesotaMomma91 · July 2014

Yes @20thirteen a corporation is not a person. It employs persons. Persons who come from many different socioeconomic, and religious backgrounds. A corporation does NOT have a religion the people it employs probably have many different religions thus for it is not the place of the corporation to dictate the use of bc.

On the note of viagra just like bc it can have medical uses. But its still ns theyll cover viagra but not bc.

And its horse shit to say theyll cover some bc but not others becauae they wont cover bc that are 'abortion pills'.

Ummm there is no 'abortion pill' that i know of.

jellybean529 · July 2014

One of the medications affected is an "abortion pill" in the sense that it's used to terminate an ectopic pregnancy. But other than that, nope, the pill, the IUD, the morning after pill -- NOT ABORTIFACENTS. That's science.

I've pretty much beaten this topic to a bloody pulp today and I'm sick of it. You can't convince the religious right that this ruling is absolute horseshit because they hide behind the bible and ZOMG RELIGIOUS FREEDOM (for corporations, which are NOT PEOPLE...but fuck women, they don't deserve any rights).

- Person or corporation -- You can't cherry pick which laws you follow.

- Everson vs The Board of Education's ruling. Look it up.

- Also, EEOC vs Fremont Christian School

- Saying "go get it free from Planned Parenthood" is impossible for many people due to TRAP laws that caused many PPA facilities to be shut down and for many women these facilities are 100+ miles away.

- Saying "it's not that expensive" is a phrase of privilege. For some women -- $30 a month is a LOT OF MONEY. And certainly the $1,000 an IUD would cost is prohibitive.

- Saying "just go work elsewhere" is also a phrase of privilege. Jobs are not plentiful, and because HL pays more than double the average, a woman who has a job there likely has to weighs the pros and cons of taking a paycut before seeking other employment. We should all be so lucky to pick and choose where we work.

- Your benefits are part of your compensation. You earn them by working. It's part of your pay. Covering ALL men's health issues but selecting certain women's issues for exclusion is pay discrimination and a violation of the EEOC.

- For those that say birth control is not a need -- yes, for many, many women it is. For health issues that would put them in grave danger if they were to become pregnant. For endometriosis. For PCOS.

- This absolutely is a war on women. Birth control is 100% a women's health care issue. Being denied equal access is discrimination and oppression.

- Men are fully covered for viagra and vasectomies under HL's insurance plan.

- HL invests in companies that make the products they refuse to cover.

- HL provided coverage for these prior to the ACA, so really, this issue is about THAT. It's not about their free exercise of religion. It's using women's uteri as a political bargaining chip. (Is uteri the plural of uterus?)

- Condoms are notoriously unreliable and I think the fact that all of us are on SP means we can attest to the fact that the overwhelming burden of an unintended (or even an intended) pregnancy falls on the woman.

I could go on but I've been arguing about this with people all day and I'm tired.

Here's a good article.

https://powderroom.jezebel.com/handy-links-talking-points-for-arguing-about-hobby-lo-1598812424

And a good video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVMJ-y3YooI

MinnesotaMomma91 · July 2014

@jellybean529 and @20thirteen‌

Because you arent dumb asses going ZOMG FREEDOM OF RELIGION WINS!!!!

jellybean529 · July 2014

Don't get me wrong -- I am all for people having the right to express their religious freedom. PEOPLE. People who have hearts and brains and blood pumping through their veins. BUSINESSES do not, despite the Citizens United ruling...a business is not a person.

MinnesotaMomma91 · July 2014

@Jellybean529 i totally agree with you. If you want to get down with your bad self and worship elvis you guckin worship elvis.

But a corporation cant worship. Its a thing a concept. Its a bunch of share holders. Thus for can not have a practicing religion.

jellybean529 · July 2014

Not to mention when you incorporate the owners are personally protected from liabilities incurred by their business...so it is, in and of itself, an entity separate from the people who founded it, regardless of how "closely held" it is (oh, and BTW, 90% of US businesses are "closely held").

jellybean529 · July 2014

And because MY benefits are part of MY compensation -- should I choose to use MY insurance to access these benefits that HL opposes...it's MY benefits. Not theirs.

MinnesotaMomma91 · July 2014

Exactly. It is not the corporations buisness if you(collective you) are on bcp for ovarian cysts or if you are on an iud to prevent pregancy.

And an iud and plan b are not 'abortion pills' they prevent ovulation. Id rather gave access to plan b then not. What if i was on an antibiotic, bcp and having sex with bf and the condom broke. Id rather prevent ovulation through plan b then bring a child we cant afford into the mix.

Ftr i prefer michaels and jo-ann fabrics to hobby lobby. Always have. They have nicer retail without forcing any particular religion down your throat.

jellybean529 · July 2014

I'm a big fan of Michaels. I live much closer to HL but I will gladly drive right on by.

MinnesotaMomma91 · July 2014

I love michaels for their general craft stuff but i loce joanns for fabric and patterns

20thirteen · July 2014

I passed out early yesterday, but I'm glad both of you share the same disgust.

MinnesotaMomma91 · July 2014

Im glad my spelling is legible because i had a few drinks after a put bentley to bed. And now im hung over

EmeraldCity84 · July 2014

Hm, I don't know. From the RELIGIOUS aspect, I think this is wrong and HL shouldn't be able to dictate what is covered based on RELIGION. But, from an insurance/bc standpoint, I am on a bcp that isn't covered by my insurance because of cost/who knows why, and I don't blame my company for this, or say they are denying me my rights to birth control. I strongly believe these are two completely separate issues that everyone is mashing together. Your reproductive health is your responsibility, not your employer. But, obviously, they should not be able to not cover something based on their "beliefs."

MinnesotaMomma91 · July 2014

@Emeraldcity84 you have hit on why women are so outraged. It isnt our insurance companies/policies not covering bcp or a certain kind of bc. Its buisness owners saying they wont cover bcp because their religion is againat them.

And it starts with bc and then its transfusions, and then its medication for mental health

tig594 · July 2014

So, are they only covering voluntary female sterilization because they have to under ACA? I mean, it's the same thing in my opinion.

You know, I almost went ahead with an irreversible procedure that would have prevented me from getting pregnant after my first miscarriage which was a year before DD was conceived. The only reason I didn't do it was because with my current insurance it would have been something like $3500 out of pocket. Man am I glad I didn't do that. It was actually the OB/GYN I was referred to by my regular PCP that pretty much bullied me into it because of my age and health conditions.

Kind of off the subject a bit.

MinnesotaMomma91 · July 2014

Arent you glad you didnt go through with it ;-)

MinnesotaMomma91 · July 2014

https://www.buzzfeed.com/hnigatu/the-realest-tumblr-posts-about-being-a-women?s=mobile
@Jellybean529 @tig594 @20thirteen check this out. I kinda love this. My phone only let me get down to 21 but id love to discuss this with you ladies

20thirteen · July 2014

I loved it. It's sad but so true. Of course, I don't have the same experiences as most girls because I was mostly raised by my father in the crucial time I needed to be raised by a woman. That and I assumed I was ugly (since all my peers told me so) and figured who cares anyway, I'm too ugly to have to worry about bad things and I never did. Which is probably why I didn't see it coming...

jellybean529 · July 2014

OMGOMGOMG #11 IS THE BEST.

This is really sad though. True in so many ways and very sad.

MinnesotaMomma91 · July 2014

@20Thirteen i was bullied like crazy when i was a preteen-early teen. Then all the sudden at 17 i got crazy attractive, moved schools to where people werent private school ass holes. I can honestly say my late teens in public school my life was much easier and that really paved the way for me getting healthy.

@Jellybean529 reading things like this actually makes me really firm in how i plan to raise bentley. I want him to be a femminist and stand up for womens rights

jenn43 · July 2014

MinnesotaMomma91 said:

Okay, since its around and were women lets discuss this. My stance on the issue. Its not the cost of paying for my bc out of pocket that is the issue. Its the fact now my employer has the right to say oh its against my religion for women to be on bc so we wont cover it on the insurance you buy through us. Um not fucking okay. This sets a bad presidence @jellybean529 and @20thirteen i believe you both touched upon this on facebook but. Now that hobby lobby has set the bar for this. If you work for a corporation owned by jehovahs whitnesses they can say they wont cover blood transfusions, or cancer treatment or whatever. Im not going to touch the war on women side of thia fight because i think this is bigger then that, i think its more then just a woman problem, its a human problem. Also for the record. No corporation has the right to dictate the medications i take for my sexual reproductive health. That is between myself, myself, and in a way my sexual partner. Discuss.

Take whatever medications you want. But don't think that having someone else pay for them is a right. No one is stopping you from purchasing your own insurance, or from paying out of pocket.

Or go work for someone else. You have plenty of choices.

The penalty for not offering insurance is much lower than the penalty Hobby Lobby would have faced if they lost the ruling. If they truly did not want to pay for birth control, their best option would thus have been to no longer offer insurance to their employees. Would that have been a better outcome?

20thirteen · July 2014

jellybean529 said:
One of the medications affected is an "abortion pill" in the sense that it's used to terminate an ectopic pregnancy. But other than that, nope, the pill, the IUD, the morning after pill -- NOT ABORTIFACENTS. That's science.

I've pretty much beaten this topic to a bloody pulp today and I'm sick of it. You can't convince the religious right that this ruling is absolute horseshit because they hide behind the bible and ZOMG RELIGIOUS FREEDOM (for corporations, which are NOT PEOPLE...but fuck women, they don't deserve any rights).

- Person or corporation -- You can't cherry pick which laws you follow.
- Everson vs The Board of Education's ruling. Look it up.
- Also, EEOC vs Fremont Christian School
- Saying "go get it free from Planned Parenthood" is impossible for many people due to TRAP laws that caused many PPA facilities to be shut down and for many women these facilities are 100+ miles away.
- Saying "it's not that expensive" is a phrase of privilege. For some women -- $30 a month is a LOT OF MONEY. And certainly the $1,000 an IUD would cost is prohibitive.
- Saying "just go work elsewhere" is also a phrase of privilege. Jobs are not plentiful, and because HL pays more than double the average, a woman who has a job there likely has to weighs the pros and cons of taking a paycut before seeking other employment. We should all be so lucky to pick and choose where we work.
- Your benefits are part of your compensation. You earn them by working. It's part of your pay. Covering ALL men's health issues but selecting certain women's issues for exclusion is pay discrimination and a violation of the EEOC.
- For those that say birth control is not a need -- yes, for many, many women it is. For health issues that would put them in grave danger if they were to become pregnant. For endometriosis. For PCOS.
- This absolutely is a war on women. Birth control is 100% a women's health care issue. Being denied equal access is discrimination and oppression.
- Men are fully covered for viagra and vasectomies under HL's insurance plan.
- HL invests in companies that make the products they refuse to cover.
- HL provided coverage for these prior to the ACA, so really, this issue is about THAT. It's not about their free exercise of religion. It's using women's uteri as a political bargaining chip. (Is uteri the plural of uterus?)
- Condoms are notoriously unreliable and I think the fact that all of us are on SP means we can attest to the fact that the overwhelming burden of an unintended (or even an intended) pregnancy falls on the woman.

I could go on but I've been arguing about this with people all day and I'm tired.
Here's a good article.
https://powderroom.jezebel.com/handy-links-talking-points-for-arguing-about-hobby-lo-1598812424
And a good video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVMJ-y3YooI

MinnesotaMomma91 · July 2014

jenn43 said:

MinnesotaMomma91 said:

Okay, since its around and were women lets discuss this.

My stance on the issue. Its not the cost of paying for my bc out of pocket that is the issue. Its the fact now my employer has the right to say oh its against my religion for women to be on bc so we wont cover it on the insurance you buy through us.

Um not fucking okay. This sets a bad presidence @jellybean529 and @20thirteen i believe you both touched upon this on facebook but. Now that hobby lobby has set the bar for this. If you work for a corporation owned by jehovahs whitnesses they can say they wont cover blood transfusions, or cancer treatment or whatever.

Im not going to touch the war on women side of thia fight because i think this is bigger then that, i think its more then just a woman problem, its a human problem.

Also for the record. No corporation has the right to dictate the medications i take for my sexual reproductive health. That is between myself, myself, and in a way my sexual partner.

Discuss.

Take whatever medications you want. But don't think that having someone else pay for them is a right. No one is stopping you from purchasing your own insurance, or from paying out of pocket.

Or go work for someone else. You have plenty of choices.

The penalty for not offering insurance is much lower than the penalty Hobby Lobby would have faced if they lost the ruling. If they truly did not want to pay for birth control, their best option would thus have been to no longer offer insurance to their employees. Would that have been a better outcome?

This is such elitist bullshit you are spewing. I hope you know that. Not everyone has the luxury of just going and getting another job. In fact most of america right now does not have this option.

Open your eyes and look around. Our economy is still recovering, there isnt jobs abound. It can take a year plus to find a job. If you were looking for a job for more then a year would you risk going through that again.

Not everyone has the option to purchase insurance out of pocket, not everyone has the luxury to just got get another job.

tig594 · July 2014

jenn43 said:

MinnesotaMomma91 said:

Okay, since its around and were women lets discuss this. My stance on the issue. Its not the cost of paying for my bc out of pocket that is the issue. Its the fact now my employer has the right to say oh its against my religion for women to be on bc so we wont cover it on the insurance you buy through us. Um not fucking okay. This sets a bad presidence @jellybean529 and @20thirteen i believe you both touched upon this on facebook but. Now that hobby lobby has set the bar for this. If you work for a corporation owned by jehovahs whitnesses they can say they wont cover blood transfusions, or cancer treatment or whatever. Im not going to touch the war on women side of thia fight because i think this is bigger then that, i think its more then just a woman problem, its a human problem. Also for the record. No corporation has the right to dictate the medications i take for my sexual reproductive health. That is between myself, myself, and in a way my sexual partner. Discuss.

Take whatever medications you want. But don't think that having someone else pay for them is a right. No one is stopping you from purchasing your own insurance, or from paying out of pocket.
Or go work for someone else. You have plenty of choices.

The penalty for not offering insurance is much lower than the penalty Hobby Lobby would have faced if they lost the ruling. If they truly did not want to pay for birth control, their best option would thus have been to no longer offer insurance to their employees. Would that have been a better outcome?

Wow. What a dumbass.

jellybean529 · July 2014

jenn43 said:

MinnesotaMomma91 said:

Okay, since its around and were women lets discuss this. My stance on the issue. Its not the cost of paying for my bc out of pocket that is the issue. Its the fact now my employer has the right to say oh its against my religion for women to be on bc so we wont cover it on the insurance you buy through us. Um not fucking okay. This sets a bad presidence @jellybean529 and @20thirteen i believe you both touched upon this on facebook but. Now that hobby lobby has set the bar for this. If you work for a corporation owned by jehovahs whitnesses they can say they wont cover blood transfusions, or cancer treatment or whatever. Im not going to touch the war on women side of thia fight because i think this is bigger then that, i think its more then just a woman problem, its a human problem. Also for the record. No corporation has the right to dictate the medications i take for my sexual reproductive health. That is between myself, myself, and in a way my sexual partner. Discuss.

Take whatever medications you want. But don't think that having someone else pay for them is a right. No one is stopping you from purchasing your own insurance, or from paying out of pocket.
Or go work for someone else. You have plenty of choices.

The penalty for not offering insurance is much lower than the penalty Hobby Lobby would have faced if they lost the ruling. If they truly did not want to pay for birth control, their best option would thus have been to no longer offer insurance to their employees. Would that have been a better outcome?

Nobody's saying that HL has to "pay for" birth control. Your benefits, including insurance, are part of your compensation package, which you earn by working. It's part of your pay and therefore is YOUR money, not your boss's. Paying for all of men's healthcare but excluding parts of women's is pay discrimination. I think I said this above but it bears repeating.

"Just get another job" is a phrase of privilege. I think I said this above as well. Being able to pick and choose your employer is a luxury. Many women -- especially those in the retail sector -- don't have the privilege of picking and choosing who they work for. Many of them need a job, period, and the fact that HL pays more for the same line of work has a whole other series of implications when having to make that choice.

As far as taking the penalty -- yes, I would argue that would have been a better option because the Pandora's Box opened by this ruling extends far beyond Hobby Lobby's own employees, especially since SCOTUS has now come out and said that the ruling does, in fact, extend beyond just these four forms of birth control and there are already other companies jumping on the bandwagon saying that this ruling also applies to their ability, under the guise of religious freedom, to not have to abide by the EEOC and fire people for being gay because their religion says it's wrong.

MinnesotaMomma91 · July 2014

.

tig594 said:

jenn43 said:

MinnesotaMomma91 said:

Okay, since its around and were women lets discuss this.

My stance on the issue. Its not the cost of paying for my bc out of pocket that is the issue. Its the fact now my employer has the right to say oh its against my religion for women to be on bc so we wont cover it on the insurance you buy through us.

Um not fucking okay. This sets a bad presidence @jellybean529 and @20thirteen i believe you both touched upon this on facebook but. Now that hobby lobby has set the bar for this. If you work for a corporation owned by jehovahs whitnesses they can say they wont cover blood transfusions, or cancer treatment or whatever.

Im not going to touch the war on women side of thia fight because i think this is bigger then that, i think its more then just a woman problem, its a human problem.

Also for the record. No corporation has the right to dictate the medications i take for my sexual reproductive health. That is between myself, myself, and in a way my sexual partner.

Discuss.

Take whatever medications you want. But don't think that having someone else pay for them is a right. No one is stopping you from purchasing your own insurance, or from paying out of pocket.
Or go work for someone else. You have plenty of choices.

The penalty for not offering insurance is much lower than the penalty Hobby Lobby would have faced if they lost the ruling. If they truly did not want to pay for birth control, their best option would thus have been to no longer offer insurance to their employees. Would that have been a better outcome?

Wow. What a dumbass.

I feel this gif is appropriate

Want a personalized experience?

lets discuss this hobby lobby bull shit

Re: lets discuss this hobby lobby bull shit

Choose Another Board

Search Boards