The SCOTUS birth control debate

[LDAHL]

It seems that the idea here is "If you can't afford appropriate birth control on piss-poor Hobby Lobby wages, you should just forgo sex--which is filthy and disgusting, and shouldn't be had at all unless you're trying to conceive, and certainly shouldn't be enjoyed by women anyway."

I think the idea here is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

[JaneV2.0]

Once you let religion get its nose under the tent, you open up a big can of worms (how's that for a mixed metaphor?), as Justice Ginsberg explained. The Scientologists won't have to pay for psychoactive drugs, Seventh-day Adventists for transfusions--a precedent has been set, "narrow reading" notwithstanding. I think--half seriously--we should have a non-believer litmus test for justices.

[catherine]

It seems that the idea here is "If you can't afford appropriate birth control on piss-poor Hobby Lobby wages, you should just forgo sex--which is filthy and disgusting, and shouldn't be had at all unless you're trying to conceive, and certainly shouldn't be enjoyed by women anyway."

I'm a woman and believe in equal rights and never been barefoot and pregnant under the watchful eye of the Master of the House, but I respect individual and corporate POVs about pills that abort potential pregnancies. As the text said, there are other ways to get free/low-cost BC. I don't see anything in this that says that sex is filthy, disgusting or shouldn't be enjoyed by women. Jane, I see your hair standing up when I usually don't. That's cool..a different side of you.

[JaneV2.0]

I'm a woman and believe in equal rights and never been barefoot and pregnant under the watchful eye of the Master of the House, but I respect individual and corporate POVs about pills that abort potential pregnancies. As the text said, there are other ways to get free/low-cost BC. I don't see anything in this that says that sex is filthy, disgusting or shouldn't be enjoyed by women. Jane, I see your hair standing up when I usually don't. That's cool..a different side of you.

I was assiduous in avoiding pregnancy and was startled when my (excellent, union-bargained for) insurance paid for a tubal ligation at 29. I remember when contraception--never mind abortion--was unavailable. I will never take those rights for granted.

No, they rarely come out and say that (you have to read the back pages to find it--or listen to Rush Limbaugh), but I believe that's the subtext in all this male-driven abortion/contraception frenzy. I agree with someone else that it's all about control. (Speaking of control, I see that my generally low profile is working... )

[ApatheticNoMore]

I'm a woman and believe in equal rights and never been barefoot and pregnant under the watchful eye of the Master of the House, but I respect individual and corporate POVs about pills that abort potential pregnancies.

the birth control pill? I've always earned decent money so it's neither here nor there, if EVERYONE earned incomes well into the middle class instead of say service level wages neither would paying for most forms of birth control out of pocket be a major issue (although surgical stuff like tubals would probably still be out of many people's reach. And it is also good side effect free birth control if one is absolutely certain they want permanent surgical birth control).

It annoys me that any woman should choose their birth control method purely because of money (and short term costs at that). What if one was morally opposed to overpopulation, could one then refuse to pay for an employee or spouses third childbirth or something? Maybe we should encourage women even more than men to pursue the careers where the money is - just to make sure they can get the bc they need (if they should ever choose to have heterosexual intercourse that is - nothing wrong with not wanting that for whatever reason - but that's probably not the majority). It seems to follow.

[JaneV2.0]

Good point, Apathetic No More. Most of us here can comment dispassionately on this issue, flush as we seem to be financially. I've never had to support myself on a minimum wage--though I have worked for one a couple of times--and I can't imagine how hard that must be.

[LDAHL]

Once you let religion get its nose under the tent, you open up a big can of worms (how's that for a mixed metaphor?), as Justice Ginsberg explained. The Scientologists won't have to pay for psychoactive drugs, Seventh-day Adventists for transfusions--a precedent has been set, "narrow reading" notwithstanding. I think--half seriously--we should have a non-believer litmus test for justices.

I think this is more a case of government sticking it's nose into religion's tent. This issue wouldn't have arisen absent an attempt to effectively nationalize health care.

[JaneV2.0]

I think this is more a case of government sticking it's nose into religion's tent. This issue wouldn't have arisen absent an attempt to effectively nationalize health care.

Without some nationalization of health care, it's just a matter of time until only the wealthy will be able to afford it. Culling the herd, eh?

[LDAHL]

Without some nationalization of health care, it's just a matter of time until only the wealthy will be able to afford it. Culling the herd, eh?

The Bill of Rights exists to protect us against just that kind of ends-justifies-the-means mindset. Even noble or worthwhile ends.

When you daydream about ideological litmus tests for the Court (all those Catholics, really!), I think you demonstrate the wisdom of the founders in creating all those inconveniences for arbitrary power.

[JaneV2.0]

It seems that the idea here is "If you can't afford appropriate birth control on piss-poor Hobby Lobby wages..."

After further reading, I must retract "piss-poor Hobby Lobby wages." As it turns out, their full time sales personnel can make fifteen dollars an hour--so pretty good for retail. Which doesn't change anything else...