The Center for American Progress reports:
The Supreme Court's recent Hobby Lobby decision, which allowed some for-profit companies to claim a religious exemption to Obamacare's contraception mandate, has sparked a heated debate over the definition of religious liberty and its role in modern society. At this point, even a Satantic cult has decided to weigh in.
The Satanic Temple - a faith community that describes itself as facilitating "the communication and mobilization of politically aware Satanists, secularists, and advocates for individual liberty" - has launched a new campaign seeking a religious exemption to certain anti-abortion laws that attempt to dissuade women from ending a pregnancy. The group says they have deeply held beliefs about bodily autonomy and scientific accuracy, and those beliefs are violated by state-level "informed consent" laws that rely on misleading information about abortion risks.
Now that the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, the Satanists point out, it strengthens their own quest to opt out of laws related to women's health care that go against their religious liberty. "Because of the respect the Court has given to religious beliefs, and the fact that our our beliefs are based on best available knowledge, we expect that our belief in the illegitimacy of state mandated 'informational' material is enough to exempt us, and those who hold our beliefs, from having to receive them," a spokesperson for the organization said in a statement.
The Satanic Temple, sometimes referred to as "the nicest Satanic cult in the world," falls somewhere between satire, performance art, and activism. The group says its central mission is to "encourage benevolence and empathy among all people, reject tyrannical authority, advocate practical common sense and justice, and be directed by the human conscience to undertake noble pursuits guided by the individual will." It has a set of seven tenets that closely track with humanism. Typically, wherever issues of church and state are overlapping, the Satanic Temple isn't far behind.
[...]
the Satanic Temple is turning its attention to "campaigns to assert our religious protection for women with health needs that are being complicated by unreasonable laws," focusing on the abortion-related legislation that goes against science.
Related Stories
This morning the US Supreme Court released a 5-4 decision that declares employers may object, on religious grounds, to providing contraception as part of their health care packages to employees.
RT reports that:
The incarcerated co-founder of torrent tracker site The Pirate Bay, Peter Sunde, has found a new way to be a thorn in the back of Swedish authorities holding him. He demands that his religious needs are met with a visit from a Kopimist priest.
Earlier Sunde complained that the Västervik Norra prison, where he is serving a term for assisting in copyright infringement, can't accommodate his vegetarian diet choice, a problem that has already resulted in him losing 5 kg in weight.
The Church of Kopimism (wikipedia) is a peculiar phenomenon. Founded by a group of self-styled internet pirates four years ago, it holds sacred the copying of information and people's right to do it without restrictions. It even declared keyboard shortcuts for copy and paste commands Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V as its holy symbols.
In December 2011, at its third attempt it was officially recognized as a religion in Sweden and now enjoys all the legal protection that goes with the status.
So, is this a case of religious oppression?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by kaszz on Wednesday July 30 2014, @06:42AM
Now that first hole has been revealed it's almost like a zip-lock to unlock the rest. How about a religion that believes something else that needs exemption ....?
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday July 30 2014, @06:54AM
Don't worry, only Christian religions can have worshippers with Strong Enough Beliefs.
Citizens United and Hobby Lobby ... Where are the right-wing crowds screaming about activist judges now?
(Score: 2) by gman003 on Wednesday July 30 2014, @12:43PM
My devout, deeply-held Pastafarian beliefs require that I engage in piracy - actual, naval piracy, not that pussy Kopimist shit - as part of our holy war against global warming. I am now suing the United States Navy and Coast Guard for trampling all over my religious rights.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Sir Garlon on Wednesday July 30 2014, @02:47PM
Piracy has been illegal longer than either the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Unites States government have been in existence. I do not think your changes of winning a lawsuit are good.
On the other hand, Congress has the explicit power to issue letters of marque and reprisal [wikipedia.org] so you could become a privateer. Ask your Congressman for a letter of marque and reprisal to attack and seize Taliban ships. Failure to issue letters of marque at all is both repressive of the Pastafarian faith, and blatant neglect of one of Congress's enumerated duties, so I think it would give you a stronger case.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 2) by mrider on Wednesday July 30 2014, @02:50PM
That's just twisted enough to work. :)
Doctor: "Do you hear voices?"
Me: "Only when my bluetooth is charged."
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday July 30 2014, @03:32PM
"oops sorry, I thought your cargo ship was Taliban. But thanks for the 2000 widescreen TV sets!" ;)
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday July 30 2014, @08:07PM
I'm not sure that the FSM would accept a privateer as an adequate substitute for a pirate.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by chewbacon on Wednesday July 30 2014, @05:40PM
I think you have to be recognized as a religion. I don't know the specifics of it but it is why you don't see every criminal court case getting dismissed per religious grounds.
This is what happens when you ignore separation of church and state. Now everyone wants a slice of it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by nitehawk214 on Wednesday July 30 2014, @06:04PM
Letting the government decide what is and is not a religion is a gateway to disaster.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 30 2014, @06:11PM
Satanism is a recognized religion in the US military and most US state penitentiaries. (not a joke)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 31 2014, @05:32AM
As it should be. Despite the claims of many, the U.S. is not a theocracy and can not be under it's constitution.
(Score: 5, Funny) by mendax on Wednesday July 30 2014, @06:50AM
I would think the Satanists would be anti-abortion. After all, they need babies to use in their human sacrifices.
(Yes, I know, bad taste. Too bad there aren't any "mod" points for that!)
But to get serious for a moment, these Satanists have a point. If they truly believes that control over one's body is a fundamental religious right, it seems appropriate for them them seek that religious exemption. But somehow I suspect that courts won't see it this way, something which is truly unfortunate. A ruling in favor of the Satanists would demonstrate the foolishness of the various courts' views which say generally laws that affect religious practice are unconstitutional. The intent of the Founders was to prevent the government from favoring one religion over another, not to prohibit the government from doing something that might have some effect upon religious practice but is a greater public good.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Wednesday July 30 2014, @07:16AM
Well, I had quite big troubles in finding a religious faith that would not contradict my ethical/moral choices. This settles it: from now on I'm a Satanic Templar (of the FSM rite, harr-harr).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Lagg on Wednesday July 30 2014, @07:25AM
Well since stupid people tend to think that a fetus has a soul /or is alive you could call it the easiest human sacrifice in the world! Since this is clearly a satirical religion intended to irritate bible thumpers specifically I'd say it can be considered human sacrifice in that context. And honestly, talking about a fetus is much like talking about any other kind of non-organ part of the body. Call it medical waste if you want.
But to also be serious yeah they do have a good point but no matter what the outcome of this is the foolishness of the whole thing will still be demonstrated. It rises from Christian favoritism and gross misinterpretation of the constitution, which says that religion can't influence state and state can't influence religion in a nutshell. For some reason these people think that they deserve /or have a right to have every accomadation for their own set up beliefs. It's pathetic really.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 30 2014, @08:26AM
Well, technically it *is* alive. Even mono-cellular beings are alive (e.g. cells, viruses, ...).
I thought the debate was about when it starts being a Human and/or when it gets consciousness (whatever those mean) ?
(full disclosure: European atheist, with a pro-abortion bias)
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 30 2014, @09:18AM
"A 12-week old foetus is not a human being, it's just a little bunch of congregated cells, m'kay? You're not a human being until you're in my phone book."
- Bill Hicks
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday July 30 2014, @03:57PM
Um, by that logic I'm probably still not a human being at 25. Do they put you in a phone book if you only have a cell phone?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04 2014, @06:13AM
...count as an an abortion?
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday July 30 2014, @08:14PM
Depends rather a lot on what you mean human...which, AFAIKT, has no consensus definition except in very broad terms. Any time you start getting specific, you find as much disagreement as agreement...and, depending on the level of detail, sometimes more.
E.g., is it an organism? Well, partially. If it were an organism, would the organism be human? Well, I think so. Is it a human? ... The only reasonable answer is "probably partially", but there's a demand for either yes or no.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by BsAtHome on Wednesday July 30 2014, @09:45AM
A virus is technically not "alive" because it cannot self-reproduce nor metabolize. It needs a host to reproduce and metabolize. The host being a living cell.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday July 30 2014, @10:21AM
Technically, a virus is not a "cellular" being. Since 1935 [wikipedia.org] it is not even considered a living being, but a complex biochemical (which can be crystallized and which remains active after crystallization - someone got 1/3 of a Nobel prize [wikipedia.org] in chemistry for it)
</pedantic>
Well, one wonders what's so special about consciousness?
In my opinion (and looking around what the conscious beings do with this world), I'd rather say consciousness is overrated.
</cynical>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 30 2014, @01:24PM
I wouldn't call you pedantic on this. I (GP AC) was simply not aware that viruses were not living beings and I'm glad I learned something new today. Thanks :-)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 30 2014, @08:12AM
I was expecting them to demand an exception to the age restrictions. If you put the limit for legal abortions at five years old, you can do human sacrifice legally.
And everybody can see the stupidity of religious exceptions to the law.
(Score: 2) by mendax on Wednesday July 30 2014, @08:29AM
Five years old? I suspect my mother wishes at times she could do a postpartum abortion on me given the angst I sometimes cause her.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 3, Funny) by mrider on Wednesday July 30 2014, @03:47PM
"I brought you into this world! I can take you out and make another one just like you!" Bill Cosby
Doctor: "Do you hear voices?"
Me: "Only when my bluetooth is charged."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 30 2014, @08:34AM
I would expect that, even for the most devote Satanist mom, keeping a baby in the womb for five years (+ 9 months) will become uncomfortable at some point, no ?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 30 2014, @09:07AM
375 days (12.5 months) is the record. [newhealthguide.org]
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 30 2014, @11:26AM
It is hard to imagine a court finding in favor of the Satanic Temple in this case. ST is asking that their members not be subjected information/propaganda/lies about the abortion procedure prior to receiving an abortion.
It is certainly not ok to ban telling people information, even in a religious context, or anyone who encourages a Christian Scientist to seek medical treatment would be "guilty." The state will surely argue, as the relevant law does, that there is a compelling, medical need for patients to be aware of the risks and benefits of any medical procedure, and the "burden" of hearing even heretical content does not impose undue constraint of their religion.
This is the same rationale that was used in the Hobby Lobby case, where the court decided that making women pay out-of-pocket or through other, charitable programs for the four, specific, infrequently-used 'emergency contraception' methods was a small burden for the few women affected.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by opinionated_science on Wednesday July 30 2014, @01:06PM
I am sort of hoping this is a way to highlight the fundamental ridiculous nature of religion in general. Christians need a bad guy, so if Christianity gets and exemption, so does the bad guy. You couldn't make this stuff up, only of course, someone did...
Popcorn all round?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 30 2014, @01:48PM
Ok now that you have your rant out of your system. They are asking them to override an informational law just for them. This law gives information to people. Now I do not know about you but when I was 14 I was not exactly bright. In fact I made bad decisions. Is it so horrible to say 'here is the medical procedure you will be going thru'. Also your parents should be in on this. Because frankly most 14 year olds make seriously bad decisions. Hey look your preggers and 14 and your bf just ditched you but you thought he loved you the most and would never leave you. You can look no further than the situation they are in and see they make bad decisions. Yeah lets involve at least maybe someone who has some sense (not saying they do but at least it can be a family decision).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 31 2014, @05:39AM
Well we already have precedent that people can become exempt from federal law based on their religion, so unless the U.S. is going to become a theocracy and/or repeal the 14th amendment, it has to apply to all religions.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday July 30 2014, @01:57PM
"If they truly believes that control over one's body"
That's the problem. The ruling was about a corporate employer having control over their female employees bodies, not their own bodies. A corporation's legal obligations WRT abortions analogy would be existing laws, what few there are, WRT downsizing of employees. I'm not sure what a no-compete agreement analogizes to.
Anyway a much more appropriate piece of performance art WRT having control over a woman's body, would be Biblical Old Testament style slavery. If in the good old days they owned female slaves, right out of the old testament, I should be able to own some "Princess Leia slave girls" for religious reasons, without any atheistic governmental interference.
(Score: 2) by Leebert on Wednesday July 30 2014, @05:44PM
No it wasn't. The employer couldn't tell the employee to not use contraceptives or to not have an abortion. The ruling was over forcing the employer to pay for it indirectly.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday July 30 2014, @08:42PM
Only by ignoring how our economic system works.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Ethanol-fueled on Wednesday July 30 2014, @02:22PM
I read bits of the Satanic Bible in high school because my then-girlfriend was edgy as fuck. A few years ago I dated a real practicing Satanist.
The downsides to Satanism is that, like other religions, they have silly weird little rituals and incantations -- but it's no different than a Catholic mass or getting on a rug and praying to the Moon God 5 times a day. Satanism is also like other religions in the sense that violence (human sacrifices, etc.) is considered fringe rather than mainstream and in face the Satanic bible preaches that you do no harm to others.
One of the core tenets of Satanism is that, instead of feeling guilt for being a human, you should relish humanity and hedonism while respecting others. In my opinion, weird chants and rituals aside, this makes it superior to the three monotheistic religions of the Middle-East, which teach you to be under control of guilt and scripture rather than appreciating your own uniqueness and humanity.
The Satanist I dated had two kittens (and no, we didn't sacrifice them to Satan), and worked customer service for a medical insurance company, which implies some kind of adjustment -- certainly better adjusted than those weirdo robot-like Mormons I see around here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 30 2014, @03:15PM
So when you include the "weird chants and rituals" where does it rank. After all that is a part of it.
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Wednesday July 30 2014, @03:44PM
She was good in the sack so he won't rank it less because of your stupid comment. Hedonism is part of it, probably the reason he liked her. Do you think he would turn down the chick that said "baby, satan says I need to get laid tonight." Now that is some chanting and rituals.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday July 30 2014, @08:24PM
FWIW, Satanism isn't a unitary cult. It's much more like Christianity might have been before the Gospels were written down. No central authority. Some versions of it, in fact, are quite vicious. Others are rather benign. Some are starkly authoritarian, some are anarchistic.
The only characteristic that seems uniform is rejection of (some form of) currently constituted authority.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by cykros on Wednesday July 30 2014, @05:00PM
Eh, in my experience, having done plenty of religious studies work both informally as well as at an academic level (yea, I might be the only liberal arts major on this site...), there isn't much human sacrifice to be found among Satanists. Unless we decide to lump Aleister Crowley in with Satanists (which he may or may not take offense to depending on who he happened to be around at the time), at which point "human sacrifice" becomes just a euphemism for either masturbation or gay sex (in Victorian England, it was far more societally acceptable to say you engaged in child sacrifice than to admit to having gay sex or *gasp* masturbating). Besides, everyone knows that it's the Jews that sacrifice Christian children at Passover... [wikipedia.org]
In any case, I wouldn't entirely rule out the possibility that the Satanists have some chance of winning here. It wouldn't be the first time. And while I usually find the all too common self importance vibe from Satanists offputting, I do have to say, they're a GREAT force for reigning things in when fundamentalist Christians decide to run away with the government... A nice example from a few years ago [washingtonpost.com]. And another [aattp.org].
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 30 2014, @07:27AM
my religion expressly forbids the payment of taxes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 30 2014, @11:14AM
Back in the nineteenth century, the Mormons tried arguing that polygamy was part of their religion. They got slapped down hard by the Supremes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._United_States [wikipedia.org]), who held that religious freedom covers opinions and beliefs but not actions, which are the realm of laws. You can probably argue an analogy to the conscientious objector positions later, but sooner or later the Mormon decision is what your opponents will argue.
(Score: 2) by compro01 on Wednesday July 30 2014, @02:30PM
Yes, but that case was long before the Clinton-era Religious Freedom Restoration Act [wikipedia.org], which requires the courts to apply strict scrutiny [wikipedia.org] to laws of general applicability that intersect with matters of religion and is the entire basis (along with some absurd stretching to make the category "entities having religious freedoms" cover closely-held corporations) for the Hobby Lobby ruling.
If Reynolds were replayed under the current legal and judicial climate, I'd personally say they'd have a fair to middling chance of success with getting religiously-based polygamy made legal.
(Score: 2) by WizardFusion on Wednesday July 30 2014, @11:19AM
There was a loophole in the UK laws about religions and tax - something about you only had to meet once a week to qualify.
Because of this loads of students set up groups that did this and didn't pay any tax.
This was going back a few years now though
(Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Wednesday July 30 2014, @01:17PM
Funny story about that: Some guy in Massachusetts refused to pay his taxes because it would go towards war, and he was a pacifist. He was promptly thrown in jail, and a good friend of his went to visit him and said "What are you doing in there?" Without skipping a beat, the guy replied "What are you doing out there?" The guy who was in jail wrote a nice little essay about his reasoning and his experience of this.
This story seems utterly insignificant, until you realize the guy in jail was named Henry David Thoreau, his buddy was Ralph Waldo Emerson, and the essay he wrote was entitled Civil Disobedience, which specifically inspired Leo Tolstoy, Mohandes Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and quite a few other non-violent activist types.
Of course, your average Bible-thumping Christian can't claim that religion forbids payment of taxes, since Mark 12:14-17 clearly states otherwise.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 30 2014, @07:10PM
Aye, one of my favorite quotes to annoy many in church management with as it can be used to help show that God has no use for money. As far as tithing goes he wants the results of your labor given to help those that need the help. If you farm then give a portion of your produce, grain, etc to the hungry as well as helping with community gardens. If a rancher then give some meat to the hungry. If you are a carpenter, painter, etc then help the injured, infirmed, aged, just poor etc to repair or build housing and/or provide direction to the unskilled to gain the skills doing the same. Fishermen can teach others to fish you might say while dealing with the related government restrictions.
Money is an intermediary tool and a scapegoat/dodge/etc. Everyone should help their local minister, deacons, etc come to the same conclusion, though it may well infuriate the hell out of them. Those that don't agree eventually, are probably in the wrong position and you should take that into consideration for future related decisions.
Obviously many non-believers actually believe in the above, therein provide of their time and produce where it helps appropriately, rather then handing coin over to often mismanaged and corrupt charities.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday July 30 2014, @08:26PM
So you're a sky-clad Jain?
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by tathra on Wednesday July 30 2014, @07:38AM
legally, corporations are people, and the precedent now exists that they can become exempt from federal law based on religion, therefore either people can become exempt from federal law based on their religion or corporations arent people and cant have religious beliefs and nobody can be exempt from federal law based on their religion.
unfortunately there's a massive double standard in how "people" are treated: corporations get all the benefits but face few if any of the downsides - effective immortality, will never be jailed or punished any more than a slap on the wrist regardless of their crimes, less tax burden and more government aid, etc. this trend of unfairly treating corporations as a higher class of citizens than real people will likely become even stronger as a result of this case since there's no way the courts will rule in the satanists' favor, because "OMG, SATANISTS!" if nothing else, probably claiming some shit like "that applies to corporations only". still, its important that as many people as possible try to take advantage of this precedent as often as possible because of how absurd it is. i cant wait to see how outlets which proclaimed the hobby lobby ruling as "important to religious freedom" talk about this one. i have a feeling they wont be supporting the religious freedom of any non-christian religions.
frankly i'm surprised it took this long for somebody to jump on this. it'll be interesting to watch the ensuing shitstorm over the next couple years as we either get a return to sanity or things get way worse as we turn into a theocracy.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bradley13 on Wednesday July 30 2014, @08:11AM
No, that's not it at all. There is a lot of misinformation about the Hobby Lobby decision. There are two key points:
1. Hobby Lobby is privately owned. The court determined that the owners of the company - people - have the right to their religious beliefs. They, as private people, cannot be forced to do something against their beliefs. They do not lose their rights just because some actions run indirectly through a corporation that they fully own. This does not apply to publicly held corporations
2. Not subsidizing something is different from prohibition. The fact that Hobby Lobby will not pay for certain types of contraception does not prevent employees from using whatever kind of contraception they please. They just can't expect the company to pay for it.
IANAL, but I expect that this decision relies on the fact that contraception is not an essential part of healthcare. If you have to buy your own condoms, or diaphragms, or morning-after pills, or whatever - this has no impact on your health per se. Had the question been whether to pay for life-saving surgery, the decision would have been different.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by DrkShadow on Wednesday July 30 2014, @08:31AM
The supreme court, I believe, has previously determined that corporations are people. Further, given Hobby Lobby is a _corporation_, is is immune from imprisonment and many, many other punishments. The _people_ behind this corporation are likewise immune from such punishments because they are protected by a limited-liability _corporation_. You're skipping across the line to make it appear as though it's something it's not. The supreme court recently, which is what allows for this precendent, has been with you in declaring the people behind corporations to be the full corporation while the corporation is not fully (even partially?) the people behind it.
This isn't about not subsidising things. This is about legal requirements, such as sanitary kitchens, clean drinking water, and safe working conditions.
You could say that cholesterol medication is the same. Cholesterol is a naturally-occuring, normal fat that is used to repair tissues. The fact is, contraception _is_ part of _essential_ healthcare. I'm surprised you didn't call out that these organizations are "insurance" organizations. Despite that, they haven't been insurance for a long, long time -- since they discovered that it's cheaper and more profitable to provide _healthcare_. Further, Hobby Lobby is _not_ the ones providing the healthcare, they're providing a group plan for the healthcare through a _third_ corporation. So why are you complaining? Hobby Lobby isn't even providing payment for this.
There is, indeed, misinformation going around about Hobby Lobby, corporations, this ruling, insurance, and healthcare.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 30 2014, @09:32AM
It is.
Specifically, the legal requirement to subsidise contraception.
(Score: 2) by Leebert on Wednesday July 30 2014, @06:13PM
Oh? Where exactly did the Supreme Court make such a determination?
If you're referring to Citizens United vs. FEC, they made no such determination, as much as people like to claim otherwise.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 30 2014, @11:46AM
Contraception is an essential part of healthcare. The decision relies on the fact that they were seeking exemption from a very limited set of infrequently used contraceptive methods, each of which employees can still obtain outside of their health insurance plans. The insurance plan still covers "the pill" (but not condoms) and other conception-regulating treatments. The exemption is for medicines taken after sex and for devices believed to work by preventing implantation of a fertilized embryo.
So the decision has been blown out of proportion: it's not like they're forcing women to get pregnant (which is the subtext of much of the protest), although they certainly will increase the probability, across a large population. That said, I think it's a poor decision, because it's silly to imagine that the owners' blanket contract with the insurance company should be negotiated to the level of individual doctor-patient decisions. It's not unlike me telling Papa John's that I'm only going to pay $7.89 for my pizza because I don't want any of my money being used for lobbying.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by opinionated_science on Wednesday July 30 2014, @01:14PM
IANAL, but I expect that this decision relies on the fact that contraception is not an essential part of healthcare.
IANAL-either, but this is the nub of the whole issue. The risk is entirely the womans in all cases, and contraception is very much a part of their medical care (some women can lose a lot of blood during menses) . This is what is so mad about men trying to legislate exclusively for women, since it is physically impossible for a man to be affected which is surely a "conflict of disinterest".
Financially however...
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday July 30 2014, @04:10PM
It might be physically impossible for a man to get pregnant, but that's not the only purpose of contraceptives. Some are also intended to prevent STD transmission.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Wednesday July 30 2014, @09:39PM
Well to many women, pregnancy poses a major health risk. I agree there are definitely worse diseases...
The major intent however,is not really the issue as the risk is still the womans's, even including infection. This legislation is fundamentally sexist, as it penalizes ~50% of the population...
(Score: 2) by tathra on Thursday July 31 2014, @05:21AM
ok, so, by the hobby lobby ruling people can be exempt from federal law based on their religious beliefs. that means the satanists' case will be a slam dunk since their beliefs are that people must have the most accurate scientific information available.
the key point of that hobby lobby ruling is that they became exempt from federal law based on the owners' religion. plain and simple, that is fact. so it must apply to all religions under the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. if christians can be exempt from federal law based on their religion, everyone can, else its not equal protection.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by aristarchus on Wednesday July 30 2014, @08:32AM
The greatest sacrifice is to lay down one's life for another. So if you feel like being nailed to a cross, or condemned to a live in a cubicle, or whatever. Of course, the best take on this was in the movie _Constantine_: "it is the sacrifice" whereat Keanu flips off the devil. Hmmm. Doesn't seem right. What with all the help and so on. And of course, this is something that Republicans, like Satan, can never understand. "Someone would do something to help someone else, with no payback? Insanity!" Or sanctity. Can we claim that as a deduction on our taxes?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Wednesday July 30 2014, @02:06PM
... Republicans.... "Someone would do something to help someone else, with no payback? Insanity!"
Aka most modern Christians, since Republican is pretty much equal to Christian. I like the non-modern-Christians and it helps me tolerate their beliefs. Christians used to believe in stuff like charity and helping the poor and love thy neighbor and all that. The moderns are in complete opposition to those goals. They'd probably get more converts or at least have fewer people leave if they weren't such jerks compared to the much nicer atheists, buddhists, practically everyone else.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 30 2014, @04:32PM
As a Christian, unfortunately, I must agree with you. More and more, I am finding myself utterly gobsmacked by the churlish manner in which quite a few of my co-religionists have been behaving.
To that I can only add a hearty "Amen".
Indeed. I can only say, please forgive us. We are only human.
(Score: 2) by Leebert on Wednesday July 30 2014, @06:17PM
We're not all crazy, brother. Just keep representing sanity and advocating Christianity among Christians who get it wrong. It's a little face-palmy sometimes talking to some of them, but I've seen good results in being gentle and consistent with fellow believers. (Which, by the way, I can only attribute to God because I suck at convincing people of things...)
I even had a young-earther concede to me recently that they could possibly allow for old earth. Breakthrough!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 31 2014, @05:58AM
I really like Christians, in the traditional sense of "those who follow the teachings of Christ". They are usually amazing people. What I can't stand are "Churchies", people who claim to be Christian but instead engage in idol worship, selfishness, violence, and basically do everything opposite of Christ's teachings, but go to church every Sunday and think that be enough.
True Christians need to come up with a new name for themselves to separate them from the disgusting hypocrites who smear their religion's good name every day in everything they do. Or better yet, just move on to the latest Abrahamic religion of Baha'i, which encompasses the teachings of Moses, Jesus, Mohammad, Buddha, Zoroaster, and several other ancient prophets. As long as the majority of people claiming to be Christian believe that Jesus was white, and that Jesus approved of Capitalism, it will be nothing more than a blasphemous joke.
(Score: 2) by Leebert on Thursday July 31 2014, @10:11AM
Perhaps we need a certification program? "Certified TruChristian®"? :)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 30 2014, @05:58PM
Old-fashioned Christians like Pope Urban 2 and Cortes? The truth is that whenever Christianity (or really any religion) gets too close to worldly, government power, it gets corrupted by humans trying to leverage power in the afterworld to further their worldly aims. That's the whole motivation behind the separation of church and state: they don't go well together, and both end up the worse.
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Thursday July 31 2014, @05:05AM
I think he meant old fashioned Christians like Jesus.
/shredofsarcasm
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Geezer on Wednesday July 30 2014, @09:13AM
If, in whatever form, any super-beings actually exist, he/she/it/they must surely be disgusted at how the blind zealotry of religious nutjobs (not to mention the greed and avarice of religious leaders)is often expressed through contradictory behaviors. Wars, pogroms, crusades, legal and social discrimination, political infighting, and general stupidity pervade the entire history of religion.
The book/movie was wrong. The gods must not be crazy. They must be shaking their collective heads in bemused pathos.
The only real solution here is a Constitutional amendment to clearly state that the government shall not recognize any religious belief or activity for any purpose of governance.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday July 30 2014, @10:27AM
The only solution to what? To stop the gods from shaking their collective heads? Or to stop the blind zealotry of religious nutjobs?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 30 2014, @10:42AM
Opere citato, pedant.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 30 2014, @10:31AM
God must be Cthulhu. Just look at its crazy followers.
(Score: 2) by hubie on Wednesday July 30 2014, @11:54AM
Lord, what fools these mortals be!
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday July 30 2014, @04:31PM
The reason that we keep having these battles is not that we don't have a Constitutional amendment clearly stating that they can't do this (namely, the Establishment Clause). The issue is that a significant percentage of the American public wishes to ignore the very clear rules on the subject to give their Christian beliefs a privileged place in American government.
Some of those people are completely unaware that somewhere around 1/4 to 1/3 of Americans do not identify as Christian. Another significant group is well aware of that and believes it is their religious duty to use the power of government, whether legal or not, to reverse that trend.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Geezer on Wednesday July 30 2014, @05:52PM
I believe it is the vagueness of the Establishment clause, so often abused by courts and legislatures, that necessitates an amendment to make it crystal clear, in plain language, to all and sundry that religion is of no concern to the government, pro or con.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 30 2014, @04:11PM
It's like wanting the right to bear arms but complaining it's so terribly discriminatory that your employer only wants to pay for certain guns and ammo (and they don't prevent you from buying your weapon of choice with your own money).
(Score: 1) by lonestar on Wednesday July 30 2014, @09:45PM
YES! Someone gets it.
There is no ban on abortion. Get an abortion a week if you want it, so long as you pay for it.
What a fucking concept.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 31 2014, @06:12AM
Actually, there is in 31 states. See this page [wikipedia.org] for more info. There's also idiots constantly fighting to try to overturn Roe. v. Wade.
Where, in the back-alley clinic where you'll probably get an infection and die? Or should they just try it themselves with a wire coat hanger if even the back-alley clinics don't exist nearby? Prevention is far cheaper and safer, so how about we go that route instead?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 31 2014, @06:15AM
I apologize, I was counting in the "before 'Roe'" column, but there are still some states where abortion is banned entirely, so the rest of the post still stands, just lower the "31" to the appropriate number.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 30 2014, @06:09PM
This would have come in *really* handy back in the 60s.
- Rosemary Woodhouse