3 ms·
> I think you might be confusing them with Hobby Lobby, the company that went to the US Supreme Court so they could deny contraceptive coverage in their employe
by wtbob 11y ago
> I think you might be confusing them with Hobby Lobby, the company that went to the US Supreme Court so they could deny contraceptive coverage in their employees' health insurance plans. I won't set foot in a Hobby Lobby now.
They didn't deny contraceptives; they denied (what they believe to be) abortaficients. Big difference.
- mikeash 11y agoThat's not so much a difference as it is an elaboration. The original statement is true, the incorrect belief about how contraceptives work merely explains why.
- wtbob 11y ago> The original statement is true, the incorrect belief about how contraceptives work merely explains why. No, because they are fine with contraceptives which they don't believe are abortaficients. A contraceptive prevents conception (hence the name); other drugs, devices or procedures end lives (whether by preventing implantation or directly killing the fœtus). I think that several of the things they believe are abortaficients aren't, and that there's decent science behind that, but I also can't blame them for not trusting folks who don't apparently care about the distinction between something which prevents contraception and something which prevents implantation. I also don't think that an employer should be made to pay for the health care of employees in general. I eat more than I ought; my health is worse than it should be. Who should foot that bill which results from my choices: my employer or myself?
- mikeash 11y agoI'm well aware of the difference between contraceptives and abortifacients. If you want to correct the original, the correction would be that they oppose some contraceptives. The fact that they oppose them based on ignorance about how they work is, again, not a correction but merely an elaboration.