27 ms·

I have a feeling you already know there's a conservative movement to roll back access to contraception (Burwell v. Hobby Lobby?), but if you needed any further

I have a feeling you already know there's a conservative movement to roll back access to contraception (Burwell v. Hobby Lobby?), but if you needed any further proof, mainstream far-right conservative Clarence Thomas explicitly wrote in the Dobbs opinion: "In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” Thomas wrote in concurrence. “Because any substantive due process decision is 'demonstrably erroneous,' we have a duty to 'correct the error' established in those precedents"' and many sibling posts have cover the current legislative initiatives to restrict birth control. So yes, the far-right does want to roll back access to birth control, the right to marriage equality, the right to privacy between consenting adults. The American far-right wants a big brother government enforcing their personal morality on the whole country, right into our bedrooms and bathrooms.

freedomben 3y ago
The case you cited is not about whether the employees or people in general should have access to contraception. It's about whether an employer has to pay for it as part of their health benefits. That's quite a bit more nuanced than you've made it out to be. I think an employer like Hobby Lobby doing that is gross, but it's not as simple as you've made it sound.
- jquery 3y ago
  Hobby Lobby was about whether the government is allowed to make contraception widely available and easy to access. Nothing nuanced there unless you oppose contraception in general.
  - freedomben 3y ago
    Can you please clarify what Hobby Lobby has to with the whether the government is allowed to make contraception widely available and easy to access? Are you saying for example that the gov wanted to directly provide contraceptives, and Hobby Lobby somehow sued to prevent this? Or are you reframing something like, "Hobby Lobby was about whether the government is allowed to make contraception widely available and easy to access" by forcing private employers to cover/pay/subsidize them?
    - jquery 3y ago
      The government regulates the hell out of employers for the common good. There's nothing special about contraception versus other required benefits *unless you oppose contraception*. As a point of comparison, the Supreme Court wouldn't take up a hypothetical case filed by a company that refused to provide nursing rooms, because Republicans don't oppose breastfeeding at work (yet...)
      - freedomben 3y ago
        Fair point, but another nuance present in this case is religious opposition. Hobby Lobby are Christians and believe that abortion is murder, and that things like Plan B are abortion. We can ridicule this opinion all we want as being absurd, but at the end of the day in the US there's a clear right to freedom of religion. We even exempt Quakers and Jehovah's Witnesses (and probably others) from required military service during times of draft and such, so there is definitely precedent of not forcing people to take actions that violate their religious faith. So, it seems reasonable then that someone could be supportive of Hobby Lobby in this case because they highly value the right to religious freedom, rather than because they "love restricting contraception."

freedomben 3y ago

The case you cited is not about whether the employees or people in general should have access to contraception. It's about whether an employer has to pay for it as part of their health benefits. That's quite a bit more nuanced than you've made it out to be. I think an employer like Hobby Lobby doing that is gross, but it's not as simple as you've made it sound.

jquery 3y ago
Hobby Lobby was about whether the government is allowed to make contraception widely available and easy to access. Nothing nuanced there unless you oppose contraception in general.
- freedomben 3y ago
  Can you please clarify what Hobby Lobby has to with the whether the government is allowed to make contraception widely available and easy to access? Are you saying for example that the gov wanted to directly provide contraceptives, and Hobby Lobby somehow sued to prevent this? Or are you reframing something like, "Hobby Lobby was about whether the government is allowed to make contraception widely available and easy to access" by forcing private employers to cover/pay/subsidize them?
  - jquery 3y ago
    The government regulates the hell out of employers for the common good. There's nothing special about contraception versus other required benefits *unless you oppose contraception*. As a point of comparison, the Supreme Court wouldn't take up a hypothetical case filed by a company that refused to provide nursing rooms, because Republicans don't oppose breastfeeding at work (yet...)
    - freedomben 3y ago
      Fair point, but another nuance present in this case is religious opposition. Hobby Lobby are Christians and believe that abortion is murder, and that things like Plan B are abortion. We can ridicule this opinion all we want as being absurd, but at the end of the day in the US there's a clear right to freedom of religion. We even exempt Quakers and Jehovah's Witnesses (and probably others) from required military service during times of draft and such, so there is definitely precedent of not forcing people to take actions that violate their religious faith. So, it seems reasonable then that someone could be supportive of Hobby Lobby in this case because they highly value the right to religious freedom, rather than because they "love restricting contraception."