[Vision2020] Birth Control

Tue Jul 15 10:03:52 PDT 2014

Well, I'm not a lawyer, but it's my understanding that the key aspects were
that they are a small close-knit groups of people who hold similar beliefs
(in this case, a set of Christian beliefs) and who professed together that
the corporation they formed would follow similar values.  If all that is
true, I see no reason why they can't be considered as one individual when
it comes to expressing those very specific views, despite the fact that
they enjoy a shield from personal financial liability from the corporation.

Obviously this doesn't mean that they can buy one bus pass and all ride the
bus as one individual, or that they can collectively cast one vote for
President.  But when it comes to objecting to being forced to provide an
insurance plan for a few specific types of birth control that directly
conflict with the values that they all hold and that they intended their
corporation to hold, then I think that it is reasonable to treat them as
one individual that holds those beliefs and that they should be able to
object that plan.

Here is an interesting essay I found online on the Harvard Law Review
website that addresses this:
http://harvardlawreview.org/2014/05/hobby-lobby-corporate-law-and-the-theory-of-the-firm/

Paul

On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 8:43 AM, Sunil <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Paul,
>
> I don't think you've responded when I've asked this before:
>
> Why should we treat corporations like flesh and blood people in this
> regard? Why should we award First Amendment religious rights to fictitious
> persons that exist in part to shield the personal financial liability of
> the owners?
>
> The owners are flesh and blood people, and we recognize their First
> Amendment rights. Why should they get extra rights for their corporations?
>
> Sunil
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 08:12:39 -0700
> From: paul.rumelhart at gmail.com
> To: v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm
> CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Birth Control
>
> You're complaining because some employees of Hobby Lobby cannot get four
> types of birth control for free and yet you are calling people on being
> "steeped in unearned privilege"?  Not to mention denigrating them because
> of their race and gender, while simultaneously being insensitive to obesity.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I think that making it easier to obtain access to
> birth control, especially specific methods a woman can control, is a good
> thing.  I'm just sensitive to the religious beliefs of the people in
> question in this one narrow case - especially since they equate those
> specific methods with the murder of children.  They appear to me to be
> sincere in their beliefs.  It seems a small price to pay to accommodate
> them, in my opinion.
>
> Anyway, I agree with Sunil on this one.  The two parties are more alike
> than they are different, and they both have the system tied down pat.
> Still, if you are not too scared of "throwing your vote away", I would
> recommend taking a look at third parties.  There are many of them, and you
> may even find one that more aligns with your thinking than you think.
> That's what I've found from looking into them, YMMV.
>
> Paul
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 9:18 PM, Saundra Lund <v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm>
> wrote:
>
> Written by yet another fat white male steeped in unearned privilege with a
> tired old twist:  he thinks it’s his place to tell the rest of us what the
> “real issues of the day” are.
>
>
>
> Bully for him that he thinks birth control pills are cheap at $50/month.
> That may be the case with the entitled group he runs with, but it certainly
> isn’t the case for many, many women for whom $50/month may as well be
> $500/month.
>
>
>
> Somehow, I doubt he’d be so dismissive of the concerns of the many were it
> his religious freedom and Constitutional protections that were being taken
> away.
>
>
>
>
>
> [image:
> https://scontent-b-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/t1.0-9/10314553_10152256930049639_6700374872161978373_n.png]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Saundra
>
> Moscow, ID
>
>
>
> Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.
>
> ~ Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:
> vision2020-bounces at moscow.com] *On Behalf Of *Tom Hansen
> *Sent:* Monday, July 14, 2014 6:52 PM
> *To:* lfalen
> *Cc:* vision 2020
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Birth Control
>
>
>
> Courtesy of the July 12, 2014 edition of the Moscow-Pullman Daily News.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
>
> Reality-Based LeftyHis View: Don't fall for the distraction
>
> *By Chuck Pezeshki*
>
> It's not about the money.
>
> It's about sending a message.
>
> - The Joker from
>
> "The Dark Knight"
>
> It's only been two weeks since the Supreme Court decided against the
> federal government and upheld the notion that Hobby Lobby has a right to
> deny its employees birth control under the Affordable Care Act. The stated
> reason is because the company owners say certain types of birth control are
> basically monthly abortions, and since the owners are against abortions,
> they cannot, in good moral conscience, allow their employees access to
> these methods.
>
> There are multiple levels of the implications of the court's decision that
> one could unpack. For example, are the methods of birth control (IUDs and
> certain types of pills, for example) abortifacient? The federal government
> says pregnancy begins with conception and attachment of the egg to the
> uterine lining. Many religious conservatives maintain pregnancy begins with
> conception. Therefore, drugs that prevent attachment are not causing
> abortions under federal definition, but are causing abortions under the
> religious definition. Who gets to control language?
>
> The more salient point is this: How does a company, which is a protected
> entity, get to have religious beliefs? And if this is the case, how does a
> government enforce any law that a corporation doesn't like? Belief does not
> require proof - only a declaration of faith. And that can't be argued.
>
> The whole issue of women having access to modern contraception is arguably
> at least 100 years old. And the fact that we are arguing about essentially
> a 100-year-old issue does not bode well for our nation.
>
> First off, it is absolutely true that if Hobby Lobby's female employees
> don't have access to all types of birth control, the world is not going to
> end. There will be plenty of outside providers, such as Planned Parenthood,
> that will take up the slack. Birth control pills have been actively
> discussed as a drug to move to the non-prescription aisle in the pharmacy.
> And they're cheap.
>
> But the Hobby Lobby attack does take up oxygen from all progressive
> issues. Because the attack is what psychologists call a "boundary
> violation" - an intrusion into a personal space where previously half our
> society felt marginally safe - it triggers an exaggerated response that
> distracts from focusing on the real issues of the day. Banking reform,
> underemployment, global warming, mountaintop removal coal mining and going
> back to war in the Middle East, to name just a few. These are issues with
> real teeth and real effect. And while we're screaming at each other about
> birth control, so cleverly launched at the core of our persons, we're
> letting the clock run on things that profoundly compromise the future of
> our children and the planet.
>
> Here's a thought. Look at what other activists on the "physical impact"
> issues are doing this week. For example, my friend Mike Roselle, of Climate
> Ground Zero, and two friends are back in Charleston, W.V., doing a Fast for
> the Mountains against mountaintop removal coal mining. Their incredible
> efforts, including non-violent civil disobedience, have drawn large
> attention to the issue, and legislation continues to move to ban this
> literally Earth-shattering practice.
>
> Women and men who care about the Hobby Lobby decision and think it's a
> pivotal moment in our history need to do the same. Get out in the streets.
> Organize your own protest. It may not change Hobby Lobby's mind, but what
> it will do is send a powerful message to all employers that this behavior
> is not going to do much for productivity.
>
> And if protest is not your style, then realize that this decision, more
> than anything else, whether implicit, or by explicit direction, is a
> boundary violation, and designed to distract from the real issues with
> concrete impacts now. Don't let them do it to you.
>
> Because it's not about the money.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Seeya 'round town, Moscow, because . . .
>
>
>
> "Moscow Cares" (the most fun you can have with your pants on)
>
> http://www.MoscowCares.com <http://www.moscowcares.com/>
>
>
>
> Tom Hansen
>
> Moscow, Idaho
>
>
>
> "There's room at the top they are telling you still.
>
> But first you must learn how to smile as you kill,
>
> If you want to be like the folks on the hill."
>
>
>
> - John Lennon
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 14, 2014, at 5:54 PM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Read Chuck Pezeshki's (Reality-based Lefty) column in the July 12,13 issue
> of the Daily New. While I do not exactly agree with his list of higher
> priorities, his comments on birth control are close to what I have been
> saying. Some one who knows how might want to post his column to Vision2020.
>
> Roger
>
>
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com <Vision2020 at moscow.com>
> =======================================================
>
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
>
> ======================================================= List services made
> available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse
> since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20140715/097e02f5/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 36125 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20140715/097e02f5/image003-0001.jpg>