[Vision2020] Birth Control

Tue Jul 15 11:15:29 PDT 2014

It would depend on the situation. I don't think it's absurd that a
close-knit group of right-minded people with a common set of beliefs that
create a corporation that is built to (among other things) express those
beliefs can be said to be a person with those beliefs for legal reasons.

Paul

On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Sunil <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com> wrote:

> As I said when I asked you before, it's a policy question. You don't have
> to be a lawyer to answer it.
>
> Obviously I disagree. I think it's ludicrous to extend corporations this
> right. It's in line with what the activist Roberts court does, of course. I
> suppose if these individuals create another corporation, you would extend
> them even more First Amendment rights?
>
> Sunil
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 10:03:52 -0700
>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Birth Control
> From: paul.rumelhart at gmail.com
> To: sunilramalingam at hotmail.com
> CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
>
>
> 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
> =======================================================
>
>
>
> =======================================================
>  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/a1a69722/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/a1a69722/image003-0001.jpg>