The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
barnesec
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

mostly hype against hobby lobby ruling, and the ruling wasn't wrong anyway

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
dairygirl4u2c
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/2/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,257 times Debate No: 58487
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (2)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

mostly just hype against hobby lobby ruling, and the ruling wasn't wrong anyway

the supreme court said that closely held corporations do not have to cover abortifacients and contraceptives.

http://www.nationalreview.com...

it seems that most of the hype against it is put on. people are acting the way they are cause they are 'suppose' to to be 'good liberals'.

they argue things like 'so hobby lobby buys from china, who has woman who are forced to have abortions?'. this points out their hypocrisy. some might just be trying to point out their hyposrisy, but most seem to act as if it shows that the ruling was wrong or something.
they don't get much into substance.

when we look at substance, why would someone be mad that they have to buy their own birth control, and they can' tforce their employers to do so? i can undersatnd that it's not always easy to make ends meet and such, but in the bigger picture, buying contraceptives is de minimis. why would someone want to force someone to violate their well gounded traditionally, religious beliefs fo somthing as trivial as that? and maybe there are public health concerns, as people wont buy birth control if it isn't free, and it cause sincreases in pegnancies and abortions. but this is a part of life. we shouldn't ask someone to have to violate their first amendment right even if there are bad social side effects that occur. it's as basic a right as it gets.

the most somone could argue, is it opens a slippery slope. but the thing is, we can always limit the decision to contraceptives and abortifacients. est way to approach the issue, is to treat it like they do kids drinking church wine despite drinking laws. it's just a well respected tradition, so they continue to respect it. same with funding birth control and abortifacients. the catholics shoudnt have to generaly fund it.
this 'categorical exception' would prevent so many slippery slopes, both for and against religious principles. that is, someone cant object to getting their kids vaccinated under religious reasons. and, the government can to some extent ask employers to violate their religious principles if they are way out of line, secular expectations and such. but we continue to respect genuine, sincere, at least traditional, religious beliefs.
barnesec

Con

It's estimated that up to 90% of corporations in the United States are closely held, that is 5 or fewer individuals own more than half the company. The issue with the Hobby Lobby ruling is that Supreme Court is now deciding that corporations have religious views. Hobby Lobby didn't want to provide their employees with certain forms of birth control as they considered them 'abortifacents'. Though scientifically, they aren't in fact abortifacents and the Supreme Court stated as much, the fact that Hobby Lobby believed them to be was justification for their religious stance against them. What if Hobby Lobby believed Tylenol to be an abortifacent? Would they not have to pay for insurance to cover Tylenol? It seems that's what the ruling would suggest. What's to stop other closely held corporations for having religious views that save them lots of money as they won't have cover procedures they object to on religious grounds? My opponent criteria is "tradition", only traditional religions would be recognized to have legitimate religious beliefs. Who defines what traditional is? Is there a certain time limit for a religion and its view to be considered traditional. Are Mormons, not considered traditional because they've only been around since 1830? Tradition doesn't necessary mean legitmate or right. What if a new Protestant denomination started tomorrow? Slavery was/is a tradition in many parts of the world. The pill has only been around since the 1950's, how is "traditional" to object to it?
Furthermore, birth control has medical benefits outside of preventing pregnancy, such as prevention of ovarian cancer, clearer skin, lessens PMS symptoms, and may relieve endometriosis which may prevent future pregnancies. Yet most of these insurance plans where birth control is objected to based on religious grounds, also supply Viagra and vasectomies. "Traditional" religions don't seem to have any objection to men take pills whose sole medical purpose to produce erections or allow men to opt not to reproduce. Seems to be quite the double standard.
It is also fairly self-righteous on Hobby Lobby's behalf. No one is requiring the shareholders of Hobby Lobby to take objectionable birth control, no one is forcing their employees to take birth control the employees object to, but as health insurance in the United States is provided by the employer, Hobby Lobby has decided for its employees that they will not have the choice to take birth control that they find objectionable. Hobby Lobby has decided for its employees and it doing so forced its morality upon them. This is where the China comparison comes in. Hobby Lobby has no objection from getting all its good from China, a country with an official policy of forced abortion , but when it comes to dealing with employees, it has decided to use some heavy handed morality to dictate which forms of birth control they will use, because it believes, though not scientifically accurate, that certain forms of birth control cause abortion.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

i don't know why it matters that ninety percent of corporations are closely held. that only means a lot of corporations should have a lot more say in what they do with their employees. we're just recognizing that it is people who are running the corporation. and those people have religious rights. it's not like these are major corporations, where the board is made up of the public whose bottomline is share holder returns... almost practically public entites. these are private businesses. people shouldn't be penalized and have to give up their basic rights, just because they want to incorporate.

i don't necessarily define it to be traditional, but that is a sure fire test of what we should respect. if it's been done a long time and is well estabished, we should respect it.
you could argue this opens a slippery slope, but a slippery slope is opened either way. if we allow them to ignore the religous ideas of those catholics and such, the first amendment could basiclaly become meaningless. on the other hand, does it mean we have to respect parents when they dont want to vacinate their kids o do basic medical procedures due to religious reasons? the only way to approach it, again, is to do it 'categorical exception' and this is a traditinoal approach, so it should be respected.

increased pregnancies, abortions, and yes all those medical benefits of birth control, those are just a fact of life. the ruling doesn't prevent people from getting birth control and such on their own. we hsould'nt ask people to give up their basic rights just so they can get free birth control and such. we are getting into compromising rights otherwise. without compromising rights, we simply have people's rights respected and things that are a part of life.

i don't know why con brings up viagra. it's not even like anyone wants to object to their use, and the government forcing them to use it. people do have legitimate concens for birth control and abortifacents. if people don't object to it, why even bring it up?

"Hobby Lobby has decided for its employees that they will not have the choice to take birth control that they find objectionable. Hobby Lobby has decided for its employees and it doing so forced its morality upon them."

not providing a certain birth control is not forcing one's morality one someone else. the employees are still free to do things on their own. this all goes back to the point menetioned earlier, that we shouldn't expect people to give up their most basic rights to force them to do things that dont even really be need one to begin with, and could jut as easily be the responsiblity of the employees.
con is basically trying to create 'rights' where they don't exist, or at least they don't exist in any fundamental form. they are merely legislative created 'rights'. con is using the legislative 'right' to birth control, and then using this 'right' to trump an established consituional fundamental right of religion. that is simply going way too far, and asking too much.

again, you haven't addressed that pointing out the china thing, is simply pointing out their hypocrisy. con hasn't shown that they shouldn't be forced to do other things that are against their beliefs, he's just shown that they are inconsistent and hypocritical. yet con as i noted above, is acting like it means the court is wrong to respect their rights, just because htey ae hypocritical? that doesn't follow.
and even if we did try to base what the outcome was on their own standards, it is not unreasonable to argue that buying from china is more removed from their forced abortions, than directly forcing something that is against their beliefs. in established ethical morality, there are concepts that better explain this stuff, like remote and proximate means and ends, if you want more information on the formalities.
barnesec

Con

I'm not establishing any rights. The only rights that have been established is the 1st amendment's freedom of religion is extended to corporations (or at least 90% of corporations) through this ruling. So we're clear, no one is forcing the owners of Hobby Lobby to take birth control they morally object to. Don't take them if you don't want to. No one is forcing employees of Hobby Lobby to take birth control they object to. Don't take them if you don't want to. The only force being applied is the corporation Hobby Lobby is forcing it's employees to take certain kind of birth control. Why should one's employer's religious views be imposed upon the healthcare available to me? Here's what Hobby Lobby should be worried about - Does the employee show up on time? Do the employee work hard? That's all an employer should be worried about. The tradition standard of what kind of insurance the corporation decides to provide remains unanswered, but could make for plenty of cost-savings for the company and plenty of "buying it yourself, we've determined your insurance isn't going to cover that."
China is brought up because it calls into question the true motivation of Hobby Lobby. Is this really a religious objection, a way to save money, or just a political ploy? Religious objection's in this area (non-abortion that Hobby Lobby believes is abortion), but not in other areas on the exact same issue of abortion. Viagra is a salient point because it has no medical benefit besides erections, whereas birth control is used for legitimate medical issues beyond preventing pregnancy. This flies in the face of the overtly sexist, "why don't you buy your own?" argument. Sex being a federally protected class. Boner pills - yay! Birth control - no! Buying your own is hard when you're making minimum wage at Hobby Lobby, especially hard if you have another mouth to feed because you couldn't afford the birth control to begin with. Meanwhile, Viagra, Cialis, and vasectomies are covered.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

unlike con suggests, hobby lobby is not forcing its employees to use a certain form of birth control. they aren't even really effectively forcing them to. the employees can always get their own forms of birth ocntrol. and they don't force the employees to take the jobs either.. they can get a job somewhere else.
same points extend to your point about your health care being limited by this ruling.

we shouldn't allow recently conceived of 'rights' to birth control via legislation, to trump constitutiaonally protected fundamental rights to religion. constitoution trumps laws.

con artificially constructs that a business should only be concerned with the bottom line, and shouldn't or can't have any concern for their religious beliefs. again, this is a closely held corporation, they are just basically people who happen to be incorporated. if it was a private enterpreneur, i would hope we wouldn't be having this conversation, but the fact that it's a corporate entity shouldn't have any bearing on this. it's a technciality. and people shouldn't have to give up their rights just becaus they want to incorporate.

hypocrisy of hobby lobby per china is okay to note, but again it doesn't really establish tha the court should have ruled against them. they still have religous beliefs and rights. shwoing they are hypocrites doesn't change that.

con is getting way confused with the viagra point. again, no one is against viagra so there's no point bringing it up. no one is askin them to buy their own cause no one is opposed to buying it for them. sex is not being a federally protected class, it's just not an issue that has been presented. if it were the case that the court was forcing people to pay for viaagra and it was against their beliefs, then con's points might actually ahve some basis to them. as of now he's just ranting about things that are of no consequence to this debate.

it is more a facade argument to say birth control is expensive. it's not expensive. but even if it was, we shouldn't ask people to violate their beliefs to buy contraceptives.

if it's something the government thinks people should have or need, they can do it themselves. in fact, that's what many say obama will do, offer the contracetives independantly of the businesses. that's what he should have been doing all along.
barnesec

Con

The Supreme Court has established news rights. It has now embued corporations with religious values for the first time in history. This on the heels of other decisions that have allowed corporations to give unlimited sums of money to political campaigns, etc. Another step in giving corporations and special interest groups more "rights" and greater personhood. I was just thinking the other day, corporations and special interest groups don't have enough power in this country and the average Joe is too well represented in Washington...;)

Employers have in fact been required to cover birth control in their insurance plans since 2000. It was determined that not providing coverage violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1974 and Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964, which banned discrimination based on gender. So in fact up until that point these birth control measures that Hobby Lobby now objects to were covered by their health insurance. They've only gotten recent attention because of Obamacare/ACA. The ACA/Obamacare required that it be covered for free, that has been the only change. There were an exemption built in for employers who objected to contraception on religious grounds, those being: 1) primary purpose of the organization is "inculcation of religious values", 2) primarily employs people of that religion, 3) primarily serves people of that religion, 4) is a non-profit. It's essentially an exemption of religious charities.
http://www.npr.org...

Furthermore, several cases decided at the Appeals Court level where ordered to be reviewed by the Supreme Court in light of it's Hobby Lobby ruling. In these cases Catholic business owners are opposed to all forms of birth control. Others where the government has appealed have been denied review with no explanation. Furthermore, the current religious make up of the Supreme Court is 6 Catholics and 3 Jews. Hobby Lobby was decided 5-4, the majority being entirely composed of Catholic justices. So in all likelihood, should your employer want to ban all forms of contraception, that is what is going to happen.
http://www.scotusblog.com...

The case is about imposing your religious views are on your employees. The reason China is brought up and as Pro has pointed out the hypocrisy and inconsistency of Hobby Lobby's views, is because it shows the arbitrariness of religious views. No one can tell what you believe or what you don't believe. Anyone can claim whatever religious beliefs they want to. And after this ruling, what prevents a corporation from cutting costs and having religious objections to any particular medical procedure or medication it chooses to? Why does a corporation which is solely formed for profit-making and business purposes determined to have religious views? And why should these religious views be imposed on employees who they have a business relationship with? This is not a mom and pop shop. Hobby Lobby has 572 stores. 90% of corporations are "closely held" and employ 50% of the private sector workers.
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by barnesec 2 years ago
barnesec
Good luck to you as well, thanks for an honest reasonable debate.
Posted by ZenoCitium 2 years ago
ZenoCitium
Getting back to the debate, I don't really think this was necessarily a great victory for Catholics. They stood only too loose big or retain the status quo. It certainly would have been a heavy blow if the decision had been reversed though. The interpretation that closely held corporations are "persons" under the RFRA actually came from a lower court; the Supreme court just decided to uphold it. I see this landmark decision as mostly a defeat of the ACA.

Thanks for a great debate. I wish you luck in this debate and the next.
Posted by barnesec 2 years ago
barnesec
Perhaps you're right. This will end at only contraception, seeing as how the majority opinion was composed entirely of Catholics, so I'm sure this was an argument they were sympathetic towards. I still don't see how the reasoning behind it would only be confined to contraception, except for the fact that they say it does. Guess it goes back to what one interprets as 'compelling govt interest'.

I take your point on China, though they're at the very least semi-communist. This still represents an interesting and timely religious pang from Hobby Lobby.

Are you implying Big Pharma had some role in the changing definition of pregnancy? A lot of social upheaval happened in the 60's, I wouldn't get conspiratorial about it.
Posted by ZenoCitium 2 years ago
ZenoCitium
Perhaps there is a disconnect in the link to the Supreme Court opinion regarding the Hobby Lobby case. I'll quote, " This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer"s religious beliefs. Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice."

China is not their supplier. Their suppliers are located in that country and they don't have any part in the government or determining its laws. I do personally think that the relationship between the employee and the business is stronger than between the business and its suppliers. I suppose all those that find themselves in the dissenting opinion would also agree considering they wish to find the employer responsible for health care coverage choices for their employees.

Ironically, I can make the same "timely" argument about the definition of pregnancy. How come the definition changed, according to ACOG, in 1965! Why, all of a sudden, was the old definition unacceptable. Interesting that preventative contraception came out only a few years later.
Posted by barnesec 2 years ago
barnesec
@ZenoCitium The timing is due objection to ACA/Obamacare, as is the timing of other similar suits filed by Wheaton College and Conestoga. They previously had no issue with providing contraception through insurance, even though it was mandated by the federal government to do so.

There is nothing to say this is confined to contraception. My source is the dissenting opinion. It allows companies to "opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs." Simple question: if my employer is a Jehovah's Witness, do they have to cover blood transfusions? It's going to take some creative legal maneuvering to limit it to only contraceptives.

I don't follow how China is an immature example. You have a business relationship with your supplier and a business relationship with your employee. One you choose not to apply your religious beliefs to and the other you do. Maybe because the employer-employee relationship is more unequal than a buyer-seller, that's the only difference I can see.

The state of "carrying" a developing embryo or fetus? Not that cut and dry. Does that imply implantation or not? Is an embryo that is on it's way out through natural causes and never implants a death? I do think there's an alterior motive to make this a binary argument, life or death. When in fact most people are somewhere on a continuum, with rape, incest, and life of the mother in consideration, implantation or no implantation.
Posted by ZenoCitium 2 years ago
ZenoCitium
@ Barnesec: Please see the attached original compliant filed by the Green family. It states that they unknowingly provided it prior to 2012 and upon the discovery that they provided insurance coverage for abortifacients they ceased immediately and filed suit. I understand your point, why didn't they pay better attention. It's a good question but it doesn't really matter since the timing has no real influence in the decision or the underlying meaning of the verdict.

I ignored the China argument because I thought it was immature. The Green family takes reasonable steps to preserve their religious views. To say that each person or corporation acknowledges every ideology of each person or country that they buy products from is farfetched. Do you personally vet every company or country you buy products from prior to your purchase? Chances are if you've bought any electronic equipment, or furniture or footwear that you have purchased products from China too. Do you agree with child labor and governmental censorship?

Pregnancy (as defined by MedicineNet.com): The state of carrying a developing embryo or fetus within the female body. Seems fairly cut and dry to me. It's only complicated when the definition has an alternative motive.

You statement that the supreme court's decision has anything to do with matters outside of the contraception mandate is completely incorrect. Please see the attached Supreme Court Opinion (bottom of page 5). Where do you get the information that you are using to draw your biased opinions? You should re-evaluate your sources ... unless of course you just don't care or prefer lies if they benefit your prejudices.

<http://www.becketfund.org...;
<http://www.medterms.com...;
<http://www.supremecourt.gov...;
Posted by barnesec 2 years ago
barnesec
@neutral I think you need to look up the definition of a corporation. The ruling applied to "closely held" corporations where 5 or fewer owners have a 50%+ ownership stake (90% of all corporations). There was no distinction drawn between a privately held corporation or a publicly traded one.
Posted by barnesec 2 years ago
barnesec
...Unfortunately employment is the vehicle most people in this country get their health insurance through. The "change" here, is that these companies have no longer decided to provide certain types of coverage and religious rights have been applied to corporations in order that they can now evade laws.

If a politician's mouth moving, they're lying.
Posted by barnesec 2 years ago
barnesec
@ZenoCitium You must've missed this point. Hobby Lobby, Wheaton College, and others in this case carried coverage for all forms of contraception until ACA/Obamacare was passed. The only change that ACA/Obamacare made, was that there was no out of pocket expense for the employee to obtain all forms of contraception. Once the ACA/Obamacare was passed then these entities had a problem with providing all contraception, even though it had been previously been obtainable under their insurance policies. So it begs the questions, if opposing certain forms of birth control was so important to your beliefs, why were you unaware you were providing it previously? And of course still dealing China, state abortionist and so on and so forth.

I won't wade into the "where does life begin" argument. Okay I will a little. What happens to eggs that are fertilized outside the body for en vitro fertilization purposes and never implanted? Fertilized eggs that never implant, just through the course of nature? Chimeras? Not as cut-and-dry as you make it out to be.

Regardless, it doesn't really matter in this case and Hobby Lobby's lawyer said as much. What matters is Hobby Lobby believes certain birth control measure are tantamount to abortion. It doesn't have to be scientifically accurate. And you're confining this to birth control. The Court didn't rule that the Hobby Lobby only applied to birth control. Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in blood transfusions. The standard the Court put forward is "honest conviction", my point is anyone can invent any religious belief they want to deny medical care, the burden's on the court to determine if it's an "honest conviction" or not. No where in the Bible does it say which kinds of birth control are banned. That's what I mean by arbitrary. It's wide open to manipulation and abuse if corporations want to save money and be as competitive as they can. http://www.religioustolerance.org...
Posted by ZenoCitium 2 years ago
ZenoCitium
... This definition is not supported by The American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary and it actually ignores ectopic pregnancies altogether. This is another example of misdirecting people for one's gain. Imagine the hardships that would bestow on the makes of "Plan B" pills if they were labeled abortifacients. IUDs work in much the same way, by not only preventing fertilization, but in the even of fertilization preventing the embryo from implanting.

Sources: <http://ec.princeton.edu...;
<http://www.webmd.com...;
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by neutral 2 years ago
neutral
dairygirl4u2cbarnesecTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con misses because he is factually wrong. Th SCOTUS decision allies to PRIVATE COMPANIES, not 'corporations'. You have a right to extend, within limits, your beliefs in the way you run your company - and the same people who disdaine this ruling would, of course, applaud the same decision to prevent someone from praying loudly and disruptively in the business lobby every morning. Businesses, shockingly, can enforce their views as ... its their business image that matters to the business NOT YOUR PRIVATE RELIGIOUS thoughts. So if a company, run by religious people, say, "Whoa, I cannot support those due to my religion," WTF are you to tell them have to abandon their religious beliefs and buy you crap anyway? This is not about religion being in corporations, this is about people who are INSISTING companies bankroll their choices for them without being able to disagree. Well, if we look at CON's arguments with their emotional appeals, we might see why some people disagree.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
dairygirl4u2cbarnesecTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't capitalize. Con's claims about being denied anything are inaccurate.