Friday, July 11, 2014

Twisting Words on Purpose

On June 30, the Supreme Court ruled that companies with religious objections to certain contraceptives are exempt from the mandate to provide those. The mandate stems from the "Affordable Care Act" (Obamacare).

When news of this hit, I saw many status updates from friends on Facebook. So I thought I'd address several of them here in one tidy spot (my counter arguments in bullet points):

"Way to go, Supreme Court (extreme sarcasm dripping here folks)
Thank you to the high court for taking America three steps backward on women's rights, equality, freedom, and healthcare access."
  • How does this have any effect on women's rights? It just means that one person is not forced to pay for something for another person. 
  • There is zero effect on anyone's equality here. 
  • This ruling actually "increases" freedom - by not mandating redistribution of wealth. 
  • This has zero effect on anyone's healthcare access.
  • Not really sure where this guy's head was (assuming he has one).

"So this Supreme Court ruling, if taken to its logical conclusions, would mean that a JW business owner has the "right" to refuse to provide insurance for blood transfusions... Where does this end?
With Jewish owners forbidding all employees from access to pork?
Catholic owners terminating any employee who uses a condom or gets a divorce?"
  • The decision to provide specific health insurance options for employees is a free market concept. It is totally separate from employee code of conduct and/or terminations.

"...granting Hobby Lobby religious exemption will actually lead to more abortions."
  • Not sure how, Sherlock. Women working at Hobby Lobby will still have access to 16 of the 20 mandated contraceptives.
  • Not sure how, Sherlock. Women can always choose for whom to work.

"Corporations shouldn't make people's personal health decisions. The Supreme Court erred when it said corporations are people. Now those so-called people are free to intrude on employees' privacy and health decisions."
  • This was a quote from Congressman Jim Cooper. As always, Cooper is wrong.
  • Again, there is no provision for corporations intruding on the employee's privacy and health decisions. 
  • Quick question - why is it a mandate for the company to provide, and if the company provides something slightly different, that's an intrusion or infringement?

Then came the memes...

  • Of course, the SCOTUS decision doe snot, in any way, provide that a person's boss will be able to make health care decisions for him/her. This is tomfoolery, such as Franken is so familiar with. 
  • If a woman works for a company whose contraceptive options are somewhat limited (Hobby Lobby's health insurance provider will still provide 16 of the 20 mandated contraceptives), she can always opt to work for another company. This is far different than "making a decision about her access to contraceptives for her."

  • Again, the SCOTUS ruling has zero effect on any woman's "right to health care."

  • What corporation has "considered" denying any test, treatment, or prescription to anybody?
  • Why would any corporation be forced to provide any of these things?


No comments:

Post a Comment

Your comment will be displayed after approval.
Approval depends on what you say and how you say it.