Perfect Duluth Day | Duluth News Events Music and More


  • CATEGORIES

  • ARCHIVES

Any Upset Duluth folks dislike Hobby Lobby?

I’m tired of reading blogs and Facebook posts about the most recent court ruling won by Hobby Lobby to refuse its female employees basic women’s health care and discriminate against decisions that should be made with a medical provider. I’ve organized a local protest to create awareness to the local store’s shoppers. We will be there the next three mornings at 9 a.m. until about noon with signs. We hope you will join us or help spread the word. E-mail or send your positive energy to me at cletarose @ gmail.com. Thanks!

45 Comment(s)

  1. You couldn’t pay me to shop there. The NY Times did a good editorial on this issue today called “Limiting Rights: Imposing Religion on Workers.”

    Sam | Jul 1, 2014 | New Comment
  2. I’ll protest using the only means that seems to matter anymore: money. I’ll be shopping at Michaels … on Sunday.

    Special K | Jul 1, 2014 | New Comment
  3. You are completely correct, it’s the only one that matters, Special K. I’m hoping to gently steer some shoppers that way instead.

    CLeTa | Jul 1, 2014 | New Comment
  4. This is why our healthcare should not be associated with our job. This is why the political parties are so confusing to follow and agree with. Viagra is covered, but the women’s movement is still fighting to get ahead. There should be a third party that represents women in congress, another party that represents unions, one for corporations, one for religions, and one for each minority group. Then the parties would have to work together and represent different opinions and groups. The way it is set up now makes sure that the fewest voices spending the most money are the ones that are heard. I like Hobby Lobby, but what a horrible stance to take -- sometimes when you win you really lose.

    Endion | Jul 1, 2014 | New Comment
  5. I’m super pissed off, but can’t make it to the protests. Please hold a sign for me!!!

    BadCat! | Jul 1, 2014 | New Comment
  6. I completely agree with you! @ Endion

    In the meantime, women still deserve equal and fair healthcare coverage.

    CLeTa | Jul 1, 2014 | New Comment
  7. Hey Special K! Why not shop at your local art store, Pineapple Arts!

    Pineapple Art Duluth | Jul 1, 2014 | New Comment
  8. An even better idea! :)

    CLeTa | Jul 1, 2014 | New Comment
  9. I’m just glad I don’t work for a Christian Scientist-owned corporation.

    “Well, medication is against my moral belief, so the health insurance we offer you won’t cover that. I will, however, pray for you while you work your shift.”

    We are now careening down the slippery slope folks.

    schmood1971 | Jul 1, 2014 | New Comment
  10. Thank you for organizing this. I will try to be there.

    A pro lifer’s only logical response to birth control is to be an ardent supporter of its use, so as to limit unwanted pregnancies and abortions. If you are a pro lifer who opposes birth control use, then saying your most important goal is to end abortion is simply a lie.

    We certainly don’t want the ladies to be all slutty and stuff, do we.

    emmadogs | Jul 1, 2014 | New Comment
  11. I am going to wade into this minefield against my better judgement to make a couple of points. I don’t necessarily agree with Hobby Lobby in this case but I get the argument. With that said, it is important to note that Hobby Lobby does not limit all contraception for women in their insurance, but only the ones that it believes (right or wrong) act in the same manner as abortion (i.e. morning after pill, IUD, etc). Birth Control pills are still covered.

    Also, the net result of this is going to be that these items are still going to be covered via the insurance company or through the government as a supplemental. The distinction is going to be that Hobby Lobby will not pay for that portion of the insurance.

    waferdog | Jul 1, 2014 | New Comment
  12. Hobby Lobby will not pay for that portion of the insurance. Exactly. Regardless of Hobby Lobby’s incorrectness and hypocrisy, this sets a precedent that businesses and people (one and the same according to this court and Citizens United) can ignore parts of laws that have been passed through our legislative system for the common good in favor of their own narrow beliefs. This further blurs the lines between church and state and opens a whole can of worms as justice Ginsburg outlined in her dissent. Scientologist-run businesses refusing to pay for anti-depressants. Jewish and Muslim business refusing medications or surgical items sourced from pigs. Having legal backing to refuse service or aid to gay people. Slippery slope indeed.

    Special K | Jul 1, 2014 | New Comment
  13. Perhaps this is a slippery slope but it was a narrowly worded majority opinion. Also, I don’t believe that this blurs the lines between church and state as you stated. I am curious in what way you think that it does.

    waferdog | Jul 1, 2014 | New Comment
  14. Yes, the ruling is limited to UIDs and Plan B, but if you are a woman who is unable to use a hormonal option, or if a non-banned method fails and you need to use Plan B, you are stuck to paying out of pocket for something that every other woman has covered by law. And don’t think that self-payment is not a hardship, as an IUD can cost an entire month’s Hobby Lobby salary.

    In other news, I think I’m going to start my own business. If I convert to Jehova’s Witness, I don’t have to pay for blood transfusions. If I convert to Scientology, I can refuse to pay for any mental health benefits. If I convert to Pentecostal, I can bring poisonous snakes to work for my staff to use. If I convert to Islam, I don’t need to provide food breaks during Ramadan. If I convert to Christian Scientist, I don’t have to do a fucking thing! Yay market economy!!!

    BadCat! | Jul 1, 2014 | New Comment
  15. I love my IUD and never did well taking birth control pills. I hate that any woman would not have the option to make this decision with their OB. Employers need to keep their opinions off my body and out of my household/life decisions.

    CLeTa | Jul 1, 2014 | New Comment
  16. Look on the bright side, we can start Rastafari and Sufi hash eating corporations.

    Aldin | Jul 1, 2014 | New Comment
  17. Hi wafer dog…I agree it is brave to wade into this. That said:

    There are all sorts of things one can argue about. Read the opinion, and tell me how a business that disagrees about gay marriage, or interracial marriage, or marriage between oldsters, will now have to cover insurance premiums. Please tell me how innoculations will continue to be covered.

    Or take Justice Alito at his word: that this is limited to birth control.

    ????

    Then we are living in an era where the ladies cannot fuck unless they, and us, want them to be pregnant. I can tell you that, thanks to insurance, I and my husband can fuck without taxpayer dollars paying for our prodigy.

    Anyone who doesn’t think this is a war on women can kiss my insurance-paid-so I am not having kids irresponsibly ass.

    emmadogs | Jul 1, 2014 | New Comment
  18. Going to the supreme court with a case isn’t just a ruling for that particular issue, it is about the precedent that is set for all future cases. The legal arguments used can now be used by anyone else in order to limit their involvement in birth control, or any manner of other things that someone may find “objectionable.”

    BadCat! | Jul 1, 2014 | New Comment
  19. I have to laugh that you are going to “create” awareness. Most people that shop there, myself included are well aware of the SCOTUS decision handed down on Monday.

    Someone has to act a fool…

    nebag | Jul 1, 2014 | New Comment
  20. N ebag It is perhaps foolish to believe your assumptions that they are aware. You are correct about half the shoppers were well aware of Hobby Lobby and SCOTUS but the other half were not. This other half of shoppers were kind and welcomed engaging in conversation. I don’t believe this is ever foolish nor a waste of time to interact sincerely with our community.

    I hope to see you tomorrow or Thursday, PDD folks.

    CLeTa | Jul 1, 2014 | New Comment
  21. A Supreme Court ruling is not an open invitation to nefarious behavior. Precedence is based on the writing of the majority opinion. Sometimes they are very open, sometimes they are narrowly written to a specific issue of a specific law. This particular ruling is a very specific interpretation of the 1993 Religious Freedom Act (a Democrat-introduced bill by the way). The correct response to this is to either amend that act or the ACA to accommodate this ruling. No one is going to go without access to birth control (although it would be nice if insurance would cover condom; these aren’t covered at all).

    waferdog | Jul 1, 2014 | New Comment
  22. I agree with boycotting or protesting Hobby Lobby, but the pictures I saw from the Supreme Court were aligned with the majority opinion. I think the Supreme Court should be protested against as they are heading down a very dark path.

    The problem is that corporations are not people and cannot be given the same rights without having the same responsibilities. This Supreme Court is more out of touch than the one leading to the Civil War. Their decisions have such a broad and long reaching impact on laws that it is amazing that they are making these decisions. It is like the majority opinion judges never took a history class and don’t understand why we have created certain laws. When you put it in writing future generations reinterpret what you are saying. I agree with Jefferson that there needs to be a revolution every once in awhile because otherwise we are tied to the decisions of the past that become chains in the future.

    The biggest issue is that if corporations have the same rights as people they need to be punished like people would. If GM knew that they had a product that killed people then GM should be put on trial for 1st degree murder. The employees can walk, but the corporation should have to serve life in prison and lose everything. BP should be charged with poisoning animals and serve time in jail. We just need to figure out what “jail” is for a corporation. If people believe in the death penalty than the corporation would be ended. All buildings locked up and sold, all employees fired, and all products sold and profits given to law enforcement.

    How about we do that?

    No? The worker would be the hardest hit and the cities who have these corporations would go under. So does the worker have their fate tied to a corporation’s success? I would say it does. In that case the worker and the corporation should not be judged equally in the eyes of the law. The impact of doing so would have extreme impact on our entire nation. These decisions are setting horrible precedent and could lead to a Civil War if we continue down the path that corporation have the same rights as individuals. Also, an individual will die, but a corporation cannot.

    Endion | Jul 2, 2014 | New Comment
  23. I think it’s great that you all are out there protesting and educating. However, I think it is probably more important to do this a few weeks/months from now, once people have gotten complacent again and have forgotten about their anger. Remind the people over and over and over again if you want to make an actual impact.

    wskyline | Jul 2, 2014 | New Comment
  24. Sorry Waferdog, but I”m going to have to play the “vag” card on ya here.
    You’re not getting the implications limiting a woman’s choice of birth control, as you don’t understand the full situation that women deal with.

    There are many forms of birth control out there right now, but consider that not every one is available to all women, especially so if you include the associated costs.

    A vast majority of birth control relies on hormonal methods. Not all women can use them as they can interfere with their physical and mental health. Often, women find this out after they have already paid for the medication (one-month up to three-year supply).

    Sterilization methods are not recommended for anyone who desires to have children in the future (obviously), but also limit the options of women who are unable to take time off of work to properly heal or have active jobs (like a Hobby Lobby employee). These methods also require follow-up care, which may or may not be covered by insurance, and may require more time off of work.

    Barrier methods are most common, but they also have associated issues (such as latex/spermicide allergies, higher failure rate).

    As for abstinence and natural family planning, I’m not even going to discuss as reasonable birth control, because come on!

    So now if we go back to an example of a woman who has comprehensive medical coverage, birth control costs may be covered, but her options may be limited due to any of the scenarios listed above. If you use the example of a woman who does not have full coverage, it limits her options even further, and may result in no methods of birth control being available to her.

    So, in response to your argument (“No one is going to go without access to birth control”), please consider the following:

    If a woman chooses to pay for her birth control out of pocket, she may be able to afford the prescription costs, but the additional costs (seeing a physician for the prescription, follow-up appointments, medical treatment due to complications, time off of work) may or may not be covered. Also, at this time it is unclear if a Hobby Lobby employee would have coverage related to a banned birth control (such pre-screening appointments, removal, response to medical complications, or associated time off from work).

    tl;dr:
    Even if a woman can afford one pack of birth control pills,
    -she may not be able to take the medication
    -can’t necessarily afford the cost of going to a physician to get the prescription
    -may not be covered for any follow-up treatment
    -may not be covered for any response to medical complications
    -may not be covered for time off related to the prescription

    BadCat! | Jul 2, 2014 | New Comment
  25. #micdrop

    BadCat! | Jul 2, 2014 | New Comment
  26. Thank you, I am very familiar with the different options available out there.

    My point in all this is that you can certainly disagree with Hobby Lobby’s stance (I think it is dumb but I am not religious) and you most certainly can and should protest them and choose to not give them your business, but take it for what it is. This is not part of some great conspiracy to put a whole gender down and there really is not a slippery slope here. There is some unknown in how this will play out but in the end these coverages will be available to the people who need them, whether that be through a government fund or by the insurance companies picking up the tab for that specific part. Hobby Lobby has not said they do not want their employees using these, only that they do not feel that they should be required by law to pay for them.

    waferdog | Jul 2, 2014 | New Comment
  27. If you get your medical insurance provided by Hobby Lobby, I’m not sure there’s a birth control supplemental insurance that would be available to fill that missing portion. As far as I’m aware, a Hobby Lobby employee who wants full birth control coverage would have to turn down their employer-funded insurance, and turn instead to the open market for coverage (which will most likely cost more).

    Also, no one said this was part of a great gender conspiracy. However, the decision and it’s future implications greatly affect my gender.

    BadCat! | Jul 2, 2014 | New Comment
  28. And it certainly affects my gender as well.

    As you read in my response, I said that the access to these items will be made up somewhere else. It is not available now.

    waferdog | Jul 2, 2014 | New Comment
  29. Oddly, Hobby Lobby decided not to adjust their Viagra/vasectomy coverage…

    Also, “not available now” and “will be made up somewhere else” are not very reassuring to a Hobby Lobby employee who is currently in the process of making health care decisions regarding pregnancy.

    BadCat! | Jul 2, 2014 | New Comment
  30. BadCat, in fairness to wafer dog, I did say it is part of a gender conspiracy. Well, I didn’t put it quite that bluntly, but it is a fair interpretation of my feelings on this.

    Wafer dog, obviously my ire is raised, but I appreciate your willingness to wade into the fray. So let me ask you this: Corporation Inc, let’s say, thinks that gay marriage is sinful in God’s eyes. So this closely held corporation with 10,000 MN employees decides it is not going to offer spousal health/pension benefit coverage to it’s gay employees’ same sex spouses. Please explain how this cannot happen in the wake of the Hobby Lobby decision. Or same corporation in Salt Lake City whose Mormon board members reject gender equality. Or same corporation whose…yikes, the examples boggle my mind.

    emmadogs | Jul 2, 2014 | New Comment
  31. CLeTa, how is the protest going? I apologize for not being there. Thank you again for doing this.

    emmadogs | Jul 2, 2014 | New Comment
  32. emmadogs (lot of animal references in this thread), I don’t think I can do true in depth justice to the slippery slope concept other than pointing you to a couple of articles:

    Link 1

    Link 2

    waferdog | Jul 2, 2014 | New Comment
  33. It could be said that we’re fighting like

    (•_•)
    ( •_•)>⌐■-■
    (⌐■_■)

    cats and dogs.

    YEAAHH!!

    BadCat! | Jul 2, 2014 | New Comment
  34. Hi waferdog, looking at your links confirms what I believe: that this decision is, not legally but practically for now, limited to women ‘s reproductive freedom. Which makes this a gender war issue. Until this decision is expanded to gay rights issues, which should happen any day now.

    Really, what is it about the ladies getting it on that is such a problem?

    emmadogs | Jul 2, 2014 | New Comment
  35. Watch how easy it is:

    As for abstinence and natural family planning, I’m not even going to discuss as reasonable birth control, because come on!

    As for Plan B and IUDs, I’m not even going to discuss as reasonable birth control, because come on!

    futureman | Jul 3, 2014 | New Comment
  36. Please compare the failure rates, then see how reasonable they are.

    BadCat! | Jul 3, 2014 | New Comment
  37. I’m super impressed that we’re having this conversation like rational adults.

    I agree with emmadogs that this feels very personal as a woman.

    waferdogs, the first link you posted makes a logical argument, which I appreciate. The same kind of slippery slope arguments have been used to oppose marriage equality, which I passionately support. But that argument includes this paragraph:

    “The court is not a robotic applicator of consistent principles of law, especially in cases pertaining to constitutional abstractions like religious liberty or freedom of speech. Instead, the court changes case-by-case, depending upon the justices’ personal preferences. For instance, the court refused to exempt peyote-smoking Native Americans from drug laws, but did extend various legal exemptions to homeschoolers, a predominately conservative Christian group. In practice, laws that run afoul of a narrow set of prominent and hot-button American Christian cultural views will risk one-off exemption carve-outs from the court’s conservative majority. But very little else will get the same treatment.”

    How is it acceptable to privilege the beliefs of Christians just because they’re in the majority?

    Fitz | Jul 3, 2014 | New Comment
  38. Fitz, I would say that it is important for the court to make sure that the government does not infringe on the rights of or favor a specific religion. That is really the protections that the First Amendment provides us. The separation of church and state is an idea that came later and does not really apply. Can I say that the Court has applied these rulings fairly across all religious types? Without going through all of the case opinions (the examples in that article do not necessarily represent the whole of the Court’s output) I can’t really say, although I would guess Christian arguments may have been favored.

    waferdog | Jul 3, 2014 | New Comment
  39. waferdog | Jul 3, 2014 | New Comment
  40. Let’s see what happens when a non-Christian business owner uses their religious views to restrict their employee’s access to health care.

    Waferdog, your medical insurance has two plans, identical in every way except one has birth control benefits, and one without. This was done solely to appease the religious structures of the hospital.
    Now consider how it would affect the employees if they decided to stop allowing that option. No more check boxes, all employees are on the same plan, no more access to birth control or any other hormonal treatments. That would be allowed by this Supreme Court ruling.

    BadCat! | Jul 3, 2014 | New Comment
  41. No, this ruling would not allow that to happen.

    waferdog | Jul 3, 2014 | New Comment
  42. Waferdog, you are going to have to justify that statement. What in the case language do you base your conclusion on?

    emmadogs | Jul 3, 2014 | New Comment
  43. Any business can now use the supreme court decision to make the same justification that Hobby Lobby did. If any other employer decided that their Christian values conflicted with the birth control requirement, they could point to the Hobby Lobby ruling as precedent.

    BadCat! | Jul 3, 2014 | New Comment
  44. So, anyone who hoped the Hobby Lobby decision was limited: you just got slapped down.

    Slate: Quick Change Justice

    Also, CNN‘s coverage of this is interesting, insofar as it calls the newest dissent a ‘strident’ dissent:

    Strident:1.
    making or having a harsh sound; grating; creaking: strident insects; strident hinges.
    2.
    having a shrill, irritating quality or character: a strident tone in his writings.

    emmadogs | Jul 5, 2014 | New Comment
  45. emmadogs | Jul 5, 2014 | New Comment

Post a Comment
Subscribe To Comments RSS

You must be logged in to post a comment.