Daily Hampshire Gazette - Established 1786
Cloudy
57°
Cloudy
Hi 66° | Lo 43°

Charles LaPiene: Liberal reaction to Hobby Lobby 'hysterical' 'Why place the burden on me for their choice?

Protesters gather outside a new Hobby Lobby store Saturday, July 12, 2014, in Totowa, N.J. The National Organization for Women, Planned Parenthood and the League of Women Voters were among the groups leading the protest. The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that some businesses can, because of their religious beliefs, choose not to comply with the federal health care law's requirement that contraception coverage be provided to workers at no extra charge. Hobby Lobby's challenge triggered the decision. (AP Photo/Northjersey.com, Viorel Florescu)

Protesters gather outside a new Hobby Lobby store Saturday, July 12, 2014, in Totowa, N.J. The National Organization for Women, Planned Parenthood and the League of Women Voters were among the groups leading the protest. The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that some businesses can, because of their religious beliefs, choose not to comply with the federal health care law's requirement that contraception coverage be provided to workers at no extra charge. Hobby Lobby's challenge triggered the decision. (AP Photo/Northjersey.com, Viorel Florescu)

To the editor:

Readers of the Daily Hampshire Gazette who moaned and groaned piously at the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision should think about their hysterical reaction. To imply, as they have done, that the decision is “really discriminatory,” “not fair,” “provides an obstacle to access the full range of reproductive health care,” etc., is like booking a trip to Shangri-La.

Central to all these moans is the position that companies and the federal government have a responsibility to provide “reproductive services” to their female employees regardless of the religious or moral beliefs of the company owners (or of taxpayers). The Gazette frequently portrays owners of corporations as evil and cigar-smoking fat cats. Have profits suddenly become an excusable windfall to be extorted for social use? Is this not enough evidence to convince even the most liberal person that their beliefs should not constitute legal stealing of anyone’s money and resources?

I do not feel it is the government’s place to legislate in this arena. The key phrase missing is, “at whose expense?” No one is being prevented from availing themselves of the services. So why, in the name of common sense, should it be an employer’s responsibility (or mine as a taxpayer), to provide these services? Surely, even “young, poor women” — “the most marginalized in our society” — can afford the cost of a condom instead of a tattoo! Why place the burden on me for their “choice” of behavior, or on the company providing the health insurance?

We have gone so far down the road to socialism that we think all things must be provided by the benevolent government — even contraceptives? When those opposed to social pillaging have the gall to suggest that some things should be left to the individual, we are pilloried by the bleeding hearts as reckless, unfeeling and cruel.

“Where will this end?” asked Hampshire College’s Marlene Fried in one news story. It will end when she and her anointed sisters realize there are limits to how far they can go to pick the pockets of corporations whose profits they despise and impose undeserved moral and fiscal burdens on taxpayers.

Charles LaPiene

Granby

Comments
Legacy Comments14

Clearly Hobby Lobby who covers a man's Vasectomy is gender bias. They want to be a real catholic and then they need to not cover this. So all you men out there who support not covering Birth control you need to contact Hobby Lobby and demand they not cover YOUR Birth control. You need to not have intercourse unless it is for the purpose of producing a child. So you need to be married, have intercourse and have your babies, and man up and take care of them, love your wife and your children above yourself; or be celibate.

Yawn... boring. Birth control is not being threatened in the least bit. Hey weren't IUD's banned for safety issues?

You yawn because of your ignorance and the fact that you have no intelligent response because I am correct. No, IUDs were not banned for safety issues, Hobby Lobby banned them for birth control. You know that I am right, so man up

No Theresa you are wrong. Your access to birth control hasn’t been affected one iota. Firstly, you don’t work for Hobby Lobby. Secondly, the choices not provided are readily available on the open market. Plan B is in fact OTC which is curious because otc medications aren’t normally covered ever anywhere. My mistake on the banning, I got the Dalkon Shield problems confused with all IUD’s.

Birth control for men is available on the open market, not women. I would tell you to purchase your own condoms, but those are against catholic teachings as well. You miss the main point of what I said, so let me repeat it for you since you are perhaps a little slow on the up-take; Hobby Lobby who covers a man's Vasectomy is gender bias. A vasectomy is the medical procedure used for a male sterilization. In a vasectomy, a man’s ‘vas deferens’ is cut and cauterized to prevent sperm from being ejaculated during sexual intercourse. A vasectomy is a permanent method of birth control. The views of the Catholic Church on vasectomies and birth control in general are quite specific. In Catholic teachings; A vasectomy is a mortal sin. You need to not have intercourse unless it is for the purpose of producing a child. So you need to be married, have intercourse and have your babies, and man up and take care of them, love your wife and your children above yourself; or be celibate. Of course you too can pay for your own vasectomy. For some reason you won't address this; clearly I am correct.

It's not gender bias because they are still covering 14 types of birth control for women and just the one for men. As to how Catholic someone is and how rigidly the follow the rules, it is really none of your business or concern. HL drew their line at what they believed was abortive. The court agreed so suck on it.

Isn't this a religous freedom case anyway? For example today Obama is going to sign an executive order mandating federal contractors cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identify. There will be no religious exemption. The Senate was not willing to pass ENDA (Employment Non Discrimination Act) without a strong religious exemption clause and the gay rights oranizations said if it had a relgious exemption don't pass it. So Obama is going to do it administratively. The question is - should say an orthodox jewish school be forced to hire a transvestite to teach its kids. Now they will have to if they receive any federal money. Its an interesting question similar to the Hobby Lobby case and I am sure it will wind up in the courts. Sould the government be able to override a religions strongly held beliefs about the role of men and women in society? Do they have that power?

How wrong you are; it is my business when you choose to partially to eliminate birth control choice of one gender over the other under the umbrella of religion. Just because the majority of men on the bench ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, doesn't make it right, just sadly pathetic.

Did anyone say there would be no co pay for birth control? I don't recall that...Some insurances don't cover pregnancy either. Is that OK with you, too?

actually, there is no copay for birth control under Obamacare...

Are we still living in the 1950's? Where women stay at home looking after children and tending to the house so that dinner is on the table at 5:30? After all, this was a woman's responsibility, and I guess, Mr. LaPiene still believes.

"Hysterical reaction." Sort of an ironic way to refer to a reaction in the reproductive health issues. Nope, no war on women here. I'd encourage Mr. LaPiene to look up the etymology of the word if he's not interested in being the unintentional butt of his own joke.

If memory serves me correctly, the feudal system (that mythic land where an "employer" had absolute control over serfs) was widely supplanted in the sixteenth century. Today we provide employees with compensation packages that include health care benefits. Reducing employee benefits erodes an employer's ability to compete in the marketplace, not only because it limits the pool of new talent and potential consumers, it changes the contract with current employees and kills their motivation. Savvy employers would do well to remember that respect is a two way street; those who have none for their employees are bound to earn the same. Meanwhile, trying to reassign the sole burden of birth control to women is nearly as enlightened, and outdated, as the feudal system.

Diabetics have a copay for insulin. Long term medical issues have prescription costs - and a copay for those prescriptions. All of a sudden, it is a woman's right to free birth control, with no questions asked. Any objection is oppressing women. Really? Nothing in the Hobby Lobby decision PREVENTS access to birth control - any legal birth control is still available. You just have to pay for it... Welfare queens can have an iphone, tattoos, and smoke cigarettes, but oh the inhumanity of having to pay for the morning after pill because they are too oppressed to follow a regular pill prescription that is paid for....

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.