Hobby Lobby invests in companies that makes IUD's/Plan-B Contraceptives

notquiteright said:

As does the BC pill for some women... you are nit picking ONE form of BC in a CON attempt to claim concern for women's health... :doh

You can suspect anything you wish, you seem unable to prove much though. What insurance does Hobby Lobby offer?

Now to get back to the facts... Hobby Lobby is suing the Government to avoid obeying the law. I don't see the heartfelt religious objection near as much as not wishing to provide comprehensive heath care insurance.

Click to expand...

And the Left is nitpicking as well, since HL is complying with most of the law by offering contraceptives, just not all of them. It's all or nothing with you people, and most for making poltical hay against religious people. IUD's are primarily recommended for those in long term relationships that don't intend to have children, because sometimes fertility is affected; why, because of high risk.

Lutherf said:

The premise of this thread may well be the most ridiculous overreach I have seen on this site (note that I don't frequent the conspiracy forum).

29 CFR 2550.404c-5 covers the requirements for funds a 401(k) can be invested in. While the reg doesn't specify particular financial instruments it does require 'pooled funds' and also requires diversified investment managed in such a way as to minimize risk. It would be INCREDIBLY difficult for a fund manager to fulfill the obligations of this regulation without investing in certain instruments that are, in turn, invested in some form of medical research or manufacturing.

For these reasons it behooves an employer to hire a management firm to handle their 401(k). The employer will generally not interfere with the fund manager because to do so might create a violation of the aforementioned regulation.

Furthermore, the employer is not allowed to direct the employee's investment choices but is (if they provide matching funds) required to meet their contribution requirements as defined by the written agreement. If the employee opts for a fund that is partially invested in medical and pharmaceutical businesses (as many funds are) then they have no choice but to match those contributions.

Finally, when the employer (or you) buy the stock of a pharmaceutical corporation you ARE NOT making a cash payment to that corporation. All you are doing is purchasing the right to a certain percentage of the equity in that corporation. In some cases you might have voting rights but that's about it.

Click to expand...

Incredibly difficult?

Was adhering to your faith supposed to be easy?

If they believe offering insurance that supplies birth control that the adherent will not use is so offensive, then surely investing in companies that do not conform is at least as bad -possibly worse, if those companies make abortion pills.

Moot said:

The court wasn't asked to rule on the structure or the standards in the law. But whats wrong with having standards in health care?

Click to expand...

Depends on the standards. I have no problem in possibly setting coverage caps. for deductable's and out of pockets. telling a single guy or a 60 year old women that they have to buy prenatal and maternity care though no i don't agree with.

I also don't agree with telling people they can't spend the HSA accounts on valid medical purchases just because you don't think they are valid.

Did the court rule that it was unconstitutional?

Click to expand...

Depends on what you view it as. The court ruled it unconstitutional under the commerce clause. meaning the government can't force you to buy products or services you don't want.

This was a huge stretch they ruled it constitutional under tax law even though the obama administration maintained it wasn't a tax but a penalty. a penalty would have been unconstitutional, but roberts screwed up and said it was a tax. that was the only way this bill or at least the mandate passed.

Did the court rule that the government didn't have the authority?

Click to expand...

This has never been argued in front of the court so there is no ruling. we have anti-slavery laws though in which that is what mandatory servitude is.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

this isn't a hypocrisy. it is the employee's that are investing in the funds. the funds cover a huge wide variety of sectors in order to spread the risk yet maintain a profitable margin for the investor.

i am sure that there are people here that have invested in companies that they would ideologically oppose does that make them hypocrites? no.

investing based on ideology is about as bad as investing on emotion. it is stupid. i don't invest for those reason i invest to make more money.

shavingcollywob said:

Stop with the fake outrage.

In all likelihood Hobby Lobby had no idea their employees 401(k)s invested in mutual funds that invested in companies that make emergency contraceptives. I have no idea what companies make emergency contraceptives myself.

Click to expand...

That is exactly right. Just as there is no way for HL to know if their premuims payed to their carrier is pooled and covers the carrier's insured with the very contraceptions they oppose...other than common sense.

Highly unlikely a corporation like HL has the capability to do due diliagance in their scrutinizing investments.

notquiteright said:

Another CON game, yes too bad you didn't think about this a bit more.

Hobby Lobby is attempting to get out of providing Health Care Insurance because a tiny fraction of what they pay MAY go to Birth Control which they claim soo violates their PERSONAL religious tenants they would rather face fines and court costs rather than abide by the law. They howsomever are FAR less concerned about supporting Big Pharma who makes the BC drugs through the 401(K) plans THEY provide to their employees. They can easily avoid the 401(K) issue by using a Faith Based Fund manager.

For both you and Hobby Lobby the phrase is- "render unto Caesar's what is Caesars", both of you have complete discretion in what retirement plans you can use to avoid the religious turmoil you claim to suffer by the fact PPH receives federal funding.

It rings a bit hollow that Hobby Lobby is so willing to face fines and court costs over so tiny amount of BC coverage- a slightly jaded man might opine they see it as avoiding providing health coverage all together thus making it more justifiable to face fines and court costs- but so inattentive on the 401(k) issue.

Click to expand...

You don't even know what the case is about, do you?

They aren't trying to get out of providing insurance and their existing plan does provide for birth control.

This case is about covering IUD's and abortificant drugs.

Bob N said:

Seeing that Hobby Lobby is pretty strict with their business and their religion--meaning they go hand in hand--they should have looked in to those mutual funds just like they looked in to their health care doings--with the same tenacity.

Click to expand...

Exactly why should they have done that?

I mean I get that this is a political forum and there are bound to be plenty of partisan hacks on this website but the idea that they've done something wrong because they didn't know their employees 401(k)s contained mutual funds that contained companies who make whatever it is they disagree with is foolish.

WorldWatcher said:

Please provide a link to the FDA which show such a warning. When verifying this statement all I could find was:

5.2
Existing Pregnancy Plan B One-Step is not effective in terminating an existing pregnancy.

http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2009/021998lbl.pdf
​

From the FDA.



>>>>

Click to expand...

4. CONTRAINDICATIONS
Plan B One-Step is contraindicated for use in the case of known or suspected pregnancy.

Definition of contraindication: The presence of a factor or condition that would preclude an intervention, and which, if performed, could cause harm to the patient and be regarded as a negligent act.

If a fetus has formed, and the mother takes Plan B, it has the potential to abort the fetus.

This is what HL objects to.

notquiteright said:

I see it as a stalking horse... using 4 forms to deny them all... the law doesn't allow the employer to decide which forms of MEDICALLY approved treatments the employer will 'pay for'. I figure Hobby Lobby is trying to stick it's camel's nose into our tent.

it is a bit of a false doctrine to claim Hobby Lobby can get out paying for abortive BC methods as the money pools in a collective bin for ALL insured members at the Insurance Company. Thus Hobby Lobby may demand their employees not get one of the dreaded 4 but Hobby Lobby's money in the pool sure can be used to fund a different company's employees. :doh

Then again an employee can take Hobby Lobby money and buy one of the dreaded 4 so once again Hobby Lobby money can be paying for a 'bad' drug.

As best it is a face saving stunt by Hobby Lobby, at worst the start of eroding ACA coverage... eace

Click to expand...

The problem is the SCOTUS isn't going to rule based on what they "might" or "may" do, nor is HL suggesting that all of their employees consult with the company before spending their salaries to ensure that HL approves of the purchase.

HL isn't trying to stick its nose in my tent. I don't work for them. Do you?

tres borrachos said:

4. CONTRAINDICATIONS
Plan B One-Step is contraindicated for use in the case of known or suspected pregnancy.

Definition of contraindication: The presence of a factor or condition that would preclude an intervention, and which, if performed, could cause harm to the patient and be regarded as a negligent act.

If a fetus has formed, and the mother takes Plan B, it has the potential to abort the fetus.

This is what HL objects to.

Click to expand...

Contraindications don't mean that it will cause an abortion. The idea that you would greatly screw with the hormone levels of a female whose hormone levels are in flux (due to pregnancy) makes sense. It doesn't mean that it will cause an abortion as the VERY NEXT sentence indicates.

You indicated that the FDA labels says it will cause an abortion and what you quoted isn't it. As a matter of fact it specifically says it does not cause the termination of an existing pregnancy.



>>>>

WorldWatcher said:

Contraindications don't mean that it will cause an abortion. The idea that you would greatly screw with the hormone levels of a female whose hormone levels are in flux (due to pregnancy) makes sense. It doesn't mean that it will cause an abortion as the VERY NEXT sentence indicates.

You indicated that the FDA labels says it will cause an abortion and what you quoted isn't it. As a matter of fact it specifically says it does not cause the termination of an existing pregnancy.



>>>>

Click to expand...

I posted what is on the FDA label, and the definition of contraindication. Why did you ask me if you're now claiming you already knew it was there?

The contraindication warning is so that women who are pregnant know the pill may cause a formed fetus to abort.

If you have an objection to what the FDA says, you need to get in touch with them. I'm not with the FDA, sorry.

And there is also this:

12 CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
12.1 Mechanism of Action
Emergency contraceptive pills are not effective if a woman is already pregnant. Plan B One-Step is believed to act as an emergency contraceptive principally by preventing ovulation or fertilization (by altering tubal transport of sperm and/or ova). In addition, it may inhibit implantation (by altering the endometrium). It is not effective once the process of implantation has begun.

Inhibit implantation of a fetus. To those who believe life begins at conception, inhibiting implantation terminates the fetus' chance of survival.

These are not my arguments, this is what Hobby Lobby objects to. You asked, and I provided.

tres borrachos said:

I posted what is on the FDA label, and the definition of contraindication. Why did you ask me if you're now claiming you already knew it was there?

The contraindication warning is so that women who are pregnant know the pill may cause a formed fetus to abort.

If you have an objection to what the FDA says, you need to get in touch with them. I'm not with the FDA, sorry.

Click to expand...

I don't see anywhere in the below statement where is says it will cause an abortion. Contraindication of prescription can be for many things such as (just to pick some at random that are not abortions): headaches, strokes, diarrhea, stomach ache, rash. Just because a medication is contraindicated doesn't mean it will cause an abortion.



On the other hand the very next sentence says:




It is a contraceptive (prevents pregnancy), not an abortificiant (terminate an existing pregnancy).


****************************************

Contraindications for Oral Contraceptive pills include: (http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/WomensHealthResearch/UCM133346.pdf)




So if Plan-B is an abortificiant because it is contraindicated during pregnancy (which since it involves hormones, that makes perfect sense), then low does Oral Contraceptives fall into the same realm since "pregnancy" is listed as one of the contra-indicators for prescription.

Yet Hobby Lobby doesn't seem to have a problem with these abortificiants.

>>>>

How much would you like to bet that 99%ers that protest things like Banks, Big pharm, health care, oil, etc are also invested in those things (providing they have 401ks)?

tres borrachos said:

And there is also this:

12 CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
12.1 Mechanism of Action
Emergency contraceptive pills are not effective if a woman is already pregnant. Plan B One-Step is believed to act as an emergency contraceptive principally by preventing ovulation or fertilization (by altering tubal transport of sperm and/or ova). In addition, it may inhibit implantation (by altering the endometrium). It is not effective once the process of implantation has begun.

Inhibit implantation of a fetus. To those who believe life begins at conception, inhibiting implantation terminates the fetus' chance of survival.

These are not my arguments, this is what Hobby Lobby objects to. You asked, and I provided.

Click to expand...

"Hormonal contraceptives (the pill, the patch, and the vaginal ring) all contain a small amount of man-made estrogen and progestin hormones. These hormones work to inhibit the body's natural cyclical hormones to prevent pregnancy. Pregnancy is prevented by a combination of factors. The hormonal contraceptive usually stops the body from ovulating. Hormonal contraceptives also change the cervical mucus to make it difficult for the sperm to find an egg. Hormonal contraceptives can also prevent pregnancy by making the lining of the womb inhospitable for implantation."

Birth Control Pills - Types, Effectiveness, and Side Effects of Birth Control Pills




They function the same way as low dose monthly oral contraceptives do, in three ways: prevent ovulation, prevent fertilization, and prevent implantation.



>>>>

Please read post #61, and please also contact the FDA if you object to the data, Worldwatcher. I'm not the FDA or with the FDA. I can't help you, sorry.

VanceMack said:

How much would you like to bet that 99%ers that protest things like Banks, Big pharm, health care, oil, etc are also invested in those things (providing they have 401ks)?

Click to expand...

Those that have 401Ks are bound to be invested in companies somehow engaged in businesses they abhor.

But they will beat this Hobby Lobby thing to death, because...well, I don't really know why. I find it hard to believe that HL employees only getting access to 16 forms of contraception instead of 20 is the biggest problem this country has. We sure do focus on the most worthless things.

tres borrachos said:

4. CONTRAINDICATIONS
Plan B One-Step is contraindicated for use in the case of known or suspected pregnancy.

Definition of contraindication: The presence of a factor or condition that would preclude an intervention, and which, if performed, could cause harm to the patient and be regarded as a negligent act.

If a fetus has formed, and the mother takes Plan B, it has the potential to abort the fetus.

This is what HL objects to.

Click to expand...

It says on the label that pregnant shouldn't take the drug. In fact, a lot of drugs have labels warning pregnant women not to take them because they could induce abortion. Is Hobby Lobby going to object to those too?

http://learnpharmacy.info/handouts/Drugs not to touch while pregnant.pdf

tres borrachos said:

Those that have 401Ks are bound to be invested in companies somehow engaged in businesses they abhor.

But they will beat this Hobby Lobby thing to death, because...well, I don't really know why. I find it hard to believe that HL employees only getting access to 16 forms of contraception instead of 20 is the biggest problem this country has. We sure do focus on the most worthless things.

Click to expand...

The whole contraception thing is a bull**** red herring Its a non issue. Sandra Fluke lied when she gave her faux testimony and the fact she, even though she was a student at this Jesuit university that was allegedly denying oral contraceptives WAS COVERED was pretty much glossed over and ignored. But hey...if you are going to run for president and need to have a cause, then you can best believe...it will be the "war on women". 2016..welcome to the future.

VanceMack said:

How much would you like to bet that 99%ers that protest things like Banks, Big pharm, health care, oil, etc are also invested in those things (providing they have 401ks)?

Click to expand...

Has the SCOTUS ruled on any of the 99%ers protests? If they have, I'll bet it was in favor of business and not the rights of the individual.

tres borrachos said:

The ACA requires that insurance include 20 specific forms of contraception. 4 of them contain FDA warnings that they may cause a formed fetus to abort.

Click to expand...

tres borrachos said:

Please read post #61, and please also contact the FDA if you object to the data, Worldwatcher. I'm not the FDA or with the FDA. I can't help you, sorry.

Click to expand...

And please read the labeling information I'm the one that linked to from the FDA. It clearly says that Plan-B does not cause an abortion. Just because something is contraindicated during pregnancy does not mean it causes abortions. As a matter of fact the FDA said just the opposite that it is not used to terminate an existing pregnancy.

You made a claim you have yet to support. So where is this FDA label that says it causes abortions?



>>>>

WorldWatcher said:

And please read the labeling information I'm the one that linked to from the FDA. It clearly says that Plan-B does not cause an abortion. Just because something is contraindicated during pregnancy does not mean it causes abortions. As a matter of fact the FDA said just the opposite that it is not used to terminate an existing pregnancy.

You made a claim you have yet to support. So where is this FDA label that says it causes abortions?



>>>>

Click to expand...

From what i understand is that Plan B does not allow the egg to attach to the uterus. so if the egg is fertilized and try's to attach it can't therefore it aborts. If you believe that life begins at conception like most Christians and Catholics do then that is considered an abortion.

a fertilized egg would be considered an existing pregnancy.

WorldWatcher said:

And please read the labeling information I'm the one that linked to from the FDA. It clearly says that Plan-B does not cause an abortion. Just because something is contraindicated during pregnancy does not mean it causes abortions. As a matter of fact the FDA said just the opposite that it is not used to terminate an existing pregnancy.

You made a claim you have yet to support. So where is this FDA label that says it causes abortions?



>>>>

Click to expand...

Excuse me, but I didn't make any "claims". The thread isn't about me. I'm not Hobby Lobby.

If you have something to contribute to the case, kindly contact either the Hobby Lobby attorneys, or Eric Holder.

Good grief.:roll:

Moot said:

It says on the label that pregnant shouldn't take the drug. In fact, a lot of drugs have labels warning pregnant women not to take them because they could induce abortion. Is Hobby Lobby going to object to those too?

http://learnpharmacy.info/handouts/Drugs not to touch while pregnant.pdf

Click to expand...

I don't know. You will have to ask them. But post #61 should help you understand their objection better.

shavingcollywob said:

Stop with the fake outrage.

In all likelihood Hobby Lobby had no idea their employees 401(k)s invested in mutual funds that invested in companies that make emergency contraceptives. I have no idea what companies make emergency contraceptives myself.

Click to expand...

Are you trying to tell me that Mother Jones could find the funds that invested in companies that make contraceptives, but Hobby Lobby couldn't find them, even though IT IS THEIR OWN FUNDS? OK, you can believe that if you want. BTW, I am selling the Brooklyn Bridge. I'll make you a good offer.

Moot said:

The court wasn't asked to rule on the structure or the standards in the law. But whats wrong with having standards in health care?

Click to expand...

no they didn't rule that way ....did they?, however it seems many people believe they have a right to certain things, which is a falsehood no human being has a right to a material good or service.

the company has contracted with a health insurance company, to provide coverage, the employes do not own or control the plan...... the company does....freedom means... you accept what they offer ...or you seek your own plan.

Moot said:

Did the court rule that it was unconstitutional?

Click to expand...

the constitution states its unconstitutional, for government to force a person or business to provide a material good or service people.

Moot said:

Did the court rule that the government didn't have the authority?

Click to expand...

the constitutions states government does not have the authority, the constitution limits governments, ..not people or business.