Violation of the Conscience Clause?

[RandFan]

Independent studies not from a potentially biased advocacy group have demonstrated this? Can you link to them?http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/14/1/gpr140107.html

I still haven't seen support for this perceived similarity between labor laws in general and the forcing of employers to pay for coverage that is not directly related to work place decisions or activities.
There are none so blind as they who will not see. Asserting that they are not similar does not make it so.

An interesting choice, as this labor concept actually does just the opposite of your proposed birth control mandate. It addresses an actual problem. Unwanted pregnancy IS A REAL PROBLEM! It's a real problem for the father and mother and a real problem for the employer. Sticking your finger in your ears and humming all the while saying see no evil, hear no evil is not good faith.

tl;dr

I don't think you are being serious. You haven't addressed a very simply question. Why should employers be forced to do anything? Until you can reasonably address that question then you are simply special pleading. Even if I grant you the premise that birth control doesn't address a real problem while family medical leave act does, IT DOESN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION. That aside, it is a real problem.

[Trakar]

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/14/1/gpr140107.html]/quote]

A group whose existence is predicated upon advocating for the expansion of global birth control practices globally, probably shouldn't be the first choice when looking for "independent studies not from a potentially biased advocacy group." Rather like looking to a CATO institute report to provide an objective look at politics in America.

[quote]
There are none so blind as they who will not see. Asserting that they are not similar does not make it so.

right back at you


Unwanted pregnancy IS A REAL PROBLEM!

forcing employers to pay for birthcontrol, is not the best, or even a good, comprehensive resolution with a shot at addressing more than an insignificant fraction of that problem. Free birth control is available now, and people don't make use of it. Thankfully the law agrees with my perspective. I thought you said you would go along with what the government decided on this issue? so why are you arguing against that position?


I don't think you are being serious. You haven't addressed a very simply question. Why should employers be forced to do anything?

The only cases I can see where employers should be forced by the government to pay (to stick to the point before the goal posts started shifting) anything to a third party business is when they have utilized business practices that unfairly disadvantaged that third party. If we open it up to your shifted position, the only reason I can think of for government to force an employer to do something, is when their current business actions and practices are causing a harm that wouldn't exist in the absence of the business.

[RandFan]

A group whose existence is predicated upon advocating for the expansion of global birth control practices globally, probably shouldn't be the first choice when looking for "independent studies not from a potentially biased advocacy group." Rather like looking to a CATO institute report to provide an objective look at politics in America. Oh BS. There is no controversy as to the studies.

forcing employers to pay for birthcontrol, is not the best, or even a good, Since it saves the employer in productivity and the employee avoids unwanted pregnancy it's a bit bizarre (and disingenuous) to declare that it isn't a good. It's one thing to think govt shouldn't be in the business of doing good and another to claim increased productivity and avoiding unwanted pregnancies is not good.

The only cases I can see where employers should be forced by the government to pay (to stick to the point before the goal posts started shifting) anything to a third party business is when they have utilized business practices that unfairly disadvantaged that third party. If we open it up to your shifted position, the only reason I can think of for government to force an employer to do something, is when their current business actions and practices are causing a harm that wouldn't exist in the absence of the business. If there was no business a couple would have to work day and night to hunt and gather enough food to feed their family. Therefore, the family medical leave act does not correct a harm. Most labor laws do not as business provides huge advantages over hunter gathering. So, you would do away with most labor law. Thank you. I can live with that so long as you are consistent.

No "shifted position". It's simple logic. Either you think that living in a society is a valid reason for govts to act for the good of society or not. That's it.

[Trakar]

Oh BS. There is no controversy as to the studies.

So this is the sole source of evidence you are using as the basis of your considerations?

If there was no business a couple would have to work day and night to hunt and gather enough food to feed their family. Therefore, the family medical leave act does not correct a harm. Most labor laws do not as business provides huge advantages over hunter gathering. So, you would do away with most labor law. Thank you. I can live with that so long as you are consistent.

False dichotomy much?


No "shifted position". It's simple logic. Either you think that living in a society is a valid reason for govts to act for the good of society or not. That's it.

"I didn't change my position, I just reworded it in a manner that avoided the complications that your addressment posed and broadened it to include other issues that I'm hoping you can't as easily address" - sounds like a shifted position to me.

I would agree that the primary purpose of having a government is to facillitate and encourage social harmony and growth, but this doesn't mean that I equate all government action with achieving those goals and purposes. The government, for the most part, is nothing more than the expression of popular will, when you have an intelligent, well-considered and educated populace motivated to the alturistic goals of equitable, fair treatment and opportunities for all, actions in accord with the idealized purposes for government. I don't see such a populace in the US.

[RandFan]

"I didn't change my position, I just reworded it in a manner that avoided the complications that your addressment posed and broadened it to include other issues that I'm hoping you can't as easily address" - sounds like a shifted position to me.
No. You are just special pleading. This claim of "reworded" is ad hoc rationalization.

I would agree that the primary purpose of having a government is to facillitate and encourage social harmony and growth, but this doesn't mean that I equate all government action with achieving those goals and purposes.Here we completely agree. However, you are picking and choosing when govt can facilitate and encourage that harmony based on special pleading.

The government, for the most part, is nothing more than the expression of popular will, when you have an intelligent, well-considered and educated populace motivated to the alturistic goals of equitable, fair treatment and opportunities for all, actions in accord with the idealized purposes for government. I don't see such a populace in the US.So, throw the baby out with the bath water? I don't understand your point. Govt can only act under ideal circumstances?

[Trakar]

No. You are just special pleading. This claim of "reworded" is ad hoc rationalization.

Why should anyone be forced to pay to cover the price of anything?...

...But here is the question that is still unanswered, why do we force an employer to do anything that isn't the result of an unfair benefit?...

Looks like goal posts a'shifting to me.


Here we completely agree. However, you are picking and choosing when govt can facilitate and encourage that harmony based on special pleading.

How do you percieve this as so?


So, throw the baby out with the bath water? I don't understand your point. Govt can only act under ideal circumstances?

How are you getting this from my words?

[RandFan]

Looks like goal posts a'shifting to me.No. I'm simply pointing out that a society can enact laws and policies for the good of society.

How do you percieve this as so?
You claim one law or policy is reasonable (family medical leave act) and another is not reasonable based on special circumstances.

How are you getting this from my words?You state there are two states. One idealized. The other isn't. You then state we don't live in the idealized state. Okay, and?

[Trakar]

You claim one law or policy is reasonable (family medical leave act) and another is not reasonable based on special circumstances.

No, I claim that one is based upon workplace business activities, so employer coverage makes some sense. The other is based on private decisions actions and choices that a person makes in their private lives having nothing to do with the employer or the workplace, so making the employer pay to cover this issue makes no sense.


You state there are two states. One idealized. The other isn't. You then state we don't live in the idealized state. Okay, and?

I state that the government rarely adheres to the ideals of its formation and aspirations, and that lockstepping behind every government action and decision based upon it's unrealized ideals is both foolish and counter-productive to actually moving the government closer to those idealized standards.

[RandFan]

No, I claim that one is based upon workplace business activities, so employer coverage makes some sense.Yeah. The very definition of special pleading. Family medical leave act has far less to do with workplace business activity than contraception. In fact, contraception will increase productivity and family medical leave arguably decreases it.

I state that the government rarely adheres to the ideals of its formation and aspirations, and that lockstepping behind every government action and decision based upon it's unrealized ideals is both foolish and counter-productive to actually moving the government closer to those idealized standards.Neither here nor there. A policy that improves business productivity and the lives of employees can only be a good policy. Hell, you've not claimed that it's a bad policy you just claim business shouldn't pick up the tab. I find this rhetoric about ideals to be unhelpful to the discussion. I'm not "lockstepping". The argument is sound. Women who do not get unwanted pregnancies don't need to take time off work. It's good for them it's good for the employer and it's good for society (if the woman doesn't have insurance the state will have to pick up the tab).

A no brainer if there ever was one.

[AvalonXQ]

Yeah. The very definition of special pleading. Family medical leave act has far less to do with workplace business activity than contraception. In fact, contraception will increase productivity and family medical leave arguably decreases it.

Indirect effects are not what we mean when we talk about workplace business activity. FMLA is directly about work -- contraception is not.

Having one beer at my desk during the workday may have no noticeable effect on me, while getting wasted after I get off work may prevent me from being productive the next morning. Nonetheless, a workplace would be far more within its rights to prevent the former than the latter, as the former is about workplace activity and the latter is none of their darn business.

Contraception is a personal matter done in the privacy of one's own home. The FMLA is about whether you're going to stay home from work. The latter is clearly more the employer's business.

[RandFan]

Indirect effects are not what we mean when we talk about workplace business activity. FMLA is directly about work -- contraception is not. Special pleading. The reasons for FMLA have nothing to with work. The only relationship is that the act deprives the business of resources (workers). The contraceptive policy would also deprive the business of resources (money) but would result in a net gain (increased productivity). You are simply stating that depriving business of workers is a business activity but depriving business of money (to the ultimate benefit of business by increasing productivity) is not a business activity. Absurd claim for special circumstances.

Having one beer at my desk during the workday may have no noticeable effect on me, while getting wasted after I get off work may prevent me from being productive the next morning. Nonetheless, a workplace would be far more within its rights to prevent the former than the latter, as the former is about workplace activity and the latter is none of their darn business. Ah, but we are not talking about the business. We are talking about govt making decisions to help people (often times in conflict with the wishes of the business owner). Hence FMLA. So your beer example is a non sequitur. FMLA exists because govt wanted to help people. Like FMLA contraceptive coverage exists to help both workers and the employer. Since the employer benefited and since it would be an easy thing for the employer to track govt had made the decision to have the employer pay for the coverage.

Contraception is a personal matter done in the privacy of one's own home. The FMLA is about whether you're going to stay home from work. The latter is clearly more the employer's business.Unwanted pregnancy effects the employer directly as he must make accommodations for the employee. Since preventing unwanted pregnancy benefits the employer and since the employer has to deal with insurance it was a no brainer to have the employer pay for and keep track of the co-pays.