Hobby Lobby's 401(k) plan invests in contraception manufactures

[NobleSavage]

Isn't this interesting

http://politics.suntimes.com/articl...eption-manufacturers/tue-04012014-827pm#bmb=1

 

[Angry Floof]

Interesting, but not surprising. Compartmentalized thinking is key to hypocritical ideology.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

It makes them money, so it is a holy thing.

 

[coloradoatheist]

It makes them money, so it is a holy thing.

Which part makes them money? Are they really saving a lot of money by not offering the few contraceptives they don't agree with?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

It makes them money, so it is a holy thing.

Which part makes them money? Are they really saving a lot of money by not offering the few contraceptives they don't agree with?

Really? They could care less about contraceptives. They are mad because of Obamacare. Obamacare costs them money. 401(k)s boost their eligible employees retirement. Don't think for a minute this is really about religious freedom.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Which part makes them money? Are they really saving a lot of money by not offering the few contraceptives they don't agree with?

Really? They could care less about contraceptives. They are mad because of Obamacare. Obamacare costs them money. 401(k)s boost their eligible employees retirement. Don't think for a minute this is really about religious freedom.

And they spent a lot of time and money just to fight a small piece of Obamacare. The fight cost more than what they would save for the few contraceptives.

 

[ksen]

Really? They could care less about contraceptives. They are mad because of Obamacare. Obamacare costs them money. 401(k)s boost their eligible employees retirement. Don't think for a minute this is really about religious freedom.

And they spent a lot of time and money just to fight a small piece of Obamacare. The fight cost more than what they would save for the few contraceptives.

That was the squirrel's point. The fight wasn't really about contraceptives and religious objections. That was just the fig leaf they used in order to mount a challenge against Obamacare.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Really? They could care less about contraceptives. They are mad because of Obamacare. Obamacare costs them money. 401(k)s boost their eligible employees retirement. Don't think for a minute this is really about religious freedom.

And they spent a lot of time and money just to fight a small piece of Obamacare. The fight cost more than what they would save for the few contraceptives.

No, because I am pretty sure there is NO savings for them for the plan because of this. Like all businesses they negotiate with the insurance companies and would just stipulate that the policy won't cover birth control. Let's see if they actually follow through with that mandate.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

They didn't object to all and every contraception, just some specific forms.

 

[NobleSavage]

They didn't object to all and every contraception, just some specific forms.

Yeah, they object to the "abortion pill". Read the first sentence of the link: "Hobby Lobby's employee retirement plan contains nine mutual funds that have a total of $73 million in holdings in companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices and drugs commonly used in abortions."

 

[none]

couldn't this hypocrisy of hobby lobby be used to challenge their "sincere Christian beliefs" ?

 

[Rhea]

I want to see the insurance company say, "you won't cover contraceptives? Taht'll cost you extra." and how sincerely held their beliefs still are. Birthing is more expensive than preventing, every single time.

 

[fromderinside]

Isn't this interesting

http://politics.suntimes.com/articl...eption-manufacturers/tue-04012014-827pm#bmb=1

But that isn't inconsistent since Hobby Holly believes contraception that does not abort is OK.

I still think the USSC didn't expand LH's petition to include all contraceptive methods from being required for insurance. LH can still insure employees that want to use preventative contraceptive methods.

 

[Jayjay]

Isn't this interesting

http://politics.suntimes.com/articl...eption-manufacturers/tue-04012014-827pm#bmb=1

But that isn't inconsistent since Hobby Holly believes contraception that does not abort is OK.

Same manufacturers also produce abortion-inducing drugs.

"Other holdings in the mutual funds selected by Hobby Lobby include Pfizer, the maker of Cytotec and Prostin E2, which are used to induce abortions; Bayer, which manufactures the hormonal IUDs Skyla and Mirena; AstraZeneca, which has an Indian subsidiary that manufactures Prostodin, Cerviprime, and Partocin, three drugs commonly used in abortions; and Forest Laboratories, which makes Cervidil, a drug used to induce abortions."

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I want to see the insurance company say, "you won't cover contraceptives? Taht'll cost you extra." and how sincerely held their beliefs still are. Birthing is more expensive than preventing, every single time.

But this was about an emergency contraceptive, not general contraceptive, so the risk of additional births would be lower than if the company said no to "the pill". In which case, the insurance company may very well include a higher rate due to the additional risk.

 

[NobleSavage]

Isn't this interesting

http://politics.suntimes.com/articl...eption-manufacturers/tue-04012014-827pm#bmb=1

But that isn't inconsistent since Hobby Holly believes contraception that does not abort is OK.

I still think the USSC didn't expand LH's petition to include all contraceptive methods from being required for insurance. LH can still insure employees that want to use preventative contraceptive methods.

Read the damn article. They are invested in the kind that abort.

 

[NobleSavage]

I want to see the insurance company say, "you won't cover contraceptives? Taht'll cost you extra." and how sincerely held their beliefs still are. Birthing is more expensive than preventing, every single time.

But this was about an emergency contraceptive, not general contraceptive, so the risk of additional births would be lower than if the company said no to "the pill". In which case, the insurance company may very well include a higher rate due to the additional risk.

They are also saying no to IUDs, while sometimes an abortificient it is not emergency contraception. Some women use IUD's for reasons other than birth control.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Really? They could care less about contraceptives. They are mad because of Obamacare. Obamacare costs them money. 401(k)s boost their eligible employees retirement. Don't think for a minute this is really about religious freedom.

And they spent a lot of time and money just to fight a small piece of Obamacare. The fight cost more than what they would save for the few contraceptives.

Not only that, but plan B has a negative cost.

 

[RavenSky]

I want to see the insurance company say, "you won't cover contraceptives? Taht'll cost you extra." and how sincerely held their beliefs still are. Birthing is more expensive than preventing, every single time.

But this was about an emergency contraceptive, not general contraceptive, so the risk of additional births would be lower than if the company said no to "the pill". In which case, the insurance company may very well include a higher rate due to the additional risk.

No it wasn't. IUDs are not an "emergency contraceptive"

 

[Celldweller]

Pfizer is also heavily vested into stem cell research, which, is clearly outlawed by God.