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

[Loren Pechtel]

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"

Actually they can be used as one assuming there is no STD issue. Implanting an IUD will prevent implantation.

 

[Rhea]

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

Actually they can be used as one assuming there is no STD issue. Implanting an IUD will prevent implantation.

I would be extremely surprised if a woman could get an IUD placed in less than 72 hours.

 

[RavenSky]

Actually they can be used as one assuming there is no STD issue. Implanting an IUD will prevent implantation.

I would be extremely surprised if a woman could get an IUD placed in less than 72 hours.

He is correct that copper IUDs *can* be used if inserted within 7 days of intercourse. The point remains that this is not its purpose. It's purpose is long term regular birth control.

So basically women like me who could ONLY use an IUD as regular birth control are SOL because a bunch of hypocrites want control over women's bodies.

 

[Rhea]

It's important that your sex always have consequences. And if that includes debilitating periods, then that's god's will - he TOLD you that'd be your punishment for Eve's sin. Pay attention, you deserve this.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Actually they can be used as one assuming there is no STD issue. Implanting an IUD will prevent implantation.

I would be extremely surprised if a woman could get an IUD placed in less than 72 hours.

http://ec.princeton.edu/info/eciud.html

 

[Sabine Grant]

I would be extremely surprised if a woman could get an IUD placed in less than 72 hours.

http://ec.princeton.edu/info/eciud.html

The limitation is the COST :

http://plannedparenthood.tumblr.com/post/28521852221/how-much-does-an-iud-cost.

Such emergency based use means that the patient will need to be able to afford :

The IUD is the most inexpensive long-term and reversible form of birth control you can get. Unlike other forms of birth control, the IUD only costs money in the beginning. The cost for the medical exam, the IUD, the insertion of the IUD and follow-up visits to your health care provider can range from $500 to $900. That cost pays for protection that can last more than a decade.

I will safely assume that no one *thinks* that an IUD can be obtained OTC and self inserted and all of that without any medical supervision, as an emergency measure.

I will also assume that given the choice between obtaining OTC the EC "morning after pill" at the cost of 35 dollars versus the cost of IUD implantation as an emergency measure, most women would choose EC versus IUD. And for patients under the age of 17 :

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pl...pages/health-services/emergency-contraception

Over-the-counter, for women and men over 17 years old, EC costs $35.
For patients under the age of 17 purchasing Emergency Contraception, there is an additional $10 copay for the office visit.

 

[RavenSky]

Actually they can be used as one assuming there is no STD issue. Implanting an IUD will prevent implantation.

I would be extremely surprised if a woman could get an IUD placed in less than 72 hours.

http://ec.princeton.edu/info/eciud.html

The limitation is the COST :

http://plannedparenthood.tumblr.com/post/28521852221/how-much-does-an-iud-cost.

Such emergency based use means that the patient will need to be able to afford :

The IUD is the most inexpensive long-term and reversible form of birth control you can get. Unlike other forms of birth control, the IUD only costs money in the beginning. The cost for the medical exam, the IUD, the insertion of the IUD and follow-up visits to your health care provider can range from $500 to $900. That cost pays for protection that can last more than a decade.

I will safely assume that no one *thinks* that an IUD can be obtained OTC and self inserted and all of that without any medical supervision, as an emergency measure.

I will also assume that given the choice between obtaining OTC the EC "morning after pill" at the cost of 35 dollars versus the cost of IUD implantation as an emergency measure, most women would choose EC versus IUD. And for patients under the age of 17 :

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pl...pages/health-services/emergency-contraception

Over-the-counter, for women and men over 17 years old, EC costs $35.
For patients under the age of 17 purchasing Emergency Contraception, there is an additional $10 copay for the office visit.

All of which eloquently explains why an IUD is not really an "emergency contraceptive" - so I will ask Loren, Jimmy and others - are you fine with the USSC allowing Hobby Lobby to disallow the IUD from the health insurance plans because they erroneously believe the IUD is an abortifacient or "emergency contraception"?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

http://ec.princeton.edu/info/eciud.html

The limitation is the COST :

http://plannedparenthood.tumblr.com/post/28521852221/how-much-does-an-iud-cost.

Such emergency based use means that the patient will need to be able to afford :

The IUD is the most inexpensive long-term and reversible form of birth control you can get. Unlike other forms of birth control, the IUD only costs money in the beginning. The cost for the medical exam, the IUD, the insertion of the IUD and follow-up visits to your health care provider can range from $500 to $900. That cost pays for protection that can last more than a decade.

I will safely assume that no one *thinks* that an IUD can be obtained OTC and self inserted and all of that without any medical supervision, as an emergency measure.

I will also assume that given the choice between obtaining OTC the EC "morning after pill" at the cost of 35 dollars versus the cost of IUD implantation as an emergency measure, most women would choose EC versus IUD. And for patients under the age of 17 :

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pl...pages/health-services/emergency-contraception

Over-the-counter, for women and men over 17 years old, EC costs $35.
For patients under the age of 17 purchasing Emergency Contraception, there is an additional $10 copay for the office visit.

Yeah, it's expensive. That doesn't mean it's never used as emergency contraception.

In fact, I would be inclined to say that if she will neither abort nor adopt that the IUD is actually cheaper if she's near ovulation. (I'm considering the Plan B failure rate * the odds of conception * the cost to raise a kid.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

All of which eloquently explains why an IUD is not really an "emergency contraceptive" - so I will ask Loren, Jimmy and others - are you fine with the USSC allowing Hobby Lobby to disallow the IUD from the health insurance plans because they erroneously believe the IUD is an abortifacient or "emergency contraception"?

It *IS* an abortifacient by a strict definition of the term.

That doesn't mean I think it's acceptable for Hobby Lobby to exclude it.

 

[Sabine Grant]

The limitation is the COST :

http://plannedparenthood.tumblr.com/post/28521852221/how-much-does-an-iud-cost.

Such emergency based use means that the patient will need to be able to afford :

The IUD is the most inexpensive long-term and reversible form of birth control you can get. Unlike other forms of birth control, the IUD only costs money in the beginning. The cost for the medical exam, the IUD, the insertion of the IUD and follow-up visits to your health care provider can range from $500 to $900. That cost pays for protection that can last more than a decade.

I will safely assume that no one *thinks* that an IUD can be obtained OTC and self inserted and all of that without any medical supervision, as an emergency measure.

I will also assume that given the choice between obtaining OTC the EC "morning after pill" at the cost of 35 dollars versus the cost of IUD implantation as an emergency measure, most women would choose EC versus IUD. And for patients under the age of 17 :

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pl...pages/health-services/emergency-contraception

Over-the-counter, for women and men over 17 years old, EC costs $35.
For patients under the age of 17 purchasing Emergency Contraception, there is an additional $10 copay for the office visit.

Yeah, it's expensive. That doesn't mean it's never used as emergency contraception.

I understand that Loren. The reason why I brought up the cost differential is because it would obviously be MUCH easier to access and afford EC than undergo an expensive process for the purpose of an emergency situation. Therefor, one may reasonably conclude that the number of women choosing IUD implantation within 72 hours of unprotected vaginal intercourse is most probably very low compared to the easy access (OTC) and low cost of EC.

[In fact, I would be inclined to say that if she will neither abort nor adopt that the IUD is actually cheaper if she's near ovulation. (I'm considering the Plan B failure rate * the odds of conception * the cost to raise a kid.)

The point is that it does not make much sense to rely on IUD implantation as an EMERGENCY measure following unprotected vaginal intercourse considering easier access (OTC) and low cost for the actual emergency measure known as EC.

 

[Sabine Grant]

All of which eloquently explains why an IUD is not really an "emergency contraceptive" - so I will ask Loren, Jimmy and others - are you fine with the USSC allowing Hobby Lobby to disallow the IUD from the health insurance plans because they erroneously believe the IUD is an abortifacient or "emergency contraception"?

It *IS* an abortifacient by a strict definition of the term.

Actually, Loren, there are 2 types of IUDs

http://www.medicinenet.com/iud/page2.htm#how_does_an_intrauterine_device_iud_work

The TCu380A (Paragard) IUD or "copper coil" is not an abortifacient. It is by definition an actual contraceptive, meaning it prevents fertilization or "conception".

The hormonal one ( progestine release) aside from its property as a contraceptive can also act as an abortifacient as it triggers a thinning of the lining of the uterine wall which would then impair the implantation of a fertilized egg.

I suppose those important nuances escaped the attention of 5 Justices who seem to have neglected to do their own home work regarding the 2 different types of IUDs. Well...why would they be consulting with health care professionals on a topic which involves clinical data?

That doesn't mean I think it's acceptable for Hobby Lobby to exclude it.

Based on the above and if the actual motivation is about abortifacients preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg, Paragard should NOT have been included in their reasoning. The term abortion applies only as fertilization has occurred.Leukocytes attacking sperm as an immune system response to inflammation caused by Paragard do not act as an abortifacient.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The limitation is the COST :

http://plannedparenthood.tumblr.com/post/28521852221/how-much-does-an-iud-cost.

Such emergency based use means that the patient will need to be able to afford :

The IUD is the most inexpensive long-term and reversible form of birth control you can get. Unlike other forms of birth control, the IUD only costs money in the beginning. The cost for the medical exam, the IUD, the insertion of the IUD and follow-up visits to your health care provider can range from $500 to $900. That cost pays for protection that can last more than a decade.

I will safely assume that no one *thinks* that an IUD can be obtained OTC and self inserted and all of that without any medical supervision, as an emergency measure.

I will also assume that given the choice between obtaining OTC the EC "morning after pill" at the cost of 35 dollars versus the cost of IUD implantation as an emergency measure, most women would choose EC versus IUD. And for patients under the age of 17 :

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pl...pages/health-services/emergency-contraception

Over-the-counter, for women and men over 17 years old, EC costs $35.
For patients under the age of 17 purchasing Emergency Contraception, there is an additional $10 copay for the office visit.

Yeah, it's expensive. That doesn't mean it's never used as emergency contraception.

I understand that Loren. The reason why I brought up the cost differential is because it would obviously be MUCH easier to access and afford EC than undergo an expensive process for the purpose of an emergency situation. Therefor, one may reasonably conclude that the number of women choosing IUD implantation within 72 hours of unprotected vaginal intercourse is most probably very low compared to the easy access (OTC) and low cost of EC.

[In fact, I would be inclined to say that if she will neither abort nor adopt that the IUD is actually cheaper if she's near ovulation. (I'm considering the Plan B failure rate * the odds of conception * the cost to raise a kid.)

The point is that it does not make much sense to rely on IUD implantation as an EMERGENCY measure following unprotected vaginal intercourse considering easier access (OTC) and low cost for the actual emergency measure known as EC.

That link I posted was from the era where Plan B exists. Therefore, obviously, it's sometimes used.

 

[RavenSky]

All of which eloquently explains why an IUD is not really an "emergency contraceptive" - so I will ask Loren, Jimmy and others - are you fine with the USSC allowing Hobby Lobby to disallow the IUD from the health insurance plans because they erroneously believe the IUD is an abortifacient or "emergency contraception"?

It *IS* an abortifacient by a strict definition of the term.

It is *NOT* an abortifacient by any strict definition of the term unless you are an extreme anti-choice type. An abortifacient causes a miscarriage (abortion). In scientific terms, this can't happen until after the fertilized egg has implanted in the uterine wall. Even by extreme anti-choice rhetoric, a miscarriage/abortion can't happen until after the egg is fertilized. And worse, their god is the biggest abortionist of all.

The IUD prevents fertilization. This is not an abortifacient.

Or if it is because of the slim chance it might also prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, then so too is every other birth control method other than "barrier" methods. As such, Hobby Lobby are hypocrites to their own position.

 

[RavenSky]

Because I have having this exact same futile *discussion* on FaceBook as well, here is one of my comments from there:

Also, just for the record, the 20 "FDA-approved" methods referred to includes 2 kinds of condoms, vasectomies and 2 kinds of female sterilization. So 16 remaining realistically really means 11. And of those 11, none approach the 99% effectiveness of an IUD. Six of them are only 75-80% effective, and four require spermicides which can cause allergic reactions and increase the risk for a woman of getting HIV.

 

[Emily Lake]

The IUD prevents fertilization. This is not an abortifacient.

I'm not entirely sure about this.

There are two types of IUDs. I know this because I have one of them - a Mirena. The progesterone IUDs, of which Mirena is one, reduce the likelihood of fertilization, but don't actually prevent it. If fertilization occurs, the IUD prevents the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall. The other type of IUD, copper IUDs, prevent fertilization from occurring.

So depending on whether you think that causing the ejection of a fertilized ova counts as abortion... then one type may or may not be considered an abortifacient. But I don't think you can categorically say that IUDs are or are not abortifacients - there's too much room for interpretation.

ETA: Sorry about the thread necromancy.

 

[ZiprHead]

According to Rush Limbaugh, you must be a slut. I know he wouldn't lie.

 

[none]

According to Rush Limbaugh, you must be a slut. I know he wouldn't lie.

I think he is drawing on the wisdom of four marriages to say who is a slut.

 

[RavenSky]

The IUD prevents fertilization. This is not an abortifacient.

I'm not entirely sure about this.

There are two types of IUDs. I know this because I have one of them - a Mirena. The progesterone IUDs, of which Mirena is one, reduce the likelihood of fertilization, but don't actually prevent it. If fertilization occurs, the IUD prevents the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall. The other type of IUD, copper IUDs, prevent fertilization from occurring.

So depending on whether you think that causing the ejection of a fertilized ova counts as abortion... then one type may or may not be considered an abortifacient. But I don't think you can categorically say that IUDs are or are not abortifacients - there's too much room for interpretation.

ETA: Sorry about the thread necromancy.

Yes, the two types of IUDs have been discussed (either earlier in this thread or one of the other almost identical threads). The medical definition of "abortion" is:

Abortion: In medicine, an abortion is the premature exit of the products of conception (the fetus, fetal membranes, and placenta) from the uterus. It is the loss of a pregnancy and does not refer to why that pregnancy was lost.

A spontaneous abortion is the same as a miscarriage. The miscarriage of three or more consecutive pregnancies is termed habitual abortion or recurrent pregnancy loss.

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=2091

As such, this statement:

So depending on whether you think that causing the ejection of a fertilized ova counts as abortion... then one type may or may not be considered an abortifacient. But I don't think you can categorically say that IUDs are or are not abortifacients - there's too much room for interpretation.

is simply wrong, as are all those who will impose their factually wrong opinions onto others.

Lots of people hold the opinion that vaccines cause autism. Shall we allow those people to deny their workers health insurance access to vaccinations for their children?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The IUD prevents fertilization. This is not an abortifacient.

Well, you're free to believe that if you choose to and if you feel that basing your opinions on facts and evidence and having them conform to reality is important.

Others have different priorities, though, and they can't have their ability to oppress their employees hampered solely because they just made shit up.

 

[Emily Lake]

According to Rush Limbaugh, you must be a slut. I know he wouldn't lie.

Rush is a repressed puritanical ass. My spouse is quite pleased with my bedroom demeanor.