Wireless Contraception 302
Kittenman writes: The BBC is carrying information on a type of contraception (funded in part by Bill Gates) that takes the form of a microchip, inserted under the skin. The chip releases contraceptive hormones to the body until wirelessly advised not to do so. This device has several interesting applications and issues associated with it. The researchers are already working on making the device secure against unauthorized transmissions. There's also the issue of making it easier for governments to control population levels. The chip will be available from 2018. This correspondent will watch the issues with interest.
Re:yes but (Score:4, Informative)
The Hobby Lobby case was about a corporation demanding religious freedom to reject paying for the medical care of their employees based on the religious view of the company owners.
It's a terrible decision, as it means that somehow not only are corporations 'persons', but they have the religious freedom to impose their will on their employees.
This immediately led to companies saying they also want to claim the right to not hire LGBT people, against Federal laws, because they say so.
Sorry, this isn't 'hyper reactionary', this isn't 'liberal propaganda', this is entirely about the right of religious people to be able to discriminate based on their beliefs -- and somehow expecting it to remain illegal to discriminate against them.
If you think this is such a good ruling, wait until a Muslim business starts saying they don't want to follow laws which violate Sharia law, or that women are required to wear veils if they work for them,
No, this is about asshole Republicans and religious people deciding they should be exempt from the laws of civil society and be able to opt out.
It's you who has no idea of what that case was about.
Re:yes but...yes in fact. (Score:5, Informative)
It's about more than just "abortifacients".
http://www.nationalreview.com/... [nationalreview.com]
Except, the four methods Hobby Lobby objected to are not "abortifacients".
http://www.newrepublic.com/art... [newrepublic.com]
But I guess, if their faith tells them they're abortifacients, then abortifacients they shall be. Isn't that the whole point of the decision of the five (male) Supreme Court justices?
And we already have cases being brought to use the Hobby Lobby precedent to allow all sorts of civil rights violations, nullification of laws, and even special exemption from taxation based on religious faith. It's going to be a few interesting years until Hobby Lobby is overturned, which it almost certainly will be,
Hobby Lobby is the 21st century's Plessy v. Ferguson. But that's the whole point, right?
It's not their faith telling them they are abortifacients, It is the US Government Department of Health and Human Services. HHS says the 2 IUDs in question and the morning/week after pills in question keep a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. Their faith says that life begins at conception, so being force to pay for something that keeps that life from implanting in the uterus is a violation of their religious belief.
The courts found that since this is a valid religious belief AND the government could provide the 4 questioned contraceptives through other means, that they could not force the owners of Hobby Lobby to violate their religious belief.
Re:yes but (Score:3, Informative)
Paying taxes is a little different than paying a third party insurance company isn't it?
Well, in this specific situation, there is a constitutional amendment that bars congress from making any law prohibiting the free exercise of an establishment of religion. This has been narrowed down a bit over the years so the democrats along with the republicans passed a law that said all rules (and yes, the birth control mandate is a regulation created by the DHHS not the actual law passed by congress which is why the mandate doesn't override previous laws when in conflict) need to have a good reason to overcome someone's religious rights. It sets a criteria of (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
We can assume 1 is true as otherwise, they wouldn't have made the rule. What the court did is find that 2 wasn't satisfied because the government already exempted other groups and people for the same objections.
So why, because not only is there a constitutional prohibition that the government likes to ignore, but there is a law that supersedes a rule made and that law passed almost unanimously by congress.