Eden Foods bills itself as the “oldest natural and organic food company in America” and is best known for its EdenSoy line of organic soy milk.
Most of Eden’s products are organic and nearly all are vegan.
It’s a very familiar brand in health food stores and marketing studies have shown it to be a favorite of female and liberal customers.
These customers, to put it mildly, are not pleased with the news that Eden hired the Thomas More Law Center to file a lawsuit against Kathleen Sibelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, and other government parties, associated with the Obama administration’s rule on contraception.
The lawsuit claims the contraception rule violates Eden Foods owner Michael Potter’s religious freedom under the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act by requiring him to provide his employees with medical coverage for contraception.
Potter believes contraception “almost always involves immoral and unnatural practices.”
Irin Carmon at Salon.com launched the story yesterday (April 11, 2013). Predictably enough, it has gone viral, with a massive outcry on Facebook and other social media.
In brief, protesters are not pleased by Eden’s pursuit of a right-wing ideological agenda and its espousal of Catholic church teachings on the evils of contraception. Thousands of people have already voiced their intent to stop buying Eden products, including Facebook commenter Cheryl DeMarco who summed up the issues particularly well. “Now that you’ve sued to avoid providing birth control coverage to your employees based on bogus science, I don’t trust you to provide me with clean food based on good science. I won’t be buying your products.”
As yet, the debaters have not pointed out the supreme irony of Eden Foods — one of the top manufacturers of soy milk — coming out against birth control. All soy milks — including organic soy milks — include high levels of the plant estrogens known as isoflavones. Over the past seven decades, scientists have linked isoflavones to reproductive problems in all animal tested, including the human animal. For women, soy contributes to anovulatory cycles and other symptoms indicative of infertility; for men, it causes adverse effects on the quality and quantity of sperm.
The illustration posted by Salon.com — and posted here — was surely not intended to be literal. But yes, this product can make birth control unnecessary!
Indeed, in the 1970s the World Health Organization funded a $5 million study through the University of Chicago and sent researchers out in the field in search of all-natural contraceptives. The idea was to find a safe and effective alternative to the high-dose birth control pills of that era. Researchers visited dozens of native cultures to discover which herbs and plants were being used to prevent pregnancy, examined hundreds of plants and analyzed their phytochemicals. Although they found many contraceptive plants — soy, prominently among them — they ultimately abandoned the project. Not because “natural” methods didn’t work, but because the side effects were similar to — and just as serious — as those of the birth control pill.
The obvious conclusion here is that customers who consume EdenSoy “soy milks” are unwittingly —and almost certainly unwillingly — swallowing liquid birth control. Lest any readers at this point think soy milk might a good “all natural” form of contraception, however, my advice is don’t count on it! Soy isoflavone content varies from carton to carton, and any contraceptive effects would depend as well on the amount and duration of consumption.
Eden Foods furthermore has a shabby track record in terms of supporting the health of babies. In 1990 the FDA investigated after a two-month old girl in California was hospitalized with severe malnutrition. Her parents had fed her EdenSoy brand soy milk instead of infant formula. Because of this and a similar incident in Arkansas involving the SoyMoo brand of soy milk, the FDA issued a warning on June 13, 1990, stating soy milk was “grossly lacking in the nutrients needed for infants.” The FDA asked — but unfortunately has never required — all manufacturers to put warning labels on soy milk so that they would not be used as formula substitutes.
Since these tragic incidents, most brands of soy milk — but not EdenSoy — include warning labels in tiny print on their packaging.
Sadly, babies continue to be hospitalized and die because of EdenSoy and other brands of soy milk. At least four couples have been found guilty of the deaths of their babies fed soy milk in lieu of soy infant formula. Many of these parents were health conscious, well-meaning vegans who truly thought they were doing a good thing for their babies by choosing organic soy milk instead of commercial soy formula. The myth that soy is a health food and Eden’s irresponsibility led to these tragic deaths.
How many more unnecessary and tragic cases of malnutrition and deaths will occur before Eden takes the right action? For me, the “right action” is clear: Boycott Eden Foods.
Sources
For more information about Eden’s lawsuit:
http://www.salon.com/2013/04/11/organic_eden_foods_quiet_right_wing_agenda/
For more information about soy formula and the effect soy milk and other products containing soy vegetable protein on reproduction, The Whole Soy Story: The Dark Side of America’s Favorite Health Food.
Sara,
I really appreciate the way you leave comments open and don’t edit discussions. It really does conveys respect.
Let me get this straight… all of you that are anti-abortion, you don’t use birth control at all? What about condoms?
I am Catholic. No birth control pills, no condoms, just Natural Family Planning.
If you don’t know anything about Natural Family Planning, it is basically getting to know your body signs well enough to know when you are ovulating and can get pregnant. From there, you take advantage of that time frame by either having sex if you want to get pregnant, abstaining if you don’t want to get pregnant, or doing whichever you’re in the mood for if you’re indifferent.
I also use only Natural Family Planning (which I studied for a couple months). No contraception of any kind here. Just abstinence if my husband and I do not want to conceive. It is a month by month decision.
The decision not to use contraceptives is not based on anti-abortion philosophy though. It is based on natural moral law and the intended purpose for human sexuality. The Catholic church is very wise on this. And the proof is in the pudding. There is a less than 2% divorce rate among Catholics who practice Natural Family Planning. And this is not because the wife is so strapped down she can’t afford to leave her husband. It is because we are genuinely happy! And the majority of us hold higher degrees and lots of us work outside of the home.
Wow, that is quite a general and most likely undocumented statement.
Don’t you think that abstinence is a form of abortion? You are denying that egg the chance to be fertilized, lol.
Meg, that comment is so ignorant of science and lacking of common sense. You might want to research biology before you mock the beliefs of others, it will help your credibility in the future.
I have a degree which requires substantial amount of knowledge of physiology and anatomy of the human body, thanks. I think everyone here probably has a good grasp of human physiology otherwise they wouldn’t be here.
I’m just taking it to a ridiculous degree to point out that if people are going to say that to intentionally suppress ovulation is a form of abortion, why not take it a step further to say that allowing a potentially viable egg to pass through unfertilized is also a mortal sin because you didn’t give that egg every chance to be fertilized because you practiced abstinence? It never ends…
Meg – I see where you are going. But we don’t actually consider the intentional suppression of ovulation a form of abortion. It is form of contraception (which we believe is morally wrong). It’s hard to explain without an exceptional amount of discussion, research and banter. So we can agree to disagree. But it has been fun going back and forth for me anyway 🙂
And sorry but abstinence IS birth control, since it is defined as using a device or method as a way of preventing conception. Just because the church told you that abstinence isn’t birth control, doesn’t make it so.
Abstinence is deciding NOT TO ACT. Abstinence respects the sexual act and everything that it entails (the awesome power of creating life) and one chooses to abstain from the act out of respect. Abstinence is simply refraining to have sex. People do it all of the time. I am doing it right now.
Contraception is to ACT AGAINST. Contraception is to enter into the sexual act and TO RENDER THE ACT STERILE. No respect for the integrity of the act.
Also – the Church did not tell me anything. The Church guided me to research on my own and come to my own conclusions. That is the beauty of freedom. I feel very free to make this choice. No church, man, or other entity forced me into this. I reasoned my way in using logic and natural moral law.
Wouldn’t you think most of us would rather use birth control since it is so convenient? It is – convenient, but not good for me. But I choose not to. I am convicted. I could go all day with the back and forth. If you present more info, I’ll come back with my own opinion. And you have yours. Again, it goes back to freedom of choice. I choose not to use birth control. I would never force you to do the same. But I sure as hell don’t want to pay for it!
My comment disappeared because it had the word sex in it and got moderated out. Let’s see if they allow it…
Okay I’ll try it one more time but can’t remember everything I wrote. But let’s call sex “doing the robot” this go round.
Abstinence is deciding NOT TO ACT. Abstinence respects the act of doing the robot and everything that it entails (the awesome power of creating life) and one chooses to abstain from the act out of respect. Abstinence is simply refraining from doing the robot. People do it all of the time. I am doing it right now.
Contraception is to ACT AGAINST. Contraception is doing the robot but rendering the act sterile. No respect for the integrity of the act.
And no man, church, or other entity told me to avoid birth control. The church guided me to come to the educated conclusion that I don’t want to use birth control using natural moral law, research and wisdom.
Don’t you think that we would rather just use birth control for its convenience? It would be so much easier. But I’m not doing it for the convenience. I’m doing it because I am convicted. After reaching this conclusion of my own volition, just like other parts of my life where I have chosen the healthier option, I choose not using birth control. That is the beauty of freedom – I chose this. I would never force you to choose this. You can choose to do whatever you please. But don’t force me to pay for it.
I tried twice and they won’t allow my comment Meg.
Meg,
No one says that intentional suppression of ovulation is the same thing as abortion, although it is wrong for a different reason.
Yes, NFP can be used with a contraceptive mentality, and no, the Church does not condone it unconditionally. Rather, it permits couples to use it when there is a serious reason to avoid a pregnancy for a time being or, in some cases, foreseeable future.
The Church does not object to contraception because it is abortion. Only the pill has that effect, but the Church objects to all forms of artificial contraception. It does so, because contraception interferes with the self-sacrificial nature of marriage:
“Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . ” CCC 2370
NFP does not cause abortions, nor does it interfere (when used with proper discernment) with the order of marriage.
Lisa G, if the comments are moderated they usually just take longer to show up but do eventually.
Ryabinka,
We don’t have the same belief system so it’s a good thing that we are all allowed to express them freely 🙂 Bible quotes and opinions of the church (because they are simply that – opinions) don’t sway my opinion, but thank you for educating me on what they consider abortion vs birth control. As described by Trudy and Lisa G above, abstinence is used in order to prevent conception, and is by definition, birth control.
Lisa, I understand what you are saying re: not to act vs act against. In this case, absitinence is being used in order to contracept/prevent conception. It is being used specifically towards the use of preventing contraception. The GENERAL definition of abstain is not to act, but in this case those who practice abstinence are abstaining IN ORDER to contracept. Just sayin…. IMO, abstain/contracept away, I support everyone’s right to choose, just don’t like the preaching (not necessarily you) and hairsplitting of terminology in order to prove that you are technically following the rules.
Meg – It is possible to use natural family planning with a contraceptive mindset. But it is impossible to contracept using NFP because the act could always lead to life (we could miscalculate the dates, double ovulate, etc.). The act is never contraceptive but it is possible that some people could abuse it. Most who practice it don’t. Because once you use it with a contraceptive mindset, you are probably going to start using some form of contraceptive anyway.
Thanks for the lively debate 🙂
Interesting perspective. I have been fairly close to a fair number of Catholic families, all of them who consider themselves observant to the faith, who use birth control – the chemical kind, not the NFP kind. Interesting to hear from the minority who actually follow it.
Megan – The church is working really hard to bring the information to the Catholic faithful. There was a period of time in the church where this wasn’t taught nearly as well as it should have been. And most Catholics just don’t know about it. The church is working on that now though and good things are happening to give everyone the tools they need to learn more about it!
Lisa G. and Ryabinka,
I just want to say that I am 100% in agreement with what you said. I would also like to mention that I wasn’t born Catholic, I used to take the pill, I used to not be against abortions, and I even used to think that “free healthcare” was a great idea. Research in pursuit of truth is what led me to the Church, to my limited government beliefs, to Austrian economics, to traditional diets, to respect of life and nature, and to all of my beliefs and convictions. I would also like to add that the more I’ve read and learned, the more I believe that the Church and what it teaches is truth and the laws of nature aren’t something to be abused.
Meg,
I realize that we have different belief systems 🙂 No kidding! But since you made some ignorant comments about the teachings of the church, I thought that you would at least like to know what those teachings are.
But just because I quoted the Catechism of the Catholic Church, you dismissed my comment as irrelevant and completely ignored the argument I was making. Just to clarify, the church does not object to artificial birth control because of its name, but because of its effects (including its effects on marriage). NFP does not have those effects, and therefore, is permitted by the church to be exercised with due discernment. There is no contradiction here.
I wasn’t commenting on the teachings of the church at all. Lisa said that the divorce rate is less than 2% among Catholics who practice NFP, suggesting that the divorce rate is as a result of that practice. I would simply challenge that statement as it seemed she was suggesting the divorce rate was low as a result of NFP. But if you all feel that it is a significant factor in the reduction of the divorce rate then I’m glad that you feel it’s working for you. I still say that I define natural family planning is a form of contraception though 😉 Having read and considered all of your arguments. I do know what it is because I studied and monitored fertility signs and symptoms quite carefully and diligently in order to conceive in my early 40s.
” Interesting to hear from the minority who actually follow it.”
Just because a majority does something doesn’t make it right 🙂
Meg,
This is a quote from your post:
“I’m just taking it to a ridiculous degree to point out that if people are going to say that to intentionally suppress ovulation is a form of abortion, why not take it a step further to say that allowing a potentially viable egg to pass through unfertilized is also a mortal sin because you didn’t give that egg every chance to be fertilized because you practiced abstinence? It never ends…”
It says nothing about divorce. It does accuse Catholics of inconsistency though. If you did read my comments, you would realize that I did admit that NFP can be practiced with a contraceptive mentality. So you can say that you believe that NFP is contraception a hundred more times if you want. The point though that the Church does not object to contraception just because it prevents conception. The church has objection to all forms of artificial contraception because (1) it interferes with the self-giving nature of the pro-creative act and (2) hormonal birth control can cause abortions by preventing the implantation of an already fertilized egg. NFP does neither (1) nor (2) and therefore is permitted by the Church even though it prevents conception. At the same time the Church does call us to use our pro-creative gifts generously. There is no inconsistency here.
If everything is just an opinion, then why are you here arguing your point? Why does it matter if one person prefers apples and another oranges?
Megan – About the alarmingly low divorce rate among NFP couples, here is a source I can cite:
Keep in mind that not many grants are given to study NFP couples, so you aren’t going to find a ton about it. But this is a good starting point.
“I still say that I define natural family planning is a form of contraception though Having read and considered all of your arguments.”
Megan – I just have to bring up one analogy to try to explain why we do not define NFP as contraception.
Person A and B each want to lose weight. Person A chops off their leg. Person B eats more whoole foods, less junk and starts working out.
Both achieved weight loss. Can we say both of them are on a diet?
Megan – here is an easier way to understand why NFP is never contraception.
NFP cannot be called contraceptive because we cannot compare two things simply by the end result. Otherwise an abortion and a miscarriage are the same thing because the end result is the same. You have to look at the ACT to obtain the end. Contraception acts directly against the sexual act to render the act infertile. With NFP, the sexual act is respected and not acted against because the couple does not have sex. Using contraception to render sex infertile and not having sex at all are not the same thing.
Ryabinka,
Thanks for the clarification. It does seem a bit as though you and Lisa G see things slightly differently re: NFP but that’s ok too.
Re: opinions, I’m arguing because I enjoy a healthy debate, and this is my first time talking to someone about this topic 😉
“It does seem a bit as though you and Lisa G see things slightly differently re: NFP but that’s ok too.”
Meg – I just read through Ryabinka’s comments and I agree with them 100%!! Now I’m really curious which things you think we see differently!!
(And I love a good healthy debate as well!!)
Dear Guest from Germany,
Yes, in America we still take religion seriously, because we still believe in individual rights and religious freedom and refuse to surrender them to the government as the “more enlightened” Europeans have done. (Just for the record, I am American by naturalization not birth and have spent more than half of my life in Russia.) Since you accuse us of lacking common sense, I’d like to point out some of its lack in your own comment:
“And you can not really deny that calling contraception something unnatural is right wing or to use a more polite word here, conservative.”
Do you seriously believe that contraception is something natural? Is being a conservative considered a crime in the enlightened Europe? Or does that label make a person holding conservative views irrelevant?
“It´s really hard for me to understand why everything that has to do with contraception (and hence with anything sexual and abortion) is such a big deal for you Americans”
Because these matters have to do with human life. Do Europeans find this question so uninteresting or have they already resolved all human problems and there is not further need for questioning?
“Killing real people is something completely different than an abortion. An abortion in the first few weeks or in the first three months is just killing developing cells. Even a worm or an insect has more of a full life than these cells.”
What kind of science have you been learning? Have you ever seen a baby in the first three months of pregnancy?! Please google some images of fetal development. I had early ultrasounds with two of my children — one at 8 weeks and one at 6. What we saw on the screen definitely did not look or act like a worm or an insect. What we saw was a tiny baby doing somersaults and waving its arms.
“I give you an example: Most pregnancies are aborted naturally before a woman even knows she was pregnant. So God must be the strongest proponent of abortion.”
All humans eventually die. Would that justify murder?
Well said.
There is moral absolute. There is good and evil; and abortion is the killing of a human being in the earliest stages of life. What do you think the abortionist is killing a squash??? No he is killing a tiny human. “A person is a person no matter how small.” If we were to follow Guest from Germany’s line of reasoning, it’s called Moral Relativism, anything can be justified as “O.K.”
I sometimes read this blog because I´m interested in the traditional food movement. I am not American, I´m from Germany and I have to admit I don´t know whether to be shocked or amused. This is my first comment on this page btw. I couldn´t hold back when I read all the comments about how terrible contraceptive pills and abortion are.
Are you Americans really so blinded by your religious beliefs that you are unable to get the simple message of an article? Religion seems to be the most important thing above everything else for you, right? Holy S***, what about using your common sense and forget about all that Bible stuff for a moment please. For me as a European this is simply ridiculous and absolutely unintelligible.
All Kaayla T. Daniel wanted to say is that it is hypocrisy to claim contraception involves immoral and unnatural practices when the company sells highly unnatural (because highly processed) foods that contain the same thing as pills, estrogens, which are linked to fertility problems at the same time. The latter is a scientific fact, that nobody can deny and companies are pretty much aware of the research on soy.
And you can not really deny that calling contraception something unnatural is right wing or to use a more polite word here, conservative. And who is very conservative with that topic? The Churches and so is of course the Catholic church.
Of course you can debate that lawsuit and the pros and cons of birth control pills (health point/ I absolutely agree that no one should be forced to take the pill) but this is a completely different thing. The article simply wanted to show the hypocrisy of a company´s policy. Nobody wants to force anybody to do anything, nobody wants to attack religious beliefs and nobody wants to attack your freedom of choice etc.
Please calm down. It´s really hard for me to understand why everthing that has to do with contraception (and hence with anything sexual and abortion) is such a big deal for you Americans and that you feel offended immediately.
As proponents of traditional and natural foods you became aware of the fact that there are toxic things in grains and other seeds that have to be eliminated before eating, that your body requires certain nutrients and so forth, and so forth. This has to do with evolution and that nature works in certain ways and it´s not the friedly garden Eden. God did not put the phytic acid into a grain, that was evolution. 😉 You accept this since it is proven by modern science (or WAP´s work).
But when it comes to birth control/contraception you stick to, sorry for that word, not meant as an attack, absurd and false beliefs that your religion tells you.
I give you an example: Most pregnancies are aborted naturally before a woman even knows she was pregnant. So God must be the strongest proponent of abortion. 😉
Birth control pills prevent the body from getting pregnant they don´t cause an abortion. Not even the morning after pill causes abortion. It simply prevents the fertilized egg from finding a place in the uterus.
I hope you understand what I wanted to say.
You can debate an article, discuss it´s quality, like and dislike it, but don´t feel offended so quickly and don´t blame this article for something it didn´t intend just because it´s a controversial topic for your beliefs.
I guess that’s how Hitler started eh??? What’s the big deal if I kill a few million people? Abortion is wrong. It is murder. It is the taking of innocent human life.
Why is it always Hitler? Because I said I am from Germany? Hopefully not. This is lame and pathetic, honestly.
You think abortion is wrong, that´s OK, you can have your opinion on that, but please stay to scientific facts and don´t compare it with things you can not compare it with.
Killing real people is something completely different than an abortion. An abortion in the first few weeks or in the first three months is just killing developing cells. Even a worm or an insect has more of a full life than these cells.
I know that you can have an abortion beyond three months in America and this, truly, is something worth debating and controversial.
But I let you have your opinion on that so don´t be so intolerant. How abortion is seen is everybody´s own decision.
Of course every woman should take care of herself that she will never get into such a situation (by using birth control) but it must be her own decision. Such a situation is bad enough you won´t do any good if you call people murderer.
What about a rape? What about a handicap? Or a pregnancy that threatens a woman´s life?
Isn´t it worse to force a woman to have a child she doesn´t want and perhaps even condemn a child to lead a miserable life? With this you may have saved a few cells from harm, but what about the real living people with feelings, needs etc.? That´s what I call hypocrisy, too.
There is no good and bad, no black and white. It´s everybody´s own decision.
So when does life start, if not a conception? I am curious. The 3rd trimester? After being born? when? And if you should have a right to choose, it is YOUR body, then
gender genocide is fine too? I wanted a boy, but it’s a girl, so let’s move on from this mistake. It’s not a tragedy because “it” isn’t a human yet right? It comes down less to “religion” and more about the life of EVERY American born and unborn. Life is precious and should be treated as such, even if it’s inconvenient. And one last question, what if your wrong? If I am wrong, life still wins, if your wrong, innocent die.
What is the exact date that the developing cells become a human life? Because women have abortions at all times in their first trimester? What day and time is that the developing cells are human?
From the very moment you had sex. Unless of course you had sex with a nonhuman.
Guest,
Actually, Doe V Bolton made it legal to have an abortion up to 40 weeks. Certain states have laws that have restricted it to 22 weeks or so. However, we have an awful thing called Partial Birth Abortion that, well, you can look that up, but it’s inducing labor on a 25+ (hello, babies are born and survive at that point in NICU!) week pregnant woman, deliver the baby feet first with forceps, and without having the head born (that would be infanticide then) either use sharp instuments to sever the spinal cord or actually insert a knife in the base of the skull, suction out the brain so the head collapses and the rest of the body is “delivered” (ironic wording, huh?)
At 20 days a still-developing heart starts pumping blood through the fetuses system. At 40 days brain waves can be detected. And science is constantly revealing more and more about the human person in the womb. At 8 weeks, fingerprints are forming and cartilege is turning to bone. Baby can hear. At 12 weeks all the organs and systems for a baby to feel pain are there. Babies can experience the pain of an abortion. Google “The Silent Scream” An abortionist filmed an abortion (through ultrasound) and the results stunned him so much (ie the fetus trying to get away from the saline solution needle and writhing in pain and the salt solution slowly burned and killed him) he gave up his practice and now is fully pro-life. He wasn’t even aware of basic fetal development. I did a quick google search on 8 week old fetuses. Amazing! Here’s one link (I made it from a government page and not a Pro Life page for ya. 😉 ) http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/wrtk/develop/week8.shtm
Excellent points, Guest from Germany – sorry about the abuse that will probably follow, These are always difficult conversations here, and people get carried away. You have to have thick skin to participate.
“It simply prevents the fertilized egg from finding a place in the uterus.” Yeah, that would be an abortion. The FERTILIZED egg is aborted. Aside from that, the issue here is that selling a product that people can choose to buy or not buy, no matter how unhealthy it may or may not be, is in no way logically comparable to being forced to buy something that you believe wholeheartedly to be evil, especially when this belief is SUPPOSED to be protected by your first amendment.
There are many, many things in the world that can be debated as to how bad they truly are: abortion, euthanasia, genetically modified crops, antibiotics, etc. People have many different views. I live in an area where many people have no problem shooting a dog or throwing kittens in a bag and into the river to drown. These people just don’t hold the same value of life and nature as I do. I can’t change their mind and am somewhat resigned to the idea of even trying anymore. But if I were ever forced to aid them, even in the slightest way, you’d better believe I’d fight it with everything I could. Furthermore, what Michael Potter believes is protected under the first amendment. His religion teaches, and he believes, that contraception is evil. Maybe this is the part you’re not understanding because you are from Germany, but our country is supposed to be a place where people practice their religion with no violations against it from our government.
The fact that his religion does NOT teach that eating soy is a grave sin, yet DOES teach that taking birth control for the purpose of preventing pregnancy, or helping others to, IS a grave sin, makes trying to compare the two to prove corporate hypocrisy absolutely ridiculous!
Thank you Guest, and sorry for the most ignorant comments about Hitler. As a non-American I can never understand why they can never achieve the separation of government and religion. Nor why so many are so adamantly against universal healthcare. Although healthcare is sometimes an oxymoron for managing our every day health, you wouldn’t turn it down if you were rushed to the hospital after having had a near fatal car accident or emergency appendectomy. A healthier society where everyone has access to necessary/emergency healthcare and doesn’t leave the hospital with a bill that will force them into poverty is better for everyone, and people don’t need to resort to desparate measures. That healthcare would also include employer funded healthcare insurance for things such as chiropractic care, homeothapy, etc. The corporations can afford it….. I’m aware this opinion will be unpopular.
Because the country was FOUNDED on religious freedom. People left England because they were being persecuted for their religious beliefs. Why is it so hard to understand that is the very reason America was established?
Also, what most people don’t realize, is that the separation of church and state does NOT mean that people shouldn’t or can’t use their religious beliefs to guide their civil life; it was instituted to PROTECT the person’s right to do so! It was protecting the person’s right to vote, to think, to act in accord with their faith. If you read the actual wording, it is all about what the government CAN”T do. The only place “separation of church and state” was written during the time was in a private letter of Thomas Jefferson to a preacher. You won’t find that in the constitution.
What kind of birth control then isn’t considered a religious abomination?
try researching the HEALTH IMPACTS OF THE PILL on women children and fetuses since it’s inception and compare it to the impacts since the inception of soy….. You are showing your ignorance about the full reasons “the church” fights the use of that nasty little pill
I’m with Becca. If your employer provides birth control, you are free to choose not to use it. Your religious freedom is not being infringed upon if your company offers birth control to its employees. Sure, you may have to pay for something you do not support, but we all pay for things we don’t support ever day. I strongly disagreed with the war in Iraq, but my tax dollars went to pay for the war. I think the school lunches in public schools are terribly unhealthy, but my tax dollars pay for those lunches.
If an employer does NOT provide the contraceptives required in the Affordable Care Act, it’s religious discrimination against the employee. Businesses other than churches cannot require their employees to hold the same religious views as the company owners, and they can’t discriminate against employees with different religious beliefs. Eden Foods cannot require that all its employees be Christian (and anti-birth control), and they cannot discriminate against them for not being Christian.
You don’t agree with the war in Iraq? Or unhealthy school lunches? Great! Then stand up for yourself and your beliefs!
The point of the lawsuit is that the Affordable Care Act violates his first amendment right. The lawsuit doesn’t say that it wants all of his employees to not use birth control, just that he shouldn’t have to pay for it for them when that act would be a blatant violation of his conscience and religious beliefs.
“Eden Foods cannot require that all its employees be Christian (and anti-birth control), and they cannot discriminate against them for not being Christian.” Why not? It’s his company. Can he not hire who he wants? That is not the issue here, but why can’t he? You can discriminate against who you let in your house or who you hire to babysit your kids or many, many other things. It is your right (whether acknowledged by the government or not) to make decisions about yourself, your family, your property, and your possessions. In fact, you can discriminate against what companies you want to work for, why can’t a company owner discriminate against who he has working for him?
Gosh, I don’t know, cause it’s AGAINST THE LAW? It’s against the law to discriminate in employment based on religion, race, sex, ethnicity, and disability. Not only is it against the law, it’s also morally and ethically wrong…and our Constitution supports that.
Our Constitution does not say it’s against the law for private employers to discriminate. That is the Civil Rights Act, the Americans With Disabilities Act, etc.
Do you never question laws? Just because something is a law doesn’t mean that it should be? People discriminate all the time. I didn’t want to hire Aaron the pool boy to clean my pool because he had a knife wound from a gang fight and a Church of Satan tattoo. I was definitely discriminating him. Even discriminating based on *gasp* his religion. Guess it’s a prison cell for me. (Technically it wouldn’t be. I believe you have to have 25 or more employees to qualify) I doubt you would think so, though. However, if Big Business Pool Cleaning didn’t hire Aaron because of his gang wound and Church of Satan tattoo, Aaron would have them in court. What’s the difference?
You don’t think people should be able to willingly enter or not enter into a private contract? You don’t think that a person should be able to decide who they hire in THEIR OWN BUSINESS?
Take Aaron again, what if he decided he didn’t want to clean my pool because I had crucifixes in my house, should the government get involved? My pool is really dirty and he won’t work for me because he’s discriminating against my religion. I’d better call my lawyer!
Buying raw milk is “AGAINST THE LAW” where I live. Should I not be allowed to decide for myself what goes into my body? Why does the government need to invade our privacy whether it be what we drink or who we employ?
I’m not suggesting that people SHOULD be discriminated against. I’m suggesting that it’s not the government’s business who you want to have working for you if your company is privately owned. I’m also suggesting that people should get over this sense of entitlement that so many seem to have and stop depending on the government to take care of them, whether it’s their job, their food, their home, whatever. Nothing is free and my “rights” don’t supersede the rights of anyone else.
Uh, I am standing up for my beliefs, right now! I think paying tax dollars to the Iraq war violates MY first amendment rights. I think “thou shalt not kill,” so it’s against my religious beliefs to pay for wars that kill people. I’m anti-abortion, too, but even so I think people should make their own decisions. Even if I disagree, it’s their decision.
Angela – He isn’t making a decision for other people!!! He is simply deciding not to put his own personal money to pay for their birth control. He isn’t limiting how they spend their salaries. They are free to do what that want.
And you are comparing a government to a private company. If you are against the war, VOTE!! Vote out the representatives or you are free to move to a state/country that agrees with your ideals. By the same token, the CEO of Eden is bringing his fight to the government who mandated it. I applaud his get up and go. His employees are free to either quit, sue him, or stay on and pay for birth control out of their pocket.
Also – if he is morally convicted, his only other option is to cancel health care coverage. He is taking care of his employees by making sure that he can still keep their healthcare coverage despite this issue.
Angela,
If you believe that your first amendment rights are being violated, then do what he did and file a lawsuit. Also, do what Lisa G. suggests and support candidates who share your views. If someone really believes it, then I hope they will have the conviction and courage to stand up for their beliefs (like Michael Potter is doing) and not drown in apathy.
Yeah, clog up the courts with more lawsuits so that people with real problems can just wait! There’s a solution….
So we can only go to court if our “real problem” falls in line with your beliefs or standards and not ours Meg? That’s discriminatory and intolerant.
Angela,
I think your missing the point. In the old days it was referred to as “freedom”. If I own a private business and I don’t want to offer insurance AT ALL I should be able to. If I want to offer insurance that only covers teeth and eyes, I should have the freedom to do so.
If I want to offer health insurance that excludes birth control, I should be able to. My insurance doesn’t cover infertility treatments, am I being “discriminated” against?
What’s going to happen is employers aren’t going to offer insurance period anymore because everything now a days is a “right”. You do not have a “right” to birth control, Christian or not.
Marissa,
I tried to make a similar point, but apparently it got rejected by the moderator. Boooo, moderator.
I guess it depends on your perspective – I think healthcare IS a right (like public education is a right for all children in our country), and it’s up to all of us to share the burden for paying for it. I think employers SHOULD be required to offer affordable health insurance to their employees. Living a happy life is not feasible unless you have the security of knowing that you can get health care if you need it. I know. I can’t afford health insurance, and because of a pre-existing condition (rheumatoid arthritis) I cannot get insurance anywhere. I can’t afford the “high-risk” pool insurance. It’s awful, and I’m only 29.
I agree, and living in a country with universal health care while my siblings live in one without, I have seen the positive and negative benefits of both systems. The 3 of us have very opposing political views and yet the one thing that we all agree on is that ALL citizens of a developed country should have a BASIC, tax-payer paid standard of care for ALL citizens. Not just the very poor, or those who can afford good insurance, or those who ‘qualify’ because they are in good health already.
Meg,
I do not want the government to take care of me. The more that they do, the more control the will try to exert over me and my health choices all in the name of keeping healthcare costs down. Examples being: requiring vaccinations to prevent future illness, prohibiting the consumption of saturated fats because the government says it’s linked to heart disease, being required to take antibiotics at the first sign of an infection in order to prevent a possible future hospital stay. More extreme examples of how it might evolve in the future being: regulated number of children allowed, forced abortions when required prenatal genetic screening reveals a possible condition, forced euthanasia to terminally ill people. The lists can go on and on.
Don’t fall for the illusion that government run healthcare provides some sort of security. When we look to the government to take care of us, we are relinquishing our right and responsibility to take care of ourselves. One of my favorite quotes is by Benjamin Franklin, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” I’ll take my chances against illness if my alternative is to submit to the government caring for me.
Trudy,
I’m not theorizing the reality of living with government provided healthcare, I live it, and sorry but yes, it does provide security for those who need it the most, and for that I will happily pay. It’s far from perfect but for the population AS A WHOLE, I believe that it increases our quality of life. It seems as though I have more vax freedom here than many places in the US, no prohibition on what I put in my mouth, no requirement to take antibiotics, etc and there is no move in that direction. I have as much freedom in that regard as you do and probably more. The freedom that I do give up is how much tax I have to pay to fund that system. I still firmly believe that when all citizens have access to basic healthcare it improves the quality of living for everyone in that society.
” It seems as though I have more vax freedom here than many places in the US, no prohibition on what I put in my mouth, no requirement to take antibiotics, etc and there is no move in that direction.”
Megan – What if they did move in that direction? We thought they wouldn’t mandate that we go against our moral conscience and pay out of pocket for others to take birth control. But they did. What if they started to force you to vaccinate your children no matter what? Would you then be outraged? Because that’s what happened to our small group of people who believe paying for other people to take something as evil as birth control goes against our freedom. (And we do call it evil. Otherwise we wouldn’t even be bothered with this fight!)
Our constitution provides that consent must be given voluntarily for treatment, so mandatory vaccination is not up for discussion anytime soon.
We both live in countries where those who govern are elected officials, so until such time as we become a dictatorship or the popular opinion suddenly moves in favor of being force-medicated, it seems unlikely. And if I do end up living in a country where the majority is in favor of regulating the number of children that I may have etc., then maybe it’s time for me to find a new home….
The problem is, as you have stated, is that you only have a ‘small group of people’ that find birth control evil. Unless you can find a way to make that opinion more popular, it’s unlikely that these new laws governing the coverage of birth control will sway in your favor, and in my opinion, nor should they, as it’s not what the majority wants (well, the majority on this comment board maybe!)
Trudy, the government doesn’t take care of me, I do. I pay taxes and receive healthcare, probably very similar to what you do, the difference is that my healthcare is provided by the gov’t and yours probably isn’t. Maybe yours is fancier, but at least the mandate of my hospital isn’t profit.
Trudy, what I meant to say is that you pay premiums, not taxes.
“Unless you can find a way to make that opinion more popular, it’s unlikely that these new laws governing the coverage of birth control will sway in your favor, and in my opinion, nor should they, as it’s not what the majority wants (well, the majority on this comment board maybe!)”
Meg,
Well, according to you we already have a dictatorship – tyranny of the majority! I don’t know about Canada, but in the United States minorities still have rights. By your logic the Civil War was a big waste of time since the majority of the Southerners wanted to preserve slavery.
And please don’t be so sure that once you realize that you have dictatorship, you just “find another home.” Lots of Russians wanted to escape the Soviet Union, as I am sure do a lot of North Koreans right now. And by the way, I am not just theorizing either – I grew up next to a GULAG.
“It seems as though I have more vax freedom here than many places in the US, no prohibition on what I put in my mouth, no requirement to take antibiotics, etc and there is no move in that direction. I have as much freedom in that regard as you do and probably more. The freedom that I do give up is how much tax I have to pay to fund that system.”
Meg, you are lucky to have such a benevolent government, but your argument is weak. You see, OUR government is ALREADY forcing us to violate our consciences. So why should be confident that even worse things will not come?
Megan,
“Our constitution provides that consent must be given voluntarily for treatment, so mandatory vaccination is not up for discussion anytime soon.’ Well, our constitution provides that the government not be able to force us to violate our religious beliefs, yet, that seems to be happening.
“… it’s unlikely that these new laws governing the coverage of birth control will sway in your favor, and in my opinion, nor should they, as it’s not what the majority wants…” The fact that you are talking about what the majority wants is completely irrelevant to the Constitutionality of it. America is NOT a democracy. I’m sure you’ve heard otherwise, but if you don’t believe me then look it up. We are a Constitutional Republic. We are set up to where, first and foremost, the Federal government is supposed to be bound by the Constitution. There are 18 specific powers granted to the Federal government by the U.S. Constitution. Every other power is granted to the States. The states (not the majority of Americans) have the right to vote and amend the U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, if the Federal government creates a law that is unconstitutional, the States have a right to nullify it.
You’re whole “what the majority wants” legally holds no weight in America.
Ryabinka,
Hi, just wanted to give some info about the Civil War. The Civil War was not about slavery. Lincoln made that very clear repeatedly during the first year and half of the war. What the war was about was the federal government overstepping their boundaries and trying to take away states rights. This caused many Southern states to want to secede and many Northern States to want them to as well. In fact, when it came to slavery, the federal government did much more harm than good. A slave could leave a state where slavery was legal and enter a state where it was illegal and the state where it was illegal would declare him free. The federal government got involved and made it to where the anti-slavery state had to return the slave to the pro-slavery state.
William Lloyd Garrison, the most prominent abolitionist in America, even passed a resolution through the American Anti-Slavery Society insisting that it was the duty of every anti-slavery person to work to dissolve the Union, that way if the North were a separate country then they would be under no federal obligation to return slaves to Southern states that still had legal slave laws.
Like I said, Lincoln did not pursue war against the seceded states in order to abolish slavery. I can dig up some quotes if I need to. He did it in order to preserve the Union and consolidate federal power. Slavery was quickly dying out on it’s own. Many prominent Southerners (including those who fought against Northern aggression) were against slavery, and the North and South separation would have only helped to undermine slavery in the South. Slavery would have soon ended on it’s own, without a bloody conflict, just like it had throughout the world.
The states had every right to leave the Union. The entered it voluntarily and many state Constitutions specifically stated their freedom to leave the Union.
In short, the Civil War (which wasn’t a civil war at all. The South was not fighting for control, only the right to secede) was about the federal government overstepping their bounds and trying to take control of the States (As they did. Read about Southern Reconstruction, completely unconstitutional.) As the war progressed, anti-slavery became even more popular so it was a fitting theme for Lincoln to adopt, but he was certainly not at all against it at the start of the war.
The Civil War is a very complicated subject, but I did my best to condense it. If you would like there are good books by good historians on the subject I could recommend. Thomas E. Woods is an historian that quickly comes to mind.
Megan,
“It seems as though I have more vax freedom here than many places in the US, no prohibition on what I put in my mouth, no requirement to take antibiotics, etc and there is no move in that direction. I have as much freedom in that regard as you do and probably more.”
So what you’re saying is that OUR government is already giving us less freedom about our health than your government, and yet you think we should allow them to have even more control over it?? That doesn’t make much sense.
Also, “no prohibition on what I put in my mouth”. I think I remember reading that you are in Canada. Is that correct? If so, it’s my understanding that raw milk is illegal for direct to consumer sale in the entire country and completely illegal in some provinces. Is that the “no prohibition on what I put in my mouth” you’re referring to?
Trudy,
I don’t know if your government gives you less freedom than ours, overall. I can’t comment, I can only comment on very specific examples.
Re: raw milk. You can purchase a herdshare and receive the raw milk in that way, across the country. It’s not illegal. I had a share from a farm that was 400 miles from my city, they had a regular weekly delivery schedule to a location convenient to my home.
You are going beyond the argument of birth control and into healthcare in general. I will try to address your perspective. You think healthcare is a right. More specifically you think idea of Western healthcare and someone, other than yourself, shouldering the financial burden of it is a right. I, however, think what we call healthcare in America is an oxymoron. In my opinion, putting disruptive chemicals into your body is about the furthest thing from caring for health. I do not see M.D.s and probably never will again. However, I like the idea of homeopathy and Chinese medicine. Is it my right to have these covered under a healthcare plan? What about saunas, yoga classes, lymphatic massages? All of these things care for my health. If you can have someone else pay for your unhealthy drugs in the name of “healthcare”, why can’t I have someone pay for my healthy alternatives? How could companies even stay in business if they get forced into having such hefty expenses. If a company can afford it, then they will likely have it on their own in order to attract the best employee pool possible.
If you think that getting prescription drugs for free in order to “live a happy life” is a right, then does anything that prevents you from “living a happy life” also become a right? My neighbor does not have central air conditioning. It gets VERY hot in Louisiana in the summer time. Does she have the right to get A/C? Sure. Does she have the right to the government providing it for her? Does she have the right for someone else to be forced to pay for it for her? I think that it may be even more necessary to her “happy life” than prescriptions, certainly birth control. She won’t die from ovulating, but she can easily die from getting too hot.
People don’t have a RIGHT to life’s comforts provided to them at the expense of others. I don’t have the right to take away from you to give to me. If you want to give to me out of generosity, then I will be grateful, but I am certainly not entitled.
We are entitled to life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness. Keep in mind that nothing is free; everything comes at the expense of someone. And I honestly believe that a lot more good could be done and people would be much more generous with their money to the less fortunate if they weren’t having it constantly taken away and given to the poorly managed, inefficient government who is accountable to no one. More companies could afford to offer better benefits if they weren’t forced to throw so much of their money into the black hole of government.
YES! My health and also my happiness are directly affected when I am not able to workout. Therefore the government should mandate that gym access be covered by healthcare too.
You’re absolutely right, I have gone well beyond the discussion of birth control!
Just to clarify, as an educated employed professional who pays lots and lots of taxes, I pay MORE than my share of the national healthcare burden, yet I still believe that those less fortunate (and unfortunately those lazier) than me, should have adequate healthcare. So it’s not something that I believe just because it suits my personal situation.
And just because I do believe in birth control and being funded for it by a healthcare plan, does NOT mean that I take the drugs myself! In fact, when I am on birth control, and I’m not right now because I’m pregnant, I use non-drug methods myself. I don’t want that crap in me but I think that if others do then they should go that route. And YES, I do think that if we are stuck with shouldering the burden of paying for prescription drugs that are making people sicker instead of well, then yes, absolutely things like homeopathy and Chinese medicine should be covered there as well.
I couldn’t agree more, nothing is free, everything comes at an expense. So in general (very generally), a healthy society is a better society and I do believe that traditional healthcare for ALL can be, and is sometimes necessary to be, used along with more alternative (for lack of a better word) types of care to create a healthier population.
Don’t make so many assumptions 😉
“And just because I do believe in birth control and being funded for it by a healthcare plan”
And why should this belief be forced on others?
Meg,
I’m sorry. The comment you are referring to about going beyond the argument of birth control was meant to be addressed to Angela. I know these things get out of order sometimes, especially when going through a lengthy time of moderation, and I should have properly addressed it to her. If you read her comment and then mine, you can see the logical flow of my comment (hopefully). Sorry for the confusion.
Trudy,
I would add to your comment about the majority that, truth be told, the majority in the US is pro-life and against Obamacare! And only 4% want more gun control. Yet we still find ourselves in this predicament. Just goes to show how little Washington, including President Obama, listen to or care about what the people want. It’s about what he wants!
Hi Trudy,
I also wanted to tell you that I have enjoyed reading your comments here.
As for the Civil War, I am not really prepared to debate this issue right now. May be another time 🙂 But I did not say what I said in complete ignorance. My husband is a professor of Political Theory and has studied the issue in some depth, and based on his first-hand knowledge of primary sources, his perspective is quite different.
But regardless, this does not affect my point. Which was just because the majority of Southerners (or people of other parts of the world, for that matter) condoned slavery at some point in time, does not make slavery right.
Ryabinka,
I just found your reply to my Civil War comment. There are a lot of comments on here, and they’re becoming a little difficult to keep track of. 🙂
“As for the Civil War, I am not really prepared to debate this issue right now. May be another time.” Agree! I do not particularly want to debate the Civil War, especially not when there are much more important issues to be debating (not with each other). Maybe when we save our country and attain peace throughout the world, we can get around to debating history. 😀
” I did not say what I said in complete ignorance”. Then, I respect your opinion, or rather your interpretation of the facts. I’m not saying that I don’t disagree with your conclusions, just that if your view comes from an actual effort to understand the issue, then I completely respect it by extension of respecting you.
“…this does not affect my point. Which was just because the majority of Southerners (or people of other parts of the world, for that matter) condoned slavery at some point in time, does not make slavery right.” I see the point you are making, and I agree, something can be popular and still be very wrong.
.
” I did not say what I said in complete ignorance”. Then, I respect your opinion, or rather your interpretation of the facts. I’m not saying that I don’t disagree with your conclusions, just that if your view comes from an actual effort to understand the issue, then I completely respect it by extension of respecting you.
“…this does not affect my point. Which was just because the majority of Southerners (or people of other parts of the world, for that matter) condoned slavery at some point in time, does not make slavery right.” I see the point you are making, and I agree, something can be popular and still be very wrong.
Angela,
I would like to point out a contradiction in your comment. You say in regards to healthcare that “it’s up to all of us to share the burden for paying for it”. Then you go on to say that “employers SHOULD be required to offer affordable health insurance to their employees”. Lastly you say that you “can’t afford health insurance… because of a pre-existing condition… can’t afford the “high-risk” pool insurance”.
Here’s my confusion: if you feel that we should all shoulder the burden of healthcare, then why do you expect an employer to be able to afford and pay for your high-risk insurance instead of you?
The reason pre-existing conditions cause insurance to be higher is because it’s costing the insurance company much more money to cover you. Insurance companies have one of the lowest profit margins, typically between 1 and 3 percent! Because it costs them more, they charge more, whether they’re charging you or a business owner.
Who should shoulder the financial burden of your condition, you, your employer, or an insurance company? Somebody has to. I don’t see why you think it should be an employer, or anyone other than yourself, for that matter.
Angela,
One more thing. I want to mention that I am not against people receiving help, quite the opposite. I don’t as much as I can afford to charities and help people around me as best I can, whether it be buying medications or pay bills or even sometimes just giving a little money for them to enjoy. What I am against is the government involvement in “taking care of us”. Not only are they a poorly run, inefficient system, but they aren’t held accountable and allowed to operate beyond their means, but they also constantly seek more power by taking away more rights. Think about a charity or a business, they have to run as efficiently as possible and satisfy their customers (or those donating), and effectively compete with other companies or charities or they will go out of business. A government, however, can run inefficiently and rack up plenty of debt or just raise taxes, they can lie and hide their agenda and what is actually going on because they are not held accountable to anyone. They can create laws that conflict with our best interest, yet can we boycott these laws like we can boycott a company? I would much rather give my money to a private company or a charity to help take care of the less fortunate. They have to stay competitive, efficient, and please me or my money will go somewhere that is. Imagine if more of our money were freed up from the wasteful and power-hungry government. Think of all of the things we could do to create a better society. Not to mention, the positive economic impact it would have.
” I *donate* as much as I can afford to charities…:
try researching the health impacts of the pill since it’s inception and comparing them to each other
I am going nowhere …. I know we disagree on spirituality but I’m ok with doing my homework and making my own decision …. I WILL be sharing my opinion and explaining them too because how else do we learn from each other …. God bless you Sara …