Abortion Discussion

Morag

Piliger wrote: »

A bit of a wide swipe that I wouldn't buy into. I support abortion rights completely, but I don't necessarily consider them "basic medical needs".

All other maternity services are covered by the state, for free, under the maternity and infant care scheme.
http://www.hse.ie/eng/services/list/3/maternity/combinedcare.html
This should be as well.

This is why the abortion rights campaign's slogan is Free, Safe and Legal.

Bannasidhe

Piliger wrote: »

Wrong. I was responding to this original statement: "The state is refusing to cover basic medical needs that people should be entitled to via the free national health service"

Which is what I also said: "I support abortion rights completely, but I don't necessarily consider them "basic medical needs"."



Yes. Just like in many cases abortion would be elective, and not medically necessary. If some lady with a 6 figure income decides to abort her pregnancy because she wants continue her career, that is her choice to make but not necessarily to be paid for by the tax payer. You may believe in the State paying for everything people do in life, but I simply do not.

There is a vast difference between campaigning for and supporting a woman's right to chose, and saying that the tax payer should pay in all cases.

I never said they were illegal. When I said "I support legalising plastic surgery too" I wasn't suggesting it was illegal, just that I didn't believe it should ever be illegal.

Thank you for clarifying. You could have done that in the first place mind you without the old rolleyes snarky comment.

eviltwin

Piliger wrote: »

A bit of a wide swipe that I wouldn't buy into. I support abortion rights completely, but I don't necessarily consider them "basic medical needs".

I suppose it all comes down to how you define a basic medical need. There is no threat to the life of the mother forced to continue with a pregnancy however the mental stress it causes can't be ignored either. We focus too much on how the physical impact on pregnancy as a valid reason to allow an abortion, the mental trauma that mother would go through knowing her child won't survive deserves the same consideration.

old hippy

eviltwin wrote: »

I suppose it all comes down to how you define a basic medical need. There is no threat to the life of the mother forced to continue with a pregnancy however the mental stress it causes can't be ignored either. We focus too much on how the physical impact on pregnancy as a valid reason to allow an abortion, the mental trauma that mother would go through knowing her child won't survive deserves the same consideration.

In complete agreement there. The mental trauma aspect is too often overlooked. I guess the pro-lifers prefer the other mental trauma of being forced to go abroad to get abortions, instead.

Piliger

Morag wrote: »

All other maternity services are covered by the state, for free, under the maternity and infant care scheme.
http://www.hse.ie/eng/services/list/3/maternity/combinedcare.html
This should be as well.

This is why the abortion rights campaign's slogan is Free, Safe and Legal.

Well I guess that's what happens when you try to cram a range of views in to one slogan. As a campaigner for abortion rights, I don't support across the board State-paid-for-abortions.

lazygal

Piliger wrote: »

Well I guess that's what happens when you try to cram a range of views in to one slogan. As a campaigner for abortion rights, I don't support across the board State-paid-for-abortions.

What abortion rights do you support?

Piliger

lazygal wrote: »

What abortion rights do you support?

A woman's right to have an abortion up to a certain date. I believe in lots of freedoms but not all of them need to be paid for by the State.

Morag

Piliger wrote: »

Well I guess that's what happens when you try to cram a range of views in to one slogan. As a campaigner for abortion rights, I don't support across the board State-paid-for-abortions.

It is the aim of the campaign which was put to the vote of those who were involved for the year it was set up.

lazygal

Piliger wrote: »

A woman's right to have an abortion up to a certain date. I believe in lots of freedoms but not all of them need to be paid for by the State.

What date? What if a woman can't afford an abortion but wants or needs one?

eviltwin

Piliger wrote: »

A woman's right to have an abortion up to a certain date. I believe in lots of freedoms but not all of them need to be paid for by the State.

Why not? We don't charge women to have babies, why do we charge them not to have babies? Doesn't really make sense when you think about it. Public healthcare is free to pregnant women and yet contraception, getting the snip or abortion all have to be paid for. You would think from an economic point of view it makes sense to help prevent people having babies.

Piliger

lazygal wrote: »

What date? What if a woman can't afford an abortion but wants or needs one?

If she can't afford one then it should be free. Why wouldn't it. Of course.

Piliger

eviltwin wrote: »

Why not? We don't charge women to have babies, why do we charge them not to have babies? Doesn't really make sense when you think about it. Public healthcare is free to pregnant women and yet contraception, getting the snip or abortion all have to be paid for. You would think from an economic point of view it makes sense to help prevent people having babies.

Why ? We have no population problem. Quite the opposite.

robindch

Oops. Turns out that Hobby Lobby, a large chain store owned by religious fundamentalists who object to contraception, has large investments in companies that provide contraception.

Mammon 1, God 0

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-invests-in-em_n_5070279.html

HuffPo wrote:

The owners of Hobby Lobby, a Christian-owned craft supply chain, were so offended by the idea of having to include emergency contraceptives and intrauterine devices in their health insurance plans that they sued the Obama administration and took the case all the way up to the Supreme Court. But Mother Jones reported on Tuesday that the company's retirement plan has invested millions of dollars in the manufacturers of emergency contraception and drugs used to induce abortions.

Hobby Lobby's 401(k) employee retirement plan holds $73 million in mutual funds that invest in multiple pharmaceutical companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and abortion-inducing medications.

The companies Hobby Lobby invests in include Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes the Plan B morning-after pill and ParaGard, a copper IUD, as well as Pfizer, the maker of the abortion-inducing drugs Cytotec and Prostin E2. Hobby Lobby's mutual funds also invest in two health insurance companies that cover surgical abortions, abortion drugs, and emergency contraception in their health care policies.

Hobby Lobby's attorneys argue that the provision in the Affordable Care Act that requires most employers to cover contraception in their health plans infringes on the company's right to exercise religious freedom because the company's owners believe that emergency contraception and IUDs are actually forms of abortion. Medical studies have debunked this claim.

Mother Jones reported that all nine of the mutual funds Hobby Lobby's retirement plan holds include investments that clash with the owners' religious beliefs about abortion.

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

Oops. Turns out that Hobby Lobby, a large chain store owned by religious fundamentalists who object to contraception, has large investments in companies that provide contraception . . .

"Hobby Lobby's 401(k) employee retirement plan holds $73 million in mutual funds that invest in multiple pharmaceutical companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and abortion-inducing medications."]"

Not to rain on anybody's parade, but the money in Hobby Lobby's 401(k) employee retirement plan does not belong to Hobby Lobby, Hobby Lobby does not benefit from investment return on that money, and Hobby Lobby has no say in how it is invested.

MrPudding

Peregrinus wrote: »

[...] Hobby Lobby has no say in how it is invested.

That may well be the case, but they could have a say in how it is invested...

MrP

Peregrinus

That would be improper, given that they don';t own the money and have no interest in it, and it;s not invested for their benefit. While it's not impossible that it's the case, you'd need to have some evidence that it was the case before making an allegation of that kind.

Plus, the fact that it's being invested in a way contrary to the stated beliefs of the owners of Hobby Lobby suggests, if anything, that they have no influence over how it is invested. Eveni if, hypothetically, they were influencing the investment of the money, why would they influence it in this direction? They don;t benefit in any way from the investment return on the money. If HL were in a position to influence investment, I'd expect them to be influencing it against making these particular investments, wouldn't you?

MrPudding

Peregrinus wrote: »

That would be improper, given that they don';t own the money and have no interest in it, and it;s not invested for their benefit. While it's not impossible that it's the case, you'd need to have some evidence that it was the case before making an allegation of that kind.

Plus, the fact that it's being invested in a way contrary to the stated beliefs of the owners of Hobby Lobby suggests, if anything, that they have no influence over how it is invested. Eveni if, hypothetically, they were influencing the investment of the money, why would they influence it in this direction? They don;t benefit in any way from the investment return on the money. If HL were in a position to influence investment, I'd expect them to be influencing it against making these particular investments, wouldn't you?

Apologise, I am not explaining what I mean correctly. I agree that once the 401k account are set up there is little the company can do, on a 'day to day' or 'invest in this or that share' basis, though I expect they could move them, subject to whatever contractual obligation they had.

There are a growing number of ethical investment options available to people and organisations for their 401k portfolios. If acompany felt so strongly about birth control they went to the supreme court to try to get out of providing it to their employees, I would suggest that would indicate a fairly serious aversion to birth control. Given the strength of th aversion I would expect that they would make every effort, particularly when their are options available to them, to avoid investing in that area.

MrP

Peregrinus

Sure, but they don't get to invest this money. Typically, the financial services company providing the 401(k) plan offers a range of managed funds - including, very commonly, funds which include some kind of ethical screening - and then the individual accountholder can invest his account in one or more of those funds in any split, or any proportions, he likes.

The employer company normally doesn't enter into it at all. The most they can do, by arrangement with the plan provider, is to add investment options to the menu - e.g. they can allow plan members to choose an investment option which consists of the employer's own shares.

Hobby Lobby could, if they wished, ensure that the 401(k) menu of investment options included one or more ethically-screened funds which excludes companies involved in abortion and contraception. (For all I know, they have ensured that such an option is provided.) What they can't do is require the employees to choose it.

Peregrinus

Further: I found this page, which is a rating of the Hobby Lobby 401k plan by the financial information company BrightScope. The plan apparently offers a menu of 16 different investment funds, and the ratings page lists top three most-chosen. They are all diversified managed funds operated by an outfit called "American Funds", and from the names none of them are ethically-screened. The same funds are offered in the 401k plans of many other employers.

American Funds doesn't offer explicitly ethically-screened investment options. It's possible that the Hobby Lobby 401k plan offers funds from other managers and that they are ethically-screened. All we can say is that, if ethically-screened funds are offered, they are not among the top three choices of plan members.

MrPudding

Peregrinus wrote: »

Further: I found this page, which is a rating of the Hobby Lobby 401k plan by the financial information company BrightScope. The plan apparently offers a menu of 16 different investment funds, and the ratings page lists top three most-chosen. They are all diversified managed funds operated by an outfit called "American Funds", and from the names none of them are ethically-screened. The same funds are offered in the 401k plans of many other employers.

American Funds doesn't offer explicitly ethically-screened investment options. It's possible that the Hobby Lobby 401k plan offers funds from other managers and that they are ethically-screened. All we can say is that, if ethically-screened funds are offered, they are not among the top three choices of plan members.

I don't have time to fully research this area, but I recalled from a time when I was interested in such thing, that there are options available to those that want them. I came accross this Forbes Article which has some interesting points:

Forbes wrote:

You may be thinking that it must have been beyond Hobby Lobby’s reasonable abilities to know what companies were being invested in by the mutual funds purchased for the Hobby Lobby 401(k) plans—but I am afraid you would be wrong.

Not only does Hobby Lobby have an obligation to know what their sponsored 401(k) is investing in for the benefit of their employees, it turns out that there are ample opportunities for the retirement fund to invest in mutual funds that are specifically screened to avoid any religiously offensive products.

Which leads to:

wrote:

To avoid supporting companies that manufacture abortion drugs—or products such as alcohol or pornography—religious investors can turn to a cottage industry of mutual funds that screen out stocks that religious people might consider morally objectionable. The Timothy Plan and the Ave Maria Fund, for example, screen for companies that manufacture abortion drugs, support Planned Parenthood, or engage in embryonic stem cell research.

Now, I love contraception. I love using it. I have no problem with other people using it, and if I was paying for a health plan I would have no problem iin it being made available. Hobby Lobby apparently hate contraception so bad they are suing the President of the United States in the Supreme Court of the United States. Yet, given this extreme objection, they were unable to find these two websites,

http://www.timothyplan.com
http://www.avemariafunds.com

which I, who does not care about contraception, found with 3 google searches...? Really?

MrP

Peregrinus

Yes, but we don't know that Hobby Lobby's plan doesn't include these ethically-screened investment funds. It may well include them, but some at least of the plan participants - the workers, not the employer - may choose the unscreened funds.

It seems to me that HL employees investing their retirement funds in pharmaceutical companies is no different from HL employees using their wages to buy shares in pharmaceutical companies, or indeed using their wages to buy contraceptives or pay for abortions. HL is not responsible for the choices its workers make regarding how to spend or invest the remuneration they receive.

It's not inconceivable that the an opposition to contraception is not the only principle which motivates the HL owners. If we assume that they subscribe to the usual menu of conservative Republican (in the US sense) stances, then they believe that the workers are entitled to do what they like with the remuneration they earn, and while HL owners may deplore some of the choices they make it is not their business, or even their right, to try and influence how the employees invest their own money.

This is an attempt to try and paint HL as hypocrites. They may well be hypocrites, but this particular matter doesn't show that they are. In order to try and make this stand up, people have to characterise it as "HL invests in pharma companies". That's not true. These are not HL investments, and they are not investments chosen by HL. The correct headline would say "[many] HL employees invest in pharma companies; HL does not attempt to discourage them or, if it does, it does not succeed". That doesn't serve the same purpose but, awkwardly, it is the truth.

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

but some at least of the plan participants - the workers, not the employer - may choose the unscreened funds.

It would seem odd for HL to allow workers to choose unethical funds, if -- the point of the Supreme Court challenge -- HL doesn't want to allow workers to choose "immoral" forms of health insurance.

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

It would seem odd for HL to allow workers to choose unethical funds, if -- the point of the Supreme Court challenge -- HL doesn't want to allow workers to choose "immoral" forms of health insurance.

HL doesn't want to have to pay for "immoral" insurance policies. They have never suggested (SFAIK) that they want to prevent workers from spending, investing or applying their remuneration immorally, or that they have any right to try.

The criticism of the 401k plan proceeds on the assumption that the money in the plan is HL's and that the investments of the plan are, therefore, investments of HL's. But the money in the plan is not HL's; it is the workers'; the investments the plan makes are not made by HL, they do not belong to HL and the investment return does not flow back to HL.

Bannasidhe

Peregrinus wrote: »

HL doesn't want to have to pay for "immoral" insurance policies. They have never suggested (SFAIK) that they want to prevent workers from spending, investing or applying their remuneration immorally, or that they have any right to try.

The criticism of the 401k plan proceeds on the assumption that the money in the plan is HL's and that the investments of the plan are, therefore, investments of HL's. But the money in the plan is not HL's; it is the workers'; the investments the plan makes are not made by HL, they do not belong to HL and the investment return does not flow back to HL.

First US 'company' pension plan where the workers get to decide where the funds are invested I have ever encountered...how very 'socialist' of HL. :P.

In my experience it is generally the 'company' who administers the pension fund and the workers rarely get a say...

I'm not buying your defence of HL Peregrinus - investing according to one's ethical beliefs is not exactly rocket science. Myself and a groups of friends managed it in the 80s looong before the interweb made such things easy. We simply gave our fund manager a list of what was and was not acceptable - for example, at the time, we said any company that was involved in South Africa was out as was any company that engaged in testing on animals- and we checked every single investment. If a group of lefty community workers could do that in the 80s there is no reason a large company cannot do so today.

Peregrinus

Bannasidhe wrote: »

First US 'company' pension plan where the workers get to decide where the funds are invested I have ever encountered...how very 'socialist' of HL. .

It’s not at all socialist. On the contrary, it’s very individualist. Plus, all investment risk is born by the worker, not the employer. Why do you think these plans are so popular in the US?

But member investment choice is standard in a 401k plan. I’ve never come across one that didn’t offer it, and I worked in the business for nearly twenty years.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

In my experience it is generally the 'company' who administers the pension fund and the workers rarely get a say...

Nope. The pension fund is managed and invested by trustees - or, strictly speaking, managed and invested by a regulated fund manager selected and appointed by trustees. The only issue is whether the trustees and their manager take all the investment decisions themselves, or whether they pass on a degree of investment choice to the individual members. And, in a 401k plan, the latter is standard - not actually required by the legislation, I think, but pretty universal in practice. But, either way, the employer company is kept at arm’s length both from the formulation of broad investment policy and from the implementation of that policy in investment decisions. (For obvious reasons!)

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I'm not buying your defence of HL Peregrinus

Believe me, I’m not very happy to be defending HL. I think their stance on health insurance for their workers is just bizarre, and I hope very much that they lose their case. But the question of how the HL 401k plan is invested is a giant red herring. Whatever investment decisions relating to that fund have been made, they cannot reflect on HL, because HL does not make those investment decisions, or benefit from them.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

. . . investing according to one's ethical beliefs is not exactly rocket science. Myself and a groups of friends managed it in the 80s looong before the interweb made such things easy. We simply gave our fund manager a list of what was and was not acceptable - for example, at the time, we said any company that was involved in South Africa was out as was any company that engaged in testing on animals- and we checked every single investment. If a group of lefty community workers could do that in the 80s there is no reason a large company cannot do so today.

Absolutely. It’s very easy to do. There are plenty of fund managers offering the service, and a huge variety of funds with various ethical focusses - green investment funds, sustainable development funds, funds which exclude armaments, funds which exclude alcohol and/or tobacco and/or gambling and/or pornography. Funds which screen companies according to whether they observe fair labour practices. Funds which avoid interest-charging businesses. Funds which actively seek out socially responsible companies, or which look to invest in companies that support small business, local opportunities and start-ups. If you have an ethical concern, the likelihood is that there is already a fund out their which reflects that concern, through which you can invest.

Or, if you have a sufficient amount of money, you can get a fund manager to implement a tailor-made ethical investment policy which matches exactly your personal preferences. Happy to invest in wine and beer but not spirits? No problem; we can do that.

And there’s a surprisingly large amount of money invested through such vehicles. Ethical investment is big business.

But so what? It would be very easy for HL to invest in accordance with its own declared ethical standards. The market infrastructure is there, and the expertise is readily available. But unless we look at investments made by HL, we cannot know whether HL is doing that or not. And the investments of the HL 401k fund are not made, or selected, by HL, so they tell us nothing about the choices that HL makes.

Bannasidhe

Peregrinus wrote: »

It’s not at all socialist. On the contrary, it’s very individualist. Plus, all investment risk is born by the worker, not the employer. Why do you think these plans are so popular in the US?

But member investment choice is standard in a 401k plan. I’ve never come across one that didn’t offer it, and I worked in the business for nearly twenty years.


Nope. The pension fund is managed and invested by trustees - or, strictly speaking, managed and invested by a regulated fund manager selected and appointed by trustees. The only issue is whether the trustees and their manager take all the investment decisions themselves, or whether they pass on a degree of investment choice to the individual members. And, in a 401k plan, the latter is standard - not actually required by the legislation, I think, but pretty universal in practice. But, either way, the employer company is kept at arm’s length both from the formulation of broad investment policy and from the implementation of that policy in investment decisions. (For obvious reasons!)


Believe me, I’m not very happy to be defending HL. I think their stance on health insurance for their workers is just bizarre, and I hope very much that they lose their case. But the question of how the HL 401k plan is invested is a giant red herring. Whatever investment decisions relating to that fund have been made, they cannot reflect on HL, because HL does not make those investment decisions, or benefit from them.


Absolutely. It’s very easy to do. There are plenty of fund managers offering the service, and a huge variety of funds with various ethical focusses - green investment funds, sustainable development funds, funds which exclude armaments, funds which exclude alcohol and/or tobacco and/or gambling and/or pornography. Funds which screen companies according to whether they observe fair labour practices. Funds which avoid interest-charging businesses. Funds which actively seek out socially responsible companies, or which look to invest in companies that support small business, local opportunities and start-ups. If you have an ethical concern, the likelihood is that there is already a fund out their which reflects that concern, through which you can invest.

Or, if you have a sufficient amount of money, you can get a fund manager to implement a tailor-made ethical investment policy which matches exactly your personal preferences. Happy to invest in wine and beer but not spirits? No problem; we can do that.

And there’s a surprisingly large amount of money invested through such vehicles. Ethical investment is big business.

But so what? It would be very easy for HL to invest in accordance with its own declared ethical standards. The market infrastructure is there, and the expertise is readily available. But unless we look at investments made by HL, we cannot know whether HL is doing that or not. And the investments of the HL 401k fund are not made, or selected, by HL, so they tell us nothing about the choices that HL makes.

The point being that if HL have such an ethical objection to contraception it would be in their interest to insist any funds in their company pension plan are invested according to their ethical principles - they have not done so which leads one to question just how deep their ethics run...

You must admit, from a PR standpoint it is a disaster for them.

Peregrinus

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The point being that if HL have such an ethical objection to contraception it would be in their interest to insist any funds in their company pension plan are invested according to their ethical principles

It might well be in their interests, but it is not within their rights. Any attempt to tell the trustees how to invest would be (a) illegal and improper, and (b) ineffective.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You must admit, from a PR standpoint it is a disaster for them.

Possibly, but their good name and reputation is a sacrifice I am willing to make.

aloyisious

Peregrinus wrote: »

It might well be in their interests, but it is not within their rights. Any attempt to tell the trustees how to invest would be (a) illegal and improper, and (b) ineffective.


Possibly, but their good name and reputation is a sacrifice I am willing to make.

Tis nice that a company so dedicated to a particular ethical belief doesn't kick up a storm about it's employees, and their retirement-fund managers, investing in health-related products so averse to the company's ethics.

Love the General Kitchener type quote, so like: I don't mind spilling blood, it's not mine....

Bannasidhe

aloyisious wrote: »

Tis nice that a company so dedicated to a particular ethical belief doesn't kick up a storm about it's employees, and their retirement-fund managers, investing in health-related products so averse to the company's ethics.

Love the General Kitchener type quote, so like: I don't mind spilling blood, it's not mine....

Reminds me of some of the RCC's 'investments'...porn publishers, Gay clubs etc etc.

Strange how organisations who try to dictate to others can be strangely lax when it come to themselves...

Peregrinus

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Reminds me of some of the RCC's 'investments'...porn publishers, Gay clubs etc etc.

Strange how organisations who try to dictate to others can be strangely lax when it come to themselves...

But HL are doing precisely the opposite of that; objecting strongly to having to pay themselves for what they consider to be "immoral" insurance policies, but making no attempt to influence or control how employees invest their retirement savings.

As I say, I don't like HL's stance. But there's no inconsistency or hypocrisy in saying (a) I don't want to spend my money on this, but (b) I'm not telling other people how they should spend their money.