Wireless Contraception

Kittenman writes: The BBC is carrying information on a type of contraception (funded in part by Bill Gates) that takes the form of a microchip, inserted under the skin. The chip releases contraceptive hormones to the body until wirelessly advised not to do so. This device has several interesting applications and issues associated with it. The researchers are already working on making the device secure against unauthorized transmissions. There's also the issue of making it easier for governments to control population levels. The chip will be available from 2018. This correspondent will watch the issues with interest.

Comments

yes but

[halfEvilTech]

I bet Hobby Lobby will make sure it isn't covered... Afterall we can't have a corporations err person's religious rights trampled on.

Re:yes but

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah...I wondered how long a complete and total misunderstanding of the ruling would surface. Get a law degree, then get your head out of your ass, maybe you'll learn something.

Re:yes but

[benjfowler]

WTF? "hyper-reactionary" "liberal".

Sorry -- did I just find myself in a parallel universe?

Re:yes but

[Anonymous Coward]

Times like this sarcasm tags are helpful.

Re:yes but

[Anonymous Coward]

Hobby Lobby didn't have a problem with contraceptives they were okay with 16 that is currently on the market. They didn't want to support the last four drugs which are abortifacients. Anyways, the ruling was much more. You should read it carefully.

Re:yes but

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you banging on about ?

Re:yes but

[Anonymous Coward]

The ruling prevents people from being forced to pay for others to have contraception. It does not make it illegal or prevent people from buying their own. As the ruling also noted, the government itself could pay for it itself instead of forcing others to violate their religious convictions, but they didn't because it was politically expedient to do it this way. You don't have to agree with their beliefs to understand that forcing people to violate them simply because its expedient isn't a good thing.

But I suspect you won't understand unless someone passes a law forcing you to violate your convictions.

Re:yes but

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope that contraception becomes ubiquitous enough that in future when we
do need a formula-fed moron like you, we have to make one in a test tube.
I hope your tubes are tied, pussy.

Re:yes but

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, not a parallel universe. To hear my liberal friends tell it, the supreme court ruled that Hobby Lobby has completely barred their employees from even looking at contraceptives and opened the door for any sort of flimsy religious excuse for any sort of employer abuse of employees. The reaction makes my conservative friends' Bengazi reactions look rational.

Re:yes but

[Anonymous Coward]

Spoken like someone that doesnt know anything about the Hobby Lobby case other than what the hyper-reactionary and completely dishonest liberal propaganda machine started spewing the moment the ruling came.

The Hobby Lobby case was about a corporation demanding religious freedom to reject paying for the medical care of their employees based on the religious view of the company owners.

It's a terrible decision, as it means that somehow not only are corporations 'persons', but they have the religious freedom to impose their will on their employees.

This immediately led to companies saying they also want to claim the right to not hire LGBT people, against Federal laws, because they say so.

Sorry, this isn't 'hyper reactionary', this isn't 'liberal propaganda', this is entirely about the right of religious people to be able to discriminate based on their beliefs -- and somehow expecting it to remain illegal to discriminate against them.

If you think this is such a good ruling, wait until a Muslim business starts saying they don't want to follow laws which violate Sharia law, or that women are required to wear veils if they work for them,

No, this is about asshole Republicans and religious people deciding they should be exempt from the laws of civil society and be able to opt out.

It's you who has no idea of what that case was about.

Re:yes but

[Rockoon]

It's a terrible decision, as it means that somehow not only are corporations 'persons', but they have the religious freedom to impose their will on their employees.

I rest my case.

Re:yes but

[will_die]

And yet another example of some idiot who did not even read the basic parts of this case.

Re:yes but

[Anonymous Coward]

It didn't take half as long as the complete and total misrepresentation of the ruling surfaced. That was in the opinion itself, which just proves a law degree, let alone being on the bench of the Supreme Court, doesn't prevent you from sticking your own head up an ass.

Re:yes but

[Dcnjoe60]

The Hobby Lobby case was about a corporation demanding religious freedom to reject paying for the medical care of their employees based on the religious view of the company owners.

It's a terrible decision, as it means that somehow not only are corporations 'persons', but they have the religious freedom to impose their will on their employees.

The Hobby Lobby case is/was about individual owners of a company not losing their rights just because they formed a corporation for tax or liability purposes. It treats these individuals just like they were still a sole proprietorship or partnership. Simply put, the decision says that if you form a business, you do not give up any rights regardless of the form of that business.

This immediately led to companies saying they also want to claim the right to not hire LGBT people, against Federal laws, because they say so.

That is really surprising. Do you have a citation to support that? I ask, because individuals before the Hobby Lobby case did not have a right to not hire LGBT, so the Hobby Lobby case has zero impact on the LGBT community. If something was discriminatory prior to Hobby Lobby for an individual to do, then it is still discriminatory post Hobby Lobby. Nothing has changed in that regard.

Sorry, this isn't 'hyper reactionary', this isn't 'liberal propaganda', this is entirely about the right of religious people to be able to discriminate based on their beliefs -- and somehow expecting it to remain illegal to discriminate against them.

If you think this is such a good ruling, wait until a Muslim business starts saying they don't want to follow laws which violate Sharia law, or that women are required to wear veils if they work for them,

No, this is about asshole Republicans and religious people deciding they should be exempt from the laws of civil society and be able to opt out.

It's you who has no idea of what that case was about.

Again, the Hobby Lobby case had nothing to do with what you post. It was about not losing one's individual rights because of the way a business is organized. Of the 1,200 approved contraceptives on the market in the US, Hobby Lobby provides for 1,196 of them. How is that discrimination? To win it's case, over those four contraceptives, the government had to show there was no other reasonable way to provide them short of violating the owner's religious rights. That was not the case and the court said so. The Hobby Lobby case did not bestow religious freedoms on corporations. It did, however, keep the owners of those corporations, if fewer than five individuals from losing their religious freedoms.

Re:yes but

[Dcnjoe60]

Hobby Lobby didn't have a problem with contraceptives they were okay with 16 that is currently on the market. They didn't want to support the last four drugs which are abortifacients. Anyways, the ruling was much more. You should read it carefully.

They were okay with the 1,196 that are on the market. It was just the 4, including two types of IUDs that were problematic.

Re:yes but

[Anonymous Coward]

Me not paying for your stuff is not the same as me keeping you from having it. Everyone knows how HL feels about this now. Seems simple, don't work there if you don't agree.

Re:yes but

[Anonymous Coward]

Hear! Hear!

My kingdom for MOD POINTS!!

Re:yes but

[Anonymous Coward]

But I suspect you won't understand unless someone passes a law forcing you to violate your convictions.

It is also nice to have the luxury to pick and choose your convictions out of your favorite religion so that you can pick and choose when you feel your convictions are being violated. Like the (now) classic Doonesbury comic:

Reverend Sloan: So what would you like to know about the Little Church of Walden, folks? Don’t hold back—I know how difficult it can be to choose a church.
Middle-aged Man: Well, what’s your basic approach here, Reverend? It is traditional gospel?
Reverend Sloan: In a way. I like to describe it as 12 Step Christianity. Basically, I believe that we’re all recovering sinners. My ministry is about overcoming denial. It’s about re-commitment, about redemption. It’s all in the brochure there.
Middle-aged Woman: Wait a minute! Sinners? Redemption? Doesn’t that all imply guilt?
Reverend Sloan: Well, yes, I do rely on the occasional disincentive to keep the flock from going astray. Guilt’s part of that.
Man:I dunno, there’s so much negativity in the world as it is.
Woman: That’s right. We’re looking for a church that’s supportive, a place where we can feel good about ourselves. I’m not sure the guilt thing works for us.
Man: On the other hand, you do offer racquetball.
Woman: So did the Unitarians, honey, Let’s shop around some more.

Re:yes but

[blue9steel]

The Hobby Lobby case is/was about individual owners of a company not losing their rights just because they formed a corporation for tax or liability purposes. It treats these individuals just like they were still a sole proprietorship or partnership. Simply put, the decision says that if you form a business, you do not give up any rights regardless of the form of that business.

Which is why it's a bad ruling. Corporations are a specific grant of public privilege and as such should have different rules than a sole proprietorship or partnership. A corporation is a public institution not a private one and thus has to be held to a higher standard. As a libertarian I completely agree that private institutions should be able to do exactly what the owners of The Hobby Lobby desire, a corporation should not. The correct response would be to revoke their corporate charter and require them to reform as a sole proprietorship or partnership.

Re:yes but

[edman007]

Yea, it's a weird situation, but we have already make people pay for things they don't want. A real big one is war, you are required to pay taxes to support a war. It's irrelevant that you may or may not approve of it, or that you might be against killing people, even if that's your religious belief. You are required to pay for the food for the soldiers, which may involve killing sacred animals. You are also required to pay for courts, that may preside over divorce cases.

That's the real issue, the government can and does make you pay for things you disagree with, and you don't have a say in it (other than your vote). So why can't the government make you pay for health care that you don't agree with? If the receiver disagrees with it, that's usually when your choice comes into play. But we found that doesn't really matter either, for example in a draft. Being against the war doesn't exempt you from being required to kill someone.

Re:yes but

[Kielistic]

Probably just outside of your opinion-bubble.

Re:yes but

[geekoid]

"The Hobby Lobby case is/was about individual owners of a company not losing their rights just because they formed a corporation for tax or liability purposes.
except you ARE giving up those rights ine xchange for the protection it gives you.

You can't have all the advantage of private ownership and all the advantages of private ownership.
will, Apparently now you can.

LGBT will be next. SO will gay people. I mean, the logic used in the case can be applied to ANY federal law about ANY religious tenant.
Read that case you can swap contraception with anything.

". Of the 1,200 approved contraceptives on the market in the US, Hobby Lobby provides for 1,196 of them. How is that discrimination?"
I understand people like you get locked into a biased narrative and you don't have the skills to change you narrative based on facts, but you also can't do math?
with your numbers, there are 4 ways they are discriminating.

"owner's religious rights. "
it's a corporation NOT a private solely owned business.
IT WAS the case, and members of the court sided with there Personal Religious Belief.
IT is yet another underscore of how religion in government is bad.

Hobby Lobby case is not about religious freedom. Not at all. It's about religious oppression. Using corporate power and enforcing their belief on to others.
Here is a clue: paying for insurance that covers contraception is NOT against any tenant of their religion.

Re:yes but

[compro01]

Me not paying for your stuff is not the same as me keeping you from having it.

"I'm not denying treatment, I'm denying payment."

Re:yes but

[compro01]

Hobby Lobby didn't have a problem with contraceptives they were okay with 16 that is currently on the market. They didn't want to support the last four drugs which are abortifacients. Anyways, the ruling was much more. You should read it carefully.

They were okay with the 1,196 that are on the market. It was just the 4, including two types of IUDs that were problematic.

Yes, and then SCOTUS ruled the next day that Catholic-owned corporations can opt out of all birth control.

Re:yes but

[Maxwell]

The Hobby Lobby case was about a corporation demanding religious freedom to reject paying for the medical care of their employees based on the religious view of the company owners.

It's a terrible decision, as it means that somehow not only are corporations 'persons', but they have the religious freedom to impose their will on their employees.

The Hobby Lobby case is/was about individual owners of a company not losing their rights just because they formed a corporation for tax or liability purposes. It treats these individuals just like they were still a sole proprietorship or partnership. Simply put, the decision says that if you form a business, you do not give up any rights regardless of the form of that business.

I have never heard of this case, but you've just described exactly the opposite of 300+ years of corporations. You DO trade in rights as an individual when you form a corporation and you gain tons of rights too - such as protection from personal asset seizure. The whole point of a corporation is that the corporation is separate and distinct from your personal assets and it is NOT a partnership or sole proprietorship that can have assets seized..

The Hobby Lobby case did not bestow religious freedoms on corporations. It did, however, keep the owners of those corporations, if fewer than five individuals from losing their religious freedoms.

Those are the same thing, so it does appears to have bestowed religious freedom on corporations if their owners want it. Again, if you want to own a corporation you ave to give something up in return. Size of the corporation is not relevant.

Is this in appeal somewhere? Because a single judge just fundamentally changed the way the western world functions.

Re:yes but

[Opportunist]

Killing the idiot trying to draft me would work as an opt-out, wouldn't it?

Re:yes but

[Opportunist]

And why should I be disallowed removing a parasite from my body?

Re:yes but

[MondoGordo]

So they want the advantages of being a corporate entity without the limitations? That's reprehensible and indefensible.

Re:yes but

[Anonymous Coward]

But if a person starts a corporation that entity shouldn't take on the owners rights. That individual can exercise their right to whatever but the business should comply with all laws mandates and regulations.

The ruling was shite

Re:yes but

[Anonymous Coward]

Spoken like someone that doesnt know anything about the Hobby Lobby case other than what the hyper-reactionary and completely dishonest liberal propaganda machine started spewing the moment the ruling came.

Spoken like someone who assumes their opinion about the case is the One True Opinion, and anyone who holds a different opinion must somehow have been brainwashed to believe it.

Re:yes but

[sumdumass]

This immediately led to companies saying they also want to claim the right to not hire LGBT people, against Federal laws, because they say so.

Which companies and what law? As far as I am aware, the federal civil rights laws do not cover LGBT as a protected class (race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.).

  And I'm not aware of any companies publicly stating those reasons outside a photographer and a bakery not wanting to participate in a gay wedding.

The rest of your rant seems baseless also. The ruling specifically said it doesn't include those other things.

Re:yes but

[Anonymous Coward]

Hobby Lobby case is not about religious freedom. Not at all. It's about religious oppression. Using corporate power and enforcing their belief on to others.
Here is a clue: paying for insurance that covers contraception is NOT against any tenant of their religion.

Oppression? Who is being prevented from doing anything here? All that happened here is that employees are being told that if they want something, they might need to buy it themselves, rather than have someone else buy it for them.

Freedom is different from freebies.

Re:yes but

[Rockoon]

So why can't the government make you pay for health care that you don't agree with?

The government doesnt have the right to do so. The fact that it sometimes (more and more frequently these days) does things that it doesnt have a right to do is not an excuse.

There is a process where the federal government can be granted new rights. This happens only when the States approve a modification to the constitution.

Re:yes but

[Charliemopps]

Corporation - a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law.

i.e. It's a way for more than one person to own a business.

I'm often surprised at the number of people that will spout off about topics when the don't even know the definitions of the words they're using. If you own a family business and want to share ownership, it has to be a corporation. If it isn't, it will be under the ownership of one family member and there will be a legal and tax nightmare when that person dies.

They did not ask to be put into the situation where they control the womans healthcare. The government forced them, by law, to provide health care. Then the government forced them, by law, to include contraceptive devices that abort a fertilized fetus. (many of the contraceptive devices covered kill the post-fertilized egg) Their only option out was to pay a fine that would go directly to paying for the very same services they oppose.

From their point of view the government just required them to pay for their employees to have the ability to murder babies. Now, you can disagree with that point of view, I know I do. But it really is their point of view. They really do view it has killing babies. That's a violation of their ability to freely express their religion. The government could have addressed this a dozen different ways. Exempting them from the penalties if they didn't provide the care would have been the simplest. But they didn't. The whitehouse should have seen this coming, they should have provided a religious exemption, but they didn't.

Re:yes but

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and then SCOTUS ruled the next day that Catholic-owned corporations can opt out of all birth control.

No, SCOTUS issued a stay that says they won't be punished until their court case is complete. That's it.

Re:yes but

[sumdumass]

Paying taxes is a little different than paying a third party insurance company isn't it?

So why can't the government make you pay for health care that you don't agree with?

Well, in this specific situation, there is a constitutional amendment that bars congress from making any law prohibiting the free exercise of an establishment of religion. This has been narrowed down a bit over the years so the democrats along with the republicans passed a law that said all rules (and yes, the birth control mandate is a regulation created by the DHHS not the actual law passed by congress which is why the mandate doesn't override previous laws when in conflict) need to have a good reason to overcome someone's religious rights. It sets a criteria of (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

We can assume 1 is true as otherwise, they wouldn't have made the rule. What the court did is find that 2 wasn't satisfied because the government already exempted other groups and people for the same objections.

So why, because not only is there a constitutional prohibition that the government likes to ignore, but there is a law that supersedes a rule made and that law passed almost unanimously by congress.

Re:yes but

[Charliemopps]

So they want the advantages of being a corporate entity without the limitations? That's reprehensible and indefensible.

advantages? It's required. They'd go bankrupt without it and you know it.

The closest comparison would be the souths Jim Crowe laws from back in the day.

Sure you can vote, you just have to recite the constitution from memory!
Sure you can have religious freedom! You just can't stay in business if you do!

Re:yes but

[sumdumass]

So, can you lose your 4th amendment rights, your right to free speech and your right to due process when the government gives you a license to drive a car? How about for fishing or hunting? Or a permit for installing a pool or addition to your home?

Those are all specific grants of public privilege. Partaking in anything the government offers or provides should in no way result in your loss of constitutionally protected rights or laws on the books. As a libertarian you should be firmly against having to surrender rights to participate in commerce or any interaction with it through a government created process (incorporating).

Re:yes but

[misexistentialist]

"We" don't do it, it's wannabe dictators and parasites who implement such policies. A necessary war could be fought with volunteers and funded with war bonds. It's really a myth that you have to pay government at all, since the cost to forcibly collect generally exceeds what's supposedly owed. With government now printing unlimited money taxation is really just a show of dominance

Re:yes but

[sumdumass]

You are not disallowed. You just cannot require hobby lobby to pay for the procedure.

That's the biggest lie of this. No one is disallowed anything. All it means if that either you have to pay for it yourself or seek funding from a different source.

But I know what you are doing- parasite.. The problem is the entire concept is so out of whack with reality that no one will be inflamed by your choice of wording.

BTW, Roe V. Wade, the landmark ruling that prohibits government from banning abortions relied primarily on the fact that the government had no business knowing if you had an abortion or not or what kind of medical treatment you had and you were entitled to due process before they could violate your privacy. The PPACA or Obamacare for short, actually removes a lot of those impediments Roe relied on and I doubt it would still prevent government from banning abortions if they tried now. The problem is that the government now has a right to infringe on the privacy which forbade them earlier (at least on a federal level).

Re:yes but

[Anonymous Coward]

So, can you lose your 4th amendment rights, your right to free speech and your right to due process when the government gives you a license to drive a car?

Quite possibly, yes. Not so much the due process rights, but the search and seizure, yes, and the free speech for sure. Just ask any number of Postal Workers or Sheriff's Deputies.

They're employed to do a job. It comes with restrictions.

How about for fishing or hunting?

I'd support any fishers or hunters being searched for poaching, yes. And otherwise subject to what conditions are necessary to maintain the conditions for public lands to support hunting. Not sure how free speech will be involved, and due process seems reasonable to keep, but if the government can make a good case, I suppose it might happen.

Of course, most likely it'd be to stop anti-hunters from taking the hunting licenses and disrupting the hunters.

Or a permit for installing a pool or addition to your home?

I have no problem with the building inspector coming to your home for that one either.

Those are all specific grants of public privilege. Partaking in anything the government offers or provides should in no way result in your loss of constitutionally protected rights or laws on the books. As a libertarian you should be firmly against having to surrender rights to participate in commerce or any interaction with it through a government created process (incorporating).

Why? You want something, is it not fair for there to be SOME conditions on that? And you didn't say "There are some limits on what should be give up" but rather "Partaking in anything the government offers or provides should in no way result in your loss of constitutionally protected rights or laws on the books. " so yeah, I can dispute with you that a person can hunt or fish without being subject to a search, or that somebody can take a job from the government without being restricted as to their free speech.

And even due process can be argued as limited to some extend by the UCMJ.

Re:yes but

[Anonymous Coward]

Grammar. Learn it. Love it. Your last sentence is no sentence. Not surprised though, your entire post is no post!

Re:yes but

[sumdumass]

Why? You want something, is it not fair for there to be SOME conditions on that?

Fair? ITs freaking constitutionally barred. Should kids give up their rights to not have to pray in order to go to public school? It's the same concept or principle here- they can be home schooled or go to a private school if they don't want to pray to my God right. The government cannot say forget the constitution if you want to do X that we provide. If they did, X would be unconstitutional as well as the violations of the constitutionally protected rights.

Can the government say no one can ever vote democrat again and have a bank account because the government regulates banks? Secret ballots aren't in the US constitution so the mechanism can be created. And of course the answer is no- because your freedom of speech, freedom of association, cannot be limited by the government.

Re:yes but

[NeutronCowboy]

The Hobby Lobby owners are not forced to pay for other people's contraception out of their own pocket. However, they decided to form a corporation to take advantage of a lot of tax and liability incentives. Apparently, the SCOTUS decided that incorporating is all upside and zero downside.

Can I form a corporation, and, because I sincerely believe that paying taxes is immoral (I'll even provide some documentation that I sincerely believe that), not pay taxes on any money I take in through the corporation?

Yeah, didn't think so. Don't hide your religious bigotry behind a legal construct.

Re:yes but

[Nephandus]

If you can kill everyone behind him. Same thing as getting fire upon by cops. You got to kill all present and probably any that come later.

Re:yes but

[Anonymous Coward]

> Yes, and then SCOTUS ruled the next day that Catholic-owned corporations can opt out of all birth control.

So someone else now has to pay for it, rather than forcing the problem on people who want nothing to do with it.

Re:yes but

[NeutronCowboy]

Then please tell me: how does this decision not apply to any other "sincerely held religious belief of a closely held corporation"? The SCOTUS might say that the decision is only supposed to apply to these particular scenarios, but I can't see how you can distinguish one sincerely held religious belief from another. Unless, of course, you let the government get into the business of deciding which religious beliefs trump which.

Then again, this is already happening, thanks to some enlightened congress critters wanting to legislate Baptist beliefs into government law.

Re:yes but

[Anonymous Coward]

>Fair? ITs freaking constitutionally barred.

Where and what is? Restrictions on forming a corporation? No, it's not. Nothing in the US Constitution about corporations, you'd have to check state ones for their authority .

Should kids give up their rights to not have to pray in order to go to public school? It's the same concept or principle here- they can be home schooled or go to a private school if they don't want to pray to my God right.

But you're not offering any substantial reason for your prayer being mandated, or even the pledge of allegiance, while simultaneously ignoring the compulsory nature of public schooling. And you'll find little support for changing that mandate. Not zero, but little. It does exist, and a lot of silliness has resulted from that.

Go figure.

The government cannot say forget the constitution if you want to do X that we provide. If they did, X would be unconstitutional as well as the violations of the constitutionally protected rights.

And yet they can and do. Want to go into a courthouse? Expect to get searched. Also expect to be in trouble if you exercise your free speech in there.

Can the government say no one can ever vote democrat again and have a bank account because the government regulates banks?

I'm not sure what you mean by "ever vote democrat again" but if you want to remove the officially endorsed partisanship in the US, I wouldn't necessarily mind. Get rid of those stupid partisan primaries, thank you very much. Especially since they come with stupid "official" requirements that aren't even enforceable. (Check the recent bullshit in Mississippi for example.) And the last part of sentence doesn't connect to the previous, so you'll have to explain what you mean by that before I can respond.

Secret ballots aren't in the US constitution so the mechanism can be created.

This sentence also seems to lack context, yes, it's true, but you're saying this because of what reason? If you want to complain that the system of conducting elections in the US is poorly done, get in line. It's a long one.

And of course the answer is no- because your freedom of speech, freedom of association, cannot be limited by the government.

Yet it does happen. All the time. Just try to form a terrorist clique. Join the Army. Go into a courthouse, or even a post office.

Try to act as if you had freedom of speech and association there. You'll find otherwise.

Re:yes but

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently a lot of people don't understand the meaning of reactionary which you are referencing.

of, pertaining to, marked by, or favoring reaction, especially extreme conservatism or rightism in politics; opposing political or social change.

For those who don't know, that means...yeah, hyper-reactionary would be archconservative, or the opposite of liberal.

Re:yes but

[Anonymous Coward]

They've set the precedent that corporate person that claims to profess a religion now has more rights than a secular organization.

That's a pretty bad precedent to set. Why do religious corporations get more rights, and special exemptions than secular humans?

No matter how your opinion falls on this, it's undeniable that the Supreme Court has decided that it's acceptable yet again to give both corporations, and religion, preferential treatment under the law.

Re:yes but

[zugmeister]

They did not ask to be put into the situation where they control the womans healthcare. The government forced them, by law, to provide health care. Then the government forced them, by law, to include contraceptive devices that abort a fertilized fetus. (many of the contraceptive devices covered kill the post-fertilized egg) Their only option out was to pay a fine that would go directly to paying for the very same services they oppose.

From their point of view the government just required them to pay for their employees to have the ability to murder babies. Now, you can disagree with that point of view, I know I do. But it really is their point of view. They really do view it has killing babies. That's a violation of their ability to freely express their religion. The government could have addressed this a dozen different ways. Exempting them from the penalties if they didn't provide the care would have been the simplest. But they didn't. The whitehouse should have seen this coming, they should have provided a religious exemption, but they didn't.

This is getting a bit muddled, so I'd like to list a couple points of fact:
- HL is required to provide healthcare to their employees. The legislation has been enacted, it's a done deal.
- This birth control is part of that healthcare.

Nobody is telling the owners of HL not to use birth control. They have the right to make that choice for themselves.
We are talking about weather HL has the right to selectively refuse to provide this federally mandated medical care coverage to their employees because they (HL) don't like/agree/approve of it.

Re:yes but

[zugmeister]

...people that run businesses must not be abused by the government and having their freedoms revoked just because they are running a business.

As I mentioned above, the owners of HL are free to use (or not) contraceptives as they choose. Weather they should be required to provide the insurance in the first place is a different matter entirely.
In this case which would you support, the freedom of the employees to make their own choices or the freedom of HL to try to dictate those choices for them?

Re:yes but

[Maxo-Texas]

Now now, you can only discriminate on the basis of your religion if you share the religion of the supreme court justices.

Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Scientists beliefs are still subject to the constitution.

Re:yes but

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this exactly why governments exist?
To impose regulations on the population as a whole, for the benefit of the population as a whole, despite being unwanted by some, or even even most individuals?
Acknowledged that the implementation is usually corrupted and unequal, and favors a privileged class, but the underlying principle must work, else we would be heading for extinction!
Oh... wait...

Re:yes but

[zugmeister]

You just cannot require hobby lobby to pay for the procedure.

Hobby Lobby may not want to pay for certain (or any) coverage, but they are required to. The ACA was signed into law on 3-23-2010.
We're discussing under what circumstances (sky wizard edict, talking unicorn, invisible secret friend) parts of this law can be ignored, if you really want to ignore it and own a company, in light of the recent SCOTUS decision.

Re:yes but

[Loki_1929]

This is getting a bit muddled, so I'd like to list a couple points of fact:

- HL is required to provide healthcare to their employees. The legislation has been enacted, it's a done deal.

- This birth control is part of that healthcare.

Nobody is telling the owners of HL not to use birth control. They have the right to make that choice for themselves.

We are talking about weather HL has the right to selectively refuse to provide this federally mandated medical care coverage to their employees because they (HL) don't like/agree/approve of it.

I tend to wonder if you'd feel the same way if you owned a business and the Federal government passed a law stating you had to pay for female genital mutilation procedures for young girls and "straight camps" for gays.

Not advocating a side, just seeking consistency. Out of 20 different birth control methods, the SCOTUS ruling continues to require HL and others like them to provide coverage for 16. There were 4 specific methods which the owners found to be abhorrent to their religious convictions. In essence, they consider those 4 specific methods to be murder. The other 16 are covered without objection and if the employees just have to use those four specific methods, there's nothing in the SCOTUS ruling stating that they can't; they'll just have to bankroll them on their own.

This doesn't strike me as a case where the concept of birth control or 'reproductive health' as a whole are under attack. Rather, this seems to be a legitimate situation wherein reasonable religious conviction clashed with law passed by Congress. The impact is quite limited and thus, the SCOTUS correctly provided reasonable latitude to the religious beliefs over the law.

People on the right are blowing this case way out of proportion because they see it as a victory against the ACA. People on the left are blowing this case way out of proportion because they either don't understand what actually happened or they're convinced it's a victory against the ACA. The reality is that it isn't any such thing; rather it's a fairly mundane case which wouldn't make it to page 4 below the fold if it weren't tied to the ACA and the President. In other words, relax, it's really no big deal.

Re:yes but

[Loki_1929]

What an interesting perspective. Pray tell, once the baby is born, but still attached via the umbilical cord, is it still a parasite you can destroy at will? I don't actually care one way or another about abortion, but I do care about consistency. From a medical standpoint, there are some specific events such as fertilization, implantation, birth, etc which could be used as a basis for drawing the line between a non-human thing (which one might describe - as you did - as a "parasite") and a human being. Thus far, the only group that seems to define that line at a medically objective point are the religious crowd (who use fertilization as their starting point). Again, consistency.

Re:yes but

[Anonymous Coward]

Paying taxes is a little different than paying a third party insurance company isn't it?

Only because of the stupid private insurance based medicine that the US has. People in other western countries pay for healthcare through taxes, so really it's not that different. Everyone needs healthcare, we're just quibbling about the best way to fund it. Most of the rest of the world decided that since it's a universal need, that it's best to pay for it through the tax system.

Re:yes but

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm not denying treatment, I'm denying payment."

Hobby Lobby denies neither, proving that you are one of those hyper-reactionary liberals that doesnt know what went down. The employees of Hobby Lobby continue to have the liberty to consume drugs such as Plan B. What they dont have is the liberty to force their employer to pay for their Plan B.

Lots of things arent part of an employees compensation package. Even such necessities as food and shelter, but somehow in the liberal mind Plan B is so much more important than food and shelter that employers must pay for it specifically.

The government has the right to define minimum compensation packages for employees. Food and shelter are covered by the minimum wage laws. Minimum healtcare provision is covered by the ACA. Are you okay with the minimum wage? If so, why not the declared minimum healthcare provisions from the ACA, or is that you don't like the idea of other people using contraceptives.

Shows us where the liberal priorities lie... the murder of what they have unscientifically dehumanized is top priority. I guess if the liberty of the unborn human isnt important, than why should anybody elses liberty be important.

And by no practical definition are any these forms of contraceptive about abortion. They simply prevent a fertilized egg from implanting, as happens naturally every month for many many women. Most (reasonable) people would say that pregnancy begins at successful implantation. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. Therefore preventing implantion is not an abortion. You might as well say that deciding not to have sex is an abortion.

Re:yes but

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course they didn't have a problem investing their money in the businesses that make these contraceptives.

Re:yes but

[Anonymous Coward]

The examples from those friends have been all sorts of discrimination type firings justified by some far out religious belief and this ruling. I've yet to see a reasonable example that didn't have a mountain of existing case law and supreme court rulings to overcome.

Re:yes but

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree with underlying premise that businesses are citizens and therefore disagree with the ruling, but laying that aside for a moment. While I wouldn't expect an atheist-owend closely-held corporation to object to many medical procedures, I can conceive of one: Under the new ruling it should be perfectly acceptable for an atheistic business to deny coverage for circumcision as a barbaric, religiously motivated, and unnecessary surgery. This isn't about showing preference to religion but it does extend the awful businesses are people idea.

Re:yes but

[Dcnjoe60]

Which is why it's a bad ruling. Corporations are a specific grant of public privilege and as such should have different rules than a sole proprietorship or partnership. A corporation is a public institution not a private one and thus has to be held to a higher standard. As a libertarian I completely agree that private institutions should be able to do exactly what the owners of The Hobby Lobby desire, a corporation should not. The correct response would be to revoke their corporate charter and require them to reform as a sole proprietorship or partnership.

The courts would agree with you, however, Hobby Lobby is not a public corporation and the ruling specifically talks about this. The law allows a family to incorporate a family business for liability and tax purposes. The position you are taking, and what the courts disagreed with, is that you are making somebody chose between their religious freedoms and full participation in business. Effectively, you are saying that if you want to practice your religious beliefs and run a business, you can only do so if you are willing to put your personal assets at risk and pay higher taxes.The SCOTUS said that was a violation of their freedom because, and this is important, the government had other means available to provide the service in question that would not infringe. If there had not been other alternatives, the court might have ruled differently.

Re:yes but

[Dcnjoe60]

These are family corporations, mainly LLCs and S Corps. They are not public corporations. They are basically partnerships that provide limited liability to the partners. The court ruling is specific to corporations that are not publicly traded and have five or fewer owners. Walmart can't benefit from this ruling, only family run businesses.

Re:yes but

[Dcnjoe60]

The actual law in question is the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (RFRA) passed by congress during the Clinton Administration. It basically says that the government cannot force a person to violate their religious beliefs unless it is for the common good AND there is no other reasonable way for the government to accomplish the goal.

The Hobby Lobby case did not question the common good part of RFRA. However, the courts ruled that since the government made an accommodation for private religious corporations, it could also make the same accommodation for other private corporations so as not to infringe on the religious rights of the owners. There were also some restrictions imposed in that it only apply to private corporations with five or fewer owners. These are not your big Walmart type of corporations, but family controlled businesses.

As for LGBT, this case has nothing to do with it. LGBT rights are already protected and regardless of what an individual's religion says about it, doesn't matter. It would be like saying the Hobby Lobby case will allow corporations to not hire blacks. It is simply false.

There is no oppression occurring with the Hobby Lobby case. Employees of Hobby Lobby will still have access to all of the contraceptives that everybody else will. If they are prescribed one of the four in the case, Hobby Lobby's insurance company will pay for it, not Hobby Lobby -- that is assuming the government uses the same accommodation that the religious corporations got.

The two owners of Hobby Lobby don't have their religious belief infringed by forcing them to pay for something they believe to be immoral and the workers still have full access like everyone else. Where is the oppression?

Re:yes but

[Dcnjoe60]

As a private corporation, all profit from Hobby Lobby flows directly to the owners and is taxed just like they were a partnership. As such, forcing Hobby Lobby to pay for IUDs for its employees reduces the profit and effectively has the Greens paying for it. If they were a public corporation, then the court would have ruled differently.

As for starting your own corporation, you are free to do that. You don't even have to object for religious grounds to keep from paying taxes, just form a not-for-profit. Of course, you will be taxed, like everyone else on your personal earnings. Just like the Greens are.

Re:yes but

[blue9steel]

Civilization itself requires that we give up certain rights and accept certain constraints. For example, if someone kills my dog I'm not allowed to go next door and shoot him. Instead I'm required to report it to the police and allow the justice system to prosecute him instead. It's all a matter of which trade offs are reasonable and ethically consistent.

Your argument is based on the idea that the government is taking away the rights of an individual to express his religious freedom. My argument is that incorporation means the business is not an extension of it's individual owners but a public institution. Public institutions are governed in a much different fashion than private ones and rightly so. I'm not arguing that they should have to surrender their rights in order to participate in commerce, I'm merely arguing that they should have to be formed as a sole proprietorship or partnership to express this particular right under the current set of laws.

Re:yes but

[blue9steel]

I agree that's what they are saying, however my argument is that it is incorporation itself which is the dividing line rather than the private/public divide.

Re:yes but

[vandamme]

What if you smoke? Should Hobby Lobby be forced to pay for your cigarettes?

Re:yes but

[vandamme]

When the parasite is another human being. You also can't kill your brother in law whoi is always asking for money.

Re:yes but

[Robb Swanson]

Good god, man... do your knuckles scrape the ground when you walk?

Re:yes but

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the ruling isn't based on constitutional law at all. It's based on the RFRA, which was signed into law by Bill Clinton. Congress could just pass another law changing the RFRA to only apply to "natural persons" if it wanted to overturn this ruling.

Re:yes but

[Anonymous Coward]

No. They granted cert and a temporary stay on an appeal having to do with that question. They won't rule on the case until next year.

Re:yes but

[zugmeister]

I tend to wonder if you'd feel the same way if you owned a business and the Federal government passed a law stating you had to pay for female genital mutilation procedures for young girls and "straight camps" for gays.

Assuming I found the idea of male or female genital mutilation and "straight camps" reprehensible I absolutely would feel the same way. See below.

There were 4 specific methods which the owners found to be abhorrent to their religious convictions. In essence, they consider those 4 specific methods to be murder.

If I consider cockroaches holy I still don't have the right to forbid or obstruct a fumigator from doing his job.

There are many actions I disagree with committed in my name (and with my tax money) by the federal, state and local governments in whose jurisdiction I happen to reside. The fact I don't like how my resources are being utilized does not give me the right to refuse to pay taxes, permission to disrupt law enforcement activities or anything similar.
In both cases there is a law in place. In my case I have to comply or face the consequences. In HL's case, they apparently do not have to comply with some of the law because they don't like it?
While I understand that HL was able to summon the money and political clout to push the issue clear through the Supreme Court for an exception, I remain unconvinced that what occurred here was just/right even though it's clearly legal.

OT: Thank you for your considered statements, reasonable tone and for not trying to turn this into a flame war.

Re:yes but

[Dcnjoe60]

I agree that's what they are saying, however my argument is that it is incorporation itself which is the dividing line rather than the private/public divide.

Incorporation, itself, is not the issue and doesn't really mean anything. There are numerous types of corporations, many of which don't even use the term corporation or incorporated. Corporations are defined by tax law. Does the US really want the IRS to determine what rights people have or not?

The reason most shareholders lose their "rights" is because they are just one of many that have an interest in a public endeavour (corporation). That is not the case with a privately held family corporation. The opinion on the Hobby Lobby case specifically addressed this when it acknowledge the difference between investing in a corporation and actually owning and operating the corporation. If Corporation A does things a shareholder disagrees with, they can divest their shares and invest in something in line with their views. The actual ownership is on paper and the value is the investment. However, with Hobby Lobby and other privately held corporations, the owner value is the company itself and divesting in it is basically forcing them to sell the family business. The courts said you should not have to choose between your faith and selling the family business because of a government requirement that could be met through other means.

Again, corporations are defined by tax law.

Re:yes but

[blue9steel]

I agree that's what the supreme court decided in a close 5-4 decision. I don't agree that's the correct interpretation. A corporation is much more than just a tax classification, it includes limits on liability, easier financing and a separation of ownership & management that makes it very different from a private institution. I agree with the primary dissenting opinion in this case where Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg writes "The exercise of religion is characteristic of natural persons, not artificial legal entities".

Re:yes but

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that will happen around the time everyone marries their dogs.

Re:yes but

[sumdumass]

Where and what is? Restrictions on forming a corporation? No, it's not. Nothing in the US Constitution about corporations, you'd have to check state ones for their authority .

Listen, the constitution has provisions in it that says government cannot do certain things. The 14th amendment makes these prohibited things bound to the states also. If the constitution says no law can be made prohibiting the free exercise of religion, then any law, including state law, that says you have no religious rights if you do X is defacto unconstitutional. Quit forgetting the important parts in order to push what you want to demonize (corporations).

So, can the US government, either state or federal, require corporations to pass out bibles to all their employees and contractors and reserve one hour of the work week for paid bible study? If not, why not and how does that jive with your disposition on corporations?

But you're not offering any substantial reason for your prayer being mandated, or even the pledge of allegiance, while simultaneously ignoring the compulsory nature of public schooling. And you'll find little support for changing that mandate. Not zero, but little. It does exist, and a lot of silliness has resulted from that.

I didn't provide any substantial reason for prayer being mandated because the concept is ludicrous on it's own due to the US constitution forbidding it. But lets join your journey, suppose there was a study that showed people who pray do better in society (make better citizens) than people who do not. Surely you cannot be against better citizens can you? It doesn't matter though because it would still be unconstitutional. And yes, most school districts are incorporated for the purpose of separating their liability from the city. Or to be more accurate, "A school district is a legally separate body corporate and politic"

I'm not sure what you mean by "ever vote democrat again" but if you want to remove the officially endorsed partisanship in the US, I wouldn't necessarily mind. Get rid of those stupid partisan primaries, thank you very much. Especially since they come with stupid "official" requirements that aren't even enforceable. (Check the recent bullshit in Mississippi for example.) And the last part of sentence doesn't connect to the previous, so you'll have to explain what you mean by that before I can respond.

Yes, that came out mangled. What I was trying to ask is if you thought it would be reasonable for the government to say if you vote democrat you cannot have a bank account because they regulate banks? I would assume not but I saw your reply. Let me answer this, no it would not be reasonable because the government cannot make any law prohibiting your free speech or freedom of association and denying you the ability to have a bank account because of that would be violating the first amendment.

As for Mississippi, it's rather simple. Hold the primaries together, the person voting asked for either a democrat, republican, or independent ticket and they can choose from one but not more. If you feel the need to switch parties in order to vote whomever you think would lose to your guy, you run the risk of your guy not wining their primary.

This sentence also seems to lack context, yes, it's true, but you're saying this because of what reason? If you want to complain that the system of conducting elections in the US is poorly done, get in line. It's a long one.

It lost it's composure because I mangled the previous sentence. It's supportive of the government being able to check if you vote for a democrat or not in order to ban you from having a bank account. I would hope you would find the entire thought of that situation repulsive and unconstitutional- as it is just that.

Re:yes but

[sumdumass]

First, the contraception mandate was not ever signed into law. It is a regulation created by the department of health and human services (also known as a rule) well after the law became law but the power to do so was in the law. Hobby Lobby is not required to follow the mandate.

Second, the parent I replied to was attempting to distort the ruling in order to inflame people with his wording choices on abortion. I pointed out how wrong he was.

Now, the RFRA or religious freedom and restoration act and the court ruling specifically spells out how and when these regulations can be ignored.

(b) Exception
Government may substantially burden a personâ(TM)s exercise of religion _only_ if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the personâ"
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

The court found that the mandate was not the least restrictive means and referred to what the government is already doing to get around religious arguments for other people, groups and entities as support for it not being the least restrictive. So according to this ruling, if there is a religious claim to be excluded and there is a less restrictive means to further the compelling government interest, it can be ignored by the person, company, group and so on.

but that doesn't mean the compelling government interest disappears or that the government cannot pursue it. It just means they have to use the lest (less) restrictive means to maintain or further it.

Re: yes but

[zugmeister]

A straw man argument is when one party mischaracterizes what another party said in order to defeat the "reinterpreted" argument and thus appear to have "won". If you scroll up and actually read the words I wrote, you'll note that I never claimed HL took away anyone's freedoms or dictated choices to employees. Discounting the two straw man arguments in the previous post leaves your first line about why you're using your sock puppet account to reply and a statement about being free to negotiate a contract which clearly came from some other discussion. Rather than continue this thread, I think I'll just agree to disagree with you.

Re: yes but

[roman_mir]

Your meta comments stopped making sense even during the last post, here:

In this case which would you support, the freedom of the employees to make their own choices or the freedom of HL to try to dictate those choices for them?

- what kind of logic is this? The 2 statements have nothing to do with each other.

Would I support freedom of employees or freedom of HL "to dictate"? You have squarely placed your bias into that very statement.

I support freedom of the individual AND I disagree with your premise that HL 'dictates' anything to anybody! Government dictates to HL AND to the employees by getting between them and changing the rules of the private contract.

As to 'sock puppet' nonsense, either you want to hear my answer to your comment or you do not. If you do not then state so clearly and I will not answer. If you do however want to have an answer, then you will have to accept that I can only leave 2 comments in 24 hour period on my main account and I have no choice but to use my backup account (which also can only be used twice in a day) and it should not matter to you how I left the comment, but it seems it does, which means you are not actually discussing anything here.

Re:yes but

[Loki_1929]

Assuming I found the idea of male or female genital mutilation and "straight camps" reprehensible I absolutely would feel the same way. See below.

I was hoping one of those might strike a cord, but consider if the Federal government stated you had to directly fund the murder of children up to say 5 years of age. Since many religious people believe that the life of a child begins at conception, that's what people like the founders of Hobby Lobby believe they are being told to do: directly fund the murder of children, not with the collection of taxes that go to a general fund, but rather by paying the private business that pays the private business that murders children. I would assume you would have significant objections to being forced to pay someone to murder children, but would you do it anyway simply to comply with the law? Or would you seek to be excluded from that requirement?

If I consider cockroaches holy I still don't have the right to forbid or obstruct a fumigator from doing his job.

No you don't, but I think you have to admit that a fetus/unborn child/baby/whatever-you-want-to-call-that-thing is significantly different from a cockroach, assuming you consider human life to be more important than insect lives. If you don't, that's fine, but I don't think we can have a good discussion. Assuming that you do, I actually still agree that no one has the legal right (though I would consider moral right a tougher call) to prevent someone from having a legal abortion or to prevent a doctor who performs abortions from doing his job. However, that isn't what's being discussed here. What we're talking about is the founders of Hobby Lobby, whose religious beliefs consider abortion to be murder, being forced by their government to directly fund that practice. In essence, from the perspective of their religion, they're being forced to directly fund the murder of children. Regardless of what you or I or any of the justices of the Supreme Court believe, it's what the founders of Hobby Lobby believe and they would almost certainly have to conclude that compliance with that law would damn their immortal souls to Hell for all eternity. I think that makes it rather difficult to defend for a nation that purports to respect religious beliefs.

There are many actions I disagree with committed in my name (and with my tax money) by the federal, state and local governments in whose jurisdiction I happen to reside. The fact I don't like how my resources are being utilized does not give me the right to refuse to pay taxes, permission to disrupt law enforcement activities or anything similar.

Your tax dollars go into a general fund. From that fund, activities you disapprove of are funded. Yet that's a far cry from them forcing you to pay for those activities directly. For instance, if you believe that all wars are evil and that fighting them and killing in them is murder (the truly convicted total pacifist), you may not like that the US government buys bombs and missiles with monies collected through taxes, but they aren't telling you that you have to write a check to Lockheed for an order of 5,000lb JDAMs so they can be dropped on someone's house. In other words, there's at least some difference between being forced to pay into a fund of fungible funds which is sometimes used for things you dislike and being forced to cut a check to pay for something that directly contradicts your firmly held beliefs.

In both cases there is a law in place. In my case I have to comply or face the consequences. In HL's case, they apparently do not have to comply with some of the law because they don't like it?

There are plenty of cases where you don't have to comply with the law. For instance, it's against the law to kill another human being. However, if that human being is trying to seriously harm you and you have no other choice to avoid that serious harm, you're exempted from the consequences of violating t

Re: yes but

[rhodium_mir]

If your ideas had any merit the free market would recognize that and corporations would pay you large piles of rhodium to write them down. Clearly they don't.

Re:yes but

[Anonymous Coward]

thats interesting because Congress opted out of the law. Hmmmmm ??

Yes, because that's what we need

[Anonymous Coward]

There's also the issue of making it easier for governments to control population levels.

Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Population control in the UK probably seems like a good idea in the minds of some. But I don't know how bad the hillbilly population is over there. Over stateside, yes it's certainly a problem. Both countries constantly have stories about welfare (benefits/entitlements) families with stupidly large families.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

It's really easy. Stop paying people to have kids. And bring in changes to turn kids from assets into liabilities -- works everywhere.

You'll get the usual left-wing hand-wringing about "child poverty" and "overcrowding" -- but the only people who are "overcrowded", are conservative Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslims who can't keep their reactionary, undereducated dicks to themselves.

Actually no. That won't work in this case.

The welfare family with a ton of kids has a ton of kids because they have bad impulse control not because they've done an analysis and determined that having an additional child is a rational choice for them (it's already a net financial loss to have a child).

These are the sort of people who will try to buy a x-box game with their food stamps (and will sell the food stamps at 50% value to get cash so they can buy the x-box), will repeatedly pawn a TV for drug money, then buy a new TV a week later only to pawn the new TV for drug money in a month.

Re:Hmm

[dmr001]

Strictly speaking, in the US, we're not paying people to have kids but paying for people who have already had kids to have baby food and clothing and medical care. Even in places where people don't get government support for their kids, they still have plenty of kids - as I think you may be alluding to in your second paragraph but I confess confusion about how reactionary undereducated dicks are particular to Pakastani folks and not, say, Kentuckians.

Government-supported access to contraception is likely highly cost effective - it makes not just intuitive sense, but studies seem to bear this out. Without all the bother of just letting teen moms and their homeless kids, you know, die in the streets and spread measles all around.

Re:Hmm

[Rich0]

The problem with this kind of approach is that it basically punishes kids for the mistakes made by their parents.

It would make far more sense to take care of the people who are actually born and maybe try not to have so many that the state ends up having to pay for.

Maybe parents would be more involved in public education if you had to pre-pay 12 years of tuition in order to be allowed to have a child. :)

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody who is in favor of eugenics should be allowed to reproduce!

Re:Hmm

[misexistentialist]

If population control is so great, why does the government need to import millions of Hispanic children and raise them at public expense to "build the future of America"?

Re:Hmm

[DigiShaman]

Votes. Hispanic children under 18 and mothers are both dependent groups that will vote Democrat for the government cheese. Fact! This is about a one party rule in play. Democrat party in power in perpetuity. Obama's legacy is dependent on solidifying power for the party. Democrats are no different in this regard than the CCP is in China. Absolute power, pure and simple!!!

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

And the Republican agenda is dependent on solidifying power for its party. In this case, by creating a sense of fear among the votes they want because senior citizens and angry white men are easy to manipulate with the idea that somebody ELSE is getting government cheese. Truth! This is about a one-party rule in play. Corporate and Religious power in perpetuity. Republicans are no different in this regard than Fascists anywhere else. Absolute power, pure and simple!!!

And they'll destroy democracy to do it, and those people will cheer with thunderous applause to get it.

Male contraceptive already in use

[Anonymous Coward]

It's also wireless and called...a keyboard.

Just ask my wife and unborn 18 children.

Re:Male contraceptive already in use

[Anonymous Coward]

If I count my nights of porn-watching and self-masturbation, I'm probably over nine thousand unborn children.

Re:Male contraceptive already in use

[benjfowler]

Write-in entry: Google Glass.

Being a 'glasshole' makes one look like such a complete dork, that there's no way on Earth any woman would want to copulate with you.

Re:Male contraceptive already in use

[PopeRatzo]

Another one is "Open Carry".

Something tells me these courageous members of a well-regulated militia aren't getting any.

http://www.westernjournalism.c...

http://www.cavemancircus.com/w...

http://localtvwtvr.files.wordp...

Re:Male contraceptive already in use

[viperidaenz]

Unless the woman is also a Glasshole.

Security...

[wbr1]

Do you want to become pregnant because someone hacked your hormone implant?

I do not see this ending well.

Re:Security...

[Russ1642]

There's currently no technology used in medicine because of the constant fear of it 'being hacked'.

Re:Security...

[Shados]

From what I gather, this thing is only as wireless as a QI charger is wireless. You basically need to touch it with the "remote" for it to work. If you're point blank range and know exactly where the chip is, you could have done a lot more than just hack the chip...

Re:Security...

[Anonymous Coward]

Like pacemakers?

Re:Security...

[Russ1642]

And sarcasm detectors.

Re:Security...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but what about the dishonest person you're sleeping with? They have ample time while you're sleeping to turn it off.
There have been documented cases of women going to the restroom and implanting themself from the used condom of their
boyfriend. (and fyi, the boyfriend proved it and still was found responsible for child support).
The reverse is probably not as common but there are probably still plenty of guys who want their wife to get pregnant when
the wife doesn't want to. Being in a dysfunctional relationship is probably the bigger deal but it still needs some security.
That being said, a simple 4 digit pin seems the simplest solution. It's still wireless except now it requires a remote and
a passkey that only the wearer knows.

Re:Security...

[Anonymous Coward]

Apologies. Mine must have been hacked.

Re:Security...

[Aryden]

It stimulates hormone production. turning it off for a few hours after sex isn't going to cause a pregnancy as the hormones are still being produced. Now, if you turn it off one early morning, then shag it up for the next few days, yeah, you've got an issue.

Re:Security...

[Opportunist]

Few of those can be manipulated from the outside while not being under constant supervision in a controlled environment.

Re:Security...

[Opportunist]

Whoopsie. Sorry, was aiming for the pacemaker.

Re:Security...

[Anonymous Coward]

There have been documented cases of women going to the restroom and implanting themself from the used condom of their
boyfriend. (and fyi, the boyfriend proved it and still was found responsible for child support).

It's really impossible to prove what sperm actually lead to fertilization, short of some very specific IVF procedures. And those, well, actually, they have been used to void a parental order.

But otherwise, the man, who engaged in consensual sex with a woman, takes the risks of what can happen, namely a pregnancy, and any other conduct, while it may be suspect, is not sufficient proof to overturn the presumption of parental liability.

Re:Security...

[Applehu Akbar]

And what if someone rootkits the device? Would she suddenly start having dozens of children?

Re:Security...

[ComputersKai]

Is this going to be a new DLC for Watch Dogs?

Re:Security...

[Neil Boekend]

"Few" in this instance includes pacemakers.

Re:Security...

[Anonymous Coward]

the man, who engaged in consensual sex with a woman, takes the risks of what can happen ...but the woman can abort, or adopt out and completely avoid those risks. How wonderful. :-/

How long until...

[Anonymous Coward]

...this becomes mandatory in China?

Re:How long until...

[Noah Haders]

Or America?

Re:How long until...

[Anonymous Coward]

No time soon.

The Republicans will be dead set against the technology existing at all s the debate will be over whether they can be illegalized at the federal level and aside from a straw man/slippery slope argument no one will seriously consider the possibility that they could be mandated for widespread use.

Re:How long until...

[Rockoon]

and aside from a straw man/slippery slope argument no one will seriously consider the possibility that they could be mandated for widespread use.

Yes, just like when the government first started messing around with health insurance (tax exempt if the employer pays for it, large employers must pay for it, etc..) it was just a slippery that the government would eventually mandate that every person had health insurance.

So here we are.... using the "just a slippery slope" argument again?

Re:How long until...

[Anonymous Coward]

And how many slippery slope arguments have you right wingers got completely wrong? Slippery slope arguments are all your party has to offer. Even the most reasonable reforms leads always lead totalitarian communism in your sick minds.

Re:How long until...

[Anonymous Coward]

And how many slippery slope arguments have you right wingers got completely wrong?

Roughly as many as you left-wingers.

What, did you think you were somehow different than them?

Re:How long until...

[Anonymous Coward]

The case against Hobby Lobby isn't a slippery slope argument? Both in the ability to deny other services and the corporate personhood senses?

Re:How long until...

[geekoid]

It's not as bad as the confirmation bias you are using.

Re:How long until...

[Opportunist]

The Republicans will probably be split right down the middle between the religious nutjobs and the other nuts that want to implant it into poor people to keep them from breeding.

Re:How long until...

[Applehu Akbar]

If you put a straw man on a slippery slope, do you get adobe bricks that are so convenient for making mixed metaphors?

Re:How long until...

[Noah Haders]

The Republicans will probably be split right down the middle between the religious nutjobs and the other nuts that want to implant it into poor people to keep them from breeding.

poor minorities and furrenurs. poor white suburban and rural people are "the real america".

Hormones screw up women's bodies to much.

[Nutria]

What "they" need to develop is a chip that releases "sperm poison".

Re:Hormones screw up women's bodies to much.

[CanHasDIY]

What "they" need to develop is a chip that releases "sperm poison".

Or, you know, a sex education program that's not absolutely retarded.

This is, of course, assuming the end goal is limiting unwanted pregnancies.

Re:Hormones screw up women's bodies to much.

[Rockoon]

This is, of course, assuming the end goal is limiting unwanted pregnancies.

Doesnt matter what the motives are...what will it actually be used for?

Planned Parenthood chipping up as many poor people as they can, perhaps?

Re:Hormones screw up women's bodies to much.

[Nutria]

Planned Parenthood chipping up as many poor people as they can, perhaps?

But that would reduce the Democrat Party's base, thus reducing PP's funding. (MOAR illegal immigration!)

Re:Hormones screw up women's bodies to much.

[Rockoon]

You think that they get funding from poor people?

Re:Hormones screw up women's bodies to much.

[Nutria]

You think that they get funding from poor people?

Government, you ninny.

Anyway, I was being facetious, since the number of poor people is rising.

Re:Hormones screw up women's bodies to much.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what Obama claimed. Millions of small contributions from individuals add up, and it doesn't matter if some of that money comes from illegal aliens living on welfare, like his Aunt Zeituni

Re:Hormones screw up women's bodies to much.

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, it completely screws their libido up... :(

Re:Hormones screw up women's bodies to much.

[Nephandus]

With the likes of Mickey Mouse verifiably consistently voting Dem, I don't think it matters. They'll just kart the homeless around a few more times on voting days with a few more fake papers.

Re:Hormones screw up women's bodies to much.

[DigiShaman]

Be a Nun, get none. You could start out by closing your legs. Get religion, get self-control; whatever, not my fucking problem!!! Deal with it yourself and don't ask others to pay for it. Otherwise, it IS my business so long as I'm paying for YOUR elected activities with MY tax dollars. Same goes for the men. You guys want to fuck around, get a vasectomy and pay for it your damn self!

Morons. I'm surrounded by fucking morons; literally!!!

Re:Hormones screw up women's bodies to much.

[Nutria]

Otherwise, it IS my business so long as I'm paying for YOUR elected activities with MY tax dollars/

You're replying to a post that doesn't mention who pays for it.

Morons. I'm surrounded by fucking morons; literally!!!

Then why aren't you finding new people to surround yourself with?

Re:Hormones screw up women's bodies to much.

[kheldan]

Organized religion believes that the Earth will soon come to an end so there's no point in population control, in fact they want as many babies born under their control as possible, so naturally they're against birth control entirely.

Re:Hormones screw up women's bodies to much.

[CanHasDIY]

Organized religion believes that the Earth will soon come to an end so there's no point in population control,

That's not the rationale at all, FYI.

The reason a lot of religious dopes* want to have as many kids as possible is because their holy book of choice has some derivative of the "be fruitful and multiply" demand, and none of them know enough about human history to understand why something that made sense 2000 years ago doesn't make sense now.

* Not to say all religious people are dopes. The dopey ones are usually pretty obvious; loud mouths are a dead giveaway.

Re:Hormones screw up women's bodies to much.

[kheldan]

The 'be fruitful and multiply' thing may ostensibly be the reason, but having as many people part of a partiucular religion is what's attractive to the leaders of said religion. More people under their sway means more power overall in the world; if the population of your country becomes, say, theoretically, 80% Catholic, then what do you think that's going to do to public policy in that country? Similarly, what if the vast majority is some flavor of Muslim? Overrunning a country with sheer numbers because you're encouraged, one way or another, to have as many children as possible may be a long game, but it's an effective one. You're a particular religion, you have 10 kids, you raise them all to be that religion. Over the course of a few generations you have a large effect on the total population, and that starts to affect politics. Don't confuse religion with spirituality, either. Organized religion, at it's highest leadership levels, is about power, control, and money, and has been for a long, long time now.

Re:Hormones screw up women's bodies to much.

[DigiShaman]

Then why aren't you finding new people to surround yourself with?

Sorry, I'm stuck on this rock with no means of escape to sanity.

Re:Hormones screw up women's bodies to much.

[CanHasDIY]

Oh, ok, so you do get it.

I was afraid, judging from the quoted statement in your previous post, that you were one of those anti-religion fundamentalists whose understanding of the situation as a whole boils down to said fundamentalists personal feelings about religious people.

But obviously that's not the case, i.e. you know better than to conflate the motivations of religious followers with religious leaders.

Re:Hormones screw up women's bodies to much.

[kheldan]

Oh, no, not at all. If anything I feel sorry for actual religious people because by large and far they're being used, manipulated. I'll put aside my personal belief that they'd be better off putting aside their superstitions and learning instead to stand on their own, but the fact of the matter is that their own spirituality is used as a lever to manipulate them into doing the will of a few religious leaders who only have money, power, and control on their minds. This is not to say that on the local level there aren't low-level leaders who actually *believe* in what they're preaching, but that unfortunately just makes them, to borrow from the Russians, 'useful idiots' for the cause of the higher-ups. It's the exploitation of what I perceive as a fundamental flaw in the human psyche, something that I dearly hope we grow out of sooner rather than later, before it wrecks the entire human race.

Google Glass

[Anonymous Coward]

Wearing one of these? You ain't gettin' laid!

Re:Google Glass

[Anonymous Coward]

OK google, upload porn shoot

Half-Life 2 anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but I must ask, are any of the researchers named Dr Breen?

Good lord

[GrumpySteen]

First the Nest thermostat is said to be enough to make the Stasi blush, then insurance companies are compared to the Panopticon and now a birth control device is supposedly a government plot to control population levels?

This is supposed to be news for nerds. Not news for delusional paranoiacs.

Re:Good lord

[CanHasDIY]

This is supposed to be news for nerds. Not news for delusional paranoiacs.

Is there a difference?

Re:Good lord

[Anonymous Coward]

Because nerds have the ability to forsee the positives and negatives of technology.

Re:Good lord

[gstoddart]

This is supposed to be news for nerds. Not news for delusional paranoiacs.

It's increasingly hard to tell the difference.

What would have been dismissed as fodder for paranoid people a decade or so ago, is pretty much common place these days.

Sadly, even the paranoids are all going "holy crap, have you seen this?"

Sometimes, reality is stranger than fiction (or delusion).

Re:Good lord

[jettoblack]

This is supposed to be news for nerds. Not news for delusional paranoiacs.

It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.

Re:Good lord

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it's not like the government is storing every bit of electronic communication we have, only a delusional paranoiac would believe that. O wait...

Re:Good lord

[s.petry]

I wonder if your post history would show you as one of the people claiming that the NSA spying on everyone in the US was just paranoia, or that PRISM and Parallel construction were just delusion.

When these things were found to be true, many of those on that bandwagon changed sides.

An international coalition of governments, companies, philanthropies, and nonprofits recently committed to providing family planning to 120 million more women in the world by 2020.

Of course those Governments, companies, and philanthropists know best how you should plan a family. Considering how the top .01% of the population (which includes those Philanthropists) control the majority of the wealth, they only have societies best interests in mind right?

Good grief, it's tech news that can easily be used for malicious purposes which is why it makes it on Slashdot. You can dismiss it if you choose, but don't claim it's everyone else that's delusional. I've been able to say "told ya so" more often than you!

Re:Good lord

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a real news story, and a real tech news story. "There's also the issue of making it easier for governments to control population levels." is an addition from the submitter, but hardly alarmist.

Re:Good lord

[geekoid]

There used to be. I remember when nerds where hopeful and did things. now they just whine into there specialty beer.

Re:Good lord

[Opportunist]

Well, you have to admit, we have every right to.

Technology used to be what sets us free, what allows us to go where nobody went before, to soar and climb to new heights, to liberate ourselves and our dreams.

Today, technology is just a tool for oppression and control, to monitor and to invade our privacy. What we loved has turned into what we hate.

Isn't that enough to make someone cry?

Re:Good lord

[Opportunist]

The question today ain't so much whether you're paranoid, it's more whether you're paranoid enough.

I mean, think about it. Ponder that you told someone in 1999 that all our email traffic is monitored by the government, that they log and examine every bit you do on the internet, that they use your cell phone to track your every move and that they basically log, store, monitor and evaluate every kind of communication you do, be it via phone or internet, and that they track what you read, who you talk to, what you talk about and what information you access.

Personally, I'd have asked you whether you want to buy a new tinfoil hat, now with even better anti-government shielding.

Today, I'd ponder buying one.

Re:Good lord

[AdamHaun]

An international coalition of governments, companies, philanthropies, and nonprofits recently committed to providing family planning to 120 million more women in the world by 2020.

Of course those Governments, companies, and philanthropists know best how you should plan a family. Considering how the top .01% of the population (which includes those Philanthropists) control the majority of the wealth, they only have societies best interests in mind right?

"Family planning" is a euphemism for sex education and contraceptive access. Large parts of the world do not provide any sex ed to women at all, even basic stuff like giving them a heads-up before blood starts coming out of their vaginas. Even in the developed world there are many teenagers and young adults whose parents either don't know enough to help, don't want to help, or provide false information when it comes to sex. Family planning services give women the information and tools they need to make their own decisions. Oppression by elites in this context involves keeping women ignorant and afraid so they don't question traditional, patriarchal ideas. Family planning services are the opposite of oppression.

Re:Good lord

[Bill_the_Engineer]

The more powerful the tool, the more it can be used for both good or harm.

Re:Good lord

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean: "I remember when nerds didn't realize politicians would corrupt anything they created"

Re:Good lord

[Opportunist]

Problem is, using it for good is more and more being outlawed.

Re:Good lord

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Depends on the definition of "good".

Anyway, a lot of innovation is being stifled by liability. The fact that someone can do something bad to someone else wearing a medical device is enough for most to keep it off the market.

Re:Good lord

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny. I remember when half the stuff they actually do now (TSA gropes before flying, as one example) was considered 'paranoid' and 'delusional'. Now it's everyday life. So bite me.

Re:Good lord

[s.petry]

Quoting you in reverse order intentionally.

Oppression by elites in this context involves keeping women ignorant and afraid so they don't question traditional, patriarchal ideas.

You claim that elitists keep women ignorant to oppress them, why do you ignore the obvious ignorance this "tech" is associated with? It's doing nothing to educate anyone, it gives the same elitists "MORE" control.

"Family planning" is a euphemism for sex education and contraceptive access.

Anyone claiming that education is the same as technology allowing forced anything is either daft or a shill. How many educators could have been paid to educate people with the same amount of money they have spent so far inventing this device? How many languages could you write books in with the same amount of money and use it to educate people? Come now, you really shouldn't be that blind.

Re:Good lord

[AdamHaun]

Sorry, perhaps I was unclear. I was responding specifically to your statement about family planning, not to the device described in the article. As for the device, it seems to be targeted at areas where people don't have good access to medicine (probably Sub-Saharan Africa), and things like regular birth control prescriptions or Depo-Provera shots aren't practical.

One could conceivably use this for forced birth control, but I don't see how it improves on forced sterilization or IUD insertion. Forced birth control is used to stop women from ever having children again, not to control fertility timing. Even in China they seem to rely more on fines and forced abortions than contraceptives. Also, lowering birth rates tends to make people wealthier and give them more free time, so if you want to keep your population poor and uneducated, forced birth control seems like a bad idea. And of course, outside of China and (apparently) Uzbekistan, it's forced pregnancy that's the problem, not forced birth control. I'd be more worried about this tech being used for psychiatric medications than birth control.

Re:Good lord

[s.petry]

I did not miss your point, I simply discredited your point. Claiming that ignorance can be fixed by continued ignorance from a different party is a fools prospect.

There are simply too many nefarious purposes for this type of technology. If some dystopia decides that fertility is a reward, this technology allows that very easily. If another dystopia decides that soldiers should rape women but don't want pregnancy as a result, well, this allows that as well.

Nearly every technology has both good and evil potential. It is yet another fools prospect to believe that humans won't use it for evil, we have too much evidence that shows that thought process to be absolutely false.

Re:Good lord

[AdamHaun]

Claiming that ignorance can be fixed by continued ignorance from a different party is a fools prospect.

I'm not sure what ignorance you're talking about here. How are people going to be unaware that they've had a chip implanted under their skin that stops them from getting pregnant?

There are simply too many nefarious purposes for this type of technology.

But again, functionally, the birth control application isn't much different from a Depo-Provera shot or an IUD. The differences are A) it lasts somewhat longer, and B) you can turn it off without removing it.

If some dystopia decides that fertility is a reward, this technology allows that very easily.

We don't need to fantasize about what hypothetical dystopias might do -- we have an existing one to look at. In China, there are existing technologies that already do what you're talking about. They are backed up by fines and other punishments. Outside of China, trying to force surgery on an entire population is a risky move that could easily provoke a popular uprising. China spent decades under a Stalinist dictatorship before enacting the One Child Policy, and as such they are a pretty extreme case.

If another dystopia decides that soldiers should rape women but don't want pregnancy as a result, well, this allows that as well.

Do you know how hormonal contraception normally works? It doesn't take effect right away. You'd something high-dosage like a morning after pill or shot. Subcutaneous chips are designed to release low dosages over long periods of time.

Also, why would someone who's okay with institutionalized rape be worried about their victims getting pregnant?

I don't understand why you're more worried weird hypothetical dystopias than the kinds of evil that are already happening.

Re:Good lord

[s.petry]

I'm not sure what ignorance you're talking about here.

The same ignorance you claimed was responsible for high birth rates in impoverished areas. How does a chip give them more knowledge? That was a rhetorical question, the answer is that it does not.

How are people going to be unaware that they've had a chip implanted under their skin that stops them from getting pregnant?

Straw man, it has nothing to do with the points, which is that this technology puts the option for birth control in the hands of a person other than the recipient of the birth control.

I don't understand why you're more worried weird hypothetical dystopias than the kinds of evil that are already happening.

Yet another straw man, and a false accusation. The "evil that are already happening" gains more power with this type of technology.

Save your next fabrication and fallacy, I'm not interested.

Re:Good lord

[AdamHaun]

The same ignorance you claimed was responsible for high birth rates in impoverished areas. How does a chip give them more knowledge? That was a rhetorical question, the answer is that it does not.

Of course it doesn't. Where are you getting this? Contraceptives are what people get educated *about*. Nowhere in the article or my comments did anything say otherwise.

The "evil that are already happening" gains more power with this type of technology.

You... don't actually know anything about the problems women face in the world, do you? You might want to do some reading, or better yet, talk to some actual women.

Straw man, it has nothing to do with the points, which is that this technology puts the option for birth control in the hands of a person other than the recipient of the birth control.

You haven't made any points because you haven't given any way in which subdermal chips are different from other contraceptive methods, or what revolutionary new methods of force they allow. I don't think you understand how hormonal contraceptives work at all, otherwise you would recognize that this technology is an incremental change from what is currently possible. Let me spell it out for you.

Hormonal contraceptives work by regulating the hormones involved in the menstrual cycle. The hormones vary naturally over the length of the cycle, but you can boost them to a consistent level by providing more externally. This basically tricks a women's body into thinking it's pregnant, which prevents ovulation. (There are some variations; this is the simple version.) For our purposes, we're interested in how the hormones are delivered. There are many options, each with their own mix of benefits, challenges, and side effects. Below, I've listed the ones I see in the 19th edition of Contraceptive Technology by Hatcher et al. There are probably more.

* Pills taken once a day
* Patches worn on the body and replaced weekly
* A plastic ring inserted into the vagina and replaced monthly
* Shots given once every three months
* A thin plastic rod inserted under the skin and replaced every three years

Another major option is a T-shaped piece of plastic inserted into the uterus, known as an intra-uterine device (IUD). There are two types -- one that releases copper ions to prevent fertilization (replaced every ten years), and one that releases levonogestral to do several different things (replaced every five years). IUDs are the most popular contraceptive method worldwide, but are less popular in the U.S. for historical reasons.

All of these methods are reversible, though they take some time to wear off. Subdermal implants and IUDs need to be removed by a doctor.

Now, let's look at the article to see what's different about the contraceptive chip. The article tells us a few things:

* Releases levonorgestrel daily
* Lasts 16 years
* Size: 20mm x 20mm x 7mm (vs. 40mm long x 2mm diameter for Implanon, the subdermal implant I mentioned above)
* Can be activated and deactivated through the skin with a wireless signal.

We can also guess that no user intervention is required once the device is implanted. Medically speaking this is a good thing, because one of the big problems with many contraceptive methods is compliance. It's easy to forget to take a pill, buy more condoms, or schedule an appointment for your next shot. An IUD or subdermal implant works automatically.

Clearly, the biggest difference is the wireless control. However, in order to have that control the chip still has to be implanted, just like Implanon or an IUD. The key point here is that if you want to prevent pregnancy, the chip is *functionally identical* to those other options. Later, if you want to become pregnant again, the chip is *easier to turn off* since it doesn't require a doctor to remove it. So if it's no harder to disable pregna

Re:Good lord

[Opportunist]

I'm an old fashioned guy, coming from an age when we looked at the USSR and considered them the bad guys. So, my education equated "good" with "freedom".

I know, it's a very outdated notion today where "being good" usually means being obedient, conforming and doing what you're told. Oddly, that was what we were told the poor people in the USSR are forced to do if they don't want to end up in Gitm... I mean a Gulag.

Downsides

[thoriumbr]

I have read the same news from another source, and was discussing it with my coworkers. I can see at least four downsides:
1 - We still have to transpose a barrier on implanted chips. People don't like this idea.
2 - It can and will be interfered with, and make women pregnant when they don't want to. Even they trying to make the chip hard to interfere with, everybody working with tech knows that is not always possible. And a small chip on the hands of thousands of people will be a valuable target.
3 - It can malfunction. Like the above, things go wrong, and a recently implanted chip going crazy and releasing all its hormones on the body of a midterm pregnant woman will be nasty. It is made to not be removed even in the event of a pregnancy, so it's possible to happen.
4 - It can be damaged by an EMP pulse. If it's implanted on the arm, the body will get in contact with a lot of sources of electromagnetic radiation, like microwave ovens, cell phones and other transmitters, car ignition systems, and so on. Those sources can interfere with the chip.

Re:Downsides

[Russ1642]

EMP pulse? What dystopian Matrix-like world do you live in? All of the electronics I have are just fine near microwaves, cell phones, car ignitions, etc. In fact all of those devices CONTAIN computer chips that seem to work fine right where they are.

Re:Downsides

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty sure the rest of the paragraph made a point. The EMP is there for paranoia. Yet,I can see some government in Africa using it against protesters. But realistically, if they never used them against cellphones back when they had a real problem countering Twitter / social networks protest organizers... then it will be a long time before contraception threats are even on their radar.
In China, they'd probably want to dangle the opposite kind of threat if some EMP would work --making you sterile instead of needing them to police the 1 child policy

Re:Downsides

[mysidia]

EMP pulse? What dystopian Matrix-like world do you live in?

How about an EMP pulse caused by an earth-directed X45-Class solar flare, such as the one that occured in Solar Cycle 23; November 2003, The Carrington event during the Solar Storm of August 1859, the Carrington Class-CME which narrowly missed earth in April of 2014, and numerous similar ones, which have (luckily) not pointed anywhere near earth?

Re:Downsides

[thoriumbr]

EMP pulse? What dystopian Matrix-like world do you live in?

No, it's not paranoia. It would be accidental, not some nasty action from any government. EMP can arise from some special situations.

Several years (decades) ago, a design error on a computer power source created an EMP every time you turned it on. If you left any storage media around, it would corrupt data.

Where I live, there are some devices used to demagnetize smart tags on supermarkets, they create a small EMP too, and could cause problems to the chip.

Re:Downsides

[Bengie]

Only an issue if your body becomes a conduit to ground. You may have some other things to worry about at that moment.

Re:Downsides

[mysidia]

Only an issue if your body becomes a conduit to ground.

Body becoming a conduit to ground is more an issue for weaker effects such as lightning.

In fact ALL bodies can pretty become a conduit to the ground at sufficient voltage, as long as anything touching your body can serve as an antennae to pickup the EM signal; this may be able to harm you, but more likely -- it will just render the device itself permanently inoperative by shorting out the components, and the real worst highly likely scenario is the heat causes the implant to melt, while still in your body.

A Solar EMP contains higher-frequency EM and can be much more dangerous than a hit by a nearby lightning strike.

The issue is instead of being a shortest path to ground is an issue regarding contact with any metallic object, or.... in fact, if the metallic object is long or large enough, mere proximity is sufficient to be in danger.

Furthermore, with a CME of sufficient magnitude..... even humans without implants of any sort would be in danger, even if at a large distance from anything containing conductive materials.

The human body itself also contains ioninc liquids which can readily conduct an electromagnetic field, and the nervous system itself is electrical....

O Brave New World ...

[Anonymous Coward]

That has such people in it!

Let's call it the neo-malthusian belt.

Why?

[CanHasDIY]

I mean, aside from trying to make Aldous Huxley's fantasy a reality, what's the friggin' point?

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

With the USA's population as low as it is compared to India or China, we have the /luxury/ of not having to truly consider these inhuman methods. If our population was 10x what it was, I bet you'd change your tune.

Re:Why?

[will_die]

Because as the summary says it allows governments to control it. As opposed to other methods it would hard to remove without surgery and the government could control the passwords.

Re:Why?

[tomhath]

Because it isn't permanent sterilization, but it has essentially the same effect. Oral contraception or barrier devices don't work in many parts of the world.

Re:Why?

[KingOfBLASH]

I mean, aside from trying to make Aldous Huxley's fantasy a reality, what's the friggin' point?

Citizen, next time you will refer to propoganda material as the blueprint not a fantasy!

Re:Why?

[CanHasDIY]

Oral contraception or barrier devices don't work in many parts of the world.

But an electronic device dependent on wireless data signals will? Seems dubious.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

... fantasy a reality ...

The flaw with any blueprint for Utopia is the same: Everybody must be the same. In 'Brave new world' this was achieved through genetic engineering, thus ensuring a homogenous culture. With every person being made-to-order, the many messy problems of an organic society can be eliminated: Such as unwanted pregnancy; which in itself causes much strife: welfare mothers, shotgun/forced weddings, poverty, promiscuity (mother and daughters), undisciplined children. Or sexual mores; which turns prostitution, polygamy, promiscuity and casual sex into problems that have little impact on social stability.

Planting such a chip into every 13 year-old schoolgirl eliminates unwanted pregnancy. If the supply of deactivation units was controlled by hospitals, couples would essentially have to apply for parenthood. That could be abused (leading to eugenics) but mostly it would prevent people starting a family until they were financially and emotionally prepared.

Re:Why?

[misexistentialist]

The advantage for a woman is that it is totally covert with plausible deniability. Melinda Gates envisions that it will reduce the Negro population by allowing African wives to avoid the trouble of having children while they scam their husbands out of cash; in the police states of the West of course they will scam men out of cash by having a child, with the added convenience of insuring that the father isn't their husband.

Re:Why?

[antifoidulus]

There is evidence that China's one child policy is what enabled it to grow far faster than India did(though there are people that argue that India's younger population will eventually be an economic asset rather than a drag on the economy). In 1980 China and India's economies were at about the same size, but China has grown far faster than India, and many argue that the one child policy was what allowed this to happen. By limiting the # of children people could have they could invest more capital per student, and measures like the literacy rate show that this effort paid off.

Re:Why?

[CanHasDIY]

With the USA's population as low as it is compared to India or China, we have the /luxury/ of not having to truly consider these inhuman methods. If our population was 10x what it was, I bet you'd change your tune.

Two words, buddy - Hunger Games :)

Where is the increased correlation with eugenics?

[Valvar]

If the government wanted to control population levles, then sure, this might be a good tool. But in itself it is only a slight improvement over existing methods, making it easier to micromanage population control. If an oppressive government wants to control the population, they already have the tools to do so. I don't see what this does to change that. What it might do is make it easier to do so clandestinely *in theory*, but in practice that case seems unlikely.

Population control, indeed

[Krishnoid]

I replied, "We could change it now. Robots are doing all the work. Human beings -- all human beings -- could now be on perpetual vacation. That's what bugs me. If society had been designed for it somehow, we could all be on vacation instead of on welfare. Everyone on the planet could be living in luxury. Instead, they are planning to kill us off. Did you hear that women were trying to drink the water out of the river? Some people think they're putting contraceptives in the water."

From Manna.

Straight from sci fi

[motorsabbath]

Straight from Hugh Howey's Silo series!

NSA will require a backdoor to that...

[Anonymous Coward]

...for your protection. Obviously.

Re:NSA will require a backdoor to that...

[Russ1642]

Thankfully you still can't get pregnant when you use the back door.

Re:NSA will require a backdoor to that...

[Anonymous Coward]

My ass always hurts too much if I try that. What about yours?

spoken like a corporate whoring

[publiclurker]

idiot that feels that anything that lets you pretend to have significance by dragging women down to your shameful level is a good ting.

Re:spoken like a corporate whoring

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd love to put a hole in your head

If only...

[jeffb (2.718)]

If only getting pregnant always required long, conscientious, deliberate effort, and avoiding pregnancy were the easy result of one night's drunken whim.

But that's now how it is, and this proposal won't make it so.

Re:If only...

[PsychoSlashDot]

If only getting pregnant always required long, conscientious, deliberate effort, and avoiding pregnancy were the easy result of one night's drunken whim.

But that's now how it is, and this proposal won't make it so.

You say that. What if deactivating this "chip" requires a trip to the doctor? What if you get to specify the exact circumstances under which it is permitted to change modes and one of them is that you confirm you decision daily for six weeks? See, this technology could give you most of what you want, if universally installed.

China and forced population control

[sageres]

"There's also the issue of making it easier for governments to control population levels. "
I can think of China... It has been widely known that besides "encouraging" abortions and sterilizations, there is a number of documented cases of forced abortions and sterilizations in the country. It would be too easy for them to implant the chip into the "people's offenders" or anyone who had at least one baby right at the birth clinics. Potential human rights violations made easy with technology.

Re:China and forced population control

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, no wonder it's backed by Bill Fucking Gates.

Re:China and forced population control

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with the oppressive government argument is there they generally have the power to do such things already. A surgical implant that can be turned off certainly does not give them any better control than just implementing one of the current surgical BC options that cannot be turned off. Oppressive states generally want to limit births and usually have no interest in being able to reverse the procedure easily. People having a BC permanently implanted generally do not wish to have any children in the near term so want the device on in the first place. If the device is suddenly 'unable' to be turned off they can always just have it removed.

New Meaning to Holes in Condems

[medv4380]

As far back as I can remember there has always been fear or concern about a guy who wants to knock up a girl poking holes in the condom, or a girl who wants to get pregnant poking holes in the condom. Now with this chip you have a form of birth control that poking holes is as simple as finding the frequency it's on to turn it off. Now instead of worry that your partner screwing with you now you have to worry about a third party. Neighbor that doesn't believe in birth control builds a device to turn yours off. Parents tired of waiting for grandchildren buy said device. The list goes on and on. At least with condoms and the pill I just have to trust my partner, and maybe if I don't do a visual inspection. This is as bad of an idea as people who listen to others about what makes good lubes for condoms when they get told an oil based lube is good when in reality it's something that would really weaken, and increase the likelihood of it breaking, but in this case they don't have to be telling you lies to get you pregnant. They just have to be malicious enough.

Re:New Meaning to Holes in Condems

[Russ1642]

You can worry all you want about this stuff. You can also worry about alien abduction. It still doesn't make it likely, or even possible.

Re:New Meaning to Holes in Condems

[Anonymous Coward]

If the implant has a robust remote attestation system (physical wand/ short range transmitter/ biometric lock/ password protection), knocking someone up would be very difficult, as you would have to get access to a keyed control wand, get ahold of whatever biometrics they use, and then get ahold of a password that isn't a duress password.

It would be easier to physically remove their implant and force your way with them at that point. The part about making sure you don't get tricked into paternity means that a good way to control male fertility would be useful, as it takes two to make a baby, and to actually make a baby would require both implants to be off, with a log in their memory of deactivation.

As for the government control thing, we already restrict the ability to drive, own firerarms, and engage in mind altering substances while on probation. not being allowed to make a baby should be part of that as well.

Interesting idea but likely horrific in practice..

[Anonymous Coward]

Putting aside concerns about how this technology could be abused by government, it's hard to imagine them being able to design security protocols that will hold up for 16 years. Who wants a device implanted in your BODY that releases chemicals that is most likely to be hackable before it is ultimate removed?

I think women are better served by birth control without microchips that have shorter shelf lives.

Read-Only Access to Avoid Paternity

[Tokolosh]

I think it would be great to have a phone app that tells me whether the women I have just me in a bar has an operational chip implanted. Then I would not have to trust her saying "I'm safe" or that the condom will malfunction.

Re:Read-Only Access to Avoid Paternity

[Anonymous Coward]

That doesn't prevent you from getting herpes.

Re:Read-Only Access to Avoid Paternity

[larwe]

In an ideal world, the same chip would be able to report STD status. It's the 21st century version of toothing.

Re:Read-Only Access to Avoid Paternity

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, I don't get your type at all. If you are afraid of kids, be responsible and chances are you won't produce any. If you don't know a woman well enough to trust her to say "I'm safe" when she really isn't, you need to keep it in your pants anyway. If you think you can trust her, best put on the condom you provide and dispose of when you are done.

Just because a woman allows you to have sex with her, doesn't mean it's a good idea.... Yea, I'm nuts...

Re:Read-Only Access to Avoid Paternity

[jeffb (2.718)]

Well, if avoiding pregnancy is all you're concerned about, it sounds like there's an easy solution: you get the chip.

Re:Read-Only Access to Avoid Paternity

[Tokolosh]

But my boys can swim!

Re:Read-Only Access to Avoid Paternity

[cbhacking]

Believe me, I would really like to see a reliable and reversible form of male contraception that didn't require a barrier. Granted, barriers are needed for STD prevention, but once past that point in the relationship (i.e. once we've been able to get tested) it would be really great to be able to just turn off (viable) sperm production entirely... without getting a probably-not-reversible surgical procedure, that is.

Unfortunately, for whatever reason (I am not any form of biologist or doctor), this seems to be hard. Maybe that's a false impression based on the amount of funding such research receives, maybe it's possible right now but has horrendous side effects, I don't know. All I know is that the only current option for birth control that a man can use requires a small monetary investment and a minor hassle every time you *might* ejaculate in your partner. Once-a-day pills wouldn't necessarily be any cheaper, but at least they could be taken at more convenient times and you wouldn't need to pop a second one to go for round two. Oh, and they wouldn't reduce sensation or constrict anything.

Sadly, the idea you call an "easy solution" is anything but easy. In fact, it's currently impossible.

Re:Read-Only Access to Avoid Paternity

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversible_inhibition_of_sperm_under_guidance

There you go.

Re:Read-Only Access to Avoid Paternity

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, for whatever reason (I am not any form of biologist or doctor), this seems to be hard.

The reason's quite simple: the female reproductive cycle has a number of "off" switches; designing a female hormonal contraceptive is simply a matter of picking which one you want to use. In contrast, the male reproductive cycle has only one state: "on". The first step in designing a male hormonal contraceptive is installing an "off" switch.

Re:Read-Only Access to Avoid Paternity

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that it won't be entirely your fault and responsibility legally when she turns out to have hacked it, or have used a jammer in her nightstand. Because, you now, you'd have been careful if you didn't really mean to pay out for eighteen years.

Re:Read-Only Access to Avoid Paternity

[Anonymous Coward]

You invent a way to do that and you'll be a rich man.

Re:Read-Only Access to Avoid Paternity

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. You do not have the right to pry into a woman's medical history because you're paranoid about her lying about being on birth control. She is an autonomous person with the right to privacy, not an object that you can read a warning label for. If you have such a terrible time trusting strangers, maybe you shouldn't be having sex with one.

Rich People and Population Control

[TheNarrator]

It seems like if there's one issue that rich people all over the world are throughly obsessed with, it's population control. It's all wrapped up with the future being dominated by visions of eco-doom (e.g Global Warming/Overpopulation/Peak Oil). Nobody can see a different future. It's pathetic.

Re:Rich People and Population Control

[tomhath]

Population control is far better than the other alternatives (War, Famine, or Disease).

Re:Rich People and Population Control

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, because caring about the world's millions of other species instead of caring only about the (short term) success of your own is pathetic.
Wanting people (yes and animals) to have plenty of space and a healthy, attractive environment rich in resources as they enjoy technology with lots of freedom and leisure time is pathetic.
Right.

Re:Rich People and Population Control

[Zynder]

And you proved his point. Good job!

Re:Rich People and Population Control

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really. There's war, famine, disease, deforestation, extinction, poverty, pollution already in much of the world. A smaller population would already lessen some of these problems and make the others easier to solve.

Reproduction

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately in the States, reproduction has become a very hot political topic.

Stop paying people to have kids.

I am not sure exactly what you are referring to.

Anyway, there is a free clinic to help with reproduction and other health issues and contrary to what many folks believe, Three percent of all Planned Parenthood health services are abortion services.. And contrary to what is heard in the media and on the pulpit, women are counseled - it's not spread your legs and suck it away.

But when you show up and see thick bullet proof glass, gated entries and threatening crowds, one may choose to do without their help. Many of these young women are scared (usually by overly strict "conservative Christian" parents). There was an abortion doc (it's been years and I can't remember his name nor google it because of all the propaganda out there) who would help these girls when he could and even put them up while they were pregnant so that they wouldn't feel they HAD to abort. He was murdered by a pro-lifer. Which is ironic since he saved quite a few babies.

There are not many places that offer those services for free and it is rare to get more from faith based charities than being preached about abstinence.

It disgusts me that here in the US, we have Third World - backward attitudes when it comes to sex and reproduction. Part of it is the misinformation that is constantly being spewed by people who are trying to get ratings on "conservative" media and folks with political agendas.

Never the less, we are reaping what we sow and I find myself being disgusted everyday by people - especially by people who claim to hold life "sacred".

Why wireless

[Anonymous Coward]

If the chip is under the skin, it should be pretty trivial to remove when need be. Until then it could function perfectly well without the wireless connection. So why bother with the extra energy drain, complexity, and reliability issues? Another overdesigned solution looking for a problem.

Re:but he already knows

[Anonymous Coward]

He needs to know how to read. Specifically he needs to read the court's decision in this case because what he's spouting is total ignorance of what was really decided and why.

Removing his head from where the sun don't shine would help too, but only as far as it might make it possible to READ THE DECISION.

Re:yes but...yes in fact.

[PopeRatzo]

It's about more than just "abortifacients". http://www.nationalreview.com/... Except, the four methods Hobby Lobby objected to are not "abortifacients". http://www.newrepublic.com/art... But I guess, if their faith tells them they're abortifacients, then abortifacients they shall be. Isn't that the whole point of the decision of the five (male) Supreme Court justices? And we already have cases being brought to use the Hobby Lobby precedent to allow all sorts of civil rights violations, nullification of laws, and even special exemption from taxation based on religious faith. It's going to be a few interesting years until Hobby Lobby is overturned, which it almost certainly will be, Hobby Lobby is the 21st century's Plessy v. Ferguson. But that's the whole point, right?

Needs FDA *AND* NSA approvals will be required

[sehlat]

"Then we have secure encryption. That prevents someone from trying to interpret or intervene between the communications."

The NSA will want a backdoor.

Re:Needs FDA *AND* NSA approvals will be required

[jargonburn]

The NSA will want a backdoor.

Then the NSA should just use the backdoor.

Re:Needs FDA *AND* NSA approvals will be required

[sehlat]

Then the NSA should just use the backdoor.

Not a good idea. The NSA doesn't use lube.

Re:Needs FDA *AND* NSA approvals will be required

[jargonburn]

Not a good idea. The NSA doesn't use lube.

That's never stopped 'em.

Re:Needs FDA *AND* NSA approvals will be required

[Zynder]

They can use their own back door, or to put it in other words- They can go fuck themselves!

One word

[TheCrig]

Wool.

Hugh Howey strikes again.

It's a solution looking for a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

If our issue is that we lack the funding to offer contraception to everyone that needs it - how is "making contraception more complicated and expensive" going to help with that issue?

Answers on a postcard to:
185 Unnecessary Tech Blvd,
Unnecessaryville, TN 37010

Re:It's a solution looking for a problem

[tomhath]

Where did you see "complicated and expensive"? Get the implant once and forget it, unlike every other form available.

Re:It's a solution looking for a problem

[cbhacking]

Given the chip's expected lifetime, a woman would have to replace it once, probably sometime in her late twenties, if she wanted to be protected from her teen years until menopause. Never mind the pill; that's a *huge* advantage over the next-longest-lasting implant (three-four years), much less the shots.

"The implant can be used to deliver other drugs."

[sehlat]

So in the future, everybody is required to be implanted with this gadget -- loaded with tranquilizers. The government has the activation key, no skin contact required, and if a demonstration or anything else gets "out of hand" the code gets broadcast, the "insurgents" go off into la-la land, and they send in the street sweepers to collect them.

Forget the tinfoil hat. Where's my tinfoil armor?

Help me find my keys and we'll drive out

[PopeRatzo]

I hope Bill Gates is planning to include Kinect technology in a diaphragm.

I'm not going to read TFA, but in my mind, that's totally what's going to happen. I'm boggled by the possibilities.

As opposed to ... *wired* contraception?

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, *wired* contraception seems like it's something I would have noticed by now. But, I am posting on Slashdot...

Re:As opposed to ... *wired* contraception?

[American Patent Guy]

Yep. There already is "wireless" birth control out there. They're made available as "birth control pills". No wires in there at all...

Re:Interesting idea but likely horrific in practic

[dmr001]

I think you're probably right in a lot of cases, but what I think this proposal is getting at is that right now we have a single contraceptive implant on the market that needs to be swapped out every 3 years. And, swapping it out means numbing up the area (which smarts), making a 1 cm incision with an 11 blade and fishing around with mosquito clamps to get the Nexplanon out which is often encapsulated with connective tissue and it doesn't want to come out, then injecting another one in. What if it could be turned on and off according to whether the woman wanted to have kids or was abstinent for awhile, so then we can avoid excess poking and prodding and hormones? If we could make that secure, would it be worth it? The cost of the Nexplanon in the US isn't much related to its materials (perhaps $5) as to the research costs and insurance and pharmaceutical company marble toilets with gold handles ($700). Couldn't an electronic Nexplanon with extended duration reasonably be cost effective if we can avoid the excess minor surgery, physician visits, and unintended babies?

Re:Interesting idea but likely horrific in practic

[Anonymous Coward]

Putting aside concerns about how this technology could be abused by government, it's hard to imagine them being able to design security protocols that will hold up for 16 years. Who wants a device implanted in your BODY that releases chemicals that is most likely to be hackable before it is ultimate removed?

I think women are better served by birth control without microchips that have shorter shelf lives.

Every chip and it's controller are programmed with a one time pad which it uses to authenticate commands sent to it. the chip ignores all commands that don't decode from its current place in the one time pad, and if it exhausts it's one time pad all future signals are responded to with "contact your medical service provider".

That'll hold up forever. If you're toggling the chip frequently you might manage to exhaust the crypto but then you go to the doctor and get a new chip.

Chances are the biology will render it obsolete before the crypto does (new drugs, menopause, etc.)

but of course you have no problem

[publiclurker]

with having other people pay for your Viagra and unnecessary wars. After all, you aren't a woman.

Re:but of course you have no problem

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but he is dickless, so there's that.

incentive to hack

[Anonymous Coward]

The only person i could think of that would have an incentive to hack this would be the father in order to turn it back on.

but I've seen women wearing them.

[publiclurker]

And men aren't really known for caring as much about how dorky a woman looks.

Why contraception

[NotInHere]

This chip can be very useful for people who have to take in stuff regularly, like diabetes patients, for medical reasons. No insulin syringe into the leg needed, a simple app on the watch of a diabetes patient is enough. If it has direct access to blood, which I doubt, the chip can even perhaps detect too high blood sugar and automatically react, replacing the function of a pancreas.

Re:Why contraception

[cbhacking]

This chip dispenses ludicrously tiny amounts of hormones. You might be able to use it for people who take certain other kinds of medicine regularly - my father is on thyroid pills for the rest of his life, for example, and those might be deliverable by such an implant - but the sheer volume requirements of insulin make it completely impractical for such a use. A single insulin reservoir (for a pump) is bigger than this entire chip, and is only good for a matter of days. Unless the chip could somehow manufacture the chemical out of nutrients from your bloodstream - a literal artificial pancreas - there's no way a diabetic could get insulin from it long enough to justify the operation of installing the thing.

Now, an implantable CGM (Continuous Glucose Monitor) that doesn't require a transdermal sensor and could possibly be installed in such a way that it gets *current* data on blood sugar levels... that would be handy as hell. Current CGMs provide readings that have a significant delay, which makes using them to guide an insulin pump dangerous and unreliable (the bolus of insulin required when you eat would arrive late, and then possibly would overcompensate).

Re:Why contraception

[NotInHere]

Thank you this was very interesting. Didn't knew, that insulin, being a hormone, was needed in such amounts, contrary to contraception hormones. I guess the insulin reservoir contains mostly (>99%) water?

that's why the need the guns.

[publiclurker]

and why so many of them sleep with them in or next to their beds.

Re:that's why the need the guns.

[Anonymous Coward]

Stereotypes are for the incompetent. Nobody else uses them.

Re:yes but...yes in fact.

[Jason Levine]

The Supreme Court majority can't even get their excuses for the Hobby Lobby verdict right. When the verdict came out, they said it was a limited verdict on just those forms of birth control and the form declaring the institution a religious institution was a good workaround. The next day, they said the verdict applies to all forms of birth control. (Apparently, the company just needs to "religiously believe" that something is wrong and they don't need to cover it in their health care plans.) The next day, they made a preliminary ruling in another case that said that the form declaring that an institution has religious issues with something wasn't good. The very form they pointed to 2 days earlier as a good thing. Now, merely requiring an institution to declare "we are religiously offended by X" is offensive.

Of course, Hobby Lobby apparently has no problem covering Viagra regardless of the marital state of their male employees.

I'd boycott Hobby Lobby, but we never shop there anyway as we've known about - and had issues with - the owners making personal religious beliefs into company policy for years. We much prefer Michael's or JoAnn's.

Re:yes but...yes in fact.

[Dcnjoe60]

It's about more than just "abortifacients".

http://www.nationalreview.com/...

Except, the four methods Hobby Lobby objected to are not "abortifacients".

http://www.newrepublic.com/art...

But I guess, if their faith tells them they're abortifacients, then abortifacients they shall be. Isn't that the whole point of the decision of the five (male) Supreme Court justices?

And we already have cases being brought to use the Hobby Lobby precedent to allow all sorts of civil rights violations, nullification of laws, and even special exemption from taxation based on religious faith. It's going to be a few interesting years until Hobby Lobby is overturned, which it almost certainly will be,

Hobby Lobby is the 21st century's Plessy v. Ferguson. But that's the whole point, right?

It's not their faith telling them they are abortifacients, It is the US Government Department of Health and Human Services. HHS says the 2 IUDs in question and the morning/week after pills in question keep a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. Their faith says that life begins at conception, so being force to pay for something that keeps that life from implanting in the uterus is a violation of their religious belief.

The courts found that since this is a valid religious belief AND the government could provide the 4 questioned contraceptives through other means, that they could not force the owners of Hobby Lobby to violate their religious belief.

or corporations

[publiclurker]

that really feel that controlling women is their prerogative.

**implications** not reproductive issues

[globaljustin]

hey, guys...over here...yeah...**waves arms wildly**

**they have made a microchip that can release hormones and be controlled wirelessly from outside the body**

should it be used for contraception?

hmm interesting question...quick look over there! points away from the fact that we have **wireless hormone-releasing microchips** /joke

endorphins, dopamine, testosterone, adrenaline...

all of these and any other hormone is in play with this technology

so...should it be used for **mind control**?

Re:**implications** not reproductive issues

[Anonymous Coward]

Endorphins, dopamine and serotonin don't cross the blood-brain barrier. You'd have to implant those chips under the skull to get those chemicals anywhere. That's the reason why drugs like amphetamine, heroin and MDMA exist. If you could ingest or inject any of those hormones and get a high, then those drugs (which are small enough to cross the blood-brain barrier) would never have been developed in favor of chemically identical exogenous sources of the hormone/neurotransmitter in question.

Re:yes but...yes in fact.

[swv3752]

If they were a privately held company and not incorporated, i would not have an issue with the ruling. If you are going to insulate yourself from the company, then your religious beliefs should not dictate what the company denies its employees.

mechanical strapons

[publiclurker]

are for the dickless and cowards. nobody else uses them

An Interesting Conundrum

[publiclurker]

Can a dickless person claim that they need Viagra.

it's nice that they are working on security, now

[Maxwell]

sure they could have baked some security in, but that line item got cut in the budget. They'll just glue some encryption on later, it's easy to do.

What a great summary.

[Anonymous Coward]

What a great summary. I hate when they have large sentences. Large sentences are bad sentences. I don't like sentences with commas. Sentences should be kept to eight words maximum. I will totally be watching Slashdot in the future. Unless the governments don't let me watch.

Isn't it funny we just had an article about implications about stories being generated by AI? Isn't it funny that summaries are generated by AI now, and the editors just rubber stamp things with Government Paranoia through regardless of quality?

Re:"The implant can be used to deliver other drugs

[Anonymous Coward]

... everybody is required to be implanted with this gadget ...

This gadget means a person will never 'go off' their meds. For schoolgirls and women that will be a chemical contraceptive. For the mentally-ill, their drug-assisted link to reality; for transplant patients, their immuno-suppressants. I imagine a black market will sell gadgets filled cannabinol or morphine.

... send in the street sweepers to collect them ...

Then what? Once the 'insurgents' are released they can stage another 5-minute protest. Or the government must raise taxes for long-term imprisonment: Maybe then, 'tough on crime' policies won't be so appealing to the law-abiding citizens. The insurgents can don tin-foil hats to block the activation code, or even use their own transmitter to continuously deactivate the gadget.

great fun to be had......

[Anonymous Coward]

lets hack a....

whorehouse
prom
hotel AFTER prom
homecoming
office or workplace
free clinic
airplane bathroom
movie theatre
drive-in

or even just a random stranger on the street or metro.

if its wireless it will end up being hacked. nuff said.

Already?

[Snodgrass]

The researchers are already working on making the device secure against unauthorized transmissions.

You're going to trust your body chemistry (moods, behaviors, etc) to a company that considers security as an afterthought?

Good luck.

Wireless Contraception

[milkmage]

...great, totally ineffective unless you have wireless intercourse as well.

Re:like I said

[Anonymous Coward]

CAN'T. FIND. MODPOINTS. You'd get all 15!




lamnessfilterislame lamnessfilterislame lamnessfilterislame

Re:yes but...yes in fact.

[AmiMoJo]

The courts found that since this is a valid religious belief AND the government could provide the 4 questioned contraceptives through other means

Why are certain beliefs privileged? Could a non-religious person decide they "believed" in not providing certain healthcare to their employees and just let the government pick up the bill instead?

Re:yes but...yes in fact.

[PopeRatzo]

It's not their faith telling them they are abortifacients, It is the US Government Department of Health and Human Services. HHS says the 2 IUDs in question and the morning/week after pills in question keep a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. Their faith says that life begins at conception, so being force to pay for something that keeps that life from implanting in the uterus is a violation of their religious belief.

So basically, you're just saying what I'm saying, "It's their faith that tells them these are abortifacients."

Further, when you talk about the "they" in "their religious beliefs", you are not talking about individuals, but a corporation. Now, we can argue whether or not corporations are people, my friend, but I'm pretty sure you will agree that "Inc" does not have religious beliefs.

As you can clearly see from the National Review article (and the National Review is the mothership for anti-abortion types), this is NOT about abortifacients, but about absolutely anything that someone can say violates their religious beliefs. And if you recall your history, you will note that at one time people found religious justification for owning slaves, refusing to serve blacks, gays, Catholics and Jews.

That's why Hobby Lobby is this era's Plessy v Ferguson. It will go down as one of those decisions about which people will someday say, "That wrong-headed case was decided during the bad old days". And not because of anything having to do with abortion.

I'm sure there were people back during Plessy, that made rational-sounding arguments just like yours for why segregating the races was God's will.

Re:yes but...yes in fact.

[PopeRatzo]

Why don't you boycott the Supreme Court?

I don't think "boycott" means what you think it does.

B.S.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a lie that the only viable form of business is as a limited-liability corporation. There are thriving businesses using many other forms, including sole proprietorships http://www.sba.gov/content/sole-proprietorship-0 where the business *is* the person and so personal liability is unlimited.

Now that's a reasonable condition for a business to be afforded all the legal rights of a natural person because in that case the business has no additional rights that are unavailable to natural persons.

The Hobby Lobby decision was just another instance of the Roberts court letting corporations have their cake sand eat it too.

Re:B.S.

[Dcnjoe60]

It is a lie that the only viable form of business is as a limited-liability corporation. There are thriving businesses using many other forms, including sole proprietorships http://www.sba.gov/content/sole-proprietorship-0 where the business *is* the person and so personal liability is unlimited.

Now that's a reasonable condition for a business to be afforded all the legal rights of a natural person because in that case the business has no additional rights that are unavailable to natural persons.

The Hobby Lobby decision was just another instance of the Roberts court letting corporations have their cake sand eat it too.

So, Hobby Lobby should remain a sole proprietorship and somebody slips and falls and sues the Greens and they potentially lose their personal assets, too? What you are saying is that if you want to exercise your religious rights you are not permitted to form an LLC or S Corp? If Hobby Lobby were a public corporation, then what you say would be true. But, if you are proposing that people who want to exercise their constitutional rights, to religion or anything else, must give up other rights and privileges, well the SCOTUS disagrees with you.

Re:B.S.

[MondoGordo]

Nobody is saying that ... what they're saying is that if you want the advantages of a corporation, you have to accept the limitations of the corporate legal entity. read this article ...http://www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2014/07/how-hobby-lobby-ruling-transforms-and-weakens-american-corporation?utm_source=MinnPost-RSS&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+minnpost+(MinnPost.com+-+Minnesota+News+and+Analysis) from the article

Corporation characteristics Ask any student in law school to describe the characteristics of a corporation and one answer will be limits on personal liability. The second is that corporations have a legal identity distinct from its owners. Individuals incorporating enjoy limits on their personal liability for acts of the corporation. A legal wall is created, distinguishing owners from their corporations. Corporate law is premised upon this separation of the personal identity of individuals from their corporations. Corporations, distinct from their shareholders or officers, can be taxed, charged with crimes, or held culpable for their acts. The corporate/individual distinction served American business well for nearly two centuries. It facilitated the creation of great wealth for many, encouraged risk-taking and innovation, and allowed for people to act collectively. The corporate form also helped to politically neutralize businesses. The 1907 Tillman Act, barring corporations from making direct political contributions to federal candidates, along with the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act, which barred them from making any political expenditures to affect federal campaigns, went a long way toward removing corporations from politics. Effectively, the laws said that the purpose of business is business, not politics, echoing the sentiment of economist Milton Friedman, who said in his famous 1970 article “The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits” that if business executives wish to be socially responsible and ethical they should spend their own money and not that of their shareholders. Businesses cannot be ethical; people can be. The Supreme Court has forgotten this point. First in the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision the court declared that laws restricting the political spending of corporations violated their free speech rights. Now in Hobby Lobby it is saying that laws that require some corporations to pay for contraceptives coverage in their health insurance plans violate their religious rights. In both cases the court refused to distinguish the individuals from the corporations they own.

Re:yes but...yes in fact.

[suutar]

They are privately held. Hobby Lobby stock is not publicly traded.

Billionaire from baby booming

[RCourtney]

1. Invest in companies that sell diapers, baby pacifiers, baby clothing, baby food, etc

2. Exploit zero-day vulnerability in this product on Valentine's Day

3. Wait 9 months...

4. Profit!

SCOTUS says do not mess with Fish&Game Wardens

[Anonymous Coward]

So, can you lose your 4th amendment rights, your right to free speech and your right to due process when the government gives you a license to drive a car? How about for fishing or hunting? Or a permit for installing a pool or addition to your home?

Yes, SCOTUS has previously ruled that you do lose some 4th amendment rights when you receive a fishing or hunting license. http://m.sfgate.com/news/article/Game-wardens-don-t-need-a-warrant-to-stop-cars-3383756.php Other cases have clarified that they can search your home, as well as your car, without a warrant and you lose those 4th amendment rights simply by being suspected of fishing or hunting.

"Someone who has "chosen to engage in the heavily regulated activity" of hunting or fishing has a "diminished reasonable expectation of privacy,"

The 4th amendment restricts Customs or even the TSA more heavily than it does Fish & Game Wardens.Thank goodness they abuse it less too.

Re:Interesting idea but likely horrific in practic

[Bengie]

My wife has Nexplanon. About $1,500, but 100% covered my insurance.

More information

[NotInHere]

Here is a paper covering this chip, and a press release about the chip.

Re:More information

[NotInHere]

correction: the paper covers an older generation of the chip. The new one is of course smaller.

Re:yes but...yes in fact.

[Nephandus]

Religious psychosis is "normal" thus officially (in the shrink bible from both sides of the pond) not "mentally disordered", thus you're just "socially disordered" for not fitting into THEIR world.

Re:yes but...yes in fact.

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, so let's just have the government force you to participate in acts you disagree with, rather than doing them themselves, shall we? It's really quite absurd to claim these are an ad hoc dodge when they've long and consistently held their beliefs about when life begins.

And it's a far brighter line than whatever you hold.

Prior Art

[PPH]

Carry smartphone around like it was an appendage. Women stay away. Problem solved.

Grasp for power.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill Gates graps for power knows no bounderies.

No he can control he gives birth and he doesn't.

Re:yes but...yes in fact.

[Loki_1929]

Why are certain beliefs privileged?

Because the people who founded this country came here seeking relief from religious oppression. Thus, when they created their own government (the one we have today), they ensured that the highest law of the land specifically restrained the government from doing to future generations what the Crown had done to them. If you don't think religious beliefs deserve special consideration, feel free to propose an amendment to the US Constitution stating so.

Could a non-religious person decide they "believed" in not providing certain healthcare to their employees and just let the government pick up the bill instead?

That would be a more challenging case to prove. The benefit of belonging to a popular religious group is that the tenants are widely known. As such, one must only then demonstrate that one actually belongs to that group (and even so, only minimally; stating as much without evidence to the contrary would typically be enough) to gain protection from government policy, law, or action which would violate that group's religious beliefs. In the Hobby Lobby case, there were 4 specific methods of birth control out of 20 which the owners maintained violated their core beliefs. In essence, they viewed those 4 specific methods as murder, but raised no objection to the other 16. The SCOTUS found those beliefs to be sincere and reasonable, and found that there was no interest at stake compelling enough to override the protections afforded to the owners of Hobby Lobby by the US Constitution. This was found in no small part due to the multitude of other options available for those seeking to attain the goals of the underlying legislation.

It's actually a pretty mundane case and shouldn't get people this riled up, but it does because the ACA and the President are attached to it. If this case involved any other law but the President's signature legislation, nobody but SCOTUS buffs would have heard a word about it.

you don't know

[globaljustin]

none of what you said is any kind of counterpoint to my comment

it's like you just wanted to show off how much you know about the blood-brain barrier

you have **no idea** as to the level of complexity of these things and what they are capable of doing

Re:yes but...yes in fact.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Why are certain beliefs privileged?

Because the first amendment protects religious freedom.

speaking of...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're absolutely retarded.
Or 12.

What a dumb idea

[ThatsNotPudding]

A dumped ex-boyfriend with some leet skills 'hacking' their ex-girlfriend into an unwanted pregnancy. Great idea.

Re:yes but...yes in fact.

[Dcnjoe60]

If they were a privately held company and not incorporated, i would not have an issue with the ruling. If you are going to insulate yourself from the company, then your religious beliefs should not dictate what the company denies its employees.

All privately held companies are incorporated. Sole proprietorships and partnerships are not. The owners of privately held companies are only partially insulated in that their personal assets cannot be attached by creditors. They are not the same as regular corporations. The ruling only applies to privately held companies that have 5 or fewer owners. It basically treats them like sole proprietorships and partnerships, which is how the IRS treats them.

Basically, you can't have the government pick and chose how it wants to view a business, at least not if what the government is trying to cause people to do something that violates their religious beliefs (or any other constitutionally protected right). Put differently, the government can't say when its convenient for them, you are an individual and when its not, you aren't.

Re:yes but...yes in fact.

[Dcnjoe60]

The courts found that since this is a valid religious belief AND the government could provide the 4 questioned contraceptives through other means

Why are certain beliefs privileged? Could a non-religious person decide they "believed" in not providing certain healthcare to their employees and just let the government pick up the bill instead?

No, they could not, because religious freedom is a protected right under the constitution. Also, the government is not going to pick up the bill for the 2 IUDs and the morning after pill and the week after pill that was all this case was about. Assuming they use the same accommodation that they made available to religious non-profits, the private insurance company will pay for it.

Now, the religious non-profits argue that the accommodation doesn't work because those same insurance companies will simply pass the cost back to them in higher premiums, so effectively they are still paying for it. However, the court was not asked to rule on the accommodation, itself.

Re:yes but...yes in fact.

[Dcnjoe60]

It's not their faith telling them they are abortifacients, It is the US Government Department of Health and Human Services. HHS says the 2 IUDs in question and the morning/week after pills in question keep a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. Their faith says that life begins at conception, so being force to pay for something that keeps that life from implanting in the uterus is a violation of their religious belief.

So basically, you're just saying what I'm saying, "It's their faith that tells them these are abortifacients."

Further, when you talk about the "they" in "their religious beliefs", you are not talking about individuals, but a corporation. Now, we can argue whether or not corporations are people, my friend, but I'm pretty sure you will agree that "Inc" does not have religious beliefs.

As you can clearly see from the National Review article (and the National Review is the mothership for anti-abortion types), this is NOT about abortifacients, but about absolutely anything that someone can say violates their religious beliefs. And if you recall your history, you will note that at one time people found religious justification for owning slaves, refusing to serve blacks, gays, Catholics and Jews.

That's why Hobby Lobby is this era's Plessy v Ferguson. It will go down as one of those decisions about which people will someday say, "That wrong-headed case was decided during the bad old days". And not because of anything having to do with abortion.

I'm sure there were people back during Plessy, that made rational-sounding arguments just like yours for why segregating the races was God's will.

When I talk about "they" I am not talking about a corporation, but Mr. and Mrs. Green who own Hobby Lobby.

Look at it this way. The Green's never provided IUDs and the morning after pill to their employees. The Greens already paid for birth control for their employees, just not 4 specific products. The ACA said that your employer must pay for your birth control. People are acting like Hobby Lobby employees are somehow harmed by not having their employer pay for something they never paid for in the first place.

The government has determined that it is in the best interest of the country for every woman to have access to birth control. HHS' own data shows that 90% of woman were on birth control prior to the ACA. Is making employers pay 100% of the cost going to change that? Even so, is it the only way the government could achieve its goal?

Yes, Hobby Lobby is a private corporation. As such, all profits and loss flows through to the Greens, just like it was a sole proprietorship. Forcing Hobby Lobby, the corporation to pay is equivalent to forcing the Green's to pay. .The SCOTUS determined that the government had other options available to providing woman access to the 4 types of birth control in question and therefore could not force the Green's to pay for something they were opposed to on religious grounds.

Re:yes but...yes in fact.

[Anonymous Coward]

No. The first amendment covers religion, not belief.

DRM

[al3]

Digital Reproduction Management

Re:yes but...yes in fact.

[PopeRatzo]

When I talk about "they" I am not talking about a corporation, but Mr. and Mrs. Green who own Hobby Lobby.

But Mr and Mrs Green are not the ones paying for the employees' health care. Rather, those checks are from the corporation.

People are acting like Hobby Lobby employees are somehow harmed by not having their employer pay for something they never paid for in the first place.

Maybe you don't understand how employer health care works. The reason an employer provides health care is because an employee works for them. So, in a very real way, the value of the health care has already been earned by the employee. Thus, it's not Mr and Mrs Green paying for the health care at all is it? It's the employees who pay for it, with their labor (and also direct deductions from their paychecks). Employer health care is not charity.

Hobby Lobby is this era's version of Plessy v Ferguson. In a relatively short time, it will be looked back upon with embarrassment.

Re:yes but...yes in fact.

[PopeRatzo]

Oh, and you are absolutely wrong about Hobby Lobby being "just like it was a sole proprietorship". A closely-held corporation is not like a sole proprietorship. They are granted a level of exemption to liability by the government that sole proprietorships are not. That means there is a "veil" between the individual and the corporation.

Apparently, the five (male) justices on the Supreme Court who comprised the majority in the Hobby Lobby case believed that the veil is impervious to all but the Judgement of the Lord God Jehovah, based upon absolutely nothing but their own religious beliefs in the Lord God Jehovah.

As I said, it will be looked back upon with embarrassment.

Re:yes but...yes in fact.

[Dcnjoe60]

Oh, and you are absolutely wrong about Hobby Lobby being "just like it was a sole proprietorship". A closely-held corporation is not like a sole proprietorship. They are granted a level of exemption to liability by the government that sole proprietorships are not. That means there is a "veil" between the individual and the corporation.

Apparently, the five (male) justices on the Supreme Court who comprised the majority in the Hobby Lobby case believed that the veil is impervious to all but the Judgement of the Lord God Jehovah, based upon absolutely nothing but their own religious beliefs in the Lord God Jehovah.

As I said, it will be looked back upon with embarrassment.

I should have been more specific and said sole proprietorship and partnership, but got tired of typing that out. There are limited liability partnerships (LLPs) that are not corporations so your exemption to liability arguments still isn't correct. But even if it was, are you saying that if you want to start a business and protect your family assets, you must give up your religious freedom? It would seem that would violate the establishment clause of the constitution, but maybe you have a different spin on it.

Re:yes but...yes in fact.

[Dcnjoe60]

But Mr and Mrs Green are not the ones paying for the employees' health care. Rather, those checks are from the corporation.

No, they are a privately held corporation. They are taxed on the companies total net income just like they were a partnership. As such, if paying for the IUDs and morning after pill costs the company, it costs them directly. It was specifically because of this direct pass through of income and its treatment by the IRS that the courts found in favor of Hobby Lobby. If Hobby Lobby were a publicly traded corporation, they would have lost the case, because only dividends are passed through so it is just an investment and they could chose to invest in other companies. But that is not the case.

Maybe you don't understand how employer health care works. The reason an employer provides health care is because an employee works for them. So, in a very real way, the value of the health care has already been earned by the employee. Thus, it's not Mr and Mrs Green paying for the health care at all is it? It's the employees who pay for it, with their labor (and also direct deductions from their paychecks). Employer health care is not charity.

I understand exactly how employer health care works as I am responsible for it of our organization. However, the Hobby Lobby case is not about employer health care, it is about the HHS mandate of the affordable care act. Now, it is possible that the Greens don't subsidize any of their employee's health care and the employee pays 100% of the cost. It is possible, but very unlikely.

I do agree that employee health care is not charity, it is part of the benefits provided to workers, since WWII. This isn't about health care. It is about the government saying that the Greens must pay for something that is contrary to their religious belief. The belief in question is that they believe that life begins at conception and making them pay for IUDs means they are being forced to pay for abortions. We may not agree with their belief, but that doesn't matter. The government cannot force somebody to violate their religious beliefs, even if it is for the common good, if the government can achieve the goal through other means that don't violate the persons religious belief.