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

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: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...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?

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

[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

[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.