Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
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.
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.
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.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
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.
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?
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don't think "boycott" means what you think it does.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.