Advertisements
Home

Top Five Liberal Myths About the Hobby Lobby Case

2 Comments

This is from Town Hall.

The biggest myth is Hobby Lobby is not providing any birth control.

Hobby Lobby covers 16 out of 20  forms of birth control

they will not cover anything that will kill your baby.

 

Judging from the seething reaction by liberals to the Supreme Court’s recent decision in the “Hobby Lobby” case, one might easily forget that just two years ago they were singing the Court’s praises after it refused to declare ObamaCare unconstitutional. Then again, such extreme emotional swings should not be unexpected when one’s perception of justice is based not on law, but on politics and emotion. Therefore, in spite of a ruling that was far more limited in scope than could easily have been the case, the Left’s over-the-top reaction to Hobby Lobby is based on myth and delusion. Below are the top five liberal myths about the Hobby Lobby case, and how one might explain why they are wrong.

Case Overview

In a 5-4 decision on June 30th, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby that the “contraceptive mandate” in ObamaCare violated the religious freedom of certain for-profit corporations like Hobby Lobby, which are morally opposed to such forms of contraceptives. While the Court recognized that contraceptive coverage was a “compelling government interest” (as a matter of law), it did not consider that forcing business owners to pay for such coverage was the “least restrictive” way of fulfilling this interest because of the impact on the free exercise religious freedom. In short, the Court extended to “closely held corporations” the same protections under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) afforded currently to non-profit corporations.

Myth 1: “The Supreme Court just declared a war on women.”

For many liberals, the notion of a “war on women” underlies most conservative legislative or legal victories. It is therefore not surprising the Hobby Lobby decision precipitated indignant howls from feminists and liberals. Even though the Court ruled that business owners did not have to pay for coverage, the majority stated the government could pay for such coverage directly, or utilize the same accommodations afforded to RFRA-exempted non-profit organizations currently applicable. The party who pays for the cost of covering contraceptives, not access to contraceptives, is the only aspect changed by the Court’s ruling. Thus, if the Left’s true concern was access to contraceptive coverage, then its outrage over the decision would be entirely unwarranted; but, of course, it is not.

Myth 2: “What is next, blood transfusions and vaccines?”

Even before the Court decided the case, liberals were sliding down the slippery slope of what else was next on the chopping block should the Justices rule in Hobby Lobby’s favor. Perhaps this is why Justice Samuel Alito directly confronted this paranoia in his ruling; noting that the Court’s narrowly-tailored opinion applied only to the contraceptive mandate, and “should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates . . . must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs.” Suggesting the ruling affords religious business owners a license for denying all other types of coverage is not only a gross misreading of the case, but contradicts what the Justices explicitly stated.

Myth 3: “The LGBT community should be concerned.”

Once again, such a claim falls well outside the intentionally narrow scope of the ruling, and directly contradicts the Court’s opinion. In the majority opinion summary, Alito wrote that the ruling does not “provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice.” The intention of the Court with regard to the decision’s application to discriminatory practices could not be any clearer, which is why this myth is pure fear-mongering. Sure, a company might try to challenge anti-discrimination laws based on this ruling (courts cannot anticipatorily stop people from making frivolous challenges), but it is highly doubtful such a challenge would make it out of the lower courts based on this decision alone.

Myth 4: “Corporations don’t have a right to religious expression.”

The legal concept of corporate “personhood” dates back more than a century, and is the basis of much of modern corporate law. The concept of personhood protects individual shareholders from the actions of the business; so, for example, a person owning just a few shares of stock in General Motors cannot be sued directly if a Chevy Volt catches on fire. Furthermore, the courts have recognized certain fundamental protections for individuals should also be extended to corporations; preventing the government from seizing company assets without a warrant, or shutting down companies for speech with which government officials might disagree. The RFRA protects individuals from being compelled by law to take actions that violate their religious beliefs. This protection was then (naturally) extended to non-profit corporations, such as religious organizations. It seems unreasonable, as the Court stated, that a for-profit corporation ceases to be entitled to hold religious views simply because it makes a profit. After all, were not liberals protesting Chick-Fil-A two years ago for the company’s “religious expression” of Christian values?

Myth 5: “Employers can now mandate health decisions for their employees.”

When an employee agrees to work for a company, he or she agrees to certain salary and incentives as compensation. A mandate is not much of a mandate when it is a part of a voluntary agreement between two parties. Therefore, if an employee does not like the type of coverage offered by an employer — the same as he or she might not like the salary offered – they are free to find employment elsewhere. Hired employees have no more right to demand customized insurance coverage than they do a corner office.

Advertisements

I AM THE MOM: Hospital Has Another Thing Coming When It Pushes 1-on-1 with Michigan Woman’s Daughter

2 Comments

This is from Independent Journal Review.

Nanny State to the maximum and it will only get worse now, Obamacare is in effect.

 

 

Christy Duffy is setting the internet on fire with a viral blog post about her recent experience at a Michigan hospital. It started when she was taking her daughter in for an appointment and saw this notice:

sparrow

The flyer stated that new state laws require nurses to hold a “short 5 minute private conversation with your child.”

Duffy asked if she could opt out of the policy, but the receptionist explained that it was mandatory. Needless to say, Duffy was not pleased. The situation got even more absurd when the office manager described what exactly they would be speaking to her daughter about. She wrote on her blog:

She said there was a new policy that would allow a child to access his/her medical records online and the child would be allowed to block a parent from viewing the website. The nurse would also inform my children that the doctor’s office is a safe place for them to receive information about STDs, HIV and birth control. That is what the nurse would be chatting about with my children without any pesky parental oversight.

Duffy then refused to let anyone speak with her daughter privately and insisted that she would, indeed, be opting out of the policy – whether they liked it or not.

After describing her experience, which some might describe as an overreaction to a well-intended law, she went on to explain why she so adamantly refused to comply:

Make sure this is crystal clear: what they want to do is talk to your child about sex and drugs (maybe rock and roll – who knows?) without your input. Is it really such a stretch to imagine that a doctor who does not value abstinence before marriage would encourage your daughters – as young as 12! – to receive birth control? Is it really such a stretch to imagine a nurse telling a young boy – because a 12 year old boy is a BOY – that she will give him condoms so he can be “safe”? Is this what you want told to your children without the ability to filter the info through your world view?

Duffy ended by saying this:

I am the Mom. I will pick who can talk to my kids about sex and drugs. And rock-n-roll for that matter.

And she’s so on-point. Parents have the right to choose what is and isn’t said to their children; the government and medical personnel do not.

Maybe if more parents reacted like this mom did, there would be fewer out-of-control policies to speak up against.

Exclusive: Democratic senators file amicus brief in Hobby Lobby birth control case

1 Comment

This is from Yahoo News.

How do these people call themselves and their party Democratic?

There is not one Damned thing democratic about them.

DemocRats demand that everyone marches to the tune of their

freakish base.

They demand people worship Roe vs Wade like they do.

 

In a brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, 19 Democratic senators are siding with the Obama administration against evangelical Christian businessmen who argue that paying for their employees’ birth control, a requirement under Obamacare, violates their company’s religious freedom.

The senators—five of them women—argue in their“friend of the court” brief that the owners of the Oklahoma-based crafts store chain Hobby Lobby are not exempt from the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate simply because some forms of birth control offend their religious beliefs.

Hobby Lobby’s owners, David Green and his family, are suing the federal government over the mandate, which says large employers’ insurance plans must offer birth control without co-pays or else face steep fines.

A lower court upheld the Greens’ case, ruling that the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) protects the Greens from having to adjust their insurance plans to cover contraception for their 13,000 employees. (RFRA says the government must have a compelling reason to infringe upon an individual’s religious beliefs, and that laws that do so must be narrowly tailored.)

The case is novel because religious freedom, enshrined in the First Amendment, typically has been thought to apply to individuals, churches and other religious nonprofits—not corporations. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, siding with Hobby Lobby, said the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010 , which upheld a free-speech right for corporations, conferred a right to religious expression on businesses.

The 19 senators—all of whom voted for the popular RFRA in 1993—argue that the law’s religious protections were never intended apply to a for-profit company. Hobby Lobby’s “gross misapplication” of the law perverts Congress’ intent in passing it, they write in the brief, which was obtained by Yahoo News.

Congress intended RFRA to protect individuals and non-profits from government interference in their religious beliefs, and explicitly left out for-profit companies from its protection, they write. The Democratic senators argue that a decision in favor of Hobby Lobby would allow “a secular, for-profit corporations’ shareholders, through the corporation, to impose their religious beliefs on their employees and to deny employees health benefits and rights to which they are entitled.”

The case, which the Supreme Court will consider on March 25 and likely decide by June, is just one front in a widening war between Democrats and Republicans over gender and reproductive issues. Democrats have seized upon Republican opposition to the contraceptive mandate as proof that Republicans are waging a “war on women.” Some Republicans, meanwhile, say the mandate panders to women, as well as infringes on employers’ religious liberty. Just last week, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee told a cheering audience at a Republican National Committee meeting that Democrats “insult the women of America” with the mandate, which he said suggested the government thinks women “cannot control their libido.”

Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, a Democratic senator who led the amicus brief effort, is planning to criticize Huckabee and other Republican opponents of the mandate in remarks on the Senate floor tomorrow announcing the brief.

“Allowing a woman’s boss to call the shots about her access to birth control should be inconceivable to all Americans in this day and age, and takes us back to a place in history when women had no voice or choice,” Murray will say, according to prepared remarks provided by her staff.

The case is the second big challenge to President Barack Obama’s signature legislative achievement to reach the Supreme Court in two years. The government fought back a challenge to the heart of the health care law, the individual mandate, in a split decision authored by Justice John Roberts in 2012. One of the lawyers who argued against the individual mandate then, Paul Clement, has joined Hobby Lobby’s legal team.

Meanwhile, cases brought by dozens of religiously affiliated non-profits against the birth control mandate are also likely to reach the Supreme Court soon. Last week, the justices ruled that a non-profit group of Catholic nuns does not need to comply with the mandate while their legal challenge is pending.

The Greens do not object to providing most birth control pills to their employees, but do not want to provide intrauterine devices (IUDs) and the so-called morning after pill. Neither contraceptive causes abortion, but they may prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus, which the Greens consider tantamount to abortion.

If the Supreme Court were to side with Hobby Lobby, it’s unlikely the justices would strike down the contraceptive mandate altogether, according to Timothy Jost, a law professor and health care reform expert at Washington & Lee University. Such a decision would instead allow religious for-profit corporation owners to opt out without paying the government fines.

The other senators who signed the brief are: Max Baucus (D-Mont.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.), Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Barbara Mikulsi (D-Md.), Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.), Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

Appeals Court Rejects Obamacare Contraception Mandate

Leave a comment

This from NewsMax.

We will take the victories where ever and when ever we can.

I want this  dead one and for all.

Even if it means death by a thousand cuts. 

 

 

A federal appeals court struck down Obamacare‘s controversial birth control mandate, declaring that requiring contraception coverage in employee health plans is unduly burdensome for business owners who oppose birth control on religious grounds.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled 2-1 Friday in favor of Francis and Philip Gilardi, the Roman Catholic owners of Ohio-based Freshway Foods and Freshway Logistics, who argued that the provision in the new healthcare law would violate their religious freedom, The Hill reports.

“The burden on religious exercise does not occur at the point of contraceptive purchase; instead, it occurs when a company’s owners fill the basket of goods and services that constitute a healthcare plan,” wrote Judge Janice Rogers Brown in the court’s decision.

Had the plaintiffs refused to comply with the law, they would have faced a $14 million fine.

Two of the judges on the panel disagreed with parts of the ruling, saying the rights of religious people do not extend to the companies they own.

The Obama administration has long argued that the requirement under the Affordable Care Act for contraceptive coverage — including sterilization — as a free preventative service is necessary to protect women’s reproductive rights, though churches and other houses of worship are already exempt from the provision in the healthcare law.

Religious conservatives have blasted the requirement as a violation of First Amendment rights.

The case is the latest in a string of challenges to the birth control mandate.

According to the Thomas Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, some 74 lawsuits with over 200 plaintiffs representing hospitals, universities, businesses, and schools have been filed challenging the mandate on grounds of religious liberty.

Rulings in the circuit courts have so far been mixed, leading legal analysts to predict the issue will reach the Supreme Court.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/appeals-court-backs-freshway/2013/11/01/id/534365?ns_mail_uid=57182492&ns_mail_job=1544341_11012013&promo_code=15719-1#ixzz2jSAYjYrF

 

Hobby Lobby wins preliminary injunction against contraception mandate

Leave a comment

This is from The Daily Caller.

Many more such injunctions are needed to help defeat

this  leviathan known as Obamacare.

In 2014 hopefully the GOP will take control of the Senate

and keep control of the House.

Then this monster can be finally up rooted.

 

A federal appeals court granted The Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. a preliminary injunction against the Obamacare contraception mandate, Friday.

The ruling prevents the government from enforcing the mandate against the Christian craft company, which has resisted the healthcare law’s requirement that companies provide employees health care plans that cover contraception on religious grounds.

In a decision read from the bench the court ruled, “There is a substantial public interest in ensuring that no individual or corporation has their legs cut out from under them while these difficult issues are resolved.”

 

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing Hobby Lobby, considers the ruling to be a major victory.

 

“We were extremely pleased that the court granted [the preliminary injunction],” Adele Keim, a an attorney with the Becket Fund on the Hobby Lobby’s case said in an interview with TheDC. She explained that the Justice Department has until September 25 to decide whether to appeal the ruling.

 

“The tide has turned against the HHS mandate,” Kyle Duncan, general counsel with the Becket Fund and lead attorney for Hobby Lobby, said in a statement.

 

If the government were to enforce the mandate against the Hobby Lobby, failure to provide contraception in their plans would cost the company $1.3 million a day in fines, according to the Becket Fund.

 

There are currently 63 lawsuits challenging the contraception mandate, according to the Becket Fund.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/19/hobby-lobby-wins-preliminary-injunction-against-contraception-mandate/#ixzz2ZWfgC9Bx

 

 

 

Judge rejects Hobby Lobby’s case against ObamaCare contraceptive coverage rule

Leave a comment

This is from Fox News Politics.

I hope Hobby Lobby appeals this moronic ruling.

This judge was appointed by George W.Bush.

This appointment does not mean he is a Conservative.

OKLAHOMA CITY –  A federal judge Monday rejected Hobby Lobby Stores Inc.’s request to block part of the federal health care overhaul that requires the arts and craft supply company to provide insurance coverage for the morning-after and week-after birth control pills.

In a 28-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Joe Heaton denied a request by Hobby Lobby to prevent the government from enforcing portions of the health care law mandating insurance coverage for contraceptives the company’s Christian owners consider objectionable.

The Oklahoma City-based company and a sister company, Mardel Inc., sued the government in September, claiming the mandate violates the owners’ religious beliefs. The owners contend the morning-after and week-after birth control pills are tantamount to abortion because they can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in a woman’s womb. They also object to providing coverage for certain kinds of intrauterine devices.

At a hearing earlier this month, a government lawyer said the drugs do not cause abortions and that the U.S. has a compelling interest in mandating insurance coverage for them.

In his ruling denying Hobby Lobby’s request for an injunction, Heaton said that while churches and other religious organizations have been granted constitutional protection from the birth-control provisions, “Hobby Lobby and Mardel are not religious organizations.”

“Plaintiffs have not cited, and the court has not found, any case concluding that secular, for-profit corporations such as Hobby Lobby and Mardel have a constitutional right to the free exercise of religion,” the ruling said.

Heaton wrote that “the court is not unsympathetic” to the problems cited by Hobby Lobby and their owners, the Green family. He said the health care law’s expansion of employer obligations “results in concerns and issues not previously confronted by companies or their owners.”

“The question of whether the Greens can establish a free exercise constitutional violation by reason of restrictions or requirements imposed on general business corporations they own or control involves largely uncharted waters,” Heaton wrote.

Hobby Lobby’s attorney said the companies’ owners will appeal.

“Every American, including family business owners like the Greens, should be free to live and do business according to their religious beliefs,” Kyle Duncan, general counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said in a statement.

The morning-after pill works by preventing ovulation or fertilization. In medical terms, pregnancy begins when a fertilized egg attaches itself to the wall of the uterus. If taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, it can reduce a woman’s chances of pregnancy by as much as 89 percent.

Critics of contraception say it is the equivalent of an abortion pill because it can prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus. The lawsuit also alleges that certain kinds of intrauterine devices can destroy an embryo by preventing it from implanting in a woman’s uterus.

Hobby Lobby is the largest business to file a lawsuit against the mandate.

Hobby Lobby calls itself a “biblically founded business” and is closed on Sundays. Founded in 1972, the company now operates more than 500 stores in 41 states and employs more than 13,000 full-time employees who are eligible for health insurance coverage. The company, which is self-insured, has said it will face a daily $1.3 million fine beginning Jan. 1 if it ignores the law.

“It is by God’s grace and provision that Hobby Lobby has endured,” said David Green, founder and CEO. “Therefore we seek to honor God by operating the company in a manner consistent with biblical principles.”

The Green family has said it has no moral objection to the use of other contraceptives and will continue covering them for its employees.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/19/judge-rejects-hobby-lobby-case-against-obamacare-contraceptive-coverage-mandate/#ixzz2CjWZU0AM

 

Christian Publishing House Wins Legal Contest Over Obamacare Mandate

Leave a comment

This is from Freedom Outpost.

As Christians we need to fight these immoral mandates.

If we stand united we can win.

 

U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton granted a preliminary injunction on Friday to Christian Publishing Company Tyndale House Publishers, which prevented the Obama administration from forcing them to provide employees with certain contraceptives under the Affordable Care Act.

The particular contraceptives at issue are Plan B and IUDs. Tyndale sees both contraceptives as immoral as abortion as each works differently, they can both have the same effect upon a woman’s uterus that would prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the wall. Since Tyndale believes that life begins at conception, then they don’t see a difference between the use of these methods and a woman that enters an abortion clinic to murder her unborn child.

Walton wrote in his opinion, “The contraceptive coverage mandate affirmatively compels the plaintiffs to violate their religious beliefs in order to comply with the law and avoid the sanctions that would be imposed for their noncompliance.”

While he acknowledged that hte government has interests in promoting public health, including making sure that women have equal access to health care, he also said the question “is whether the government has shown that the application of the contraceptive coverage mandate to the plaintiffs furthers those compelling interests.”

He also said that the government failed to make their case that mandating that Tyndale provide these contraceptives to their employees via their health insurance was in accordance with the government’s interests.

Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Matt Bowman, who represented Tyndale House Publishers, said “Bible publishers should be free to do business according to the book that they publish.”

“The court has done the right thing in halting the mandate while our lawsuit moves forward,” he continued. “For the government to say that a Bible publisher is not religious is startling. It demonstrates how clearly the Obama administration is willing to disregard the Constitution’s protection of religious freedom to achieve certain political purposes.”

Bowman also points out that the court wrote:

“the beliefs of Tyndale and its owners are indistinguishable…. Christian principles, prayer, and activities are pervasive at Tyndale, and the company’s ownership structure is designed to ensure that it never strays from its faith-oriented mission. The Court has no reason to doubt, moreover, that Tyndale’s religious objection to providing insurance coverage for certain contraceptives reflects the beliefs of Tyndale’s owners. Nor is there any dispute that Tyndale’s primary owner, the Foundation, can ‘exercise religion’ in its own right, given that it is a non-profit religious organization; indeed, the case law is replete with examples of such organizations asserting cognizable free exercise and RFRA [Religious Freedom Restoration Act] challenges.”

It is victories like this which give me hope that we can overcome the tyranny that is being thrust upon us in clear violation of God given rights that are supposed to be protected under the Constitution by the very politicians who took and oath to uphold the founding document. My hope is that others like Hobby Lobby will also find a victory in the near future.

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/11/christian-publishing-house-wins-legal-contest-over-obamacare-mandate/#ixzz2CcPrQXkV

 

%d bloggers like this: