• RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
Misterbadexample On June - 30 - 2014

Scotus - Hobby Lobby protest

The just-announced SCOTUS decision favoring Hobby Lobby‘s desire not to cover many forms  of contraception in their offered insurance occurs because nobody had the guts to call out Hobby Lobby for hypocrisy. Because regardless of what happens in the other 49 states, Hobby Lobby will still be doing business in its one store in Massachusetts, where (thanks to Romneycare) they are still going to have to pay for contraceptive methods they don’t like.  Does SCOTUS have the guts to go after Massachusetts? Or is this a state-by-state fight?

Here’s a longer blog I did on the subject last August

Speaking of Christian values, whatever happened to bearing false witness? Hobby Lobby set up shop in a state where they’d have to pay for employee healthcare including emergency contraception. They did so as a dollars-and-cents business decision, and nobody ever called them out on it.

83 Responses so far.

Click here to leave a comment
  1. kevinbr38 says:

    The Robert’s Court has all but succeeded in turning businesses into churches, corporations into people, and real people into little more than annoying distractions, impediments to the agenda of the likes of the Koch Brothers.
    It is going to take at LEAST two election cycles to right these wrongs.
    Get out the vote this November as if your life depended on it…
    Because in a very real way, it does.

  2. cyndibru says:

    @Kalima, you wrote:
    “I’m sorry to hear about what you went through and happy to hear that you found the strength to survive. I imagine that your family was supportive.”

    (response) Thank you, and no, my family was not supportive, which was pretty much the reason I made bad choices that landed me in that situation to begin with. I dealt with the consequences on my own.

    you wrote:
    “What about those who have no support when one or both parents lose their jobs and health insurance, and they already have enough children to support as it is? What do they do when it’s a choice between having a roof over their heads or just about managing one meal a day for their children? How can these women ensure that they will have no more children who will suffer the same way if they can’t afford the birth control that suits them?”

    (response) What about them? What do they do? Whatever they have to do. I would suggest they avoid the one sexual act known to cause pregnancy and enjoy the many other various forms of sexual intimacy and satisfaction with their partners until they can access and/or afford the birth control that suits them, which today, with the ACA, Medicaid expansion, health clinics, Planned Parenthood, etc is more accessible and available than ever before. I fail to understand your assumed argument that because there are more methods available now than ever before in human history to prevent pregnancy, that society as a whole is obligated to provide every woman the birth control of her choice at no cost so that she and her partner don’t have to adjust their behavior in any way if bad times befall them. These problems you speak of are nothing new in human history for women and/or families either. Human biology hasn’t changed. Seems the only thing that has changed is the idea that some people espouse that it should be a “right” not to have to deal with the natural results of your sexual choices and actions, and that someone else should pay to make this possible for every female.

    As for the rest, thank you for sharing your opinions. Obviously, mine differ, in just about all aspects.

    • Kalima says:

      Cyndi, again it is hard that you did not have the support from your family so that maybe you feel that no other woman should have the support of the government to make her own reproductive choices. If you know anything about birth control you would know that one size doesn’t fit all, and that some can have side effects for some women too, so they should have the choice of being able to use what suits them to protect their future health.

      As for your suggestion that women stop having intercourse with their husbands or partners until they can afford the birth control they need, I laughed out loud because I wonder just how much you know about men. How long for, a year, two years, a lifetime?

      Those women are already making important choices, they need birth control to avoid unwanted pregnancies, and it’s a very wise choice.

      What is costlier, access to birth control or paying for children in the system because the parents couldn’t afford to keep them or take care of them and no one wants to adopt them?

      Yes, we really do disagree, and I believe with this exchange, we have covered everything there is to cover now. So I hope we can agree to disagree because running in circles tends to make me feel dizzy, and we have published quite a few other interesting articles since this one, all equally worthy of comments.

  3. cyndibru says:

    ExfanofAriana, you wrote: “I don’t get the urinary drug my doctor says will best work for my condition and that I feel is necessary for my health….because my insurance doesn’t cover it and it’s too expensive for me to buy myself. ”

    Cindy, ALL my friends here in the US who cannot afford their pils , have been using Indian pharmacies — they have a warehouse in California — and saved almost (one example only) almost 800 bucks/month.
    http://www.alldaychemist.com or alldaypharmacy.com/in. Hope it helps you.

    My response: Thank you for the link. Unfortunately, they don’t have the particular drug in question. Not surprising because it is VERY new. I’m getting by ok with what I’m using, there’s simply a possibility I could get better results with this drug because of the particular receptors that it targets. People deal with this stuff every day, in all aspects of medical care.

  4. monicaangela says:

    @cyndibru

    President Obama believes that women “should make personal health care decisions for themselves, rather than their bosses deciding for them, that’s number one. And, this case presented a complex mix of legal, regulatory, and constitutional concerns-- over such hot-button issues as faith, abortion, corporate power, executive agency discretion, and congressional intent, not just whether or not women would receive free of charge or with a copay a contraceptive that in many cases is a part of helping the woman who purchases it remain healthy, not just for preventing pregnancy, which is what it appears the Hobby Lobby case seemed to determine “for them.”

    As far as the President taking “some executive actions too far,” I believe you are trying to close the barn door after the cows have gotten out on that one. And, the majority of Americans in this country agreed with the President’s decision.

    In a Kaiser Health Tracking Poll, released in April, Americans expressed solid support for the contraception mandate, backing it by a 2-to-1 margin. Kaiser also asked specifically about requiring coverage in the Hobby Lobby scenario: Should a for-profit business owner with religious objections to birth control be subject to the requirement? Again, a majority (55 percent) said yes, they should, “even if it violates their owners’ personal religious beliefs.”

    What could be further in Executive Action than what George W. Bush did? President George W. Bush issued several controversial executive orders surrounding the gathering of intelligence in the war on terror. Arguably the most controversial was a secret executive order he signed in 2002, authorizing the National Security Agency (NSA) to eavesdrop without a warrant on phone calls made by U.S. citizens and others living in the United States. I hope you were as outraged about all he did as you appear to be about President Obama trying to allow women the opportunity to have control of their bodies.
    Executive orders offer a powerful and immediate way for a president to advance his policy priorities. A White House aide to President Bill Clinton described the lure of executive orders this way: “Stroke of the pen, law of the land” [source: Wolf]. President Ronald Reagan used the direct power of executive orders to peel back layers of government regulation that he and his administration believed were hampering economic growth. President George W. Bush signed executive orders that approved more aggressive surveillance after 9/11 and limited public access to presidential documents. And President Obama has increasingly relied on executive orders to forward his agenda in the face of an intransigent Congress.

    Last but definitely not least is your anger at the fact that because there are some drugs you can’t get because you can’t afford them should be reason to require every woman that works at Hobby Lobby to be denied a drug that is used for more than just contraception is telling. Does your employer deny you the drug you prefer for religious reasons, are you being denied the drug because your insurance company feels you shouldn’t have it on the grounds that someone in the company believes it is a sin for you to have it…I don’t believe that is the case, and if it is, you should be the next case to show up at the Supreme Court. The employer IMHO should not be telling the employee whether or not he/she should be using a certain drug, and fighting to make sure you don’t get it. Why would you want 5 men to decide an issue on the basis of religious belief that would negate an executive order by the President? This order by the way that was not limited to Hobby Lobby, but was for all employers in this nation. I don’t believe you see the implication behind this action, but you are entitled to your opinion and so am I. Have a nice day.

    • cyndibru says:

      “President Obama believes that women “should make personal health care decisions for themselves, rather than their bosses deciding for them, that’s number one.”
      That’s obviously not true, or the President would be just as concerned about making EVERY FDA-approved drug/device for every medical condition available to women (and men!) for every medical condition, not just contraception or reproductive system-related conditions. Unless both you and the President believe that the only medical issue that affects “women’s health” is reproductive-related, that’s a false statement.

      As to the argument related to polling support, what “the majority” of the population thinks or supports has nothing to do with constitutional rights and issues of constitutional law, and is therefore irrelevant. As evidenced by many laws in our history that have been overturned, passing them because of majority support does not ensure their constitutionality.

      As far as executive orders, yes, I believe they are a problem in many cases, not simply those by President Obama attempting to advance his agenda in the face of opposition.

      Where you inferred that I am “angry” because I can’t get a drug covered by insurance that my doctor and I believe is the best option available for my health is beyond me. It was simply used to illustrate a point and negate the argument that “women’s health” rights are being violated by not covering EVERY fda-approved drug/device for contraceptive purposes. Millions of Americans face the fact every day that not every fda approved drug or device they may need or want for any medical condition is covered by insurance and it doesn’t mean their “rights” are being violated.

      “Why would you want 5 men to decide an issue on the basis of religious belief that would negate an executive order by the President?”

      I wouldn’t. However, that’s not what happened. It wasn’t decided on the basis of the male justice’s personal religious beliefs, but on the basis of the right of freedom of religion guaranteed by the constitution, and a President’s executive order doesn’t sweep away that right. The order was very narrowly written, your belief that it applies to all employers in the nation notwithstanding. It doesn’t. But of course, I agree you and I are both entitled to our opinions, and I wish you a nice day as well.

      • Helloise says:

        1. You assume that one definition of “religious freedom” is accepted by everyone else, which simply isn’t the case and the people who have disagreed with the court’s ruling on that basis include those who identify themselves as Christian.

        2. Even the definition of “abortofacients” is completely subjective and disputed by every legitimate medical association. Yes, every human being is entitled to his or her own opinion and religious beliefs, but the question is should private corporations be allowed to impose those beliefs on others by depriving them of their rights to access to anything they are entitled to by law? Why do their beliefs automatically trump their employees’ beliefs and in this case, patients’ right to privacy?

        3. The reality is that Hobby Lobby has been providing health insurance to their employees — and good for them! — for years and almost certainly insurance that covers all means of birth control. The only difference now is that birth control is included on a medically sound list of products and procedures classified as preventative care meaning that insurance companies agreed with the government that birth control used by 90% of the female population at some point in their lives for a wide range of reasons should no longer be be subjected to a co-pay adding to the extra fees that women were being charged based solely on gender.

        4. It should also be pointed out that Hobby Lobby had no problem opening a store in Massachusetts, which has had the same mandate under Romneycare to which they voiced no objections. They have also invested in pharma companies that make the products the very products they condemn and appear perfectly happy to trade with China, a country responsible for mandating abortions.

        5. As ACA was constructed with input from every presumed interested party — insurers, medical societies and physicians, patients rights groups, religious institutions, even Republicans in congress despite the fact they intended to vote against it on “principle” — following a model inclusive of the private sector, to suggest that this president or any president would have the power to demand that insurance companies cover every drug and service imaginable is at best disingenuous. The bottom line is that it is insurance companies interest to provide coverage for all forms of birth control, not only because it allows physicians and patients to decide what’s best, but it’s a lot less expensive than providing services for pregnant women.

        6. After the decision there was a lot of talk, particularly from the religious lobbying/law firm that found and is funding the lawsuits regarding the birth control mandate, about the “sincerity” of the Green family. From everything I’ve read and observed, I have no doubt that this family is indeed sincere, but what that has to do with this legal decision, or any legal decision including the inevitable suits to follow alludes me? We’re talking about appointed judges, not Solomon here. It’s pretty ironic to see five men capably of blithely disregarding say, the emotional testimony of those affected by voting restrictions turn around and use “sincerity” as a component of their decision.

      • monicaangela says:

        Not being eristic, I have to refer you to the last sentence in my statement. “I don’t believe you see the implication behind this action, but you are entitled to your opinion and so am I. Have a nice day.” That means I have had my say, thank you for your response.

        • cyndibru says:

          Thank you, Monicaangela. I learned a new word! “Eristic”….I had to look it up. I will keep that in mind when/if we respond to the same threads again. I AM eristic, so please do not take it personally, that I usually feel that some type of response to new points of discussion or expansion of arguments is in order.

          • monicaangela says:

            You’re welcome cyndibru. I noticed from reading some of your post, and from my conversation with you that you were probably eristic.

            Specious argument is not something I have a lot of patience with. I usually try to notice during conversation if a person holds heartfelt opposing views. If that person is determined to continue to interject new material to try to make a point or keep the interchange going even after knowing the opposing party will not be convinced that to me is tantamount to a waste of time. At some point, one has to agree to disagree and move on.

            I’m sure that if we continue to post on this site, we will have conversations in the future…I look forward to them. Time is valuable, the idea is to make your point, give the opposing party an opportunity to make their point, and when you notice the opposing party will not be convinced…agree to disagree and move on. :)

  5. cyndibru says:

    @KillgoreTrout….you wrote:
    Wrong. The ACA does mandate insurance coverage for contraceptives. I don’t believe it stipulates the moral difference between such contraceptives.

    That is the whole argument behind the SC’s decision……morality, based on religious beliefs.

    The ACA does NOT make such distinctions. If you believe it does, then show me, title and section, where the ACA makes such moral,OR medical distinctions!

    I believe the ones making such distinctions are Hobby Lobby and their lawyers.

    Once again, you employ the tactics of reductionism to narrow this issue down to a single point, contraception. It’s about much more than contraception. This issue is about a corporation, that employs people from the general population, and having the right to discriminate on religious foundations.

    This is CLEARLY a violation of the ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE in the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution! How can you not see this? This isn’t about pro-life or pro-choice only!

    My response:
    I’m sorry, but you’re wrong about what the ACA itself says. It’s common knowledge where the comprehensive contraceptive mandate came from: the administration and specifically the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If you think it’s in there, please show me where.
    You can google it yourself, but here’s what Wikipedia has to say:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraceptive_mandate_(United_States)
    “ACA mandatory coverage for contraceptives[edit]

    “With the exception of churches and houses of worship, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act mandates contraceptive coverage for all employers and educational institutions, even though the mandate itself is not included in the wording of the law(s) [1] passed by Congress. The mandate applies to all new health insurance plans effective August 2012. It controversially includes Christian hospitals, Christian charities, Catholic universities, and other enterprises owned or controlled by religious organizations that oppose contraception on doctrinal grounds.

    On January 20, 2012, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced a (then) final rule of an August 1, 2011 interim final rule on health insurance coverage with no cost sharing for FDA-approved contraceptives and contraceptive services (including female sterilization) for women of reproductive age if prescribed by health care providers, as part of women’s preventive health services guidelines adopted by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) for the Affordable Care Act. Male contraception is not eligible.[18]

    Regulations[19] made under the act rely on the recommendations of the independent Institute of Medicine (IOM) in its July 19, 2011 report Clinical Preventive Services for Women: Closing the Gaps, which concluded that birth control is medically necessary “to ensure women’s health and well-being.”

    The administration allowed a religious exemption. The exemption initially applied to church organizations themselves, but not to affiliated nonprofit corporations, like hospitals, that do not rely primarily on members of the faith as employees.[20] An amendment, the Blunt Amendment, was proposed that “would have allowed employers to refuse to include contraception in health care coverage if it violated their religious or moral beliefs,”[21] but it was voted down 51-48 by the U.S. Senate on March 1, 2012.[22]”

    I don’t know how much clearer it can be to you that the contraceptive mandate was not included in the law as written, but was mandated by the administration’s HHS department as part of their discretionary “implementation”. Your arguments flow from a false premise.

    • PollyTics says:

      “Once again, you employ the tactics of reductionism to narrow this issue down to a single point, contraception. It’s about much more than contraception. This issue is about a corporation, that employs people from the general population, and having the right to discriminate on religious foundations.”
      ==============================

      Reductionism is a derogatory term used oftentimes to minimize the points of your opponent when your own efforts remain a bit obscured. And yet it is incredibly helpful to the gist of the debate if we clarify and/or simplify our densely written laws. It would help us all if we could get beyond such terms and discuss the actual efforts in the legislation.

      You claim that all of this is about “This issue is about a corporation…having the right to discriminate on religious foundations” and yet there is a very distinct difference in how we view church and state. The problematic issue is that the SC has wrongly determined that corporations are now “people” and in so doing have now spun numerous theories which will be tried and tested for years to come.

      You claim this is NOT merely about contraception but the entirety of the corporate needs in contrast to the women’s right to birth control. The problem is not in Killgore’s supposed “false premise” but in a badly written and formulated theory that huge corporations somehow have the same Constitutional rights as an individual.

      • cyndibru says:

        PollyTics, I’m a little confused trying to follow your comment, because most of what you’re addressing here is comments originally made by Killgore that I copied and responded to, in the context of a larger debate where several different arguments and points were advanced. Here, I was focusing on several specific points in Killgore’s original multi-point argument. When I learned debate, we were taught that if part of your argument doesn’t stand up to factual scrutiny, your argument is weakened. That doesn’t mean Killgore can’t continue to make other points, or that we can’t discuss other points that were included in the intial assertion and response. Perhaps my “style” isn’t “the norm” around here, but if I present something as a “fact”, not an opinion, and I am challenged on it and proven wrong, I’ll at least acknowledge that, and in having to do so, it’s a tacit admission that I’m not as informed or correct in my arguments as I thought. Then I’ll have to concede that particular point and move on to another argument to support my position, or rethink my position.

    • Well just who do you think the HHS works for? You still have not shown me where, exactly in the ACA it makes any distinction as regards to what type of female contraception is or is not mandated in the Affordable Care Act. AFFORDABLE, being the key word here.

      How hard is this to understand? The whole point of the bill is to make healthcare INSURANCE more affordable and by means of doing so, covering more healthcare costs, by the insurers that get paid to cover these costs. Preventative health care is a key part of keeping health care cost down. Do you really believe that denying women the proper preventative care, which includes contraception, is doing anything to limit the overall costs of health care?

      Once AGAIN, you try to use reduction tactics to make this issue only about one thing. It’s an old, moldy trick of the right.

      • cyndibru says:

        It IS about only one thing. The SCOTUS decision was a very narrow ruling on a specific point of law, not withstanding all of your claims to the contrary. When you assert how you think things SHOULD be, and claim as supporting facts statements that are NOT facts, your argument is rendered moot.

        And again, like a broken record, no one is “denying women contraception”, anymore than anyone is “denying people diabetes treatment” by not covering EVERY diabetes drug out there. Female contraception drug/devices was the ONLY medical category where the administration decided that EVERY fda-approved drug/device for that stated purpose MUST be covered….nowhere does it say that in the ACA, for contraception or for any other medical category for females OR for males. If it is “discrimination” and “denial of rights” to not require employers to pay for EVERY fda-approved drug device for female contraception purposes, then it’s “discrimination” and “denial of rights” to not require mandated insurance coverage for EVERY fda-approved drug or device for ANY medical purpose, for any individual, male or female.

        • Thanks for the reply cyndi, I guess we’ll simply have to disagree on this matter.

          The SC’s decision sets a dangerous precedent.

          • monicaangela says:

            It amazes me that these people, the owners of Hobby Lobby are getting away with using their religious beliefs to save a couple of bucks…they are against abortion…are they Christians? If so, they must realize that the bible is one of the bloodiest books ever written, the murder of children by God during the plagues of Egypt being one pronounced event.

            We know abortion was practiced in biblical times from the passage in Numbers (note 1) where alleged infidelity is tested by giving an abortifacient potion to an accused pregnant woman. The “bitter water” used to “bring on the curse” may have been quinine or several of other herbal and natural concoctions that are considered emmagogues, or drugs that bring on menstruation.

            Such herbs and other concoctions are in reality often implantation inhibitors or abortifacients. According to the biblical tale, if the woman had not been unfaithful, the drug would not work and the pregnancy was assumed to be the husband’s child. If she miscarried, she was considered guilty of adultery and no questionable parentage ensued.

            Abortion was recorded in 1550 B.C.E. in Egypt, recorded in what is called the Ebers Papyrus and in ancient China about 500 B.C.E. as well. In China, folklore dates the use of mercury to induce abortions to about 5,000 years ago.

  6. Beatlex says:

    The right is rotten to the core reaching right into the Supreme Court.You HAVE to get out the vote my American friends,and make sure that the next scotus appointments are made by a democrat.It is the only way to reverse all this madness

  7. The conservative supporters hailing this decision have already tipped their hand. Remember that the Religious Right ‘persuaded’ all of the 2012 GOP presidential candidates to support a Human Life Amendment which, broadly interpreted, would make the Pill and IUD’s illegal (it defines life as beginning at conception). Randall Terry and other xian right activists have drawn a target on contraception altogether, defining human eggs as the ‘preborn’. I don’t think they’ll ever get that passed (it opens up a whole can of worms about prenatal exposure to toxins and the ability to sue for redress). But it’s out there.

  8. Zeke says:

    SCOTUS hands yet another victory to the anti-science crowd…
    …by actually ignoring science.

    “Alito and the four other conservative justices on the court were essentially overruling not just an Obamacare regulation, but science. According to the Food and Drug Administration, all four of the contraceptive methods Hobby Lobby objects to—Plan B, Ella, and two intrauterine devices—do not prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg into the uterus, which the owners of Hobby Lobby consider abortion. Instead, these methods prevent fertilization.

    Yet this scientific determination did not guide the five justices. In his opinion, Alito contends that these four contraception methods “may have the effect of preventing an already fertilized egg from developing any further by inhibiting its attachment to the uterus.” He does not cite any science to back this up (HA! Scoff!). Instead, in a footnote, Alito concedes that Hobby Lobby’s religious-based assertions are contradicted by science-based federal regulations: “The owners of the companies involved in these cases and others who believe that life begins at conception regard these four methods as causing abortions, but federal regulations, which define pregnancy as beginning at implantation, do not so classify them.” Still, he and the other conservative justices are saying that in a conflict between a religious view and scientific research, religion wins.”

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/supreme-court-hobby-lobby-decision

    Yet again, Christians are allowed to impose their religious beliefs onto others. Oh, and the ruling is supposedly only regarding the contraception issue, thereby ensuring that in no way can this be turned back on Christians. There will be no “what’s good for the goose, is good for the gander.” Nope, now it’s going to be “suck it up goose, while the least educated among the gander scream at you while holding a hateful sign and video camera from outside the floating buffer zone”

    Women’s rights lose again.

    Venting complete… for now.

  9. monicaangela says:

    Bearing False Witness is the least of their sins, this is a ploy by those who would control our government and the people in this nation. It is a well known fact that the Court’s decisions in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby and Harris v. Quinn conform to an established pattern for the Roberts Court. It’s generally a two-step process: in confronting a politically charged issue, the court first decides a case in a “narrow” way, but then uses that decision as a precedent to move in a more dramatic, conservative direction in a subsequent case. We need to remain vigilant, this isn’t the last of this.

    Another thing, what about men and their use of reproductive medication? Hobby Lobby continues to cover vasectomies and treatment for erectile dysfunction…including VIAGRA (presumably including for unmarried men.) Why wasn’t this coverage a part of their case?

    • Monica, I used the ‘bearing false witness’ phrase because it’s Biblical language from the Big Ten. During W’s second term, there was a move afoot to excommunicate W and Cheney from the Methodist Church for breaking the Commandments (Bearing false witness, coveting thy neighbors’ property, and the old ‘thou shalt not kill’ thing). It was from the laity, and it never got much traction. But the fundi crowd applauding this SCOTUS decision would find such arguments compelling.
      And they H8 to be called out for their hypocrisy, especially from a liberal who’s doing it via the Bible. They’re less impressed with legal arguments based on ‘man’s law’.

    • sillylittleme says:

      What I found interesting was the arguments that those who support HL were making. The usual female shaming (even by other women) was one meme. Another was that she should pay for it herself, apparently they missed the part where the court stated that the government would provide it. The “taxed-enough-aholes” are fine with that decision. Stupid is as stupid does…

      Oh the ratio of supporters was far and away less than the protestors. Should be an interesting summer as they are opening stores in some rather “blue” areas.

  10. sillylittleme says:

    According to their website, they have two new stores opening next week. One in Burbank and another in Port Arthur. Which do you think will have the most protesters? Their website is teeming with some really wonderful posts and I hope that we don’t let up.

  11. Harleigh says:

    Who didn’t see this coming? seriously. Republicans/baggers always do the most damage to the most people in this country that they can whenever they can. Same with all the evangelical jebus freaks also too. I don’t understand how any real woman could vote for or have anything to do with them much less vote for any of them or go to those phony church cult places either. We have to start eliminating these bozos at the polls first….

    • sillylittleme says:

      The narrow ruling is so absurd that it defies all credulity. The gang of five have just set women’s healthcare rights back a couple of decades.

      And the Green family may end up regretting interfering with doctor/patient confidentiality. Which apparently the gang of 5 is just fine with…

  12. Miles Long says:

    Bottom line, the hallmark of the religious Right is congenital, compulsive dishonesty…

    Miles “All Else Is Bullshit” Long

  13. MurphTheSurf3 says:

    You want hypocrisy, here’s hypocrisy.

    Hobby Lobby has about $73 million invested in the company that makes the Plan B morning-after pill, another that makes a copper IUD, the maker of the abortion-inducing drugs and health companies that cover surgical abortions.

    • monicaangela says:

      Each year, millions of aspiring mothers in China are forced to undergo abortions or sterilizations under the One-Child Policy. For the majority of Chinese people, pregnancy with a second child and any pregnancy without a birth permit is considered “out-of-plan” and therefore illegal. Family Planning Officials, tasked with ensuring “out-of-plan” children are never born, track down pregnant women and forcibly terminate pregnancies. Pregnancy termination methods can be unsafe, often lacking anesthetics and proper sanitation. The consequences can be hemorrhaging, infections, or lifelong injuries such as paralysis—in some cases even death.

      Where does most of the merchandise sold by Hobby Lobby come from? You guessed it…..CHINA…funny their religious beliefs don’t stop them from doing business with a nation where forced abortion is the law. Hobby Lobby is fine with forced abortions and mandatory contraception in China, but balks at voluntary contraception for American women, is it the contraception, or the cost of providing insurance that covers contraception? Is this about religion or greed? I wonder…

      • MurphTheSurf3 says:

        Devastating.

        I would like to utilize your info here as part of a longer post at Daily Kos and here highlighting the two faced nature of the HL claim. Have you any other tidbits that might be of help.

        I would also appreciate a link to a source for your info re. Chinese abortion measures and HL’s merchandise origins

        • sillylittleme says:

          Murph, don’t forget to include in your argument:

          1 -- The fact that until the mandate their healthcare insurance covered what they now refuse to cover.

          2 -- The fact that they have investments in the companies that makes Plan B and IUDs.

          • MurphTheSurf3 says:

            Thanks for the Mother Jones lead…just finished reading the article -- excellent. Building the case.

          • MurphTheSurf3 says:

            I have that info but would appreciate any source info that you, or others, could provide.

            • sillylittleme says:

              I found this in Mother Jones -- “On many levels, the Hobby Lobby case is a mess of bad facts, political opportunism, and questionable legal theories that might be laughable had some federal courts not taken them seriously. Take for instance Hobby Lobby’s argument that providing coverage for Plan B and Ella substantially limits its religious freedom. The company admits in its complaint that until it considered filing the suit in 2012, its generous health insurance plan actually covered Plan B and Ella (though not IUDs). The burden of this coverage was apparently so insignificant that God, and Hobby Lobby executives, never noticed it until the mandate became a political issue.”

              http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/03/hobby-lobby-supreme-court-obamacare

      • Nirek says:

        That shows their hypocrisy clearly, Monica. Too bad the SCJ’s who made the ruling didn’t do some research before making a very bad decision.


Leave your Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Back to top
PlanetPOV Tweets
Sponsors
Features