Respectfully submitted by Lawrence E. Rafferty (rafflaw)-Weekend Contributor
Unless you have been in a coma the last few weeks, you have probably heard of or read about the Hobby Lobby case recently argued in front of the United States Supreme Court. Hobby Lobby is challenging a section of the Affordable Care Act that requires companies to provide medical insurance for their employees or pay a fine. The mandate also requires the insurance to include coverage for contraception services. Services that its owners claim violates their religious beliefs.
“…. the battle for its Christian identity was revived this week when lawyers for the company argued before the Supreme Court that the company should not have to comply with the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate. The issue, says Hobby Lobby co-founder Barbara Green, isn’t that the company wants to meddle with women’s rights to take contraceptive drugs. “We’re not trying to control that,” she said. “We’re just trying to control our participation in it.” ‘ Reader Supported News
Mrs. Green claims they are not trying to control their female employees use of contraceptives, but the network of causes that they are involved with seem to indicate that the Greens want to mix their religious views into everyone else’s business.
When you dig a little deeper, the facts indicate that the donations made by the Green family and their related businesses and executives, display an attempt to force their religious beliefs on others.
“But a document published here for the first time reveals Hobby Lobby appears to be going much further than protecting freedom, providing funding for a group that backs a political network of activist groups deeply engaged in pushing a Christian agenda into American law. The document shows entities related to the company to be two of the largest donors to the organization funding a right-wing Christian agenda, investing tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars into a vast network of organizations working in concert to advance an agenda that would allow businesses to discriminate against gays and lesbians and deny their employees contraceptives under a maximalist interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause of the United States Constitution.
That network of activist groups has succeeded in passing legislation in Arizona requiring women to undergo an ultrasound before an abortion, banning taxpayer-funded insurance paying for government employees’ abortions, defining marriage as a union between a man and woman, and funding abstinence education. And there’s evidence that its efforts go well beyond the borders of the Copper State.” Reader Supported News
The above efforts by Hobby Lobby and its owners seems to conflict with Mrs. Greens claim that they are not trying to meddle with women’s right to use contraceptives. Just how deeply is Hobby Lobby involved in these organizations funding and assisting with these efforts to restrict other citizens of their freedoms?
“Hobby Lobby-related entities are some of the biggest sources of funding to the National Christian Charitable Foundation, which backed groups that collaborated in promoting the anti-gay legislation in Arizona – recently vetoed by Gov. Jan Brewer – that critics say would have legalized discrimination against gays and lesbians by businesses.
The path of SB 1062 to the Arizona statehouse was built by two groups, the Center for Arizona Policy and the Alliance Defending Freedom. Center for Arizona Policy employees regularly spoke in favor of the legislation, appearing as the grass-roots face of a bill that the center’s president, Cathi Herrod, characterized as “[making] certain that governmental laws cannot force people to violate their faith unless it has a compelling governmental interest–a balancing of interests that has been in federal law since 1993,” according to a statement on the group’s website. (One hundred and twenty-three Center for Arizona Policy-supported measures have been signed into law; its legislative agenda ranges from requiring intrusive ultrasounds for women seeking abortions to HB 2281, a bill that, if passed by the Arizona Senate, would exempt religious institutions from paying property taxes on leased or rented property.)
For its part, the Alliance Defending Freedom, a national Christian organization based in Arizona, works toward the “spread of the Gospel by transforming the legal system and advocating for religious liberty, the sanctity of life, and marriage and family,” according to the group’s website. Both groups are heavily funded by the National Christian Charitable Foundation, “the largest Christian grant-making foundation in the world,” as described on the group’s website. And who is the largest funder of National Christian Charitable? That would be a Hobby Lobby executive.” Reader Supported News
It would appear to this reader that Hobby Lobby does quite a bit more than just look after protecting what it considers its own religious rights. Their donations and efforts are geared toward making their religious beliefs the law of the land. They seem to think the Free Exercise Clause allows them to dictate how other people have to exercise their lives. Just how much money has Hobby Lobby and its executives donated to the cause of transforming the legal system?
“In 2011, the National Christian Charitable Foundation contributed $9,606,281.88 of the Alliance Defending Freedom’s $36,379,373 grant revenue. That same year, the NCF contributed $236,250 of the Center for Arizona Policy’s $1,662,355 in grant revenue.
Overall, from 2002 to 2011 the NCF contributed $1,481,343 to the Center for Arizona Policy and $31,024,584.30 to the Alliance Defending Freedom.
Typically the trail would stop there. The National Christian Charitable Foundation appears to be one of the biggest, if not the biggest, single contributor to the Alliance Defending Freedom and the Center for Arizona Policy, but because the foundation is a massive-donor advised fund, its donors are shielded from public scrutiny.
However, a 2009 NCF tax filing, reported here for the first time, offers insights into the deep pockets backing National Christian Charitable Foundation.
The form, viewable here, shows a total of nearly $65 million in contributions coming from a combination of Jon Cargill, who is the CFO of Hobby Lobby, and “Craft Etc.,” an apparent misspelling of Crafts Etc., a Hobby Lobby affiliate company. The document shows that Hobby Lobby‑related contributions were the single largest source of tax-deductible donations to National Christian Charitable’s approximately $383.785 million in 2009 grant revenue.
According to addresses on the filing, both the contributions from Crafts Etc. and Jon Cargill came from a massive warehouse and office facility housing Hobby Lobby’s headquarters in Oklahoma City.” Reader Supported News
Notwithstanding Mrs. Greens earlier claims, Hobby Lobby seems to be deeply involved in the business of pushing their religious beliefs upon their employees and upon citizens in many states where laws have been introduced or passed at the behest of the Alliance Defending Freedom and the Center for Arizona Policy and the National Christian Charitable Foundation. I wonder how Hobby Lobby would react if another business sued for the ability to subtract a percentage of its taxes on the grounds that their religion does not allow their tax money to be spent on any military expenses?
Is Hobby Lobby fibbing when they claim that they are merely trying to protect their own religious beliefs when they are sending millions of dollars to causes intent on making their religious beliefs the law of the land? Hobby Lobby buys millions of products from China and other countries that have a variety of policies and laws that a good Christian would not agree with or which might violate their religious beliefs. Shouldn’t Hobby Lobby boycott those countries products that are produced under slave like conditions, or in countries that have forced abortion laws?
What do you think?
“The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.”
Help Help Help – the spam filter has eaten my post. Help
Paul Schulte:
Even though I attended law school back in the Middle Ages, I still accrued student loans of approximately $10,000.00 by the time I graduated, a paltry sum by today’s standards, but not insignificant 40 years ago. But law school loans pale in comparison to medical school loans. Medical school is more expensive, lasts longer and is followed by internships and residencies before a physician is able to go into private practice. There really is no fair comparison there.
Paul Schulte:
What Hobby Lobby wants is an exemption from providing coverage for what its owners perceive to be abortafacients. There is a difference of opinion as to whether prevention of implantation of a fertilized ovum constitutes abortion. That debate will continue because the entire abortion debate in this country has never been properly framed. The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade expressly declined to address the issue of when life begins. What they did say was that abortions during the first trimester are not subject to prohibition. We have never arrived at a consensus on the principal question: at what point during its development should a fetus receive legal recognition as a person? My view is that that question should not be determined on a state by state basis because of its constitutional implications.
I am also familiar with what occurred in the Phoenix case and addressed it in a column a couple of months ago. http://jonathanturley.org/2014/02/10/the-means-case-medical-ethics-and-the-usccb/ Sister McBride was declared excommunicated by her bishop, but most theologians believe that he misconstrued the Catholic medical directives in that case. She was reassigned, but remains employed at St. Josephs. In addition, the hospital continued to be operated by a Catholic healthcare system despite the withdrawal of the bishop’s support.
Mike Appleton wrote: “… at what point during its development should a fetus receive legal recognition as a person? My view is that that question should not be determined on a state by state basis because of its constitutional implications.”
What if the pesky Fourteenth Amendment were repealed, would you then allow States to make their own decisions about what constituted murder of the unborn?
RU 486 kills the zygote. ELLA, Plan B and IUDs prevent implantation. 50 to 70% of zygotes never implant naturally.
Mike – those interns would have no more trouble than 4Ls trying to pay off their loans.
I think my latest post was lost. Can someone find it?
Paul, Ella, Plan B and IUDs are not abortifacients. I posted two links that discuss this based on SCIENCE. One is from a Catholic publication and one is from the NYT, up thread somewhere.
Paul Schulte:
Those interns would have difficulty repaying those loans even in the absence of Obamacare. One of my former law partners specializes in healthcare law and is involved in negotiating managed care contracts with hospitals and health insurers. Some of his clients have experienced significant declines in personal income as a result of fee limitations imposed under those contracts. I should add that this was occurring long before the 2008 election.
Annie:
You are correct. My mother and one of my sisters were both RNs and worked extensively in a number of hospitals around the country. Birth control coverage was not an issue at Catholic hospitals. My belief is that it has become an issue primarily as part of the ongoing effort by evangelicals to import specific theological doctrine into positive law. http://jonathanturley.org/2012/02/13/contraception-and-separation/
Karen S:
Your mention of medical education reminded me of a conversation I had recently with a woman from New Zealand. In that country, medical students do not pay tuition and actually receive a stipend during their studies. The result is that young doctors are not driven to pursue narrow specialties rather than, for example, family practice, by the need to repay hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loans.
Mike – a couple of my doctors have interns following them around during their clinical practice. They are nervous that under Obamacare they will be unable to repay their student loans, much less buy a home or a boat.
Karen I recall back before the ACA when there were those who were advocating for exactly that, the status quo. “There’s nothing wrong with our health care system!” “We have the best healthcare system in the world!”, which was untrue. Where were we on the WHO listing, somewhere in the 30th place. Why was the status quo good then and not now? However I do agree that we should strive to improve our healthcare system, but I suspect that we have divergent paths and goals in doing so.
Mike and annie – birth control is not an issue in the Hobby Lobby case. What they want an exception to is the abortion methods.
St Joseph’s Hospital in Phoenix, AZ lost its Catholic affiliation because it carried out an abortion. The nun who approved the abortion was suspended from her order.
Annie – I know what you posted and there is not agreement on the science. Personally, I am ambivalent about IUDs, but Plan B is clearly, in my mind, intended as an abortifacient.
Annie – WHO rates the USA, who spends the most per capita on health care, number 37. Canada, whose health care system has been vaunted here, is number 30 (although they are 10th in per capita spending), the United Kingdom is rated 18 but is number 26 for per capita spending. According to WHO throwing money at the problem does not make it better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems_in_2000
If you read the article, you will see there is great controversy over methodology.
KarenS, Incremental was the way to go, but King Obama’s ego is voracious and needs constant feeding.
Few people understand the history of how health insurance became an employee benefit. It was “thanks” to FDR. During WW2 FDR places wage controls on employers. So, employers who wanted to increase wages for good employees, could not. Quite progressive! Creative employers started finding other ways to keep good employees. They came up w/ providing health insurance, which was a big hit. Well, FDR wanted to tax workers for that unpaid benefit. Quite progressive!! For one of the few times in this country’s history there was a successful tax revolt. Employees, w/ frozen wages, were not going to be taxed for this new benefit and the IRS HAD to back down or face a full blown revolt. Understanding how a liberal icon “handled” the beginning of employer provided healthcare should be edifying in seeing how it’s currently being handled.
Acknowledging that Obamacare was a failed experiment does not mean that one has to accept the status quo with health care.
Can you IMAGINE being an employer facing employee premiums like what I have, and the choices you would have to make?
And, yes, something has to be done, but raising premiums on average is not it.
I have heard ideas such as:
1) Give students scholarships for medical school with the stipulation that in return, they must donate a certain number of days at a free clinic for the life of their practice in the US. This would allow clinics access to top doctors.
2) Some doctors already have dropped all insurance, and now take retainers. In return for saving all that money on handling insurance, they now charge their patients much less.
3) Increase competition among insurance providers by allowing them to compete across state lines
4) Increase medical patent time to allow research companies more time to recoup their costs and losses, bringing down the cost of medications and driving more interest in research. If a contrary plan was allowed and generics were allowed after less time, there would be less interest in developing new medications.
5) Change the medical paradigm so that a doctor works in tandem with a nutritionist, and looks more at overall health and stress instead of chasing symptoms
6) https://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/advocacy/topics/health-care-costs.page
Mike, you are so right. I recall my insurance premiums going up exponentially in the 80’s and 90’s. I also recall back when I worked for a hospital owned by the Alexian Brothers, we had Prime Care which covered birth control. I don’t remember all Catholic facilities denying birth control coverage back then.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/01/27/senate-republicans-develop-the-most-credible-plan-yet-to-repeal-and-replace-obamacare/
Karen S.:
My insurance is a private plan through the Florida Bar. However, I have been an employer in the past. When I began my own firm many years ago, health insurance, including employee coverage with low deductibles, was frankly not a serious budget consideration. That is, it was less significant as a budgetary item than monthly office rent. That began to change markedly by the mid ’80s. By the mid ’90s premiums had jumped to such levels that my firm, with approximately 15 employees, had to increase deductibles and begin requiring employees to pay for dependent coverage. I purchased a private plan when I became a sole practitioner and saw annual premium increases of roughly 10% thereafter. I don’t know what the answer is, but something had to change because the current system was unsustainable. I personally favored a single payer system and regarded the ACA as a flawed compromise. However, I have yet to see any serious alternative proposals and implementation of the ACA has been resisted at every turn. If Congress has better ideas, I wish they would propose them rather than merely engaging in endless votes to repeal the current law.
MikeA, I too was taught by the Jesuits and for that I give continual thanks. At this point in the evolution of Obamacare almost everything is anecdotal, and spin is rampant. I think we can agree on that.
Mike – I am familiar with Roe v Wade and the right to privacy that the court magicked up to make it happen. My contention is that if the correct and accurate facts were before the trial court. Roe v Wade would never have made it to the Supreme Court.
I honestly and sincerely do not see how the middle class can survive the cost of Obamacare. Knocking people right out of the middle class cannot be an acceptable answer to the problem of health care for the poor.