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.”
Karen, no one here on this thread has said that they don’t have a right to express their opinions or even fight for them in court because of their hypocrisy and insincerity. Did I miss that ?
By the same means, my sincerity in my opposition to GMOs could be called into question if I invested in mutual funds with Monsanto shares at any given time.
In essence, the validity of their argument is called into question because of their 401K mutual fund investments. Saying someone has no right to their opinion because of hypocrisy in their own lives is a method often used to shut down debate.
I acknowledge the hypocrisy is there, but I believe too much is made of it because we all live in glass houses. I prefer to focus on the merits of the case in court, as well as balancing the needs of freedom of religion with the needs of individuals to health care. There is a line there, and we need open discussion to find it.
Karen, I don’t think that revealing Hobby Lobby’s hypocrisy and insincerity is an attempt at silencing them, or discussion here. This is a very public case held in the highest court in the land, much is a stake here, both for them and for people like me who consider corporations legal entities as opposed to people.
Karen,
“…we now have many people and media outlets saying HL has no right to fight for an opinion because of hypocritical 401K investments.”
I don’t think that’s necessarily what all the “many people and media outlets” are saying. I think some of us are questioning how firmly held HL’s religious belief is about the immorality of women using the contraceptives of which the Green family disapproves if the company invests money in companies that manufacture those products. I believe we have good reason to do so.
Yes, it is hypocritical. I am so curious as to what their explanation is. Maybe we disagree on its level of importance until I hear more.
Personally, I despise Monsanto and GMO food, especially wind-pollinated crops that cannot be contained. However, I have absolutely no idea where my mutual funds invest. For all I know I could be neck-deep in Monsanto funds. We are all rife with hypocrisy that would never withstand public scrutiny. I would hate to be silenced because I may not have caught every way I don’t “walk the walk.”
“Never thinking about the implications”, with so much at stake, one would think they would make sure they had all their I’s dotted and T’s crossed. It’s much more than scandalous, it goes to the heart of their sincerity.
Hi Elaine:
If you read my post referenced above, I discussed the difficulties with the “but what about you argument”. I didn’t want to repost or get too repetitive. It’s a long thread, so I’ll repost:
“On the one hand, HL might want to consider divesting itself of stocks in companies with which they take issue. On the other hand, “but what about you” is a common means to try to block debate. For example, does someone have to right to protest offshore drilling if he has a 401K up to its neck in oil and gas? Can a father never demand that something be done about cars speeding by his child’s school if he got a speeding ticket once in a school zone?
Too often, we try to find ways to say, in essence, someone does not have a right to express an opinion, instead of addressing the opinion itself. Because now instead of addressing how responsive Congress needs to be to religious freedom when they craft new laws, or what the legal chances are of challenging laws under religious objection, we now have many people and media outlets saying HL has no right to fight for an opinion because of hypocritical 401K investments. We can cut down just about everyone with the same argument – Michael Moore shouldn’t condemn the rich because he is rich, Warren Buffet says the rich should be taxed more but doesn’t pay all his taxes . . . To a degree we all live in glass houses and could all be silenced in a public forum.
But sometimes we do have a Leland Yee, who pushes gun control while gun running himself. Did Hobby Lobby never look into the “day after pill” until the ACA came about, and then researched it? Did they divest in 2012? Did they know they were invested in pharmaceutical companies (an extremely common investment) but considered it investing in medical research to help people, without investigating every company and what it produced? Or were they publicly against the morning after pill while privately running an abortion clinic on the premises? There is a wide range of possibilities here. Simply being ignorant of what their mutual funds invested in, or never thinking about the implications, just does not sound too scandalous to me. Believe me, I’ve heard of much worse behavior from politicians of any party.”
Karen S
Hi Elaine:
“I believe the ‘but what about you argument’ has already been addressed above.”
What is that supposed to mean? Could you clarify that comment?
**********
Mike A.,
“I do not regard John Rawls as the ‘darling philosopher’ of liberals. But I did have the privilege of studying under him and found him to be not only deeply committed to a just and moral social order, but profoundly humane as well.”
Hmmm….a man committed to a just and moral social order who was profoundly humane. Those qualities might make him suspect in the eyes of some.
Mike – my posts have gotten stuck in a filter.
btw, thanks Mike
Nick:
I don’t doubt it. That’s the difference between going into a large law firm and a small shop. When you make law review, you immediately begin receiving invitations to cocktail parties sponsored by big law. (At least, that’s how it was done then.) I attended a few and didn’t care for the people, frankly. I opted instead for a four lawyer firm that threw me into a courtroom within days of getting my license. Of course, that also meant a major financial tradeoff, but most of my friends who chose large firms and larger salaries wound up leaving within a few years anyway. I guess there’s no right answer.
MikeA, That’s an interesting assignment. You were lucky. The firm I worked for, Clausen Miller, had recent Northwestern, ND, DePaul, Loyola, John Marshall grads, grinding out 70 hours a week of billable hours on tedious subrogation cases. They had glazed looks and nicotine stained fingers. When we went out drinking on Friday nights boy did they let loose!!
Paul Schulte:
I found and released your comment.
If you have read my previous posts on Roe v. Wade, you would know that I have more than passing familiarity with the case. The Supreme Court decision was based upon the right to privacy; its logic was not predicated on the circumstances surrounding the pregnancy.
Further, should we adopt a constitutional amendment granting personhood status to fertilized ova, the implications are much more profound than people realize. For starters, exceptions for rape or incest would run afoul of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Nick:
I worked as a “slave” for several years after graduation. But my boss didn’t have me pushing paper around. My very first assignment was drafting a contract between a major television network and an NFL player represented by my boss to provide color commentary for Sunday games. During the course of my labors, I regularly fantasied about network lawyers reviewing my work and laughing hysterically.
http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/ecwork.html
I’m correcting myself here. Plan B and ELLA don’t affect a fertilized egg at all, they prevent ovulation. An IUD doesn’t necessarily affect conception, but does prevents implantation.
How Emergency Contraception Works
How does emergency contraception prevent pregnancy?
Emergency contraceptive pills prevent pregnancy primarily, or perhaps exclusively, by delaying or inhibiting ovulation. There is no evidence to suggest that either of the FDA-approved emergency contraceptive options, levonorgestrel (LNG, such as Plan B One-Step, Next Choice One Dose, Next Choice, and Levonorgestrel Tablets) or ulipristal acetate (UPA, such as ella) works after an egg is fertilized. In two recent studies1,2 of the levonorgestrel regimen, women who presented for EC were monitored to identify their menstrual cycle day and ascertain which women took EC before ovulation, and which took it after. Among women taking LNG before ovulation, there were no pregnancies. Among those who took it on the day of ovulation or after, there were about the number of pregnancies that would be expected with no use of EC; if LNG were effective at preventing implantation, it would most certainly be more effective when taken after ovulation. A 2010 study 3 of ulipristal acetate (ella) found that at certain doses, it can decrease the thickness of the endometrium (by 0.6 to 2.2 mm), but it is not clear that this would in fact prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg.
The Copper-T IUD does not affect ovulation, but it can prevent sperm from fertilizing an egg. It may also prevent implantation of a fertilized egg.
Emergency contraceptive pills will not cause an abortion. EC is not the same as the abortion pill. There is no point in a woman’s cycle when the emergency contraceptive pills available in the United States would end a pregnancy once it has started. Hormonal emergency contraceptive pills don’t have any effect if you are already pregnant. If you decide to have use an IUD for emergency contraception, your health care provider would first confirm that you are not already pregnant.
Click here for information about research showing how emergency contraception works and more details about the possible mechanisms of action.
1. Novikova N, Weisberg E, Stanczyk FZ, Croxatto HB, Fraser, IS. Effectiveness of levonorgestrel emergency contraception given before or after ovulation – a pilot study.Contraception 2007;75: 112-118.
2. Noé G, Croxatto HB, Salvatierra AM, Reyes V, Villarroel C, Muñoz C, Morales G, Retamales A. Contraceptive efficacy of emergency contraception with levonorgestrel given before or after ovulation. Contraception 2011;84:486-492.
3. Stratton P, Levens E, Hartog B, Piquion J, Wei Q, Merino M, Nieman L. Endometrial effects of a single early luteal dose of the selective progesterone receptor modulator CDB-2915. Fertility and Sterility 2010;93:2035-2041.
1 Statement on Contraceptive Methods. Washington DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, July 1998.
Paul, I worked for and w/ many law firms. Attorneys out of law school serve a horrible sentence, it’s called “Associate.” They are slaves to partners.
Mike – you do know that Roe v Wade was based on a falsehood? Roe claimed to have been raped, but actually got pregnant from her boyfriend. Now put those facts into the case and think about whether SCOTUS would have decided Roe the way they did.
So, if only 30-50% of the viable zygotes are destroyed then it’s OK? What’s the cutoff? If 50-70% of the zygotes WERE viable then would it be OK to oppose that method in your philosophy?
Mike – although there are some ‘dirty shirt’ attorneys who go straight from bar exam to office practice, most serve some type of internship. Today I think it is called ‘doc review.’