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.”
David – health savings accounts are a great point. It would solve the whole problem if all insurance was bought on the private market, and employers set up health savings accounts that could be used for premiums or other healthcare costs. Insurers could provide choices in policies again – cheap catastrophic coverage that protect against medical bankruptcy all the way to Cadillac plans. You could buy whatever policy fit your own values and health care needs. And there are so many other ways we could bring down the cost of health care in general.
I think it is a valid argument to be concerned about how far protecting religious liberty can go, and finding balance. I think that if Obamacare mandated insurers to cover late term abortions, there would be more understanding of critics’ position. And many fear that such a situation could occur as politicians mandate what insurance companies must cover. People worry about a more extreme trend in health care just as much as others worry about giving too much leeway towards religious tolerance. Too much leeway could lead to condoning female circumcision be condoned on religious grounds, for example. It’s a legitimate concern that an employer might object to all contraceptive coverage. They had that right up until 2010. We should already have data on how often employers deny employees contraceptive coverage through insurance. Does anyone know how often that happened? Because I don’t.
For the decision to deny those last 4 contraceptives to be money-driven, such a denial would have to save Hobby Lobby money. Would their premiums go down if they did not cover those last 4, or was there no proposed change to their premiums? It seems more likely to be a money driven decision coming from an insurance company. They have a long history of denying coverage to protect their bottom line. (The industry has earned its tarnished reputation.)
A corporation is only as good or evil as the people running it. It is entirely possible to cloak a monetary decision in falsely pure intentions. But I don’t see a monetary win for them in spending massive amounts of money on a lawsuit when we don’t know if they would have any premium savings. And with the uproar, what was the net effect on their business – they would lose business from critics but gain some from supporters.
I couldn’t follow Annie’s link, but she stated an accepted definition of pregnancy as an implanted fetus. There are people who believe life begins at conception, and that blocking that life from implanting ends a life that wouldn’t have otherwise. It is true that many pregnancies fail early, often without the mother even being aware. But it is also true that pregnancies can fail at any gestation, and anyone can die at any age. A woman can’t smother her newborn and rationalize that many infants die of SIDS anyway. (Annie did not make such a statement. I am just taking it further.) On the other hand, there are those that believe that any contraception prevents life from even starting, hence that catchy song from Monty Python that I can’t get out of my head now, “Every Sperm is Sacred.”
I think it seems fair to say that the public would not accept a mandate requiring that late-term abortions be covered at no copay. Nor would they accept a religious exemption that would allow forced female circumcision. So there is a line. The question that will be thrashed out in court and at the ballot box is where to define that line.
When will I learn how to condense my thoughts?
And where does one draw the line?
Karen: Sorry, the above was addressed to you. To answer your question, Does Hobby Lobby oppose all contraceptives, more directly…give them time and a legal footing and they will.
We’re not talking about all families beliefs as they relate to contraception, only Hobby Lobby’s. HL is willing to pay for 16 contraceptives – for now, that might change if they win this case – but the last four are the most expensive, and therefore financially out of reach of the average HL employee.
As for the societal subjugation of women within the constraints of religious dictates, you may be empowered enough determine the course of your own life but many other women are less fortunate than you are; you have a sharp mind, you think clearly, and you”re apparently well educated. Corporations are in the numbers game, however. 1/4 pennies stack up. Put a million of them together and you’ve got some real money. Same thing applies to controlling behavior in a population; affect the behavior of a sizable percentage of a population, or a segment thereof, and significant results can be had. Waste managers, for instance, encourage people to recycle as much as possible, knowing that the majority of people may not do so. In their view, if they can get 40% of their customers to recycle, it’s a success. In the case of enforcing a religious code of morals upon women, the first step might be to target women in poverty, the underpaid, and those without much education, with low self-esteem, and build from there.
There’s a guy here who’s not religious, but would like to sit all wayward women down and lecture them about all their mistakes in religious terms. His agenda, shared by the religious conservatives, is to eliminate so-called promiscuous behavior among women and restrict sexual activity to married women. I may not be crazy about some of the guys my daughters go out with, but I also realize that there comes a time when a parent needs to let a child boogie-woogie.
You bring up an interesting point about whether HL cares if women go and out and purchase any of the four contraceptives they don’t want to be responsible for. I think HL’s religious objection is a sham; a screen behind which they’re hiding an economic motive. If HL truly doesn’t care how women manage their decisions over pregnancy, why doesn’t it just pay their workers more money, and allow women to go out and purchase or not purchase, as the case may be, contraceptives?
RTC wrote: “If HL truly doesn’t care how women manage their decisions over pregnancy, why doesn’t it just pay their workers more money, and allow women to go out and purchase or not purchase, as the case may be, contraceptives?”
I pretty sure Hobby Lobby would jump at this option. They would rather pay the money directly to their employees rather than to the government mandated insurance companies. They would rather let their employees make their own choices.
Unfortunately, our federal government in their infinite lack of wisdom has decided to force employers to supplement the economic bottom line of insurance companies and the medical professionals they are in cahoots with rather than forcing employers to create their own health savings accounts for their employees and paying out directly to real health care rather than what the government calls health care.
davidm:
My point is simply that we cannot have 50 different definitions of ‘person.’
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/13-354-BRIEF-OF-AMICI-CURIAE-PHYSICIANS-FOR-REPRODUCTIVE-HEALTH-et-al….pdf
Amicus brief by numerous physicians and medical associations stating that the four forms of contraception Hobby Lobby/ Consetoga objects to are not abortifacients.
RTC: Could you clarify something please? “Hobby Lobby must force their female employees to purchase 20 out of 20.”
Do you mean that HL opposes all contraception? Because it is my understanding that they currently provide something like 16 out of 20 different forms of contraception. They don’t try to prevent their employees from purchasing those last 4 on their own, but they don’t want to pay for them because it violates their faith.
Many married couples use contraception to plan their families, too. Some faiths oppose all contraception, but many do not. And families’ beliefs fall all along that range.
Byron: Why would I think eugenics is a good thing? That doesn’t even make sense.
Karen: You make an excellent point regarding the studies. That would be something worth looking into. As far as how many contraceptives one must purchase, Hobby Lobby must force their female employees to purchase 20 out of 20. I dare say that a biologist makes a heck of a lot more than someone working checkout at HL; forty bucks represents some dough to them.
David: I’m not cherry picking studies; women are free to to choose among several types of contraception. Armed with that information, they can go out and obtain the protection against pregnancy they’re comfortable with. The problem is, you believe that sex should be limited to procreation within the marital arrangement.
RTC wrote: “The problem is, you believe that sex should be limited to procreation within the marital arrangement.”
That is not my belief, nor have I ever argued for that. This is what others have falsely claimed my position to be simply because I have argued that procreation is the primary and natural function of sex in human beings.
I also would argue that many people have a valid and logical argument that all forms of chemical interference with the reproductive function is unnatural and immoral. Birth control is not health care because it promotes death not life. People are deceived into considering it health care because of the rhetoric of feminists and because a doctor must prescribe the medication that causes death to the potential life.
To force people to facilitate and pay for the immoral action of their employees is in itself also immoral. The proper direction of law in this matter for a pluralistic society like ours is to allow options for everyone without forcing anyone to be complicit in either the hedonistic philosophy of birth control or the more natural and disciplined philosophy that promotes life.
Hi Nick – thanks. I’m new to blogs, and I’m pretty sure people need a map to find my point sometimes. 🙂
RTC: I’m pretty sure we women were free to manage our own sex lives and choices before birth control became mandated in 2010 to be free of any copay. Hobby Lobby is not making sex more expensive than it was before. In fact, since premiums rose to offset having so many contraceptive choices free of copays, it can be argued that Obamacare makes reproductive health overall more expensive. But we would have to trace what percentage of premium increases were due to the contraceptive mandate, as opposed to all the other mandated “free” medications, tests, and services, and compare them to the cost of the cheapest contraceptive copay prior to 2010 to be sure.
I looked it up, and Plan B costs between $41 and $48. Does anyone know if it was commonly covered by insurance with a copay prior to 2010?
There is a cost we pay for “free stuff”. In this case, the list of items free of copay contribute to increased premiums. I suggest that we look very carefully at this list, and determine what should have a copay like every other medication, or if we could perhaps apply a financial hardship test before we waive copays. That could help bring premiums back down a little, which is a great hardship. How can the poor ever climb that first rung of success if there is no way they can afford non-subsidized insurance, which now costs more than ever?
Karen:
I imagine the Nazis got rid of a good many genetic defects.
Maybe RTC thinks that eugenics is a good thing?
DavidM:
come on, what are you thinking? Men should get a trip to Nevada once a month for sex, paid for by Obamacare.
Greenwald’s latest posting:
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/04/04/cuban-twitter-scam-social-media-tool-disseminating-government-propaganda/
He correctly says: “There is thus little or no ability for and internet user to know when they are being covertly propagandized by their government, which is precisely what makes it so appealing to intelligence agencies, so powerful, and so dangerous.” Best to keep this in mind.
Karen, I am the professor. The jibberish was not directed @ you.
RTC:
I disagree with several of your points. As a mother with a degree in biology, I can tell you that most pregnant women experience elevated levels of stress. Poverty is of course a contributor to stress, but poverty exists in Europe, as well. The vast majority of birth defects are genetic. In order to assert that Europe has lower rates of infant mortality and birth defects because they have socialized medicine you would have to do the following. 1) Are infant mortality and birth defects measured via the same methodology across countries? In fact, some countries only count infant mortality if the child was full term, whereas in the US we count all births. 2) You would have to compare the infant mortality and birth defects between the populations of pregnant women where the ONLY variable was socialized medicine. All other aspects such as unemployment, etc would have to be exactly the same. Otherwise how could you tell if it was “knowing she had socialized medicine and had lower stress” rather than the stress of higher divorce rates, unemployment, gangs in the neighborhood, poorly performing school districts, other children with special needs, etc?
http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/health_advice/facts/birthdefects.htm
But, yes, one can argue that society has an interest in women having access to birth control methods. Does access mean that this particular medication or prophylactic must be free to all financial classes, with no copay in exchange for higher premiums for all? Do free condoms satisfy this need? They protect against STDs and pregnancy, and come with no side effects other than allergies.
I am a 41 year old woman. And up until 2010, I had to pay a copay if I wanted contraceptives. And I never felt “subjugated.” Why am I subjugated after 2010 if I have to pay a copay? If my employer offered me 16 out of 20 contraceptives, I am badly wronged? And I could still get those other 4 if I wanted to pay for them myself, or I could go to work for another employer who wasn’t religious.
Sorry, but my gender has gone through so much to get the vote and equal pay for equal work. We’ve fought so hard for our rights. To have someone tell me I am subjugated because I only get 16 out of 20 contraceptives with no copay seems absurd when not too long ago women went to jail for protesting for suffrage. To be told that because I am a woman, I need my contraceptives with no copay, even if I am wealthy, appears to imply that I need help taking care of my reproductive system. While a man is expected to either buy condoms all on his own, or GOOGLE how to get them for free.
Professor Corey – I can’t get to a point in less than 1,000 words while taking several detours. It’s annoying, I know. But rhetoric is obviously not my forte. And this is a blog post, not an edited essay. 🙂
“Sounds like an ad hominem attack to me.”
It wasn’t, but if the shoe fits then, by all means, feel free to wear it.
I was once a butterfly, I think?
I love it when folks are capable of voting against there own self interest…..
“The parent(s) are good little Democrats on the welfare system voting the party line.”
Sounds like someone’s been listening to RushBo.
Anon – who is RushBo? BTW, I am quite capable of thinking for myself. Are you? Sounds like an ad hominem attack to me.