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: If Hobby Lobby would jump at the chance to pay their employees a little more in order to avoid this confrontation, why don’t they? Why didn’t they?
If what you’re suggesting is true, and I doubt that it is, then it might be because Hobby Lobby employees lack a union, which could have approached the corporation on a more equal footing and bargained for a solution to the supposed moral dilemma facing the company.
RTC wrote: “David: If Hobby Lobby would jump at the chance to pay their employees a little more in order to avoid this confrontation, why don’t they? Why didn’t they?”
Because the law does not allow them to do that. Obamacare doesn’t say to an employer, “if you give them plenty of money to buy their own health care, we won’t force you to buy the one we think is best.” Furthermore, I don’t see any employees of Hobby Lobby complaining. It is the government that is complaining.
Sorry if I didn’t pick up on the sidetrack upthread, but it seemed pretty clear that Paul Schulte was unaware of the nuances in contract law and relations.
Karen: Backing up just a bit, health savings account are a terrible idea. They will become just another pool of resources that the financial sector will try to get their hands on.
Procreation is not the only function of sex. Studies of primates have shown that there is social component to sexual relations wholly apart from procreation. As a biologist, you should know that. Perhaps David is right, that some scientists allow their politics to cloud their conclusions.
Karen,
the Arizona law was discussed in the article because one of the largest financial backers of making Hobby Lobby’s religious beliefs part of our secular laws was Hobby Lobby. But Hobby Lobby was also sending millions to other causes to make their religious beliefs binding on non-believers through state law changes.
Karen,
Why would a jewish seamstress be against making burkas?
Perhaps I should post the comment on the AZ vetoed bill discussion, so it doesn’t sidetrack the discussion.
Hi RTC:
Maybe I should have segued better.
In discussing Hobby Lobby’s employer responsibility, the vetoed bill in AZ was also brought up. There was a side discussion about corporations trying to get religious freedom, which is currently only offered to individuals. It was discussed how HL supported the failed AZ bill, which was likely because religious freedom for corporations would have solved their legal dilemma.
So, you’re right, it is a separate issue from the contraceptive mandate. I brought this up in regards to religious freedom for businesses.
Karen: I suppose your imagination allows you to ignore the difference between apples and oranges. You’re comparing individuals in business who have completely different contractual relationships from an employer/employee relationship.
http://nypost.com/2014/04/07/gosnell-abortion-film-too-much-for-kickstarters-diverse-censors/
This would take effect in this case.
Something that I just heard pointed out in regards to the failure to pass an acceptable religious freedom law for corporations:
-An atheist can be forced to put together a documentary for fundamentalist Christians that opposes evolution being taught in schools or contraception.
-A Christian baker can be forced to provide a cake to a Satanic cult’s annual animal sacrifice (wonder how that would be decorated)
-A Muslim construction company can be forced to renovate a pig farm or slaughter house
-A Jewish feminist seamstress can be forced to create burkas
-A Jewish gay man would be forced to cater to a Westboro protest against GLTB
I think we have enough imagination to come up with lots of scenarios. Perhaps it would be wise to craft legislation that allows people some religious freedom in how they run their business, without giving so much free reign as to allow blatant discrimination. Maybe sometimes we should have the right to say “no.”
Nicely put, Karen.
That’s true, Mike. The Catholic Church opposes embryo destruction and experimentation on embryos.
Karen S:
Your observation about unused IVF embryos explains one of a number of reasons the Catholic Church prohibits IVF.
Thanks, David. I’m new to posting on blogs. I want to learn how to condense, so I don’t lose people by being long-winded!
For those who are interested in reading any of the 80+ briefs filed in this case, a good source is the Becket Fund. It lists all of the amici and all the briefs are easily downloadable. becketfund.org
Hi Annie (OMG this is so long. Can someone get me an editor):
Thanks for the link. That’s a LOT of briefs! I found this brief by the Catholic Medical Association about their belief that life begins at fertilization, at the formation of an embryo, and thus they oppose any chemical means to prevent that life from implanting:
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs-v3/13-354_amcu_cma.authcheckdam.pdf”
I think that with our varied population, there are many deeply held beliefs about pregnancy and the implications of carrying a baby. Some believe that life begins at fertilization, while others acknowledge that life but do not define it as pregnancy until it actually implants into the uterus. And there are some that believe that the pregnancy is not a person until he actually breathes his first breath of air. Some apply the definition of a viable pregnancy, which is the gestation where a child has a good chance of survival if born early. Technically, any unborn child is completely dependent on his mother. A child past his due date will nonetheless die if his mother dies, without rapid intervention.
For people who value life at conception, it is a form of abortion to chemically induce changes in the uterus so that it rejects implantation, when it otherwise would have accepted it.
One can argue that we should all live our own lives according to our beliefs, and let others live their own lives according to theirs. In most cases we should try to achieve such tolerance.
But if someone thinks that drugs that prevent implantation kill children, then I can understand why they want to keep completely out of such practice, and not contribute by paying for it. Their argument is that by paying for such coverage, they are being forced to financially support someone else’s beliefs.
Hypothetically, if female infanticide became common here, and girl newborns were left outside to die of exposure, I would not want to support that practice in any way. I would not want to pay for employee health insurance that provides travel vouchers for the mother to travel to an icy mountain to dispose of the girl. Or that covers OB/GYNS willing to kill the baby after she was born. I wouldn’t want anything AT ALL to do with it. I know this is an extreme example, but I’m trying to find a scenario where people can understand the level of commitment for conscientious objectors to contraceptives that prevent implantation to be left completely out of it.
Here is the package insert for Plan B:
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2006/021045s011lbl.pdf
“Plan B works . . . mainly by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary. It is possible that Plan B may also work by . . . preventing attachment (implantation) to the uterus (womb), which usually occurs beginning 7 days after release of an egg from the ovary. Plan B will not do anything to a fertilized egg already attached to the uterus.”
Here is the package insert for an IUD:
http://www.drugs.com/drp/paragard-t-380a-intrauterine-copper-contraceptive.html
“The exact mechanism by which metallic copper enhances the contraceptive effect of an IUD has not been conclusively demonstrated. Various hypotheses have been advanced, including interference with sperm transport, fertilization, and implantation. Clinical studies with copper-bearing IUDs also suggest that fertilization is prevented either due to an altered number or lack of viability of spermatozoa.” And later “Reports indicate an increased incidence of septic abortion with septicemia, septic shock, and death in patients becoming pregnant with an IUD in place.”
So the question remains, can we find a way in which employers are not forced to contribute or be involved in actions that violate their belief system? It is possible that the court will find that contraceptives that prevent implantation do not meet this criteria, but abortions after implantation do. I’m so curious how this will play out.
A belief in life beginning with an embryo is behind this movement to try to find adoptive homes for unused IVF embryos. It is an ethical quandary for many couples facing fertility problems. They badly want a baby, but then find themselves left with more frozen embryos than they can use.
http://www.nightlight.org/snowflakes-embryo-donation-adoption/
Karen, thank you for the cogent analysis. Your post represents rational thought in the midst of flying emotions. Your comments are very much appreciated.
Rafflaw – it makes sense that this issue is not monetary for HL. They’ll spend a fortune getting this through the SCOTUS.
You can find it here at SCOTUSblog.
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/sebelius-v-hobby-lobby-stores-inc/
Darn! Nope, access denied.
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/13-354-BRIEF-OF-AMICI-CURIAE-PHYSICIANS-FOR-REPRODUCTIVE-HEALTH-et-al….pdf
I hope it works this time. Here it is Karen.
Karen,
Hobby Lobby has stated that it is not a money issue. They claim that it is violation of their religious liberty.
David – you’re absolutely right. The biological function of sex is procreation. Estrus, desire, and pleasure evolved in living things to ensure that it took place, continuing the species. 🙂 It’s true that there are a great many beliefs and traditions with respect to this most basic aspect of life.