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.”
RTC – there are typically LONGER wait times with socialized health care, which would be catastrophic should there be an outbreak of a highly contagious air-borne pathogen.
Hi Rafflaw:
Since my own wonderful, affordable insurance plan was cancelled because of Obamacare, I was concerned about my choices. I called all of my family’s doctors, and not a single one of them would accept any Exchange policies. One told me she could never keep her doors open for what Exchange policies paid doctors. (In some areas it amounts to a 30% rate cut to doctors.) So then I called the surgeons who had done various procedures on my husband’s back and neck (and likely would do so again in the future). The answer was an emphatic NO! So then I started randomly down the directory of my (now-discontinued) insurance. Most either said no, or they didn’t know yet. At this point, I would have real qualms about a doctor who WAS willing to accept the pay cut. You can easily verify this for yourself.
Even though an Exchange policy was not an option for us (who want to be able to actually see a doctor), we still had our broker compare premiums. We’re middle class, and don’t qualify for a subsidy. They were much more expensive than what we had been paying.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/doctors-boycotting-californias-obamacare-exchange/article/2540272
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2013/november/19/doctor-rates-marketplace-insurance-plans.aspx
RTC – are you speaking from personal experience? I can tell you from my experience it was not dehumanizing. A former kindergarten friend, my wife and I went to see ‘Philomena’ which deals with this subject matter and we discussed how it was handled as we grew up, which was much different than ‘Philomena’. During high school, pregnant girls would be sent to a relatives’ out of state where they would have the child and then return to school. It was never a problem and only a minor scandal, but the schools did not allow pregnant students back then. Only one boy went to jail, because the girl’s father had a heart attack that his pure as the driven snow daughter had been seduced, so he had him charged with statutory rape. Juvenile detention was dehumanizing for him, I am sure, but the statutory rape was not. 🙂
When I taught I had many pregnant girls and mothers and when we would do class pictures I would make sure the mothers brought their babies to be in the group class pictures. They would be seated in the front, proudly displaying their babies. First time it kind of freaked out the photographer, but he went along with it.
RTC – socialized medicine does not kick in for national health emergencies. Besides, on the national level or the state level the AIDS epidemic was badly handled. We do have the Centers for Disease Control already, whose job it is to help in these emergencies. Did you forget about them?
Frankly, I couldn’t care less about pair bonding in primates. I am only concerned about my own pair bonding. These studies have no relationship to a modern society.
Paul: How about if I say of majority age. And yes, whether you realize it or not, whether you admit it or not, it’s dehumanizing.
And it’s always fun until someone gets caught and thrown in jail or scandalized in public or forced into an unhappy marriage
David: The conversation was about contraception, not drinking or gambling. The conversation had turned to premarital sex.
You said employers should not have to pay for immoral behavior.
In view of your long history of declaiming premarital sex and promiscuity among women, I assumed that’s what you were referring to.
RTC wrote: “The conversation was about contraception, not drinking or gambling. The conversation had turned to premarital sex.
You said employers should not have to pay for immoral behavior.
In view of your long history of declaiming premarital sex and promiscuity among women, I assumed that’s what you were referring to.”
You assumed wrong. The subject was contraception and abortion. The conversation had not turned to premarital sex at the time I spoke about the immorality of employers paying for immoral behavior. You changed the subject to being about premarital sex, and for the most part, it seems like you are the only one talking about it. You tried to build a straw man argument that others want to outlaw premarital sex. In the past I have stated on this blog that I support legalizing prostitution, but regulating it the way that a city like Amsterdam does. Does that sound to you like I want to make premarital sex a crime?
Because you won’t go back and see how wrong you are about what I said, I did it for you. The subject was clearly about contraception and abortion. Following is what I said:
On April 6, 2014 9:27 am I wrote:
==========================
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.
=========================
RTC – you have raised an issue that I had not considered until you mentioned it. We (the universal we) know that the more sexual partners you have the greater your chance of contracting an STD. The same we know that if you are in a monogamous relationship you have almost zero chance of contracting an STD. I have been in a monogamous relationship for over 35 years. Should I have to pay to treat the STDs of those people who are not?
Karen: David claimed that HL would “jump” at the chance to increase employee wages to help cover the cost of these controversial contraceptives. One would have to assume if that were the case, it would have had to happened before the lawyers were called in. Paying a fine gets them around their stated moral objections.
As far as addressing irregularities with health savings accounts, do you mean like the way the S&L scandals were addressed or sub-prime mortgages? Please be a little more specific. (That last sentence was written tongue in cheek, or thumb in cheek, if you will. Both scandals and others were handled exactly the same way; the financial sector plundered assets and the costs fell on the taxpayers. In today’s political and regulatory environment, that’s going to happen every time enough of society’s assets are pooled up.)
I agree the procreative function of sex is necessary to ensure the survival of a species, but the social component of sex that has evolved in much of the animalia kingdom has been just as important to survival of species.
In addition to hormones that ensure pair bonding among mates, studies have found that homosexual behavior has produced social order and cohesion among primates. These bonding effects become essential to survival by ensuring more efficient food gathering and defense.
Also Paul: Making it illegal for legally consenting adults to engage in premarital sex is dehumanizing. Period. Such laws seek to deny people the right to fundamentally human experience, and they’re social engineering at its worst.
RTC – you cannot be both a legally consenting adult and engage in illegal premarital sexual intercourse. It has to be one or the other. And having lived in an era when it was both illegal and a sin, it was not dehumanizing. Inconvenient, yes, but not dehumanizing. And I will admit there was an added zest to breaking the law. 🙂
Paul: You’re making a good case for social healthcare. When an untreatable fatal contagion threatens the population, healthcare becomes a matter of national defense in order to prevent an epidemic.
When a person contracts a deadly virus, it’s crucial that they seek treatment as quickly as possible before they have a chance to spread it. Free social healthcare does just that. The last thing anybody should want is for a restaurant worker to drag himself into work when they’re sick because they feel like they can’t afford treatment.
With all the recent bird and swine flu viruses that have been occurring in various parts of the world, it’s only a matter of time before one rages out of all control. Ever hear what happened in 1918? That’s why social healthcare is necessary and proper.
Paul,
your belief in how AIDS is transmitted is very interesting and very disturbing.
Karen,
please provide us with the documentation backing your claim that most quality doctors and hospitals in CA do not accept Exchange policies.
rafflaw – if I can disturb you I am doing my job. 🙂
Thanks, Paul. But if they dropped the insurance, they would be fined. And I’ve mentioned that, at least here in CA, most quality doctors and hospitals do not accept Exchange policies. So the employees would end up worse off – no actual health care at all, all because outsiders wanted those last 4 contraceptives.
And that’s a common problem that I have in all this. I try my best to look at long-term affects. It seems like the employees of HL are going to pay the price on this. Because if it bothers the owners’ conscience that much, that is exactly what they will do if they lose their court case – drop all employee insurance.
What I like about Jonathan Turley’s blog is that it’s not restricted to only Liberals, where everyone would be murmuring assent and there would be no in-depth discussion.
I disagree with Mr Turley on some issues, but enjoy his constitutional approach. I am so glad that different perspectives are welcome. I read his blog to get a range of perspectives.
Let’s not get personal.
Everyone on this thread has his or her own ideas about what constitutes moral and immoral behavior, whether it’s in regards to sex, politics, or the environment. And we all have our own opinions on what constitutes a healthy relationship.
We’ve got to be able to “walk down the street” past people of all faiths and creeds, and say “How interesting” instead of feeling threatened.
Hi RTC:
Can you please clarify? You asked why HL hasn’t jumped at the chance to pay their employees more if it would avoid this confrontation. But they don’t really have that option, do they? If they don’t provide ACA-compliant health care, they get fined, and that fine will go up.
Karen – during oral argument the two female justices suggested HL drop their insurance coverage and their employees could pick it up on the exchanges.
Hi RTC:
I’ve used a health savings account in one of my previous jobs. It had a tax advantage, and helped me save for medical costs. It was very popular at my company. Of course, if there is a means to exploit or abuse it, then that can be addressed.
And I think you misunderstood. Neither David nor I said that the sole purpose of sex is procreation. I said, “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.” And David said “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.”
My background is biology, so I tend to look at things from an evolutionary standpoint. Estrus and desire in mammals evolved to ensure that procreation took place. But just because there is a biological function to our desire does not mean people shouldn’t enjoy themselves in a health relationship!
Rafflaw:
Did Hobby Lobby support the vetoed AZ law because they want to establish a Christian theocracy, or because the law would afford corporations religious freedom protection, which would solve their problem with Obamacare?
Hi Rafflaw:
I’ve known a great many Muslims – Afghanis, Persians, Arabs – and in my opinion, burkas are a means to subjugate women. The stories Muslim women have told me are upsetting. Personally, I would find crafting a burka to be against my beliefs. But it is my understanding that according to the law, it would be illegal for my hypothetical company to refuse service for a bulk burka order. I am not a lawyer. Am I wrong?
RTC wrote: “Besides, you label premarital sex as immoral right here in this thread.”
No I did not! I don’t know if you are senile or just trying to act like a troll to disrupt our discussions.
Dave: I don’t have time to wade back through the numerous posts that have gone on over the past couple of years to find your statements that prove my allegations. Many of the long time participants here are very familiar with your position and know I’m telling the truth.
Besides, you label premarital sex as immoral right here in this thread. How much respect can you have for immoral behavior.
David: You said, “That is not my belief, nor have I ever argued for that”, regarding your beliefs about sex and marriage.
This is one of the with your participation here: you’re often dishonest, this time in denying something you have written about extensively in the past, which is your belief that it isn’t right for woman to engage in premarital sex. You even allude to this in the same post when you claim that an employer shouldn’t have to pay for immoral behavior.
First of all, premarital sex isn’t immoral. Only the phony biblical standards of someone with a pinched vision and deep insecurity attempt to make it seem sinful. It is an attitude borne of weakness.
Second, by labeling someone as immoral, it makes it easier to dehumanize them, or demonize them. At that point, it’s a simple matter of rationalizing suffering and hardship as some sort of divine punishment for their behavior. As a result, there wasn’t a great deal of concern about AIDS when it was viewed as a “homosexual” disease, but when people began to become infected through blood transfusions it was a different story. The gravity of the disease finally hit home for most of the country (I don’t know about you) when an eleven year old boy died tragically, if not heroically, from AIDS
RTC wrote: “… you’re often dishonest, this time in denying something you have written about extensively in the past, which is your belief that it isn’t right for woman to engage in premarital sex.”
You are the one being dishonest now.
Previously you falsely claimed that I believe that sex should be limited to procreation within the marital arrangement. I clarified that this was not my viewpoint, but rather that I had argued that procreation is the primary and natural function of sex in human beings.
It seems to me that you have difficulty understanding an important word like “primary.” Also, you confuse my respect for others to believe differently with my own beliefs. Liberty and freedom in a pluralistic society depends upon respect and tolerance for others to have different opinions.
Prove I said any of these things. Quote me. You can’t because I have not been dishonest in the slightest.
RTC – you can call an act immoral and not dehumanize the person. I used to belong to a religion that taught that pre-marital sex was a sin. During the same period, the state held that it was illegal. No one was dehumanized.
On the AIDS issue, I am going to make the case that it continues to be a gay disease primarily. Those people who got AIDS from transfusions got it from infected gays. If you have AIDS or HIV you currently cannot donate blood. Patient Zero for the AIDS epidemic in the United States was in the gay community on Fire Island, NY. If this had been treated like any other contagious disease and the people quarantined, like they did Typhoid Mary, this disease would be a minor problem.