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.”
No, that would not be true Spinelli. Where have I ever said this? Why are you claiming this?
Annie, You said you voted for Obama “both times” previously.
The drone strikes and NSA surveillance mean that Obama does not actually think that American exceptionalism is dead? That’s a leap.
RTC – I don’t think anyone here is arguing against birth control. I just don’t think it should have no copay, regardless of the financial status of the patient. As I’ve stated before, that drives up premiums for everyone. And since it is the only adult medication mandated to be given with no copay, it sends the message that women need to be taken care of. They don’t give insulin, heart medication, or any other medication without a copay. (Good thing, too, because our premiums have already doubled, as it is, with the changes so far.) Plus, contraceptives without a copay will have an obvious cooling effect on condom use,which protects against STDs, which will cause an inevitable surge in STDs.
I can GOOGLE right now and get anyone free prophylactics who needs one. And up until 2010, I was quite easily able to manage my own family planning. And yet it has been proposed that requiring a copay, or only offering 16 out of 20 contraceptives for free (along with all those free condoms which are so easy to get), is tantamount to forcing women to get pregnant, making other people control their sex lives, subjugating women, and any number of absurd statements. I can tell you, I had access to contraceptives and prophylactics just fine all throughout my adult like, from struggling student to middle class.
Women “need a way to manage their bodies”? I’ve done just fine in charge of my own body. 🙂 As a feminist, I bristle at the implication we need Congress to intervene in our private sexual choices, or we need reproductive health to be free to even the wealthiest of us, or we’re standing around wringing our hands as we’re forced to be pregnant in 2010, desperate for a way to manage our bodies. Women actually ARE forced to marry and get pregnant against their will around the world. To compare their tragic situation with having 16 out of 20 contraceptives offered free, or suggesting that there should be a copay for contraceptives just like every other medication, does these women a disservice.
And having worked in a small way on an AIDS study, if you’re going to give birth control away for free, how about condoms? They don’t cause strokes, and there are choices for those with allergies, AND they protect against STDs, which can really “irrevocably change their bodies.”
Karen S wrote: “As a feminist, I bristle at the implication we need Congress to intervene in our private sexual choices, or we need reproductive health to be free to even the wealthiest of us, or we’re standing around wringing our hands as we’re forced to be pregnant in 2010, desperate for a way to manage our bodies.”
As a feminist? Really? I’m going to have to re-evaluate what a feminist is now. I’ve tended to have a negative view of feminism, seeing examples like the philosophy that Sandra Fluke embraces and is defended by Elaine and Annie in this forum. It’s no secret that I have become a big fan of your intellectual prowess. In my mind, you are more like what a real woman should be. Now I don’t know what to do with this “As a feminist” statement. 🙂 I guess I’ll figure it out over time.
Karen – the packaging on the box of condoms specifically says not to use it for homosexual sex (sorry to put it this way, but some automatic filter is swallowing comments if you stray from an approved list of words). And a study just this week confirmed they were not effective for this specific use.
And when have you ever taken Obama’s word for anything? You probably don’t believe he’s a citizen, so why should you accept his declaration that American exceptionalism is dead?
FYI: He certainly doesn’t believe it. The drone strikes and NSA surveillance demonstrate it.
Paul Schulte: Scientists study lower primates to gain insight into human social and psychological functions. Because we’re primates, too. Just more evolved.
RTC – There are thousands of studies done every year on humans, you don’t need to study lower primates to figure out humans will/should do.
Oh and this goes to Karen as well:
People take all sorts of medications that chemically interfere with natural biological processes, like pain killers, anti-cholesterol drugs, chemo therapy, to name a few. Woman who want to enjoy a healthy active sex life need a way to manage their bodies so that their lives aren’t irrevocably changed when they aren’t prepared for becoming pregnant.
No, Annie, the data showed the wait time to see a dr when sick was not significant, 26% US vs 36% Canada. The wait time for elective surgeries were significant. US patients were less likely to wait more than 4 hours at the ER, and less likely to wait more than 4 weeks for elective surgery.
Paul, whatever. You come across as more of a partisan than I .What makes you think I like Obama or Obamacare? I didn’t vote for him in 2012, I voted for Jill Stein.
Annie – who is Jill Stein? She did not run here.
If you remember your statistics class(es) the differences were statistically significant on the Canadian vs US. I agree we spend more, but we would probably spend less if the Canadians stayed home for their medical procedures and a lot less if the Mexicans would stay in Mexico, they are eating us alive here in Arizona.
That’s overblown too.
The data I provided showed the difference wasn’t that significant, yet our healthcare osts are way more.
Annie – regarding American exceptionalism? Obama declared it dead. D E A D DEAD!!!! Obamacare has replaced American exceptionalism.
Hi Annie:
I misunderstood you. I thought that was exactly what you were saying, that we should model our system after Canada or Germany. You’ve stated that you want a single payor system.
I agree that we should be open to looking at what works in other countries, and be frank about what doesn’t. You have outlined what you like about socialized medicine, and I have outlined what I dislike about it. You have not addressed any of the statistical data on longer wait times or unfunded liabilities in Canadian healthcare. When you say it’s “overblown” you don’t provide any information on flaws in the data. So I assume that you don’t want to discuss data that does not fit with your hypothesis that Canadian healthcare is better than ours. I’ve seen that happen before, and probably been guilty of it myself a time or two.
Higher taxes, longer wait times, and funding crisis are serious concerns for me.
I’m not trying to antagonize you. I just wanted to point out some proven concerns for everyone to think about.
Let me put this another way. In college, I read a study about preconceived ideas. Study participants were asked what they thought the murder rate was in NYC. They all believed it was quite high. Like they wouldn’t expect to survive a walk in Central Park after dark high. Then they were given the actual annual figures, which were lower than their estimates. A short while afterward, they were asked again what they thought the murder rate in NYC was. They all made only slight downward adjustments to their original estimate, again much higher than the true figure. Preconceived, entrenched ideas can be very pervasive, and can be very resistant to factual information. We ALL have this tendency.
I’m not saying we should model our own healthcare system after Canada, but all the comparisons of outcomes and wait times is overblown. We are not that much better yet SPEND way more. I’d rather we modeled our system after Germany, Switzerland, Australia, or Singapore’s system. What is wrong with taking a look at other countries and what works and what doesn’t? What happened to American exceptionalism, I think we could do it better if we really tried it and moved away from private health insurance as a middle man. Also Canadians still, by a large percentage prefer their healthcare system to ours, warts and all.
Annie – you supplied the data on the Canadian wait times. It is bad form to now claim it is overblown. We have discussed this before, or at least I have raised the issue: If Canadians love their system so much why are they coming to the US for their health care?
Hey Ho Silver, Away!
With my background, it was so common for researchers to “fight the data.” They expected a conclusion, and would sometimes try desperate statistical maneuvering to force the data to fit their hypothesis. We all have to get past that and accept statistical outcomes for what they are. Sometimes we’ll be proven right and other times, we won’t. It’s the nature of the beast.
So when data comes out on the outcome of the individual insurance mandate – premiums doubling on average for some age cohorts, doctors taking 30% pay cuts in some areas, doctors and hospitals not accepting Exchange policies, Exchange policies being county-specific in some cases, prohibiting cancer patients from seeking out the best care, the middle class lost affordable policies and now cannot afford new, more expensive ones, the website being overpriced and under delivering . . . the data is what it is. We need to accept that there were negative consequences and change our approach. The failure of one attempt does not mean that we should not or will not improve health care. If there were 6 or 7 thinks we liked about a bill that stacks up to over 6 feet, then lets try to get those individually.
This discusses the problem where people work 10 weeks and then get 32 weeks off, leading to high unemployment combined with the need to import workers to fill empty jobs.
Again, this was intended to help people, but had some unintended consequences. Too often, we fail to assess long-term affects and make adjustments accordingly.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/05/15/matt-gurney-canadians-who-wont-work-shouldnt-get-ei/
I used to share an office with an Canadian. She often said how much happier she was to be able to actually see a doctor right away here in the US (complaining that her father waited months for heart surgery). She also said that Canadians only had to work a short time to qualify for unemployment benefits. This resulted in a whole youth culture who would work a few weeks and then go “on vacation” for the rest of the year, every year.
So they added a work requirement to EI. You had to prove that you were at least trying to get a job.
Human nature being what it is, people were taking advantage:
http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/sc/ei/ccaj/vignettes.shtml
Plus you have not addressed the problem of the Canadian health care system running out of money. They have a lower population, and less immigration demands on their system. And they have high taxes to pay for that “free healthcare.” One would be reasonably concerned that there would be even worse funding problems here.
Karen – Annie has yet to get back to me on the longer waiting time in Canadian ERs, even though she supplied the data. You are not the Lone Ranger 🙂
Annie, you’ve posted the video before about a Canadian talking about healthcare. But you are neglecting to address the 19 week wait time for elective surgery. Data is what it is.
Health care means more than emergencies.
David,
Medicaid is an umbrella situation. It hires insurance companies to administer it locally, and they get to play by their own rules, within certain limitations. Medicaid looks like single payer superficially, but there are many hands in the pie. Why do you think Congress passed a law making it illegal for Medicare/Medicaid to negotiate the best price from drug manufacturers, as other countries do?
In some respects, the ACA is not all that different, except they now prevent insurance companies from turning people down because of past health history.
If you want to meet some of those Canadians coming to the US for health care, join us in Arizona. Be quick, they usually go back north about Easter time. Then we can finally get in to see our doctors with reasonable wait times.