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.”
Paul wrote: “…what I am saying is that condoms are ineffective when used by HIV positive gays having sex with other gays. The box clearly says they are not to be used for this purpose. They probably should not be used by HIV positive heterosexuals using condoms for the same purpose.”
WTF are you talking about, Paul?
http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm
“HIV, the virus that causes AIDS
Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing the sexual transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.”
anon- the cdc study is only concerned with male-female contact, not male-male contact.
Paul,
I don’t buy boxes of condoms.
So…you’re saying that when people use condoms they add significantly to the risk of their contracting an STD?
Elaine – what I am saying is that condoms are ineffective when used by HIV positive gays having sex with other gays. The box clearly says they are not to be used for this purpose. They probably should not be used by HIV positive heterosexuals using condoms for the same purpose. Sorry to be so circumspect, but there seems to be an automatic word censor on here and I do not want to get caught it it. 😉
Paul Schulte
Elaine – the wearing or not wearing of a condom adds significant risk of STDs if one or more partners is HIV positive.
*****
The wearing of a condom can add significant risk to one’s contracting an STD? That’s news to me.
Elaine – read the warning labels on the box. 🙂
Elaine – the wearing or not wearing of a condom adds significant risk of STDs if one or more partners is HIV positive. If one or more of the heterosexuals is HIV positive, then yes, they should be wearing a condom.
Paul Schulte
Karen – sadly there are some in the gay community who refuse to wear condoms…
*****
Sadly, the same thing happens in the heterosexual community too.
RTC – Goodall’s studies have minor transference to a human population
Paul: “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.”
Tell that to Jane Goodall, sport.
David: You said “Very interesting how your cousin told you the same thing, yet you call me a liar. ”
Let me be clear. You claim that someone was using ambulance services to cadge free rides to bars located near hospitals. My cousin said that it would take no more than twice before staff members caught on and these lowlifes would be arrested and charged. She maintains that ambulance and hospital workers talk about the patients they deal with; word gets around. She also says that in her thirty years in medicine, she’s never heard of anyone doing this, although she’s seen and heard a lot illogical and illegal behavior.
So what that confirms to me is that you’re either lying or merely assuming your neighbors are behaving unethically the way you assume almost everyone receiving aid or collecting disability is committing fraud on some level.
I don’t really hate you, I just don’t like it when you prevaricate in order to make a point. There are a host of things I don’t like about your participation here…dishonesty is only one them.
I do, however, despise your pinched view of a government that would render the majority of Americans to the mercy of an exploitative corptocratic oligarchy; your belief in the inferiority of women and blacks and the immorality of the mixing of races; and your belief that society should pay for the privilege of having access to clean fresh water and clean air.
BTW David, how did lowlife neighbor get back home from the bar?
RTC – I can answer your question to david about getting back from the bar. Drunks are only too happy to take other drunks home. Getting home is never a problem.
Thank you, Annie!
http://jonathanturley.org/2014/03/28/dont-beat-the-outsiders-california-university-official-issues-letter-in-miller-young-controversy/
Karen, here is the 2nd post, a link to the first one is embedded.
Annie – Thanks! I will try to find the blog posts. If there’s a fast way to navigate to them, let me know. I’ll bet they were good posts.
Paul – you would think it would be more dehumanizing to cause their partner’s slow, agonizing death because they wouldn’t at least try to take simple precautions. Sounds like they’re trying to duck responsibility or they’re in denial, to me.
And I read the “apology” letter from the school that blamed the girls. I believe there is a trickle down effect from the administrator to the professor. She likely wouldn’t have blatantly behaved that way if she’d thought she was acting against the school’s standards.
Annie – you are right about the assoc professor and the pro-life student. However, some of us stated what we thought should happen and then what we thought would happen. Sadly, our predictions of what we thought would happen are coming true. The university put the blame on the student and is circling the wagons for the assoc. professor. We will have to see how the criminal charges work out, but my guess is that they will deal it down and she will get a light slap on the wrist at most.
Karen, Professor Turley had two blog posts regarding that incident with the protestors and the professor. I believe every person, liberal or conservative, commented that the professor was in the wrong and shouldn’t have taken the signs and was deserving of the repercussions of her actions.
Annie – if you believe that women should have equal social, cultural, economic, and political rights, then you are technically a feminist.
Although since the term has been hijacked, maybe we need to come up with a new one!
Paul – that’s scary, especially for the MSM community. (MSM = Men who have Sex with Men, including gay, bi, etc).
I found this, which found condoms prevented HIV transmission around 80% for both heterosexual and homosexual couples where one partner was positive and one negative. The 20% failure rate was due to inconsistent condom use and incorrect condom use.
http://www.thebodypro.com/content/70694/condoms-tried-tested-and-true.html
We have to try harder to stop the spread of this dread disease.
Karen – sadly there are some in the gay community who refuse to wear condoms based on the belief that to do so dehumanizes their partner. It is causing a rise in the number of HIV cases again.
Hi David:
I no longer recognize the feminist movement.
To me, it means equal pay for equal work, respect, and treating women fairly. A woman has the right to her opinion. It means equal political, economic, cultural social rights for women. By definition, it applies to all women, regardless of political party.
But what should have been a positive recognition of women’s value has been hijacked by people who don’t seem to understand the meaning of the term.
Now, the feminist movement only allows women to speak if they are Liberal, and pro-Choice, and often tries to get standards lowered for women, instead of keeping them equal with men.
I saw a video of a young reporter for campusreform.org who was at a feminist event. She asked attendees to define feminism, and got answer much the same as mine, above, including “encouraging women to voice different perspectives.” And then a woman came up and let attendees know that the reporter was a conservative, and they might not want to talk to her. It spread like wildfire – the same people who said women should be free to speak their minds, and have different perspectives, said, “Don’t talk to her! She’s a conservative!” Women were refusing to allow another woman to politely interview them about feminism!
And I’ve seen the video of the two young women at the college campus who had a pro-Life display. A pregnant feminist teacher took their sign away, called them “terrorists”, and scratched and shoved the younger girl when she tried to hold the elevator for the police. So . . . a feminist professor silenced a young woman because she disagreed with her opinion. And the feminist professor, who was so offended, specializes in the study of black porn. What is most troubling is that there are two dueling petitions at the university – one condemning the professor’s actions while taking no stand on the girl’s pro-Life views, and the other condemning the girls as “terrorists.” The one supporting the girls had 500 signatures at last count, while the one supporting the professor had 2,000. Universities have failed to promote critical thinking, tolerance, and free speech and instead only allow “approved ideas.”
So maybe we need to come up with a new term for true feminists, who just want equal treatment, rather than the bullies in charge now.
Guess what David, I never considered myself a feminist. 😯
RTC wrote: “My cousin was a head nurse in an ER in Connecticut. She just told me the same thing, that they would get to know certain characters after a while. Any lowlife attempting to pull the scam you describe more than twice would be red flagged quickly, and put on low priority status.”
Very interesting how your cousin told you the same thing, yet you call me a liar. No matter how many confirm to you the veracity of my statements, I will always be a liar in your eyes. Your hatred toward me is irrational.
Breaking News: Secretary of HHS Kathleen Sebilius resigns! FoxNews reporting……
Why not apply financial standards? Why give it for free to wealthy women who have done just fine before 2010? What about the inevitable surge in STDs which will follow as free contraceptives drive condom use down?
Karen, there are many women who don’t see it the way you do. More of us see birth control has a proponent of preventative health care. I’m glad you were able to take care of your own birth control, I’m even happier other women will get some help.