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.”
AY,
Paul is pretty good with the Tu Quoque fallacy. So are his BFFs.
Don’t worry about it. I certainly won’t.
Elaine – here is that same Gawker supporting pedophiles
http://www.imperfectparent.com/topics/2012/09/10/gawker-editor-responds-to-criticism-says-he-still-defends-pedophiles/
Charlton – you had to go out and look that up didn’t you. 🙂 However, you used it incorrectly. An ad hominem is not a logical fallacy when it is based on fact. I do appreciate that you think I have BFFs, but I don’t. There are some people who agree with me some of the time but that does not make them BFFs. Your current ad hominem is a logical fallacy. Please put forward a decent logical argument.
Boy, that’s great that the Travel Guy had a great experience when his group had a slip and fall and a sinus infection on vacation. Wait until they have to wait months to get heart surgery, etc. Dipping your toe in is not experiencing government insurance. We’re so spoiled here in the US with little to no wait times for surgeries and dental appointments.
These are all anecdotes, including my own experiences with my own niece in Medicaid. The fact remains that there is a debate in Europe about health care, which means there are people who dislike the system. You can find 25 links to people who love socialized European medicine, and it will not change the fact that there are enough people who dislike it that there is debate about privatizing it. That is a fact.
What many supporters of single payor systems fail to realize is that we have exponentially higher levels of immigration than any of the European countries who have socialized medicine. And those immigrants, by definition, need more support, at least in their first few years here while they get established. So, if there is constantly a debate in Europe about privatizing health care, and they have less drain on their system than we do, what does that tell you?
annie, what we have now is healthcare fraud…on a massive scale. If you’re against big pharma and insurance companies, then you’re probably against the current system, you just don’t know it yet. Set the kool-aid down before reading the following.
http://surgerycenterofoklahoma.tumblr.com/post/17318118888/the-fraud-of-uncompensated-care
“The Fraud of “Uncompensated Care”
What in the world is this? This is fraud, that’s what it is. This is a number that hospitals come up with at the end of the year. It’s a number that supposedly represents the amount of charitable care delivered for which they were not paid. The hospitals report this number to the feds. Then….ready?….they get car dealer like rebates from….ready?….YOU! Yes, that’s right.
The hospitals are actually incentivized to overcharge the uninsured and poor to maximize their take at the end of the year!
If the hospital charges $100 for an aspirin and insurance only pays them $5 for the aspirin…well, you see, they lost $95. This number then is added to the big tally and the feds (your money and mine) compensate them for this terrible loss. This loss also helps the hospitals maintain the fiction of their not-for-profit status.
The discipline of the free market is absent in so much of medicine. The free market is the medicine that so much of American medicine needs (sorry that came out kind of corny). The idea that more government, not less, will make things better in any way in the delivery of health care is simply idiotic. “
That should be Rick, not Rock, but that would be a cool name. 🙂
http://blog.ricksteves.com/?p=8231
Rock Steves, that travel guy, his readers share their own European health care stories.
I actually have never stated if I’m pro-choice or pro-life.
“If it’s not that much, then no copay”. Why? Why not pay a copay on an inexpensive medication, as any little bit can help this monstrosity we call a health insurance premium nowadays? So you WOULD want a copay on more expensive contraceptives like the IUD or other copper methods, for example? I am not find with no copay for young women of today, because we all pay for free stuff, and it implies they cannot take care of their own reproductive health.
So you got along just fine, and never felt like your “reproductive health was being harmed” when you had a copay for contraceptives? You make a good argument that medications that prevent implantation can lower the numbers of later abortions. Do you think the Little Sisters of the Poor should provide contraception and the day after pill to the people in their care? Do they have the right to say no? If you want an abortion, should you go to a Catholic hospital and demand it?
Again, that’s wonderful that you know plenty of Canadians who love their health care, and a family in Germany. I know Canadians who do not. Hence, the debate . . . in Canada. And the people in Italy HATE their health care. Passionately.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidmaris/2012/11/07/us-healthcare-welcome-to-italy/
Paul says:
on 1, April 1, 2014 at 9:58 pmPaul Schulte
AY – What are you smoking? You are incoherent!
There you go… Attack the poster… My… My…. I’m out…. You still have the cheese dude…. Hear it’s the upper east side dreamer…. Real killer dude…. Smack and you’re down for the count….
AY, okaaaaay, the “GOP voter ID target site” was a little weird. But anyway your idea for limits on campaign contributions would make campaigns more reasonable and accessible to more candidates. Right now, they’re becoming a competition for excessive spending.
As for voter ID, you know, I’ve never understood the argument against having to prove your identity to vote. If you ban ID for banking, cashing checks, or driving a car, what do you think would happen? Why do you think that ID became a requirement for any of these transactions? Because of fraud. Would you be OK if someone posed as you and stole your vote? Because I wouldn’t. Why is voter ID requirements racist for voting, but not for every other aspect of life in the US for which they are required. I recall when I vacation in Europe I have to give the hotel my passport, so we’re hardly excessive in our ID requirements. I support programs that help the poor get IDs, and there are many in place already. But banning IDs makes no sense whatsoever. If IDs were banned, do you think that Republicans would resist the temptation to steal votes?
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/myths-about-canada-us-health-care-debunked-2012-08-09
Myths about Canadian health care debunked.
As for a co pay for birth control, if it’s not that expensive then no co pay. It’s one of the mst important ways of preventing abortion, I’d think you’d be on board for that. I did have a co pay for mine, but I’m fine with no co pay for young women of today.
I guess Annie doesn’t feel comfortable answering my repeated question of why women of all financial strata need to have their contraceptives with no copay.
Karen, I know plenty of Canadians who really like their government health cre an wouldn’t trade it for our system. Also my relatives in Germany love their health care.
That’s really super that you found one Canadian that defends their single-payor system, in a country with a lower population and far, far lower immigration rate than ours. I’ve known Canadians that hate their government health care, and there is actually a debate going on in Canada right now about privatizing their health care. Because, you know, there is actually more than one opinion in Canada.
Educate myself about Medicaid? I was there when my sister-in-law tried to get them to pay for her dying daughter’s health care. Do you know better?
A fool continues with the same actions and expects a different result. We’ve had government mandate how insurance companies do business, and look at the result – sky high premiums, Exchange plans doctors and hospitals won’t accept, a tight formulary where off-formula medications do not count towards maximum out of pocket or have co-insurance, tight networks restricted in some cases to counties, patients with life-threatening diseases who can’t get treatment because no one accepts their plans, an overpriced website that still isn’t completely written yet and doesn’t work . . . the list just goes on. Anyone responsible for passing this bill should walk head bowed in shame for the great harm they have done to millions of people. If I like a few things about a bill and regulations that is literally 6 feet stacked, then that is pretty sad. You don’t “try to fix” a 6 foot tall bill because 6 things in it seem positive. You repeal.
Anyone who looks at this track record, and then pushes for a single payor system does so expecting a different result.
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-watch-a-canadian-20140312,0,2995139.story#axzz2xgqDTlJ6
Watch an expert teach a smug U.S. Senator about Canadian health care. Karen, please educate yourself about Medicaid and Medicare.
Anytime we have voted on federal single payor systems, it gets overwhelmingly voted down. The people just don’t want the DMV running their health care. So now we have Obamacare, which caused premiums to skyrocket. And at some point, it might get so bad that people start clamoring for a single payor system. It’s an end-game to arrive at a single payor system that gets around democratic objections.
I helped take care of my niece who died on Medicaid. I would not wish Medicaid on my worst enemy. Some bureaucrat decided that they would only pay for the pill form of her medications, even though we told them that if we ground them up, it would just clog her feeding tube and require surgery. They wouldn’t pay for her bandages. I could go on. There was no reasoning with a bureaucrat who was inserted between her and her doctor. Please, for the love of God, abandon your quest for single payor. If you help it succeed, you will do real harm to people. Throw it on the pile with the cancer patients who can’t get their chemo or surgeries because no one accepts their Exchange policy. Who cares about the Avon walk? We just took away cancer treatment from a lot of women.
Or Medicare for All.
http://www.pnhp.org/
I’d trust THESE guys to do it right. I don’t trust private health insurance companies, big Pharma and some politicians that are their lackies. There is absolutely NO reason we cannot have a national health care.
Many religions are nothing more than a corporation. It is a group of people who come together and say, “This is what we believe.” They write out a religious creed and mission statement. That religious creed and mission statement is the belief system of that corporation. The fact that it is a legal fiction does not make it impossible to define not only the mission statement of the corporation, but the belief system by which it operates as well.
Trying to post this again:
rafflaw wrote: “The number of shareholders has no bearing on the issue. A corporation is a legal fiction and it cannot have a religious beliefs.”
If a corporation is owned by one man, the religious belief of the corporation is basically the religious belief of that one person. When you spread ownership across many shareholders, the religious belief of the corporation becomes more nebulous. Private corporations determine who is allowed to buy into that corporation, and often religious affiliation is a factor that plays into that. Public corporations are different.