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.”
nick: If ignorance is bliss, you must be delirious. Canadians routinely purchase private health insurance to cover certain conditions and procedures that might not be treated as quickly under the public health plan, like cosmetic surgery, for instance. Life threatening disease and injury are treated as rapidly and effectively in Canada as they are in the U.S., if not more so.
Canadians, by and large, are extremely satisfied with their social health system. Much of the country views our health system as ridiculous and backwards. It’s been said on both sides of the border, that if you ever want to start a war with Canada, threaten to take away their social health care.
Here is an undercover video of Steve Crowder trying to get treated in Canada.
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/07/16/video-undercover-in-canadian-health-care/
It’s Not Just Hobby Lobby: These 71 Companies Don’t Want to Cover Your Birth Control Either
Meet the companies battling Obamacare’s contraceptive mandate.
—By Jaeah Lee
| Wed Apr. 2, 2014
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/hobby-lobby-sebelius-contraceptive-for-profit-lawsuits
Excerpt:Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Inc., the closely watched case in which the Oklahoma-based craft store chain has challenged the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate, requiring insurance policies to cover birth control without a copay. Hobby Lobby’s high-profile case may have nabbed most of the headlines so far, but it’s far from the only company that’s taking on the Obama administration over the mandate.
Since February 2012, 71 other for-profit companies have challenged the ACA’s contraceptive mandate in court, according to the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC). The majority of these for-profit cases (46 in addition to Hobby Lobby’s) are still pending. Jump to the full list of cases by clicking here.
The plaintiffs maintain that the federal government, by requiring contraceptive coverage under the ACA, is infringing on their religious views. Like Hobby Lobby, many of these companies had already covered birth control under their insurance plans, but they oppose the ACA’s rules requiring health plans to cover contraceptives including the drug Plan B, which they argue causes abortions. The Thomas More Law Center, a law firm “dedicated to the defense and promotion of the religious freedom of Christians,” has filed 11 cases on behalf of 33 plaintiffs against the ACA contraceptive mandate. The Religious Freedom and Restoration Act, the Center asserts in an amicus brief supporting Hobby Lobby, protects employers fighting the mandate “from being forced, under threat of ruinous government fines, to fund products and services that violate their sincerely held religious beliefs.”
“Forced” is not quite accurate, though, as my colleague Stephanie Mencimer reported last week. An employer doesn’t have to provide health insurance to its employees at all; in fact, it’s probably cheaper for a company to instead pay the tax that would help subsidize its employees’ coverage obtained through the exchanges or Medicaid.
A Supreme Court ruling in Hobby Lobby’s favor could have a far-reaching impact, potentially dismantling corporate laws that have long shielded CEOs and board members from lawsuits or paving the way for companies to claim religious exemptions from other federal regulations, as we reported last week. But a pro-Hobby Lobby verdict would most immediately affect the more than 22,000 people employed at the companies who brought these lawsuits, says Gretchen Borchelt, senior counsel and director of state reproductive health policy at the NWLC, which has been tracking the cases. The outcome of many of these cases, she says, may hinge on the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby ruling.
Hobby Lobby’s Hypocrisy: The Company’s Retirement Plan Invests in Contraception Manufacturers
When Hobby Lobby filed its case against Obamacare’s contraception mandate, its retirement plan had more than $73 million invested in funds with stakes in contraception makers.
—By Molly Redden
| Tue Apr. 1, 2014
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/hobby-lobby-retirement-plan-invested-emergency-contraception-and-abortion-drug-makers
Excerpt:
When Obamacare compelled businesses to include emergency contraception in employee health care plans, Hobby Lobby, a national chain of craft stores, fought the law all the way to the Supreme Court. The Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate, the company’s owners argued, forced them to violate their religious beliefs. But while it was suing the government, Hobby Lobby spent millions of dollars on an employee retirement plan that invested in the manufacturers of the same contraceptive products the firm’s owners cite in their lawsuit.
Documents filed with the Department of Labor and dated December 2012—three months after the company’s owners filed their lawsuit—show that the Hobby Lobby 401(k) employee retirement plan held more than $73 million in mutual funds with investments in companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and drugs commonly used in abortions. Hobby Lobby makes large matching contributions to this company-sponsored 401(k).
Several of the mutual funds in Hobby Lobby’s retirement plan have holdings in companies that manufacture the specific drugs and devices that the Green family, which owns Hobby Lobby, is fighting to keep out of Hobby Lobby’s health care policies: the emergency contraceptive pills Plan B and Ella, and copper and hormonal intrauterine devices.
These companies include Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes Plan B and ParaGard, a copper IUD, and Actavis, which makes a generic version of Plan B and distributes Ella. Other holdings in the mutual funds selected by Hobby Lobby include Pfizer, the maker of Cytotec and Prostin E2, which are used to induce abortions; Bayer, which manufactures the hormonal IUDs Skyla and Mirena; AstraZeneca, which has an Indian subsidiary that manufactures Prostodin, Cerviprime, and Partocin, three drugs commonly used in abortions; and Forest Laboratories, which makes Cervidil, a drug used to induce abortions. Several funds in the Hobby Lobby retirement plan also invested in Aetna and Humana, two health insurance companies that cover surgical abortions, abortion drugs, and emergency contraception in many of the health care policies they sell.
Elaine M wrote: “Hobby Lobby 401(k) employee retirement plan held more than $73 million in mutual funds with investments in companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and drugs commonly used in abortions. Hobby Lobby makes large matching contributions to this company-sponsored 401(k).”
Who really looks at the detail of the actual investment of mutual funds? How much you want to bet that Hobby Lobby changes their mutual fund for their 401(k) plan?
nick
canadians do know private insurance. they buy it before they cross the border.
ap,
Thanks for the interesting links!
Garbo:
http://youtu.be/Sc7DaDYLqvw
Karen S.
As for the costs of insurance, I carried health insurance for all of my employees, including the part-time employees. When the insurance contract renewed several months ago the premium jumped up by nearly 20%. I carried a $500.00 deductable. I could have mitigated the premium increase by increasing the deductable but I thought that would have been too much for the employees so I ate the cost myself but there were not going to be any raises after that. Additionally, I looked into offering covered family medicine but the cost was prohibitively high. While I was exempt under the ACA for providing health insurance I chose to. If I was somehow required to provide family medical care I would have had to lay off a third of my employees and find a way to gain efficiencies to offset the number of emmployees I would lose.
That is where the real injustice is. Children of working parent(s) who do not have insurance themselves because their parents’ employers can only afford to cover the employee are also victims of this situation here. Some of my employees had dual coverage with their spouse so the spouse carried the childrens’ insurance but one of mine did not and had to have a state insurance plan to cover their children. I wanted to provide this to this employee but the difference in premiums was 50% of the employee’s take home pay. The situation was ridiculous.
My wife resided in Germany for about six years and there was a marked difference between those who had the standard health care system and those who opted for private insurance had better coverage. One feature here that is roughly, and obliquely similar is what is referred to as Direct Primary Care Where a patient in some flavors of this pays a monthly fee for a primary care physician and has a major medical provision with high deductable to offset the additional monthly cost of a standard medical plan. One plan that an associate of mine has costs $90.00 per month and he tell me it is a far better situation than he had with his former standard insurance policy. He receives better care for his primary care needs, he can email his doctor when he has concerns and he can get an appointment that day or the next.
“Lobby’s Hypocrisy: The Company’s Retirement Plan Invests in Contraception Manufacturers”
“When Hobby Lobby filed its case against Obamacare’s contraception mandate, its retirement plan had more than $73 million invested in funds with stakes in contraception makers.”
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/hobby-lobby-retirement-plan-invested-emergency-contraception-and-abortion-drug-makers
Hobby Lobby Invests In Abortion Pill Manufacturers
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-invests-in-em_n_5070279.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl4%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D460128
Good point, Nick. I know that I can explain how Obamacare has hurt my family, and many others, all night, and yet I will change no one’s mind. Those who support Obamacare will continue to do so with the full knowledge that cancer patients on Exchange policies cannot get treatment, as their doctors and hospitals do not accept the plans. They will continue on the same course and blithely expect a different result. Too few people follow the result of bills, reforms, bonds, etc to their final conclusion, and base their next vote on the results.
And, Ron, the writings of Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin are some of my favorites in politics. And “uniformity of opinion” does seem to be the goal of the extreme Left.
Ignorance is bliss.
Canadians don’t know private insurance. They’ve had socialized medicine for generations.
Karen, Self employed and small biz owners get shit on by both parties. We have no lobbyists. Like Marlene Dietrich, “We just want to be left alone.” There are very few people here who understand our worldview. So, keep commenting, but you’re speaking to the deaf. I learned that awhile ago.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/06/16/freedom/
Jefferson on religious liberty:
3. “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” – Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82
4. ”Subject opinion to coercion: whom will you make your inquisitors? Fallible men; men governed by bad passions, by private as well as public reasons. And why subject it to coercion? To produce uniformity. But is uniformity of opinion desirable? No more than of face and stature.”– Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
ACA does little more than break Hobby Lobby’s leg and pick it’s pocket, no?
Annie, I don’t know how else to explain this to you. My premium and deductible skyrocketed. No doctor I asked accepted Exchange policies in CA. Cancer patients cannot get treatment. My previous plan that had a lower premium and lower deductible, that I could take anywhere got cancelled. My niece died while on Medicaid, and it was outrageous what they wouldn’t pay for. We had to talk to a representative who was neither a nurse nor a doctor, and tried to explain things like feeding tubes. And you keep telling me Europeans like it. I’m living it, and I don’t like it.
The number of Canadians who like their health care system is anywhere from 65% to 95%, depending on who wrote the article. The number bounces around like a ball in a sing-along TV show. I can also point to Italians who despise their health care. And I’ve also stated over and over again that we have higher immigration, and a higher overall population, and hence a higher drain on our system than they have in Canada. And I could also point out studies with grim warnings that Canada is running out of money for its health care system.
Are you saying that we should keep raising premiums on everyone? Or that doctors should accept a 30% pay cut and still miraculously keep their doors open, and spend enough time with patients while they simultaneously see a huge quantity of patients to make up for the lower reimbursement? And that all these “free” benefits that drive premiums up are OK? And if you run a Catholic hospital you should be forced to perform abortions or give the day after pill? Because some Canadians and Germans like their own system? I guess you can get used to anything, such as abominable wait times. That’s their normal.
I’m so curious. I suspect that you have employer insurance, and hence have not been hit with what feels like punitive premiums as I have. Am I right? Or are you so wealthy that doubling your premium and raising your deductible by 1100% had no effect on your quality of life? Remember when Obama argued for Obamacare because people were one health crisis away from bankruptcy? Can someone please give the man a calculator? Because what does he think doubling premiums and increasing deductibles by 1100% does to middle class families?
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/homo-consumericus/201206/don-t-romanticize-the-canadian-healthcare-system
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/25/america-canada-freedom-of-choice-public-healthcare
Canadians are following the implementation of the Affordable Care Act with the hope that it will lead to better healthcare for all Americans. But that hope is tempered by feelings of disappointment and confusion that America still has not progressed to a single-payer universal healthcare system.
For Canadians, the value of public healthcare is self-evident.
We spend roughly 60% of what the United States does on healthcare (pdf), and manage to cover everyone (10.6% of GDP in Canada vs. 17% in the US). In a public system, spending less does not mean worse healthcare outcomes. Measured by life expectancy, infant mortality, cancer survival rates and many other measures, Canadians enjoy the same or better levels of care than Americans. Public healthcare costs less, delivers more and is there for everyone, regardless of their ability to pay.
How is it possible for a public healthcare system to deliver more and better care at a lower cost? The secret is in the two major differences between the Canadian and American health care systems. First, in Canada, core hospital services can only be non-profit. Eliminating the need to funnel profits to shareholders represents a 10-15% savings right off the bat.
Second, the Canadian single-payer system – when expanded across the entire country – is simply the most efficient way to run a healthcare system. Risk is pooled across the largest possible population. And a large, single system means that the share of health spending that goes towards administrative costs is 16.7% in Canada, compared to a whopping 31% in the US. In a public system the emphasis is no longer on itemizing, invoicing and collecting payment from individuals, and resources can be shifted to where they are needed: patient care.
While for-profit health corporations and big pharmaceutical companies are fighting to privatize more of Canada’s health care, polls consistently show that Canadians strongly oppose this. A survey in December 2011, found that 94% of Canadians are in favour of public over for-profit healthcare (pdf).
Public healthcare is funded out of general taxation, so Canadians never get a medical bill in the mail. The only plastic card we need to take to the hospital is our government issued health card. From there, the bill is settled between the hospital and the provincial government.
Freedom from medical bills leaves Canadians with many more care options. Depending on the size of the city we live in (bigger cities have more options), we choose the doctors we want, the type of practice we’re comfortable with (single-doctor, team based, community), or how we want to birth our children (with a midwife, a doctor, at home, in a birthing centre, or at a hospital).
If it is decided between a patient and their health professional that a procedure is medically necessary, we are referred for the service. There is no insurance provider coming between a patient and their doctor, deciding what services we can and cannot have done. As long as the procedure is not purely cosmetic, it is covered by public medical insurance.
We do not have to pass a medical exam to be covered by public insurance. Pre-existing conditions require future monitoring and additional care or services; they are never something that disqualifies us from coverage.
In a single-payer system you also are not locked in to your current job to keep health coverage. Public health insurance allows Canadians more freedom to change jobs and careers knowing that their healthcare coverage will follow them.
It is true that we do sometimes have to wait for care in Canada. How much time varies by procedure and province. The system is guided by triage; if you have a medical reason to get the procedure done immediately, you get it right away. If your condition isn’t as serious, you might have to wait. But just because someone is wealthy does not mean they can pay and bump you down the list. We determine care solely by need.
Canada’s public healthcare system reflects our belief in the right of every person to access care when they need it, regardless of their ability to pay. We believe that people should have the freedom to make decisions on health matters with their doctors and not have their choice invalidated by a large corporation looking out for their bottom line.
Canadians believe in a public, single-tiered, healthcare system that puts people first. We also believe that if Americans knew what they were truly missing, they would demand nothing less than the same for themselves.
Canadians. Good night.
http://healthcoalition.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/NANOS-EN.pdf
94% of Candains prefer public over private health care system.
Annie wrote: “94% of Candains prefer public over private health care system.”
Annie, they don’t know private health care. Private health care is illegal in Canada. The few Canadians who can afford to come to the U.S. for private healthcare sing its praises. The trend in Canada now is toward PRIVATE healthcare as public healthcare is taking a beating in the courtroom because of constitutional issues regarding inadequate public healthcare.
Regarding Canada:
“Accepting money from patients for operations they would otherwise receive free of charge in a public hospital is technically prohibited in this country, even in cases where patients would wait months or even years before receiving treatment.”
“We’ve taken the position that the law is illegal,” Dr. Day, 59, says. “This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week and in which humans can wait two to three years.”
“Canada remains the only industrialized country that outlaws privately financed purchases of core medical services.”
“But a Supreme Court ruling last June — it found that a Quebec provincial ban on private health insurance was unconstitutional when patients were suffering and even dying on waiting lists — appears to have become a turning point for the entire country.
“The prohibition on obtaining private health insurance is not constitutional where the public system fails to deliver reasonable services,” the court ruled. In response, the Quebec premier, Jean Charest, proposed this month to allow private hospitals to subcontract hip, knee and cataract surgery to private clinics when patients are unable to be treated quickly enough under the public system. The premiers of British Columbia and Alberta have suggested they will go much further to encourage private health services and insurance in legislation they plan to propose in the next few months. Private doctors across the country are not waiting for changes in the law, figuring provincial governments will not try to stop them only to face more test cases in the Supreme Court.”
“The median wait time between a referral by a family doctor and an appointment with a specialist has increased to 8.3 weeks last year from 3.7 weeks in 1993, according to a recent study by The Fraser Institute, a conservative research group. Meanwhile the median wait between an appointment with a specialist and treatment has increased to 9.4 weeks from 5.6 weeks over the same period. Average wait times between referral by a family doctor and treatment range from 5.5 weeks for oncology to 40 weeks for orthopedic surgery, according to the study.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/international/americas/28canada.html?ei=5090&en=ad12dcee61e8b584&ex=1298782800&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print&_r=0
People who critique rhetoric on a blog site ignore the substantive argument.
Here’s a good link about German health care, where they don’t see it as socialist. However, they do have the option to have private health insurance. Although the majority have national health insurance, they complain that they have “second class service” compared to people with private insurance. http://www.thelundreport.org/content/germans-confused-over-us-healthcare-debate