HHS Mandate: Hobby Lobby Will Not Comply Despite Higher Court Ruling

Standing Against Christian Persecution

Attorneys representing Hobby Lobby in its lawsuit against the HHS Mandate announced that the company will not comply with government demands that it pay for insurance for the morning after pill.

This announcement comes despite a ruling by Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor that Hobby Lobby will not receive injunctive relief from the Mandate and must begin paying a $1.3 million dollar a day fine if it does not provide insurance coverage for the morning after pill to its employees. Hobby Lobby also announced that it will continue its long-standing practice of providing health insurance coverage for other contraceptives for its employees.

It is incredible to me that abortion advocates are so aggressive in their efforts to force people who do not agree with them to actually participate in abortions. This extends from attempts to force doctors and nurses to participate in performing abortions to the HHS Mandate which seeks to coerce religious organizations and businesses, such as Hobby Lobby, to pay for abortifacients.

The morning after pill can be dangerous to women’s health, especially if it is taken repeatedly. Despite this, it appears that there is a concerted effort to push this high-dose hormone as a contraceptive replacement to be used casually and often.

In addition to the obvious moral and religious objections to an abortifacient drug like this, I think there are other moral objections to it on the basis of women’s health.

Hobby Lobby’s statement says in full:

tatement Regarding Sotomayor Opinion

“Hobby Lobby will continue their appeal before the Tenth Circuit. The Supreme Court merely decided not to get involved in the case at this time. It left open the possibility of review after their appeal is completed in the Tenth Circuit. The company will continue to provide health insurance to all qualified employees. To remain true to their faith, it is not their intention, as a company, to pay for abortion-inducing drugs.” — Kyle Duncan, General Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty

Mor information concerning the case can be found on The Becket Fund For Religious Liberty website.

  • Indy

    I pray for the brave owners of Hobby Lobby. This is a horrible time in the history of the United States.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      Indy, we need to support Hobby Lobby in every way we can.

  • DoctorD

    Gee. I wonder how David Green’s female employees feel about this… Oh, that’s right, the catholics need need not ask the women since they they are Nothing.

    ” The morning after pill can be dangerous to women’s health, …” Lies. Nothing but bald faced lies. Shame on you, Rebecca.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      The people who own Hobby Lobby are not Catholic. The Catholic Church does not regard women as nothing.

      However, the people who are pushing the morning after pill just might …

      According to the Population Research Council:
      At home and abroad, the abortion, family planning, and population control groups which seek to promote MAP ignore the scientifically-proven risks of levonorgestrel (the sole active ingredient of Plan B MAP). These well-documented adverse side effects include significant weight gain (on average 15 pounds), depression, ovarian cyst enlargement, gallbladder disease, high blood pressure, respiratory disorders,4increased risk of ectopic pregnancy5 and death. In some women, these serious adverse effects of levonorgestrel-type MAP could lead to further health risks for bulimia, anorexia, or clinical depression.
      While these risks are multiplied with increased use, the advocates of MAP promote its increased, frequent, and repeated use. The makers of Plan-B, MAP suggest it “can be provided as frequently as needed,”6 as if it were candy or Tums. The wholesale promotion by the profiteers is undercut by solid evidence, and warnings advising women and physicians to limit usage, or to not use it at all.7 Norplant, the drug very similar to Plan B, was linked to severe medical problems which were never adequately studied or acknowledged by the FDA or the drug manufacturer (please see PRI’s Norplant information page, posted athttp://www.pop.org/main.cfm?

    • liz

      Doctor D:

      “Bold faced lies” about the effect of some medication??

      If you are really a doctor, then please explain how so many drugs can be offered in one generation as the “best thing” to take care of a problem, only to find that it causes so many problems later. Let me offer an example – DES Daughters – http://www.cdc.gov/DES/consumers/about/effects_daughters.html. I am a DES daughter, but because my mom was given this drug to carry her next child to full term, I am here. However, I have had an abnormal Paps test result and I am always in fear of another bad test result.

      And then, I grew up in the Detroit area in the 50s through 70s, so there is the issue of mercury poisoning from the lakes and rivers that I swam in as well as ate fish from. http://www.epa.gov/med/grosseile_site/indicators/hg-walleye.html
      http://www.epa.gov/hg/effects.htm

      So, I was told to worry about mercury levels. Now, I am told not to worry about the effects of the “small amount” of mercury that is in the CFLs. But how many people are properly disposing of those bulbs and how long will it take before that is the new crisis? I live in an area that uses wind/natural gas/nuclear power for electric generation so the impact of coal-fired plants and mercury emissions is low for me. Improper disposal of CFLs is another matter.

      There are many examples of something which is deemed to be good for us and then later, we find out that it is bad. And then even later, it is okay or even good, in moderation. The “item” can be vitamins, food, drinks, drugs, or whatever. As I grow older, I see the need to be skeptical about all claims. Logically, I cannot see how a repeated physical or drug-induced modification (abortion or morning after pills) to a natural process (childbirth) can be healthy to a human body. At some point in time, the body will be impacted by the repeated abuse.

      IF you want to reduce the number of children in the world, let’s consider more permanent solutions for both men and women. I would rather pay for a sterilization procedure than repeated abortions or drug-induced terminations.

    • Sus

      I’ll believe Plan B is “safe” once all the women who have taken it live to old age without issues. Women’s bodies have cycles for a reason. Messing with that cycle cannot be healthy.

      • Liz

        hey – something that we can agree on….but, there will always be those people who are the subjects being tested upon.

        Hold life dear – trust no one.

      • Ted Seeber

        I know far too many women who have already died of breast cancer and ovarian cancer from messing with their hormones to believe that.

    • Ted Seeber

      Real women don’t need contraception. Only people who Planned Parenthood wants to prevent breeding (like Negros and Catholics) need contraception, right? You’re a bigot.

  • http://www.thoughtsfromanamericanwoman.wordpress.com Patty

    If we had one here I would shop there. Guess it is time to look on their website. I am proud of them for standing up to their convictions. God will indeed bless them.

  • Manny

    We don’t have Hobby Lobby around here. I’ve never even heard of them before. My prayers go out to them. Here’s the perfect example of why I am a Conservative. The power of government to dictate and mandate what a person must do is unimaginable. Ultimately the Constitution is a piece of paper with words on it, such as the Bill of Rights. But government has an army with weapons and jails and means of enforcement that no piece of paper can stop. We have very little effective power to resist.

  • Pingback: HHS Mandate: Hobby Lobby Will Not Comply Despite Higher Court … | Christian News Tweets

  • Bill S

    Advocates of the HHS Mandate would point to its benefits to the employee and to the fact that the employer has no right to impose his religious beliefs on his employees. Mr. Green is against the morning after pill. Catholics are against all contraceptives. Jehovah’s Witnesses are against blood transfusions. Christian Scientists are against who knows what. Where do you draw the line?

    Though extremists will say otherwise, what the morning after pill does is not murder in this country. It may be in Ireland and maybe some other countries with backwards laws on abortion but it isn’t here.

    Hobby Lobby is placing itself and its employees in harms way due to the overly scrupulous consciences of its owners. No one except for extremists on the pro-choice side want to see this result in massive penalties.

    • SteveP

      Bill S: Harm? Nonsense! See the definition of “Medical Care:” http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/1191b

    • liz

      Do you understand that there is a difference between health care and health care insurance? In case you don’t know the difference, health care refers to the actual providing of a service. Health care insurance is just a payment mechanism. Most insurance plans do have a deductible, co-pay and lifetime limitations on payments. Depending on the plan, there are also exclusion of certain services or perhaps limitations to where you can go for treatments.

      The owners of this company are not saying that their employees cannot use birth control, the morning after pill or have abortions. However, they are saying that the payment for such services is the responsibility of the employee.

      The company is quite open that it is a privately held company. It is also quite obvious that they have religious certain beliefs, such as the stores are not open on Sunday so that employees can be with their families. No one is forced to apply to work at Hobby Lobby or continue working there if they find the working conditions, pay and benefits to be bad. Hobby Lobby is not the only retail store in town, nor is it the only employer in town.

      I consider your statements to be very extremist since it is you that wants to impose YOUR “overly scrupulous” viewpoint on another person.

    • Ted Seeber

      “Advocates of the HHS Mandate would point to its benefits to the employee”

      There are no benefits to the employee. It is just a fake from people like you who hate children and want to prevent human beings from being human. Contraception is a lie and a poison.

      But since you’re a dishonest person anyway, I’m not surprised by your lies at all.

      • Bill S

        Ted,

        Elsewhere, I said it was good to hear from you again. Now I am not so sure.

        • Ted Seeber

          Perhaps my period of unemployment has made me more bitter. But right now, what I see with this support for the HHS Mandate isn’t just an attack on religious liberty anymore. It is a *direct* attack on minorities and humanity itself. And deserves to be opposed as such.

          If you keep going down this road, you WILL hurt everybody around you. Lies and dishonesty always does. You are embracing the lie that you can help the poor by preventing them from being born. I see no reason to believe anything that stems from the conclusion that you can help people by preventing their existence. It is not logical, it is not rational, and it is proof positive to me that atheists are no better than the killers who invade public places with AR-15 rifles to commit suicide.

  • Bill S

    (2) Medical care
    The term “medical care” means amounts paid for—
    (A) the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, or (2) Medical care
    The term “medical care” means amounts paid for—
    (A) the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, or amounts paid for the purpose of affecting any structure or function of the body,
    (B) amounts paid for transportation primarily for and essential to medical care referred to in subparagraph (A), and
    (C) amounts paid for insurance covering medical care referred to in subparagraphs (A) and (B). paid for the purpose of affecting any structure or function of the body,
    (B) amounts paid for transportation primarily for and essential to medical care referred to in subparagraph (A), and
    (C) amounts paid for insurance covering medical care referred to in subparagraphs (A) and (B).

    “amounts paid for the purpose of affecting any structure or function of the body” seems to cover contraception. So, what is your point?

    • SteveP

      There is no list of defined procedures or benefits. If the employer pays for them from a health plan it is medical care and adheres completely to the law.

    • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

      To be fair, that definition would include contraception because of the clause Bill mentioned. It would also include pretty much anything one could imagine, even things that are clearly harmful to the body. I’d say that isn’t a very precise definition of medical care.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      Bill, the morning after pill does not treat a disease or any other medical problem. It prevents ovulation and can kill a baby after it is conceived. This second part is what makes it an abortifacient. It is available over the counter in all 50 states.

      It in no way is analogous to blood transfusions, which are only available in hospitals or through licensed medical personnel in emergency situations and which are often necessary to save lives in catastrophic medical emergencies.

      The morning after pill has serious, potentially deadly, side effects, which are entirely ignored by those who are pushing it on young women as a form of birth control. It is being marketed aggressively and even handed out to school children as a form of birth control. There is no concern for the repeated use of a potentially deadly high dosage of hormones and its effects on the health and safety of these young women who are minors. They are children, both legally and morally. The way the morning after pill is being mindlessly hyped, marketed and pushed on young girls and women is misogynist to the core.

      Why are you pushing so hard for what amounts to government tyranny over the rights of conscience of the citizens of this country to support this pill? You keep bringing up the Catholic Church. But the people who own Hobby Lobby are not Catholic. They provide coverage for contraceptives for their employees. They simply will not be part of providing for an abortion.

      You favor abortion. You’ve made that clear. You’ve joined the idiots who claim that anyone who thinks that killing an unborn baby is wrong is, in fact, motivated by a hatred of women. You link every single argument to the Catholic Church, even when the Church is not part of the motivation or actions you are arguing.

      But are you also in favor of forcing people who feel that abortion is murder to participate in abortion themselves? That is what you are arguing.

      Are you also going to support every trendy mis-use of government power, violation of individual liberties and misogynist attack on women in the name of cultural trendiness that comes down the road? Are you planning to be for everything the Church opposes, simply because the Church opposes it?

      Stop being such a knee-jerk jerk Bill. Think.

      • Bill S

        “It prevents ovulation and can kill a baby after it is conceived.”

        Ask someone who has ever lost a baby if it is the same thing as expelling a fertilized egg.

        • Ted Seeber

          It is to me and my wife.

    • liz

      I am talking about basic economic concepts here, not something written for a law to redefine a basic economic transaction. There is a difference between getting an actual service, such as time with a doctor, a medication or a diagnostic test, and the payment for that service.

      By your logic, if I buy home owner’s insurance, then someone has to give me a house, right? Housing is a basic need, right? Where’s my house? Oh, I paid for that, on time, I didn’t overbuy & I didn’t default.

      Insurance doesn’t work that way. I have something that is important to me. When I buy insurance, I am betting that something may happen that may impact my financial status, such as a huge loss beyond my control. The insurance company is betting that the “EVENT” won’t happen. The rates are set according to the probabilities of certain events happening. When I was young, I didn’t buy renter’s insurance until I realized that the value of what I had exceeded the annual cost of buying the insurance. Oh, the idiot setting fire to the ex’s apartment, causing a major apartment complex fire, also changed my attitude about renter’s insurance.

      I now have a home which I discovered is by a minor fault line. Hey, I’m now paying for earthquake insurance since if there is a quake and something falls over, I won’t be covered unless I have that specific insurance clause. Water damage? Silly me, if it is inside the house, then it may be covered. Outside, do I have flood insurance? No, you get that through the federal government, if the funds are available.

      For health care, I have a major medical policy with a large deductible. Right now, it makes sense for me to directly pay for certain services vs. paying into a policy for a lower deductible that I won’t use or even abuse through overuse of the health care system.

      In the Obama future, I will have to pay for items that I do not need. I am past child-bearing years, so why should I have to pay for birth control, abortions, maternity and child care costs as well as male-specific issues since I am not married. I need insurance to cover my potential issues, such as knee replacements, breast cancer and other things. Let me pay for what I may need to insure for, not what others need. It is my risk that I am insuring.

      With the new rules, there is a lot of discussion of “free care”. Give me a break! Free? Sorry, you are just pre-paying through the insurance premiums. Nothing is free. The idea that a company can refuse to pay for certain services, but with the insurance company picking up the costs- really – are you that stupid to think that the company as well as others are not picking up the cost of the “FREE CARE”.

      So, do you think that health care is a “right” and should be provided? If so, how does that agree with the concept of health care rationing to contain costs – those unelected health care allocation commissions who will decide what is appropiate care, based on your age, sex, health and future economic situation? People complain about the financing decisions of those “horrible” health insurance companies. How will you feel when it is the government that decides that you get the blue pain pill instead of the hip replacement, which would actually help your quality of life? Have you ever considered that you may have paid a lifetime of social security and medicare taxes only to find out that you are now expendable because you are no longer paying into that fund?

      If health care is a right, then how can it be denied, just based on costs? If it is a right, then I want the best health care, just not what you deem to be appropiate.

      Is it just old people?

      Some people tend to make fun of those who are not like them – Down’s Syndrome, for example. But what about children with autism, mental illness or another physical illness that may mean that they will not be a “productive” adult human being bringing in taxes to the system. Will those humans be eliminated, just like those aborted because it was a bother to have a child? Oh, they won’t be able to pay for their care, so to the gas chambers for them??

      You may be of the age where these cost issues are not important to you…. but later… will you be able to stop this “health care” process when you need the care? According to you, it is just an issue of paying. When you are deemed not being able to pay, will the system be available to help you?

      • http://coalitionforclarity.blogspot.com/ Robert King

        As I understand it, “medical insurance” has never really been “insurance” in the sense that homeowners insurance or auto insurance is. Rather, it has, right from the beginning, been a pre-paid cost-distribution means to make sure that doctors got paid, even if the individual patient wasn’t able to pay the full cost of treatment. It covered basic care as well as catastrophic events, if memory serves, from the time it was invented in the early 20th Century, and certainly since it became a standard part of employment compensation.

        There are pros and cons to the system as it stands, and there are reasonable arguments for various ways of changing the entire system; but it is a mistake to consider it equivalent to other forms of insurance. It simply doesn’t work the same way, and never really has.

        • SteveP

          One could get an indemnity policy. However, as number of doctor visits and hospitalizations increased, not to mention standard procedure pricing from Medicare / Medicaid, indemnity became difficult to sell to employers / consumers due to the high premium over the lifetime of the contract.

          That being said, I agree – it was once health insurance but is now something resembling a tangle of yarn.

  • FW Ken

    he employer has no right to impose his religious beliefs on his employees.

    An excellent example of the incoherence we are facing.

    An analogy: a glass of red wine a day is therapeutic (unlike contraception and abortion), therefore I must pay for my employees alcohol even if I object to alcohol on religious grounds (I don’t, but the point remains). It’s not enough to allow them to buy wine, I must supply it.

    There was a time when the pro-choice slogan was something like: if you don’t approve of abortion, don’t have one”. Now, it’s more like: sorry you don’t approve of abortion, but you have to pay for mine”. or… you want to be a doctor? you have to do abortions. You want to run a hospital ? Abortions are required (we aren’t quite yet there, but not far).

    The irrational fanaticism of the pro-choice crowd is earning them an appellation they have long despised. Truly, when we all have to pay for it, it’s not “pro-choice”, but “pro-abortion”.

  • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

    “There was a time when the pro-choice slogan was something like: if you don’t approve of abortion, don’t have one”. Now, it’s more like: “Sorry you don’t approve of abortion, but you have to pay for mine.”

    That’s a very good point, FW Ken.

  • Bill S

    “I consider your statements to be very extremist since it is you that wants to impose YOUR “overly scrupulous” viewpoint on another person.”

    By “scrupulous”, I mean thinking that you have or would be sinning when it is not actually a sin. I am pointing out the Greens’ scrupulosity in thinking that they are responsible for decisions made by their employees and that it is wrong to provide coverage when it is required by the government. It is the employee and the government that are responsible. They are suffering from an exaggerated sense of their own importance. This is not uncommon in highly successful people. I don’t ever have to worry about having that problem. Ultimately, it is an ego trip.

    • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

      Oh come on, Bill. Surely you realize that having something “required by the government” does not always absolve one from personal responsibility. The Nazi Regime required lots of things for which people who followed those requirements were later tried for war crimes. Are you saying that was wrong?

      • Ted Seeber

        He realizes it, but since he’s an atheist nazi eugenicist, he’ll never admit it.

    • SteveP

      Bill S: You have coupled two separate issues: 1) a female Hobby Lobby’s choice to use abortifacients or obtain an abortion and 2) Hobby Lobby’s health plan offering.

      1) The Greens in no way interfere with a “woman’s right to choose.” A female Hobby Lobby employee may terminate as many pregnancies as she wishes by whatever method she wishes as often as she is pregnant with no adverse effect on her employment because of her abortions.
      2) The Greens are arguing that, as they are the party that contracts with the insurance company, they cannot be compelled to contract against their conscience.

    • liz

      The coverage is only required by the Obamacare law since it was recently enacted. Remember that the “Congress had to pass it before we knew what was in it”. What is happening now is that we are realizing what the rules are…. and we may not agree with them.

      What is the recourse?

      Petitioning the courts, which is what the company is doing. It is their right as American citizens. Don’t give me that bs that a corporation is not an individual. In this case, the company is a closely held entity, the tax-implications probably flow directly to them and the owners have every right to question the taxes and rules that are being imposed on them.

      I do not know of the tax-implications of this activity and neither does anyone else….only the owners and their tax accountants know that information.

    • liz

      Bill – this is what you said…

      ” By “scrupulous”, I mean thinking that you have or would be sinning when it is not actually a sin. I am pointing out the Greens’ scrupulosity in thinking that they are responsible for decisions made by their employees and that it is wrong to provide coverage when it is required by the government. It is the employee and the government that are responsible. They are suffering from an exaggerated sense of their own importance. This is not uncommon in highly successful people. I don’t ever have to worry about having that problem. Ultimately, it is an ego trip.”

      Ha – where did I say anything about sinning – I am talking about personal opinions and economics. In addition, since the law was passed without specific information (remember that it would have to be passed before we knew what was in it), the only way to deal with an injustice is to file a lawsuit against such an injustice. The Greens are only following the legal way of doing things. They object to the inclusion of certain provisions, so they are filing a lawsuit against it. What else can they do?

      I have a previous comment that I object to the fact that I will have to pay costs related to health care services for child bearing age women (past that time), children ( I have none) and men (I am not married). However, I may find out that I won’t get that knee replacement when I need it since I will be deemed to be too old and non-productive. I want to pay for that risk and only that risk. Why do I have to pay for the activities of other people? It is INSURANCE – do you not grasp that concept?

      Let’s talk about alternatives to the issue – why not have a more flexible insurance programs so that risks can be properly evaluated. I am approaching 60, single, in good health, active, good genes (females lasted to mid 80′s), watch what I eat, don’t over medicate, etc. Why shouldn’t the HEALTH INSURANCE (NOT HEALTH CARE) be based on those facts? If I want to pay for extra health care, such as annual exams and screening, why can’t I? Does everything have to be run though health insurance? Heck, if I am healthy and willing, why can’t I just continue on with regular health care insurance instead of being forced onto Medicare? By the way – how many times have you NOT run something through your insurance company so that your rates would NOT go up? Heck, I’ve done that for home and auto issues, since I know the purpose of insurance. Bite the bullet on minor things and let the insurance pay for the major things.

      Here is something else that you said – “It is the employee and the government that are responsible. ” I think that it is the responsibility of the person to tend to their own heatlh care. The government should only help when the individual is unable to deal with it.

      And then there is this statement of yours… “They are suffering from an exaggerated sense of their own importance.” Heh, who it “they” – I think it is the government that you are referring to….

      • Bill S

        Your comments pertain to the entire health care act. I wouldn’t know where to begin in addressing them so I won’t. I just think the Greens are sticking to a principle that they need not stick to. Probably nobody in their company is going to take the MAP anyway if they are so in tune with their employers’ principles. They have complied with just about everything. It is dumb for them to make such a big issue over something so meaningless and probably not even applicable in reality.

      • Sus

        Liz, you can eat right, keep fit, no family history, never smoked and still end up with a serious illness like cancer. My illness cost 350k. One day I was fine and the next day I was on a medical train of terror that didn’t stop for 18 months. Without our insurance I’d be dead because I’d have a hard time with my family losing everything including our home.

        You may not want to pay for others but I don’t mind paying for you if unexpectedly you find yourself with a serious illness like cancer.

  • Pingback: HHS Mandate: Hobby Lobby Will Not Comply Despite Higher Court … | Christian News

  • FW Ken

    I might be wrong, but is swear I read the law is written so that the fines are imposed but the law doesn’t provide for enforcement. In other errors, the fines are there but you can ignore them.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      Ken, it’s not a law. It’s a regulation promulgated by a committee of the HHS department and signed by President Obama. It did not — and I believe could not — pass through Congress. In fact, the president promised nothing like this would happen when he was trying to pass the Affordable Health Care Act. He lied.

      As for whether or not there are provisions of enforcement for collecting fines, I do not know. I don’t think that HHS has a police force. However, the President has a rather powerful one at his disposal.

      I also do not know if the regulation contains provisions for seizure of properties if the fines are not paid, or if how this seizure would occur if it does.

      How this will play out, I do not know.

  • FW Ken

    Thanks, Rebecca. By law, I was thinking of the whole healthcare act and its requirement to have coverage or pay a fine. But as I said, I’m quite likely muddled about the whole thing.

    Muddled or not, its perhaps a worthy consideration for this Feast of the Holy Innocents.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      It’s very “muddling” for all of us. It does sort of fit this feast, doesn’t it?

  • Bill S

    If I were Mr. Green, I would obey the mandate and continue to fight it in the courts to the very end. If not for myself, I would do it for my employees.

    At the same time, I would issue an open letter to all employees stating my strong opposition to the use of the MAP. I would cite the health risks and my beliefs regarding the rights of a fertilized egg and the dangers posed to it if the MAP failed to prevent fertilization. I would let my employees decide for themselves whether to listen to me or not. I would not prohibit them from using the MAP but I would strongly advise against it.

    • Dr. Peter John Resweber

      Bill S,

      Since you apparently have no problem with the government mandating that people violate their consciences as long as they believe it is for the “good of the people”, I have a simple thought experiment for you.

      Suppose the government decided (based on reasonable analysis of available data) that “Gun Free Zones” were a manifest danger to the public and that arming more law abiding citizens was the way to reduce crime fatalities. Suppose rather simply than loosening various restrictions it began to mandate that NO private enterprise could designate itself a “Gun Free Zone” and that employers must provide weapons and weapons training to all employees.

      Would you stand by all the same types of arguments you have made in this thread or would something suddenly change?

      For example and to apply just your last argument, would you state:

      “If I were Mr. Green, I would obey the mandate and continue to fight it in the courts to the very end. If not for myself, I would do it for my employees.

      At the same time, I would issue an open letter to all employees stating my strong opposition to the use of firearms. I would cite the health risks and my beliefs regarding the carrying of assault weapons and the dangers posed to employees and customers. I would let my employees decide for themselves whether to listen to me or not. I would pay for their weapons and training and I would not prohibit them from using them; but, I would strongly advise against it.”

      • Bill S

        I don’t get your paraphrasing. Can you use a more understandable method to state your views?

        • Dr. Peter John Resweber

          Re: “Can you use a more understandable method to state your views?”

          How’s this?

          Your arguments show what might be called teleological reasoning. That is, you have an ultimate purpose (supporting abortion, contraception and the HHS mandate) in mind and will twist logic to suit that purpose.

          The extent of the twisting becomes evident when you apply methods such as the reductio absurdum. When parallel “logic” is applied to different data sets you do not like the outcome and immediately spot the illogic.

          That is because your arguments are NOT rational and are simply an attempt to rationalize your forgone conclusions.

          • Bill S

            “Your arguments show what might be called teleological reasoning. That is, you have an ultimate purpose…”

            That juat about describes every commenter on this blog. I think my arguments are fairly rational.

            • Dr. Peter John Resweber

              Even if you complaint was true (which I am emphatically NOT granting), “He does it too” is not a way to establish your own virtue.

              You have asserted several irrational ideas: Perhaps the most prominent one is the idea that someone doesn’t have a right unless they can force someone else to pay for that right.

              By your logic, I should be demanding that you pay for my guns and gun training.

              • Dr. Peter John Resweber

                youR complaint — damn typos! :(

  • Peg

    Well I am a woman and a mother of a teenage daughter and this mandate is not healthcare. We have studied these and they are not healthy nor medicine nor good for the environment.

    If the atheistic males who are so disruptive on this site and want to speak for us woman are liberals like myself, how can you support greedy drug companies or gov’t violations of conscience and constitutional rights or the environmental damage to our water supply from the widespread use of these drugs?

    I am a catholic because the church supports the whole and complete dignity of women children and men from womb to tomb.

    My daughter will be applying for a job at Hobby Lobby because they care for their employees and we will support them any way we can. Thanks for the updates.

  • Bill S

    I think Hobby Lobby has met something like 99% of its requirements to cover its employees’ health care needs. The MAP seems to be one of the least important coverages. However, if this requirement were waived for one employer, it would open the floodgates for waiving all kinds of requirements for all kinds of employers. Hobby Lobby is putting the government in a no win situation.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      The government put itself there, or rather, a hand-picked committee and the President put it there with this ill-advised, high-handed end run around Congress with this rule.

      • Bill S

        This is such a miniscule component of such an all encompassing legislation. Only extremists would gravitate to it and make it so important.

        • Ted Seeber

          The point is that it is not even a part of the legislation. It’s a dictatorship. Legislation is null and void in a dictatorship.

          But that was the point all along for you atheists- since you can’t destroy religion by rational argument, use the government and the military to ban it, just like you tried to do in Mexico (and pretty much succeeded).

  • Sus

    I’ve been thinking about this. Plan B is available over the counter. How many traditional insurance plans cover over the counter medications? My Cadillac plan doesn’t.

    My fear is that the HHS Mandate is going to derail healthcare for all. Having had cancer I have seen what happens if you don’t have insurance.

    Birth control and abortions are available without insurance. Some states though have restrictions on abortion.

    • Ted Seeber

      It’s going to derail a hell of a lot more than healthcare for all. If this goes through, it is basically a blank check for the Executive Branch to pay no attention to Congress or SCOTUS, and dictate anything they want.

  • Pingback: HHS Mandate: Hobby Lobby Will Not Comply Despite Higher Court <b>…</b> | Christian Web Watch


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X