Obama, Hobby Lobby, HHS Mandate Poster

Obama, Hobby Lobby, HHS Mandate Poster June 30, 2014

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment

65 responses to “Obama, Hobby Lobby, HHS Mandate Poster”

  1. Hooray!!! The courts aren’t completely lost yet. Now here’s hoping the court will toss out the notion that having insurance companies ‘pay’ is any different than the company paying.

    How about libs practice what they’re always preaching and stop forcing other people into their bedroom and forcing us to pay for your sex and your oopsies .

    • “Birth control pills” are used for other things other than preventing pregnancy. Women who have certain monthly problems are some times RXed them. Guess if a woman has a need for such a RX she best not work for HL.

        • Thank you for telling me that, Rebecca. I assumed that they (HL) wouldn’t pay for anything related to birth control. That puts a different prospective on things.

          • Birth control pills are so cheap, I don’t think they should be paid for by any insurance company. That kind of charge just raises the cost of insurance and diminishes the money for necessary, much more expensive treatments, even things needed by young people, say treatment for auto accidents, orthopedic, neuro, etc. There is a finite amount of money. If people paid for normal, cheaper things insurance and treatments would all be cheaper.

          • You did not “assume”. You were told, by the lying, partisan media, who have begun making up false charges against HL because their man has been defeated in a court of law. You just believed what you read, which is the impulse of a decent person, but rather a naive one.

        • In addition to Plan B and Ella “morning after” pills, Hobby Lobby also refuses to cover two types of IUD. Contrariwise, I’m not aware of any secondary uses of IUDs analogous to birth control pills’ prescription for controlling ovarian cysts.

          Nohow, I see nothing in Alito’s majority decision that would prevent his reasoning from applying to a company refusing for religious reasons to cover contraception of any sort.

          • You have me at a disadvantage: I still haven’t done more than glance through the opinion. However, I do want clarify one point. The opinion applies only to privately-held corporations.

            Now, I’m back out of the conversation.

            • Private and “closely held”, even; which other sources indicate requires that the five largest shareholders together control at least 50%-plus-one-share of the company. (Or at least, that’s reportedly the IRS standard.) Contrariwise, the Washington Post indicates that approximately half of the US workforce are employed by such companies. Nohow, that line may also face challenge, making the impact even broader.

              Regardless, I’m not a lawyer, I just argue with them on the internet; I’d be delighted if someone could point out something that I missed in the opinion of the court which gives such excluding reasoning.

      • BCPs used for legitimate medical purposes other than contraception are not immoral and you won’t find Catholic doctors and institutions refusing to rx/pay for them under those circumstances either. Of course, if they’re not for contraception they’re not going to be provided free either.

      • If she works for Hobby Lobby, they pay their starting employees almost twice the minimum wage, so they will be able to afford them.

        And anyway, of the 20 contraceptive methods listed, Hobby Lobby will pay for 16 of them. Four of them they consider abortofacients, and it is only those that they refused to pay for, because they were destroying a life.

  2. Plus i just read HL already pays for 16 diff. types of contrac. they only objected to one particular kind….what ever happened to live and let live?

    • There is no such thing as live and let live in the Obama administration. For decades, all previous administrations have freely and eagerly granted exemptions from laws when religious freedom was involved. They followed the first amendment which says we have free exercise of religion

      I never thought I would live in an America that oppresses religion rather than respects it. But now, it is clear that on every front, the Obama administration seeks to impose government control over religion whenever they see fit. Their motto is: “Free exercise of religion, so long as it agrees with Democratic Party positions. Otherwise, we are coming after you. “

    • Four kinds of contraception, actually.

      “Live and let live” went out in the late 1800s, when corporations weren’t willing to provide enough compensation to let workers live.

      • “Corporations” are you and me; if you have retirement funds of ANY kind except the kind that sit under your mattress, you own a corporation.

        • In one sense, yes, that is true.

          In the legal sense, however, that is false; a corporation is a distinct person, in the eyes of the law as separate from the owners in roughly the same way that a child is a distinct person separate from its parents.

    • All four are very liberal women. That makes a difference. Get some women of a conservative bent on the court and they will vote for freedom over subjugation.

    • Women aren’t supposed to allow other women contraceptives? I’m hanging with the women on the court.

      • Nothing in this decision would have, could have, affected access to contraceptives. This decision was solely about religious liberty for rich, millionaire business owners and nobody else.

  3. Only five of them said that, all men. They are vestiges of an outmoded way of life that is even now fading away.

    • Andrew, What “vestiges of an outmoded way of life that is even now fading away?”
      You mean the freedom from government regulation of religion, or freedom of thought? The one that cannot be abridged by the government?
      I’m also not sure by what you say is fading away.
      Also, pretty near 50% of the population in the US as anywhere is male.

    • No, literally hundreds of people in Congress passed the law. It is a straightforward law that reads very easily. As Ginsburg’s dissent shows, they really object to RFRA itself, which they have no right to do.

      If by “outmoded way of life”, you mean freedom, then yes, I agree with you.

  4. “The government — the government —does not have any business requiring people to violate their faith under threat of government penalties. The government also does not have any business passing draconian agency regulations that infringe on American liberties by the fiat of a hand-selected back-room committee and calling it “law.”

    Let’s pray for the SCOTUS so that those who truly understand freedom remain on the bench for a long, long, time.

  5. I’m very happy for the decision. However, I’m semi sympathetic to the argument Ruth Bader Ginsburg made in the dissent. How does one define what is a religious objection when everyone can create their own religion. The problem stemmed from the fact that Obamacare should never have been constitutional in the first place. That decision, and especially the flip-flop by Roberts, was a horendous decision and totally wrong. It is unAmerican to mandate people buy things against their will. Today’s decision probably isn’t the cleanest decision, but I’m grateful for it.

    • The courts routinely deal with people who create their own religions – to get tax breaks, to do any number of things. They are pretty good at picking out the serious ones from the flakes.

      Ginsburg’s objection was that, Gee, now the government was going to get involved all the time in deciding whether the government action had a compelling reason to override religious beliefs.

      But that is a bogus charge. She really is objecting to RFRA itself – a statute passed by congress. Not the Hobby Lobby decision. RFRA set up the mechanism whereby religious freedom claims are balanced against the needs of the state. Courts are where you hear those types of cases. Nothing in the Hobby Lobby case changes this.

    • “It is unAmerican to mandate people buy things against their will. ”

      In a society like ours where people are not allowed to suffer the consequences of their bad decisions (letting someone without insurance die in the gutter), forcing them to buy health insurance (private or public) so the rest of us that do are not always paying their bills is the only fair solution.

      • Well, then you don’t consider America the land of the free. This is not freedom. No one is dying in the gutter, and paying the bills of the freeloaders is (1) the price of freedom and (2) better economic sense in the long run. If those people get sick and they go to a hospital, you hand them a bill and get collection agencies to collect.

        • The Catholic definition of freedom is freedom to do the right thing. People who make others pay their medical bills because they don’t want to be told what to do AND they know they won’t be left to die in the gutter anyhow isn’t freedom, it’s license, license to steal from others.

          • Like I said, hand them the bill at the point of service and if they don’t pay, you get a collection agency after them. What is wrong with that?

            • What’s wrong with that is that many don’t have any assets to collect and that’s why they don’t buy insurance. The people who buy insurance, like me, are the ones who have something to lose so I end up paying for their debts as costs get passed along. Do you have any idea of the cost of major hospitalizations? Do you know that coronary bypass treatment can run upwards of 100k? That’s enough to bankrupt most people. Why would you espouse letting people slide on medical insurance only to, in theory, be supporting the damage that bankruptcy causes (people absorbing the cost of their bad debt again) and very possibly having to support them publically anyway afterwards. It’s incredibly shortsighted. Someone has to pay those medical bills. You can support a system that spreads the responsibility in a fair manner or you can keep supporting a broken system that just get worse and worse.

              • Because the number of people without insurance is pretty small. Take away the people who are without insurance for less than a year and those chronically without insurance is around 12 million or so out of a country of 300+ million.
                But let me tell you this. You want to give the government power to force people to buy something they don’t want, then don’t complain when it forces you or the Catholic Church to do something you or they don’t want. DONT COMPLAIN. You want your cake and eat it too.

            • Part of that problem is you can’t get blood from a turnip. If a person hasn’t got the finances to pay the bill, collection agencies are a waste of time.

              • Then it’s no different than welfare. Put them on welfare. People on welfare get medical coverage and no one is forced to buy something they don’t want.

                • When you spend my money for your “put them on welfare” solution, YOU are forcing me to pay for something I don’t want. Your logic is inconsistent but I see that a lot in people who are politically polarized.

                  • It has nothing to do with polarization. It has to do whether one thinks that forcing people to buy stuff they don’t want is American freedom. I guess you don’t mind giving up liberties. That is not America to me. As I said elsewhere to you, don’t complain next time it’s you or those you feel sympathy with that are forced to buy and accept things they don’t want. Those that are arguing that catholics have no right to be forced to buy abortifacients but yet they still support Obamacare are hypocrits. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

                • Some folks make just enough over to not qualify for welfare, but still can’t pay bills for medical expenses.

          • Ken is right, Fabio. We don’t have government enforced single payer like Europe. But we have a very good system of care here, even for the indigent. A lot of Catholic and other faith-based hospitals give a lot of care away, free.
            Even the police pick up people on the streets who cannot take care of themselves because of drugs or alcohol. Of course they frequently go AMA from hospitals when they wake up from their overdose.

            • There is no free care, not even charity care. We all suffer the ramifications of people who cannot pay their bills. Some have legit excuses, others do not.

  6. While that image macro fits the NLRB-v-Canning case, re-use for the Hobby Lobby case is a bit misleading. Even leaving aside that Hobby Lobby was 5-4 rather than 9-0, Alito’s ruling appears to point in the direction of Obama being able to extend by executive order the same religious accomodation to for-profit corporations as currently given to religious non-profits.

    Contrariwise, that non-profit accommodation is also challenged and up for review.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.