Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge: Obama Admin Can Force Hobby Lobby to Obey HHS Mandate
Life News ^ | November 20, 2012 | Steven Ertelt

Posted on 11/20/2012 1:12:51 PM PST by NYer

A federal judge has issued a ruling siding with the Obama administration saying that it has the right to force Hobby Lobby, a Christian-owned and run company, to pay for drugs for women that may cause abortions.

The privately held retail chain with more than 500 arts and crafts stores in 41 states filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration over its HHS mandate. The company says it would face $1.3 million in fines on a daily basis starting in January if it fails to comply with the mandate, which requires religious employers to pay for or refer women for abortion-cause drugs that violate their conscience or religious beliefs.

The lawsuit was filed in the US District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma and the business says it is opposing the Health and Human Services “preventive services” mandate, which it says forces the Christian-owned-and-operated business to provide, without co-pay, the “morning after pill” and “week after pill” in their health insurance plan, or face crippling fines up to 1.3 million dollars per day.

“By being required to make a choice between sacrificing our faith or paying millions of dollars in fines, we essentially must choose which poison pill to swallow,” said David Green, Hobby Lobby CEO and founder. “We simply cannot abandon our religious beliefs to comply with this mandate.”

However, U.S. District Judge Joe Heaton issued a ruling late Monday rejecting Hobby Lobby’s request to block the mandate. Judge Heaton said that the company doesn’t qualify for an exemption because it is not a church or religious group.

“Plaintiffs have not cited, and the court has not found, any case concluding that secular, for-profit corporations such as Hobby Lobby and Mardel have a constitutional right to the free exercise of religion,” the ruling said.

Heaton wrote that “the court is not unsympathetic” to the company’s desire to not pay for abortion-causing drugs but he said the Obamacare law

“results in concerns and issues not previously confronted by companies or their owners.”

“The question of whether the Greens can establish a free exercise constitutional violation by reason of restrictions or requirements imposed on general business corporations they own or control involves largely uncharted waters,” Heaton wrote.

Hobby Lobby plans to appeal the ruling, according to a pro-life legal group that notified LifeNews of the ruling.

“Every American, including family business owners like the Greens, should be free to live and do business according to their religious beliefs,” Kyle Duncan, general counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said. “We disagree with this decision and we will immediately appeal it.”

The court did not question that the Green family has sincere religious beliefs forbidding them from participating in abortion. The court ruled, however, that those beliefs were only “indirectly” burdened by the mandate’s requirement that they provide free coverage for specific, abortion-inducing drugs in Hobby Lobby’s self-funded insurance plan.

Duncan previously talked about what the Obama administration told the court:

The administration’s arguments in this case are shocking. Here’s what they are saying: once someone starts a “secular” business, he categorically loses any right to run that business in accordance with his conscience. The business owner simply leaves her First Amendment rights at home when she goes to work at the business she built. Kosher butchers around the country must be shocked to find that they now run “secular” businesses. On this view of the world, even a seller of Bibles is “secular.” Hobby Lobby’s affiliate, Mardel, sells Bibles and other Christian-themed material, but because it makes a profit the government has now declared it “secular.”

The administration’s position here — while astonishing — is actually consistent with its overall view of the place of religion in civil society. After all, this is the administration who argued in the Hosanna-Tabor case last year in the Supreme Court that the religion clauses of the First Amendment offered no special protection to a church’s right to choose its ministers — a position that the Court rejected 9-0. This is the administration which has taken to referring to “freedom of worship” instead of “freedom of religion” — suggesting that religious freedom consists in being free to engage in private rituals and prayers, but not in carrying your religious convictions into public life. And this is the administration who crafted a “religious employer” exemption to the HHS mandate so narrow that a Catholic charity does not qualify for conscience protection if it serves non-Catholic poor people.

As you point out, the administration is trying to justify its rigid stance against religious business owners by saying otherwise they would become a “law unto themselves,” and be able to do all sorts of nasty things to their employees — like force them to attend Bible studies, or fire them if they denied the divinity of Christ. Nonsense. Hobby Lobby isn’t arguing for the right to impose the Greens’ religion on employees, nor for the right to fire employees of different religions. There’s already a federal law that protects employees from religious discrimination and that’s a very good thing. This case is about something entirely different: it’s about stopping the government from coercing religious business owners. The government wants to fine the Greens if they do not violate their own faith by handing out free abortion drugs, and now it’s saying they don’t even have the right to complain in court about it

Duncan said the onerous provisions of the HHS mandate “will hit Hobby Lobby in about two months — on January 1, 2013. At that point, it will face the choice of dropping employee health insurance altogether (and paying about $26 million a year in penalties), or continuing its current plan (which will expose it to about $1.3 million in fines per day). So it is not hard to imagine why the Greens felt they had no choice but to go to court.”

There are now 40 separate lawsuits challenging the HHS mandate, which is a regulation under the Affordable Care Act (aka “Obamacare”). The Becket Fund led the charge against the unconstitutional HHS mandate, and along with Hobby Lobby represents: Wheaton College, East Texas Baptist University, Houston Baptist University, Belmont Abbey College, Colorado Christian University, the Eternal Word Television Network, and Ave Maria University.

Hobby Lobby is the largest and the biggest non-Catholic-owned business to file a lawsuit against the HHS mandate, focusing sharp criticism on the administration’s regulation that forces all companies, regardless of religious conviction, to cover abortion-inducing drugs. It has faced a small boycott from liberals upset that it would challenge the mandate in court.

The Obama admin says there is an exemption in the statute but Duncan says that is not acceptable.

“The safe harbor’s protection is illusory,” said Duncan. “Even though the government won’t make religious colleges pay crippling fines this year, private lawsuits can still be brought, schools are at a competitive disadvantage for hiring and retaining faculty, and employees face the specter of battling chronic conditions without access to affordable care. This mandate puts these religious schools in an impossible position.”

Last week, a federal court stopped enforcement of the Obama administration’s abortion pill mandate against a Bible publisher which filed a lawsuit against it — the third such victory.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Extended News; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: abortion; bloodoftyrants; churchandstate; contraception; culturewar; democrats; govtabuse; hhs; hobbylobby; libralfascism; moralabsolutes; obama; obamacare; obamunism; tyranny; waronchristians; waronliberty
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 221-229 next last
To: NYer

The First Amendment places no restrictions on the actions, behavior, or beliefs of individuals or business owners.

100% of the restrictions imposed by the First Amendment are placed on the Congress of the United States of America.


101 posted on 11/20/2012 3:25:59 PM PST by savedbygrace (But God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ksen

“But I’m all for moving away from an employer/insurance model and for going directly to a single-payer system supported by tax revenues. “

I’m for breaking away from employer based pools as well but not so sure about single payer. I would pool people by zip code or something and pay for it by subscription, just like we do cable tv, gas, water, etc.

For now though, employer based is what we have and don’t think having comparable plans across employers for legal procedures is too much to ask. We are a secular nation, not Christian (anymore) and at some point will probably be muslim. A precedent of limiting coverage on religious grounds is dangerous ground to be on. If a business owner does not want to purchase something, that is fine, but if a business is incorporated and seen by the gov as a separate person, and if the gov is saying that incorporated person needs to offer x coverage, then so be it. It is the law and if it is not liked, go to congress to have it changed.


102 posted on 11/20/2012 3:29:17 PM PST by DonaldC (A nation cannot stand in the absence of religious principle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Good. I hope millions of employees all over the country get hurt.

Then maybe they’ll pull their heads out of their butts.


103 posted on 11/20/2012 3:31:59 PM PST by Fledermaus (The Republic is Dead: Collapse the system. Let the Dems destroy the economy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ksen; No Socialist
Ksen, your reference to Savita is not wellfounded on facts. There is nothing either in Irish law nor in Catholic morality which would have prevented these doctors in Galway treating this woman appropriately. Although abortion is not a cure for septicemia (!), nothing would have them from removing the body of a miscarried baby. I am astounded that they didn't do a simple blood test and put her on an antibiotic drip from Day One, which is how you're supposed to treat septicemia.

But then, all persons resident in Ireland are entitled to receive health care through the public health care system, which is managed by the Health Service Executive and funded by general taxation. It's, sadly, not at all surprising that they declined to treat her on her first visit. Such under-treatment is all to common with this kind of system. Savita was a victim of medical malpractice, not ethics.

104 posted on 11/20/2012 3:33:43 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Stone cold sober, as a matter of fact.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
with liberty neither for the employer, the health provider, nor the health consumer.

I think it would be very liberating for the employer and the health consumers. For the employers because they wouldn't have to worry about providing health insurance for their employees and could spend more time focused on their business. For the health consumer because he would no longer have to worry about medical bankruptcy.

And that’s what you say you “hope” for?

Yes.

105 posted on 11/20/2012 3:45:40 PM PST by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Forcing Christians to pay for abortions seems a real priority with these people.

Muslims will get a pass.

FUBO

106 posted on 11/20/2012 3:46:27 PM PST by Gabrial (The nightmare will continue as long as the nightmare is in the Whitehouse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rightly Biased
GOD bless you and your family. I will pray for you all. I can't afford to keep spending money to keep employees working when there is no improvement in the business climate for the foreseeable future.

LLS

107 posted on 11/20/2012 3:46:54 PM PST by LibLieSlayer (WOLVERINES!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: DonaldC
"For now though, employer based is what we have and don’t think having comparable plans across employers for legal procedures is too much to ask. We are a secular nation, not Christian (anymore) and at some point will probably be muslim. A precedent of limiting coverage on religious grounds is dangerous ground to be on."

That is a fascinatingly stupid statement given Muslims are exempted from Bobocare...

108 posted on 11/20/2012 3:49:26 PM PST by StAnDeliver (Own It.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: StAnDeliver

They are exempted, but they are not making decisions that effect your healthcare, but they eventually will be.


109 posted on 11/20/2012 3:50:34 PM PST by DonaldC (A nation cannot stand in the absence of religious principle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: major1971

Simply discontinue employer-sponsored insurance.


110 posted on 11/20/2012 3:52:29 PM PST by des
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: DonaldC
We are a secular nation, not Christian (anymore) and at some point will probably be muslim. A precedent of limiting coverage on religious grounds is dangerous ground to be on.

Are you insane? Off your meds? You acknowledge that we might be majority muslim someday and still don't see the problem in allowing muslims to force on every other religion their own dictates? You don't want a religious exemption to be available so youre future female descendants aren't mandated to have female circumcision? Being forced to practice someone else's religious beliefs, as the abortion mandate does, is as unamerican as it gets.

111 posted on 11/20/2012 3:53:53 PM PST by JediJones (Newt Gingrich warned us that the "King of Bain" was unelectable. Did you listen?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o; ksen; No Socialist

Savita is just the latest victim of the poor quality care inherent to socialized medicine.


112 posted on 11/20/2012 3:55:23 PM PST by JediJones (Newt Gingrich warned us that the "King of Bain" was unelectable. Did you listen?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: DonaldC
You're not slick. You said, "A precedent of limiting coverage on religious grounds is dangerous ground to be on" -- that is completely asinine given Muslims are able to opt out completely from unconscionable Bobocare regulations that Catholics cannot.
113 posted on 11/20/2012 3:56:01 PM PST by StAnDeliver (Own It.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: JediJones

Go back and read what I said. We do not want religious dictates, Christina or muslim, do be defining what our healthcare looks like.


114 posted on 11/20/2012 3:56:18 PM PST by DonaldC (A nation cannot stand in the absence of religious principle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: StAnDeliver

I think if I was in Hobby Lobby’s situation I would change employees by attrition. Let them go and rehire people over the age of 50. That would eliminate paying for any abortions for employees and most of their daughters. Older folks make good employees. Any heavy lifting needed could be done by temp workers.


115 posted on 11/20/2012 3:56:54 PM PST by WVNan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: DonaldC
You're not slick. You said, "A precedent of limiting coverage on religious grounds is dangerous ground to be on" -- that is completely asinine given Muslims are able to opt out completely from unconscionable Bobocare regulations that Catholics cannot.
116 posted on 11/20/2012 3:57:17 PM PST by StAnDeliver (Own It.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: ksen
I think it would be very liberating for the employer and the health consumers. For the employers because they wouldn't have to worry about providing health insurance for their employees and could spend more time focused on their business. For the health consumer because he would no longer have to worry about medical bankruptcy.

What is "liberating" about having the government confiscate an ever-increasing portion of the fruits of your labor to redistribute to people who stay home and sit on their butts all day? This is a lot closer to the definition of slavery than liberty. The modern working man is already a tax slave.

You won't have to worry about medical bankruptcy, because there won't be any quality health care services around for you to pay for. You'll have the right to stand in line alongside the local welfare bum for poor quality care. At least until you're old enough where care will be denied in favor of euthanasia, or if you prefer a slow death of natural causes.

117 posted on 11/20/2012 3:59:48 PM PST by JediJones (Newt Gingrich warned us that the "King of Bain" was unelectable. Did you listen?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

A muslim barber shop refused to cut the hair of a woman last week. She is suing them for discrimination.

Love it when a plan comes together! (George Peppard). I miss him.


118 posted on 11/20/2012 4:00:10 PM PST by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Ingtar

Don’t be surprised if it happens.


119 posted on 11/20/2012 4:01:06 PM PST by OKSooner ("I will bless those who bless thee, and I will curse those who curse thee.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

Wait until everything is Obamacare & we find out that every single medical loction has to have a staff of female doctors, anesthesiologists, etc, because no Muslim woman can be treated by a male.......


120 posted on 11/20/2012 4:01:55 PM PST by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 221-229 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson