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.
I think, if enough businesses shut down over Obamacare, at some point Government will cease to function, because it will have few sources of revenue. Sebilius and Obama are counting on these businesses to have concern for the people they employ and put up with their government abuse of power.
I always want to say I hope you had a lovely Thanksgiving holiday.
Now to your post!
Ksen, one think I'm frustrated about in this discussion is the tendency to narrow down to just an a/b choice (e.g. single-payer insurance vs. the status-quo employment-based set-up), when there must be more options than that.
The larger the cost sharing pool and the more real competition, the better the insurance deals would be. Up til now, we've relied almost entirely on employment for health coverage. That, coupled with a ban on interstate sale of insurance, has led to much smaller cost-sharing pools and very little actual competition, with one insurer often dominating entire regions. Fifty different sets of rules and regulations have historically governed insurance sales across the country, with consumers almost always bound to their employer’s choice for health coverage – and worse, should they lose their job, finding themselves suddenly without any insurance at all.
It's hard to defend such an ad hoc "system" with its innate inefficiencies and skyrocketing costs.
I think I can safely say that I completely agree with you. One thing I would add is that I believe when it comes to access to healthcare that the profit motive shouldn't be a factor in the decision making process or be so far removed from the decision making process that it might as well not exist at all.
The argument that no modern, industrialized nation should be without universal coverage is persuasive. But other Western nations have found ways to achieve it through far more decentralized means than Canadian-style single payer, or the expensive socialized medicine of the UK. The Dutch --- I've read --- have achieved universal coverage entirely through fierce competition between private insurers, and the Germans use a system of exchanges that allow German workers to move from job to job without losing insurance. The Swiss, who have made an art of subsidiarity, have achieved universal coverage through competing non-profit insurance plans.
Sure, even though I would prefer a system like the French have doesn't mean there aren't other good ideas out there. We are a country full of very bright people and given the amount of data available we should be able to take the best of what other countries have been doing and tailor a very good situation for ourselves.
Unfortunately, with respect to Obamacare, we didn't do that. We cobbled together a monstrosity. But even the "thing" we have now is better than what we had before and will hopefully move us along further to real healthcare reform, whatever form it takes.
Since medical needs must be prioritized somewhere, by somebody, I think a single-payer system will necessarily politicize many care issues in a way that takes all choices away from intermediary institutions. (By "intermediary institutions" I mean the 10,000 for-profit, non-profit, professional, philanthropic, church-based, commercial, fraternal, charitable, private, state, county, local organizations that stand between me and Kathleen Sebelius.)
The State and its boards, panels and czars will make the judgments that supplant all other judgments.
A simple f'rinstance is the HHS decision to require the provision of abortion-producing drugs, contraceptivers, and sterilization procedures with no co-pays and no deductables. Who made the decision to prioritize this particular set of goods and services, but not albuterol nebulizers for COPD, or insulin for Diabetes 1, or metformin for Diabetes 2, or epi-pens for people with severe allergic reactions, or something really whiz-bang like hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for refractory rheumatoid arthritis, or RNY's for the malignantly obese, or... .. or... (I won't go catalog on you.)
The point is that some goods and services are prioritiized, and some are not. That's necessary, of course. But who decides that? At present, Kathleen Sebelius. I can do all the arm-waving I want, and I will never, in the years left to me, be able to influence these matters one iota according to my needs, values or ethics, or those of the people for whom I am partly or wholly responsible.
It's an unresponsive and irresponsible system. It will only become moreso, the more top-down, centralized and bureaucratic it becomes. Concerned about the 130,000 elderly Britons euthanized every year via the "Liverpool Care Path"? It' ll be 10x that in the USA, and without question they'll call it by something that contains the words "Compassion TM " and "Choice TM ".
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
It's amazing how many evil and stupid judges exist. I supposed causing businesses to close because they don't want to pay for contraception, abortion and probably down the road, sex change operations, is all double plus good to 0moslem and his gang.
Your counter point would work if we lived in a Society that dictated who you were “required” to work for.
You know, kind of like North Korea. Don’t comply, let them Mortar you to death.
As my Father once told me, you can complain about a job the day they point a gun to your head and make you take it.
I can understand your situation. It’s wonderful that you take care of your parents but you aren’t forcing them to take care of you. Big difference!
My baby brother was VERY spoiled. He finally got married and in no time he was moving into his old room each time he and his bride had a fight. It got so bad that Mom and Dad sold the big house and bought a small two bedroom home. LOL That put an end to that! Now my parents are getting pretty old and my older single brother stays with them on occasion to take care of them. That is how it should be.
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.