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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-229 last
To: ksen

Nice dodge, yourself. Since when do the demands of an employee, who has voluntarily taken a position with a company, mean that the company’s officers are required to violate their first amendment rights?

The key fact you are glossing over is that the employees have the right to self-terminate their employment and seek employment elsewhere, at a company that will provide such coverage.

Contraception and abortifacients are not found in the constitution.


201 posted on 11/21/2012 12:31:21 PM PST by MortMan (I will be true to my principles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Hulka

that could be intended to mean a do-good-du-jour social gospel i suppose...

and, what is the role of old fashioned charity in this anyhow? when churches got beguiled into thinking newfangled government schemes like social security could supersede the duties of old fashioned charity, they got themselves onto the wrong footing.


202 posted on 11/21/2012 12:32:04 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (How long before all this "fairness" kills everybody, even the poor it was supposed to help???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: Hulka; All

I’ve offered this solution repeatedly, on this thread and on others, and so far no one seems to have acknowledged this option for Hobby Lobby and for other organizations in the same boat, like Catholic hospitals or Protestant conservative schools.

Fire the employees. You don’t have any employees anymore except for a core group of less than fifty managers. Tell the employees that you love them, you’d be delighted to hire them back, but they have to work as contractors. As contractors they will not be eligible for health insurance obtained through your firm, but you will now be able to afford to pay them more. Sorry. Blame Obama.

In this way the company continues to operate, the former employees continue to work, and the company’s owners are not fined $1.3 million per day. But as more companies and religious organizations take this option, the unemployment rolls are going to EXPLODE. That is not going to look nice for Obama.


203 posted on 11/21/2012 12:32:58 PM PST by ottbmare (The OTTB Mare)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: MortMan

Even financially, why are Democrats making that the hill to die upon? This stuff isn’t hugely costly (in dollars... the cost in souls may vary), and a saner plan would be to let it be purchased using the same tax shielded medical reimbursement schemes that can be used to tax shield the purchase of aspirin.


204 posted on 11/21/2012 12:35:19 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (How long before all this "fairness" kills everybody, even the poor it was supposed to help???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: ksen
I hope your buddies in business do this because that will hasten the creation of a true single-payer system in this country since obviously the wonderfully benevolent job creators can’t be bothered to either provide adequate policies on their own or pay their employees enough so they can go out and get their own policy.

So, are you endorsing the idea that "adequate policies" must necessarily include abortions? That seems to be a clear inference in your statement, quoted in whole above.

205 posted on 11/21/2012 12:36:25 PM PST by MortMan (I will be true to my principles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: MortMan

inference from, or implication by


206 posted on 11/21/2012 12:37:49 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (How long before all this "fairness" kills everybody, even the poor it was supposed to help???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

You are correct - I should have said “implication”.

As for the selection of the contraception/abortion - it is not the cost that democrats crave, but rather the violation of faith. I see abortion as the primary sacrament of liberalism, personally.


207 posted on 11/21/2012 12:48:28 PM PST by MortMan (I will be true to my principles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: MortMan

And things have come almost full circle with the organizational legacy of the late ungreat Margaret Sanger coming to a fruition that would have made her gasp. (She might not have been so copacetic with welfare handouts, but she’d be right on with all the abortion.)


208 posted on 11/21/2012 12:55:46 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (How long before all this "fairness" kills everybody, even the poor it was supposed to help???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: ksen
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.

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.

I myself would like to see a competitive system with the following features:


209 posted on 11/21/2012 3:18:44 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o (If you think healthcare is expensive now, you should see what it costs when it's free. PJ O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: ottbmare

Good point.


210 posted on 11/22/2012 8:38:18 AM PST by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: DonaldC
It wasn’t that long ago that people were defending white only businesses with the same argument. It’s time to move on.

I think that you're on the wrong forum. DU might be more to your liking.

211 posted on 11/22/2012 8:55:25 AM PST by 2nd amendment mama ( www.2asisters.org | Self defense is a basic human right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ottbmare

I’m told that I’m wrong and that the IRS doesn’t permit this.

OK, new idea: vouchers. The employees get vouchers from HL to go out and get whatever kind of insurance they want.

I suppose the Geheime Staatspolizei in the White House won’t permit this or any other innovative solution. You vill obey orders! Sieg Heil, y’all.


212 posted on 11/22/2012 9:40:31 AM PST by ottbmare (The OTTB Mare)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: All

Twenty-seven year old children? Doesn’t anybody grow up and reach adulthood anymore? They are supposed to be adults WAY before the age of 27 and if they are not it is the fault of the parents. They need to get out of mommy and daddy’s basement, get a job and pay for their own insurance.


213 posted on 11/23/2012 12:13:29 AM PST by Melinda in TN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Article: “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.

Erm, they don't need a case; it's explicitly in the Constitution -- Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

214 posted on 11/23/2012 3:55:44 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
Judge Rules HHS Contraception Mandate Does Not Violate Religious Freedom (First Amendment)
215 posted on 11/23/2012 4:16:21 PM PST by NYer ("Before I formed you in the womb I knew you." --Jeremiah 1:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: ksen
Would you be as incensed if this business owner was a Jehovah’s Witness and required to offer health insurance policies to his employees that covered blood transfusions?

There are multiple flaws w/ Obamacare; but the one that you're trying to goad on is simple: nowhere in the Constitution is the Federal government allowed to mandate insurance coverage. In short, Obamacare is a bad apple, and yes your suggestion of mandated health insurance is a bad apple as well, completely apart from the first amendment.

216 posted on 11/23/2012 4:30:07 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ksen
The whole point of the article is the First Amendment angle. Is there no limit to your First Amendment rights when they start adversely affecting the lives of other people?

But there's no "adversely affecting" going on here: in a world where health insurance is not mandatory/regulated the employee is free to sign up with an employer who offers the health insurance he wants, not take health insurance, or purchase his own. -- So, no, not in this case.

217 posted on 11/23/2012 4:36:18 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: JediJones
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.

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

218 posted on 11/23/2012 4:54:54 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: freeandfreezing
irst Amendment rights are limited when there is a direct adverse effect on other people - like shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire.

What!?
Do you even know where that "example" came from? It came from Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919); this case was about upholding sedition laws for WWI which restricted political speech -- exactly the sort of speech the 1St Amendment was meant to protect -- protesting the war. (The case was wrongly decided, basically saying: the congress can do in war what it cannot do in peace.)

The whole "fire in a crowded theater"-argument is one that justifies that which is not justifiable: it is the expansion of "legal reading" of the Constitution to mean that which is not said. -- For you to use it only perpetuates the evil.

219 posted on 11/23/2012 5:07:50 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
Did you even read my comment? I was pointing out, in response to another poster's comment, that other than the obvious limitations to speech where it, to use Judge Holmes' phrase (From the Schenck opinion) "create[s] a clear and present danger that [the speech] will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent" speech is protected under the 1st Amendment - including based on more recent cases - speech by corporations. Thus even if speech had some adverse effect on a third party that speech is protected unless the speech reaches the threshold of "bringing about substantive evils."

Do you disagree with that?

The rest of the Schenck case is not relevant to this particular concept set forth by the Court in Schenck, and I'd like to see any evidence you have that the founders intended for the 1st Amendment to protect speech without any limitations. I think any reasonable understanding of the 1st Amendment doesn't suggest that it, for example, would protect conspirators from prosecution since they were free to say whatever they wanted, or a bank robber since his statement "give me the money or else" would somehow be protected speech.

220 posted on 11/23/2012 8:05:28 PM PST by freeandfreezing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: NYer

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.


221 posted on 11/25/2012 7:28:45 AM PST by OrioleFan (Republicans believe every day is July 4th, Democrats believe every day is April 15th.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
Mrs. Don-o first let me say that it's been a real pleasure interacting with you because you do not engage in kneejerk reactive posts, though those are fun sometimes ;), and genuinely want to have a conversation with someone who doesn't see some things the same way you do even though I think we have the same destination in mind.

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.

222 posted on 11/26/2012 8:11:52 AM PST by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: ksen
Thanks, and let me say the same to you: I enjoy a person who presents a genuine argument rather than a back-and-forth volley of cliches.

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 ".

223 posted on 11/26/2012 11:14:40 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o (May the Lord bless you, may the Lord keep you, May He turn to you His countenance and give you peace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: 185JHP; 230FMJ; AKA Elena; APatientMan; Albion Wilde; Aleighanne; Alexander Rubin; ...
Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

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.

224 posted on 11/27/2012 9:17:48 PM PST by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: Melinda in TN
Twenty-seven year old children? Doesn’t anybody grow up and reach adulthood anymore? They are supposed to be adults WAY before the age of 27 and if they are not it is the fault of the parents. They need to get out of mommy and daddy’s basement, get a job and pay for their own insurance.

Yeah, we live in a world of extended childhood. We need to teach responsibility and accountability to our kids at a much younger age as well as teach them to have good thought processes and then hope for the best. I admit, I live at home myself, I'm at early middle age, help take care of Mom and 2 cats but the point is that I work and put my shekels in the pot as well as do my share of the work. As long as they do that, living at home is not a problems but if they suck off Mom and/or Dad without giving anything back and acting like grown kids, then it is a problem. I know my grandfather, he had a full time job at 13 or 14 when he quit school around 1914 or so.
225 posted on 11/27/2012 9:46:23 PM PST by Nowhere Man (Whitey, I miss you so much. Take care, pretty girl. (4-15-2001 - 10-12-2012))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: bboop
Obama makes me vomit.

On election night when they called it for the O-Hole, Mom literally ran to the bathroom to throw up.
226 posted on 11/27/2012 9:50:06 PM PST by Nowhere Man (Whitey, I miss you so much. Take care, pretty girl. (4-15-2001 - 10-12-2012))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: WVNan
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.

I see your point. If it was up to me, I'd let go anybody that voted for Obama and hire only conservatives and libertarians. Those people chose Barabbas Obama, let Barabbas support them.
227 posted on 11/27/2012 9:59:12 PM PST by Nowhere Man (Whitey, I miss you so much. Take care, pretty girl. (4-15-2001 - 10-12-2012))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: ksen

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.


228 posted on 11/27/2012 10:24:36 PM PST by Kickass Conservative (Looks like my Father was wrong, somebody else DOES owe you a living...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Nowhere Man

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.


229 posted on 12/01/2012 5:38:05 PM PST by Melinda in TN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-229 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