Posted on 11/20/2012 1:12:51 PM PST by NYer
Businesses that have these rulings inflicted on them should turn health care into a profit center for themselves by adding a 100% mark-up on the policy they provide top their employees. It’s time for the voters/employees to suffer the consequences of their decisions.
Highly doubtful.
There are an awful lot of things I would do before killing a baby. Basically, no judge could make me ~ not under any conditions ~ not ever.
Government takeover.
When is this nightmare going to end!?
Actually, he (Muslim or otherwise) is required by the government to provide its employees with free contraception and/or abortions, regardless of their religious principles.
“has the right to force”
All you need to know about 0bama and the Federal government in 5 words.
I draw the line at killing babies. The judge says the governmet stepped over the line. He, though, does not draw the line at killing babies ~ and that's a problem.
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.
Since when does freedom of religion depend on us being a religious organization?? This is outrageous and unconstitutional. I refuse to fund abortions. FUBO.
At the very least they should try it.
Fight for their principles.
Right to the end. Make Holder’s thugs arrest the execs.
My guess is a lot of patriots would turn out to make that a difficult arrest scenario.
Look at our taglines...
you are not alone.
My wife and I run a successful family business as well and there is no way we can keep it open....It was going to pay for my daughters college I guess not anymore.
It will be interesting to see what happens with Catholic Hospitals. The Catholic Hospitals really must resist or shut down, otherwise, they will be promoting 0-care and violating their principles.
A Catholic Hospital shutdown might even be a good thing if it creates massive access problems that can be blamed on 0bama and 0-care. The government could counter by moving to full blown socialized medicine, but that would not solve the problem of a lack of hospitals and providers.
They will shut them down IMHO and Obee tried a takeover of the facilities that might be the only thing that wake up the sleeping idiots. That is another level it they do that...
What if Hobby Lobby and other CHRISTIANS do not want to just “move on”. What if they answer to someone higher than Obama?
The judge is a Bush appointee, confirmed in 2001 by a Republican congress, and seems to have a Republican past.
I guess he just didn’t want to get hammered by the pundits and the media, so he took the easy way out.
I thought the same thing.
Ultimately, the Obama Administration’s overreaching in this area is going to be met by resistance and nothing but resistance. They have no idea what a s*itstorm they are unleashing every time a case like this comes to public attention. They have overconfidently assumed everyone would just roll over for them-—they were mistaken.
When people push back against these mandates, it’s going to be harder and harder for the Social Engineers to keep pressing their case: at a certain point it will be unmasked as the authoritarian intimidation it is , and always was.
The will suffer a precipitous decline in public approval, not just for this, but most of the rest of their agenda. Someday soon,
these stories will start getting the exposure they deserve;
until then, 98% of the voting public simply won’t know these stories even exist.
Joe gave the pro forma responses. One item was addressed to him by, I believe, the exceptionally evil and obnoxious Senator Leahy.
This was Question 5
"Question 5: In 1989, in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), the United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not allow states to criminally prosecute people who burn American flags as a political protest.
The Court said that, ``IMP there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.'' Johnson, 491 U.S. at 414.
Immediately following the ruling, you called the Supreme Court's decision ``out of whack'' and advocated for a state resolution urging Congress to propose a constitutional amendment banning flag desecration. (Source: Ron Jenkins, Lawmakers Ponder Proposed Flag- Burning Amendment, Tulsa World, July 2,1989, at A2.]
Do you continue to adhere to this characterization of the Supreme Court's opinion that the majority was ``out of whack?"
Do you believe that flag burning is a form of political expression, which, no matter how offensive we might find it, is protected by the Constitution's free speech guarantees?
Would you have any difficulties adhering to the letter and the spirit of this decision if it provided controlling legal authority in a case before you?
Answer: In light of the decision in Johnson, the law is clear that flag burning is a form of political expression protected by the Constitution's free speech guarantees and I would certainly have no difficulty in applying that rule and standard in any case coming before me. My earlier characterization of the Supreme Court decision as a legislative policy matter would have no bearing on my rulings if confirmed as a district judge.
I recognize the critical, central role of free speech (including expressive conduct) in our constitutional scheme and in our society generally, and would have no difficulty in adhering to the letter and spirit of the controlling authorities in this area."
The inescapable conclusion is ol'joe perjured himself before the Senate at his confirmation hearing.
He should step down or be impeached ~ there's nothing clearer than that.,P>See: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-107shrg82503/html/CHRG-107shrg82503.htm
Wait until Obama gets to pack HIS SCOTUS with 1 or 2 more "Progressive" judges. Elections DO have consequences.
The O-bots are counting on exactly that — Catholic hospitals shutting down. It gives them the perfect excuse to step in and “fill the gap” with, as you say, full-blown socialized medicine. All part of the scheme.
Yesterday I heard from a very distressed friend in Canada. She was in the emergency room with her fevered, vomitting toddler. They’d been there 7 hours already, still no one available to see them. Same friend — last year her sister was suspected of having breast cancer. It took almost a full five months before a biopsy was done (which confirmed the diagnosis).
Get used to it, folks. This is what Amerikkka have been begging for.
I think that Obama will end poorly.
Finally Obama does something to stimulate the economy - I will CONTINUE to support Hobby Lobby, CONTINUE to support Chick-Fil-A, etc.
And, wherever possible I will continue to AVOID companies that support the leftist regime.
And while this is going on, the Senate wants to pass a bill that allows the government to read our emails.
We are on the way to becoming like Venezuela, I’m afraid.
“Savita’s family thanks you for your support.”
Those that love abortion can pay for their own abortions. You can donate to abortion clinics like I donate to pregnancy centers that support life.
50 million abortions in the US. How many were for the mother’s life?
Moveon.org loves abortion, you can probably make some friends there.
Who is being adversely affected by an employer deciding the terms of their health care plan or whether they will offer one at all? You're not forced to work there, and you can also opt out of their plan and buy your own.
You might be adversely affected if your job requires manual labor vs. a desk job too. Once again, it's your choice to work there or not.
Since this whole level of health care regulation is a massive, unnecessary, unwarranted government overreach to begin with, any kind of bedrock constitutional principles should naturally take precedence over it. This is a case where any judge worth his salt should err on the side of the constitution.
Under this system of federal health care regulation, a system to which constitutional limits apparently do not apply, what is there to stop the government from requiring that all females are circumcised?
Employees could afford their own policies if government intervention, control and regulation wasn't driving up the cost of health care so much.
It is, rather, a move to conscript private business owners into a political agenda, forcing them to facilitate and fund services that violate their religious beliefs and ethical judgments, within their own businesses. It would be analogous to the government requiring the American Cancer Society to give their staffers a monthly carton of Marlboros as a employee benefit, or a drug counseling agency to give out coupons for suicide kits.
If this si true I willbe getting hand sliced bacon from the Muzzie place down the road, especially during Ramadan.
As a VietNam vet who had 5 dead Americans on the tailgate of my APC during TET 1968 while still in hostile contact with the enemy, I feel the same way.
Nam era Army vet , a little later than you so know the feeling.
I’m 3rd generation. Grandad, infantry Europe, Dad , Navy Medic, Normandy, Africa, Europe, WW II.
We went for a higher goal, and in the service of those before us....
Few of our later year politicians know , nor care , of the courage/sacrifices made by us,and the current service members, so the rest can act like fools, and worry about Obamaphones.....
Put them, where we were, and see how fast the ACLU, Jesse J, Al S, Harry Reid,
Nancy P, Barry O, and Plugs Biden come running to their aid.....
WE know the truth of Bengahzi, and the rejection of that most sacred code
that “ no one gets left behind”
Thanks for your service, and a salute to the brave souls you described....
They are not forgotten
As usual, the non-liberal-agenda part of the article is way at the bottom.
Abortion is illegal in the Republic except where there is a real and substantial risk to the life, as distinct from the health, of the mother.
The doctors made a misdiagnosis of the woman's condition, as they sometimes do. They should be sued for malpractice as any doctor who makes a mistake that results in the patient's death should be.
Not to mention we don't let extremely rare cases define what our laws have to be for the entire country. If we did that, we'd have to legalize polygamy because of siamese twins who have two heads attached to one body. This woman's death is far outnumbered by the millions of unnecessary, unregulated killings of unborn babies performed in our country.
Go Galt.
Shutter it up.
And the war ticks a little bit closer ...
Corporate profits are up 77.9% under President Obama, not to mention the trillions in cash they are sitting on, so I think businesses can afford to pay their employees more.
And which government regulations are you complaining about that is driving up health insurance costs so much?
Actually, the JW’s (and any other employer) should have the liberty to offer any kind of insurance they think best. If the prospective emplopyee doesn’t like the compensation package, he can bargain for a better one (e.g. no insurance but a correspondingly bigger paycheck), or -— if that proves fruitless — seek a better employer.
There's not a thing wrong with white-only businesses. Or black-only businesses. Or hetero-only businesses.
Either we have a right to free association or we don't.
Hobby Lobby should inform all of their employees the exact amount per month they pay for insurance. Then tell them they will be receiving pay raises equal to that amount but will no longer have insurance.
Since when does an employer have the obligation to provide anyone with health insurance? My company does not offer health insurance and I don’t feel one tiny bit oppressed or victimized.
When did we all start to believe that we have a right to insurance coverage provided by an employer? We don’t have such a right.
All the possible options -— lower hours below Obamacare thresholds, drop insurance and pay penalty, or choose to shut down -— represent huge burdens/penalties upon their workforce. I don’t blame Hobby Lobby for saying it’s wrong to coerce them this way, that they either have to violate their own ethical best-practices, or scr*w their employees.
Applause mixed with sorrow, but I understand.
Godspeed.
Stupid question in these days when (un)crowded movie theatres all have fire suppression.
In a word.........NO.
Actually, the "right" people can get waivers.
Then ask your employer for a raise. Stop being a busybody and ignorantly intruding on your neighbor's life to find out if they're getting paid what you "think" they should be.
which government regulations are you complaining about that is driving up health insurance costs so much?
I notice you're not offering a denial of my statement, since you know it's true. Just take your pick out of Obamacare for starters. By requiring "children" be kept on their parents' plans until age 27, my costs go up to cover other people. By requiring birth control coverage, my costs go up to cover other people. Just look at any state and all the mandates they put on what health insurance must cover, stopping people from saving money on a more frugal plan. Or look at Medicare which underpays for services, forcing doctors to try to squeeze more money out of private insurance. Nevermind that not being able to sell insurance across state lines reduces competition and potential cost-savings there.
A recent study by the non-partisan, non-profit Kaiser Family Foundation shows that since the passage of Obamacare, family health insurance premiums have risen by $2370 despite being promised they would drop by $2500. The study predicts costs will climb even higher because of cumbersome mandates and lack of consumer choices in the law.
Good for you.
When did we all start to believe that we have a right to insurance coverage provided by an employer? We don’t have such a right.
Employer provided health plans have been the norm for decades so that's the system we are dealing with. I never said employer provided health insurance was a right. In fact I believe I said in the post you responded to that if the employer doesn't provide health insurance he should at least pay his employees enough so they can purchase their own.
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.
The purpose of this HHS mandate is not to pay for access to contraceptives, which could hardly be more accessible if they were put in every bag of M&M's in America. The purpose of the HHS mandate is to esablish that the State can trump First Amendment rights for any one, at any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all.
Precisely.
“I wonder what would happen if Hobby Lobby decided to pursue liquidation over this.”
My girlfriend would have to drive another 20 miles to a competing chain for craft stuff.
Ksen: this program is structured to force (or, to use Cass Sundstein’s word, “Nudge”) everybody into a single-payer system, a.k.a. a NHS-style system as in the U.K., with liberty neither for the employer, the health provider, nor the health consumer. And that’s what you say you “hope” for?
Thank you. This Benghazi fiasco is the straw that broke the camel’s back for me. Watching 4 Americans murdered over a 7 hour live feed while sitting on their fat, lazy asses is treasonous and contrary to all patriotic inclination. I can find no good words for these lying SOBs. I ask myself again, as I did when I returned from Nam,”Is this country worth the good men who sacrificed for it?”
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.