Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge Denies Hobby Lobby's Morning-After Case
ABC News ^ | 11/19/2012 | AP

Posted on 11/19/2012 5:17:44 PM PST by mikrofon

By TIM TALLEY Associated Press

OKLAHOMA CITY November 20, 2012 (AP)

A federal judge Monday rejected a request by Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. to block part of the new federal health care law that requires it to provide the morning-after and week-after birth control pills.

In a 28-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Joe Heaton denied a request by Hobby Lobby to prevent the government from enforcing portions of the health care law that will require it to include contraceptives the company considers objectionable in its health insurance plan.

The Oklahoma City-based arts and craft supply company and a sister company, Mardel Inc., sued the government in September claiming that the companies' Christian owners believe use of the morning-after and week-after birth control pills are tantamount to abortion because they prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in a woman's womb. The company's owners also object to providing coverage for certain kinds of intrauterine devices.

At a hearing earlier this month, a government lawyer said the drugs do not cause abortions and that the U.S. has a compelling interest in mandating insurance coverage for them.

In his ruling denying Hobby Lobby's request for an injunction, Heaton noted churches and other religious organizations or religious corporations have been granted constitutional protection from provisions of the law regarding the birth-control measures.

"However, Hobby Lobby and Mardel are not religious organizations," the ruling states. "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."

(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...


TOPICS: Current Events; Moral Issues; Religion & Culture; Religion & Politics
KEYWORDS: 1stamendment; abortion; activistjudges; christians; deathpanels; hobbylobby; lawsuit; obamacare; religiousliberty; righttolife; ruling; zerocare

1 posted on 11/19/2012 5:17:53 PM PST by mikrofon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: mikrofon

We might abide a lot of things, but forcing someone to pay for this type of “coverage” is intolerable.


2 posted on 11/19/2012 5:23:07 PM PST by Arkansas Toothpick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mikrofon

No different than conscientious objectors. Our governmetn has ALWAYS recognized this.


3 posted on 11/19/2012 5:23:33 PM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mikrofon
U.S. has a compelling interest

Another catch phrase, a dog whistle to radicals that trumps the 1st & 9th Amendments every time.

4 posted on 11/19/2012 5:23:41 PM PST by Jacquerie ("How few were left who had seen the republic!" - Tacitus, The Annals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mikrofon

This is going to reach a point where people with principles will have no choice but to refuse to cooperate.

Obama has given all Muslims the right to opt out, because Obamacare violates some of their beliefs. Christians, no, although this violates our most basic beliefs.

Muslims can refuse to be involved with something that violates their financial principles. But Christians have to violate the God-given, inalienable right to life. No way.

How can anyone justify that?


5 posted on 11/19/2012 5:26:40 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mikrofon

Hobby Lobby may not have to worry after all. Governor Fallin said today she would refuse to set up the Health Care Exchanges. LOL


6 posted on 11/19/2012 5:27:16 PM PST by ConservativeMan55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
No different than conscientious objectors. Our governmetn has ALWAYS recognized this.

Conscientious objectors do not get any exemption from paying taxes for wars. SCOTUS says this is a tax.

7 posted on 11/19/2012 5:30:05 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mikrofon

Now that ObamaCare is law and Obama is re-elected, where will medical tourism health care explode in response? Costa Rica? Mexico? Bermuda? Jamaica? Wherever it is, they are in for an economic boom - another reason I’d love to see Texas secede.


8 posted on 11/19/2012 5:31:36 PM PST by OrangeHoof (Our economy won't heal until one particular black man is unemployed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mikrofon

Drop your employee’s insurance and pay the fine. It’s cheaper. Tell your employees that you’re sorry but ‘talk to the 0bama.’


9 posted on 11/19/2012 5:32:28 PM PST by TigersEye (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
Obama has given all Muslims the right to opt out, because Obamacare violates some of their beliefs. Christians, no, although this violates our most basic beliefs.

Not true. The religious-objection provision in Obamacare is tied to the religious exemption to Social Security taxes, which covers Old-Order Amish, but not Moslems.

10 posted on 11/19/2012 5:32:38 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: OrangeHoof

Yes the best and brightest will head offshore.

And I believe there will be plenty of jobs for dependable educated support grunts also.


11 posted on 11/19/2012 5:33:22 PM PST by nascarnation (Baraq's economic policy: trickle up poverty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMan55; All

The Court will find that that the Federal government has a “compelling interest” to set up these Exchanges in States that exercise their 10th Amendment rights to try to abort this monstrosity.


12 posted on 11/19/2012 5:33:22 PM PST by mikrofon (+ Prayers for Life +)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

What if a company split itself into 2 companies? One employee has the same employees as the second, but the shifts are different? Both employees only hire part time employees, and the wages given to the employee equal what a company would have paid had they had a full time employee working and had to pay for insurance? Employee could purchase their own private insurance. Would that be legal?


13 posted on 11/19/2012 5:33:53 PM PST by Blogger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Arkansas Toothpick

It’s time for non-compliance, resistance and when they come to enforce their tyranny at the end of a gun - we will know what time it is.

These Christian owners have a choice - to abide their faith or knuckle under to the government tyranny.

This is the government telling the individual that they MUST violate their faith in order to be in compliance with government law, that is in direct violation of God’s Law.

Will we obey men, or God? That is what this is.

Yet this Judge decrees that your property and business does not belong to you and is not protected by the First Amendment.

If it were me, I would close the business rather than capitulate. Watch the Government then try to force them to sell it or keep it open. Will be interesting to see if mammon or the threat of force will cause such people to surrender.

We live in a raw brute tyranny and it will be interesting to see how comfortable America is with it.


14 posted on 11/19/2012 5:35:47 PM PST by INVAR ("Fart for liberty, fart for freedom and fart proudly!" - Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mikrofon

Fire all women of child-bearing age.

refuse to hire same.

Problem solved.


15 posted on 11/19/2012 5:46:46 PM PST by digger48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arkansas Toothpick
In this case I think the question to answer is; Does preventing life constitute killing a life?

I don't know the answer other than my pro life mindset demands that no attempt to stop a life should ever occur.

It is my opinion that preventing life is the same as killing an existing life, but I'm no lawyer or theologian or anything ... just a guy with an opinion.

16 posted on 11/19/2012 5:47:30 PM PST by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mikrofon
"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."

They always use some perverted variation of the Commerce Clause. They want everybody to believe that the Commerce Clause trumps the rest of the Constitution.

"For-profit corporations" are owned and operated by human beings who have the right of "free exercise of religion," nitwit.

Hopefully this is going the USSC, and that nitwit Roberts falls down an open sewer pipe before it gets there.

17 posted on 11/19/2012 5:53:06 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (Government is the religion of the psychopath.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mikrofon

Nowhere in the first amendment does it say that the govt can mandate a company to provide birth control or abortion(of any type) OR interfere with an individual’s or corporation’s right to freely exercise their religion:

“I.Congress cannot make a law that favors the establishment of one particular religion; that prohibits the free exercise of religion; or that restricts freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people to gather and engage in peaceful demonstrations and to petition the government for redress of their grievances.”

but then, as obama says “I don’t need no steenkin’ constitution!”


18 posted on 11/19/2012 5:53:14 PM PST by Recovering Ex-hippie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: INVAR
"However, Hobby Lobby and Mardel are not religious organizations," the ruling states. "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."

I find it interesting that the gov is saying that religious freedoms only apply to religious organizations there. Yet they claim in other circumstances that corporations of any kind cannot claim rights. The individual has been completely ignored by this court and the ruling suggests that individuals don't have Constitutional protection of religion as expressed by the 1st Amendment.

19 posted on 11/19/2012 6:01:07 PM PST by TigersEye (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: digger48

Firing women only because they are women will get them sued for discrimination. Also if it’s a family plan it would have to cover wives and daughters.


20 posted on 11/19/2012 6:04:35 PM PST by muggs (Hope and Change = Hoax and Chains)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Actually, the Supreme Court bascally held in Citizens United that corporations ARE people, with the same rights as any individual.


21 posted on 11/19/2012 6:18:11 PM PST by RightFighter (It was all for nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: mikrofon

they do, however, have the right to close and eliminate employees altogether!!!


22 posted on 11/19/2012 6:23:44 PM PST by terycarl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mikrofon

Compelling interest if Fed speak for “You’ll do what we say because we say so”.


23 posted on 11/19/2012 6:32:17 PM PST by Flick Lives (We're going to be just like the old Soviet Union, but with free cell phones!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mikrofon

Muzzies and congress are exempt from barrycare, right?


24 posted on 11/19/2012 6:34:31 PM PST by crosshairs (Hurricane Barry is 1000 times more destructive than Hurricane Sandy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightFighter

I guess this judge didn’t get the memo.


25 posted on 11/19/2012 6:48:27 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (Government is the religion of the psychopath.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: mikrofon

It’s interesting to compare this to the Tyndale House ruling.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2960511/posts
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2960876/posts
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2960443/posts


26 posted on 11/19/2012 7:01:00 PM PST by upchuck (America's at an awkward stage. Too late to work within the system, too early to shoot the bastards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mikrofon

HL’s course is clear, drop all women employees to 28 hrs./week.


27 posted on 11/19/2012 7:38:29 PM PST by TheLawyerFormerlyKnownAsAl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mikrofon

Write a check to obs campaign and then request a waiver from obcare


28 posted on 11/19/2012 7:45:10 PM PST by morphing libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mikrofon
In his ruling denying Hobby Lobby's request for an injunction, Heaton noted churches and other religious organizations or religious corporations have been granted constitutional protection from provisions of the law regarding the birth-control measures.

Depends on the religious organization. I think the Amish and Muslims are exempt, but the Catholic Church sure isn't.

29 posted on 11/19/2012 7:52:57 PM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arkansas Toothpick
Shut-r-down?

Let's think about this. The owner of a company believes life begins at conception and that the morning after pill is a nice way to say 'murder of convenience.'

What is the compromise on something like that? Let all the organizations that are being forced to provide such coverage consider what is the price of compliance. And if they find their conscience opposed, close it up. I wonder if enough people of faith could stay out of business for four years to make a lasting impact.
30 posted on 11/19/2012 7:59:51 PM PST by AD from SpringBay (We deserve the government we allow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: knarf
Lawyers and theologians are just guys with opinions also.

The point is that the state has decided that THEIR lawyers know better than your chosen theologian even though our FIRST freedom guaranteed BY GOD is being violated by Government lawyers.

31 posted on 11/19/2012 8:25:55 PM PST by Jim from C-Town (The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: AD from SpringBay

Option is to make all employees 28 hr/week employees. Should be a large pool of applicants as companies all over the spectrum will be dropping full time employees.
Other way is to fire all employees and contract with employee leasing companies to supply the labor. Hire enough of these leasing companies so that no one company is responsible for no more than 49 people, keeping their ranks below the magic number!


32 posted on 11/19/2012 8:28:32 PM PST by Froggie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Froggie

Actually, the idea of just using temporary employees might work.


33 posted on 11/20/2012 3:08:13 AM PST by Catsrus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

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
Religion
Topics · Post Article

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