Skip to comments.Judge Denies Hobby Lobby's Morning-After Case
Posted on 11/19/2012 5:17:44 PM PST by mikrofon
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 ...
We might abide a lot of things, but forcing someone to pay for this type of “coverage” is intolerable.
No different than conscientious objectors. Our governmetn has ALWAYS recognized this.
Another catch phrase, a dog whistle to radicals that trumps the 1st & 9th Amendments every time.
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?
Hobby Lobby may not have to worry after all. Governor Fallin said today she would refuse to set up the Health Care Exchanges. LOL
Conscientious objectors do not get any exemption from paying taxes for wars. SCOTUS says this is a tax.
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.
Drop your employee’s insurance and pay the fine. It’s cheaper. Tell your employees that you’re sorry but ‘talk to the 0bama.’
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.
Yes the best and brightest will head offshore.
And I believe there will be plenty of jobs for dependable educated support grunts also.
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.
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?
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.
Fire all women of child-bearing age.
refuse to hire same.
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.
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.
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!”
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.
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.