Posted on 03/27/2014 12:02:35 PM PDT by shepardspie33
It is quite hard to take the claims by Hobby Lobby seriously. The main drugs in question in the case brought before the Supreme Court are the emergency contraceptives Plan-B and Ella. One huge problem with this situation is that up until 2012, Hobby Lobby provided them as part of their insurance plan. Only when they realized that Obamacare was going to mandate this coverage did they suddenly become interested in not providing these drugs.
In their initial complaint to the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, Hobby Lobby stated, “After learning about the current HHS mandate controversy...Hobby Lobby discovered that the formulary for its prescription drug policy included two drugs - Plan B and Ella - that could cause an abortion” (pg. 15, pt. #55). This is a huge indictment upon the Green family and Hobby Lobby.
How can they be expected to be taken seriously when the precise drugs they want relief from providing, they provided in the past? What does it say about their commitment to the “unborn” that they had no clue that they have been for years providing the drugs which they assert “can cause abortions”?
(Excerpt) Read more at reddirtreport.com ...
Hobby Lobby provided emergency contraceptives before they opposed them
_________________________________________________________
When the headline is a boldface lie, its easy to dismiss the article as crap also.
First of all - Hobby Lobby DID NOT provide contraceptives. The group health insurance company they contracted with may or may not of provided for that. But that is beyond the scope of Hobby Lobby.
Second of all. Did I mention this article is crap? I did? Good.
OK, so what's the problem?
The company is called "Hobby Lobby", it's not called "Medical Formulary Analysts for Employee Coverage Benefits".
It's also very likely that their previous insurer did not make the huge issue out of "women's health rights and family planning" that the ACA has, not to mention mandating specific coverages. Which served to draw everyone's attention, including the company's, and there you go. Their previous "generic health care plan" came under scrutiny as well as the new Obamacare mandates. Better late than never, and completely understandable.
Query: if you have health-care insurance from an employer, have you ever asked the owner/CEO/President if she/he knows exactly what's covered under "women's health"? OB/GYN...could be a lot, could be a little, but a normal CEO would go for providing a "comprensive" but not "deluxe" benefit at a reasonable cost, based on the insurer's available and recommended policies, and that's ALL! They wouldn't read the entire detailed benefits analysis, they have other things to do, and I see nothing "hypocritical" about that.
JMHO.
Were they aware that these drugs and devices were covered? Was the onus of paying for them put totally on them?
He can't change the stipulated facts. There is a stipulation the Hobby Lobby has a sincere religious objection. The ruling must be based on this FACT.
The SCOTUS does not decide factual issues. The facts must be stipulated before the appeal is filed. If there is a dispute on the facts, then the court has no jurisdiction to take the case. They can only rule on the law. They don't decide the facts.
What you said - should have read the thread before posting! AGREED! ;)
“Brian Woodward...describes himself as politically homeless...”
Politically boneless is more like it. Probably raised on Gary Larson’s chicken ranch. I’m picturing him in red plaid pajamas.
He buttons the top button of his polo shirt. That's just as bad.
I’m guessing some affirmative action hire in HR saw Plan B and Ella in the pharmacopeia and had nary a clue what they were.
I wish the blogger had explained exactly how the Hobby Lobby insurance offered these drugs before?
Unless the old policies paid 100% then it is not exactly the same
I bet it was an options choice among so many things offered and I bet it didn’t cover it 100%
and I can easily see how this provision could have been unknown by them.
ya that would be helpful. I read the link to Hobby Lobby’s complaint and all it said was they provided coverage, so your probably right that they likely had a co-pay and that the HHS mandate says you have to give them without a co-pay.
“The SCOTUS does not decide factual issues. The facts must be stipulated before the appeal is filed.”
It didn’t stop the court from finding that the penalty on Zerocare was a tax, despite the law having stipulated that it was a fee, NOT a tax. Roberts could do it again.
This is a good legal summary. Sadly, I have as much confidence in your statement as I do that the ruling will be based on the Constitution. Four justices have no interest in the Constitution, just in furthering their political agenda. In that situation, any tie to the Constitution is tenuous at best, as is the legitimacy of FedGov itself under such conditions.
“It is quite hard to take the claims by Hobby Lobby seriously”
It’s a lot harder take Red Dirt seriously!
good point
It just amazes me that someone can go to work for a group of nuns and then act surprised that birth control isnt paid.
No, you’re mixing up the meanings. A stipulation is an agreement among the litigants, and has nothing to do with the wording of a statute. The parties can agree to who did what to whom. It saves the courts time and money to do that. But what the law says is not a stipulation, but a legal question, and as such is subject to the Court’s review.
A company should not be allowed to limit medical care based on their religious beliefs. If they believe having a blood transfusion is a sin, then they could eliminate having a blood transfusion from that policy. To allow a company to offer only what they consider to be “Godly”, is a slippery slope into their dominating what care one can get. A government shouldn’t be able to limit your medical care and neither should a company. Democrats want to limit your medical care and so does this company. Perhaps it doesn’t bother you due to you won’t use these pills, but what if blood transfusions or making an incision into the body is the next medical procedure they think isn’t “Godly”?
Don’t say go get another job. If a person has a job right now, that person can’t just quit and immediately find another job.
Hobby Lobby is not opposed to paying for contraceptives. They are opposed to paying for abortions.
Obamacare mandates paying for abortions. That’s what Hobby Lobby is contesting.
“Homeless,” my axx. He’s deep under the covers with the Democrats. ALL his articles are predictable left-wing hash. He is completely at home on the Democratic left.
The sum total of his articles at Red Dirt art pro-pot, pro-illegal immigration, anti-fracking and anti-religious freedom.
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.