What does the religious right want from the Hobby Lobby mess?

[peach174]

C'mon guys. This isn't a fact based argument. It isn't tax payers paying for contraceptives! It's insurance companies paying for them. Get that through your skulls!

If it wasn't fact based the Supreme Court would have throw-en it out.
It's a about a Religious owner of a Hobby Lobby franchise Store that is being forced to pay for insurance by Law that the Government passed for 2 types of pills that kills life. Which violates the 1st Amendment.

They don't "kill life.". Plan B and Ella are not abortifacients.

Nor is the IUD. That's just the facts.



Hobby Lobby previously covered Plan B and Ella for years before they were mandated to cover it as part of their health plan.

I never said that the 2 drugs were abortifacients.
The owner of Hobby Lobby believes that life begins at fertilization and the morning after pill as well as the weekly after pill prevents that fertilized egg from becoming a life

No they didn't.
Each individual Hobby Lobby owner had the choice to cover or not cover Plan B and Ella.

 

[emilynghiem]

You won't pay for their contraceptives. The insurance companies will. Try again.

Because money is magic and contraceptives are free.Can I ask you a question, if contraceptives are free, why does anyone have to pay for them?

Huh?

Women who use contraceptives have had to pay for them before the ACA. After the passing of ACA, the women who use contraceptives pay the insurance companies through which the contraceptives are paid for. Why is this a problem? You aren't paying for them.

Hi Cman: I started looking into the quote that Luddly posted, claiming the "contraceptive mandate" only applies if the company opts into the tax deductible employer insurance. All other references to the insurance mandate cite the fines running 100.00 x 13,000 employees at Hobby Lobby to total 1.3 million or 467 million a year.

I asked others who said this refers to the FINES on companies for not providing insurance under the federal mandates and regulations.

I am still not completely clear on this, because one site hinted that it ISN'T required for companies to provide health plans at all -- doesn't that incur a FINE instead?
Or else, you are right, there is no issue if "all these mandates were OPTIONAL."

I don't see how that can be the case, or why would they spend so much money to sue?
Why would Sotomayor grant an injunction if they had other options to avoid this?

Especially the MENNONITE company that is actually against suing anyone especially the govt, and normally just goes along with what the govt rules turn out to be. For MENNONITES to agree to sue, when this is even pushing a burden on their beliefs, they had to have an even STRONGER motivation against even indirectly paying for drugs or contraception that are either abortifacient or promote it to the point they feel it goes against their religious beliefs. This burden had to be BIGGER than the burden of suing when they prefer to avoid that as well, especially concerning govt.

For Hobby Lobby, it seems the problem is they could continue providing the health insurance as before, but do not agree to the federal requirements adding the access to drugs and IUD they deem to be outside or against the limits of their religious beliefs.

It's not clear to me yet, but the choices seem to be either drop the health plan altogether, refuse to meet the federal guidelines, and/or face fines for either option.
Forcing Hobby Lobby owners to comply with the federal regulations that require access to the drugs in question is NOT an option for the company; they are arguing they would be compelled by conscience not to comply, and this also violates their beliefs in civil obedience to govt authority. So they are asking the govt to recognize an exemption for them, so they are not disobeying govt; but they are following the law.

I will keep trying to research why ONE SOURCE that Luddly cited doesn't mention any fine for not meeting the federal requirements on insurance, but goes so far as to claim the company is NOT required. Maybe they are just interpreting this differently. Most people interpret "being fined" for not providing insurance by the federal law as being compelled by law or else face a penalty. Maybe people like Luddly or the other sources DON'T interpret the penalty as compulsion, but interpret it as an "option."

But it is clear that paying 1.3 million does not sound like a free or equal option.
Maybe that is where the law is being interpreted differently, depending on people's viewpoint.

 

[emilynghiem]

The government lied when they went before the Supreme Court to defend the mandate? Why the **** don't I believe that?

Dear QuantumW and LuddlyN:

I am still checking into this claim.
The most I can figure out is that people like Luddly or Scott Lemieux
are considering "exemption from the TAX PENALTY"
as a "tax DEDUCTION." That is where they are getting this.

Some people see corporations as "owing" money to the people, workers and govt
just for the right to exist and to operate here as a privilege.

They don't see corporations as "earning their own money and having a right to that money" and don't see taxes as that company "paying their own earnings to govt."
(Some do not see individual citizens as taxpayers "paying their labor to govt" but are assuming that since "govt represents the people" then
all people owe taxes to govt anyway, and do not have a say after we elect officials to run the govt for us.)

For those who see corporate earnings as "public" they consider anything RETAINED as being
"taken from the people's taxes." I think this is where the "entitlement" mentality comes from.

So they see "tax deductions" as taking money AWAY from the public/govt.
They don't see it as the company keeping their own money like other citizens, or being
"forced to pay ADDITIONAL penalties to govt" for not meeting certain requirements.

I agree this is very disturbing to have two different mindsets going on,
and expect to have agreement on govt policy and taxation. Very distressing
that this issue, in itself, is not being addressed openly and resolved if it is the root of political conflicts we see now!

Luddly and Quantum, I believe that people SHOULD have equal right to political beliefs.
So if people believe in socialism or believe in big govt or Singlepayer, we should have equal right to such systems
as people who believe in free market, to the extent of considering corporations as part of free market.

This is a critical enough split between "political beliefs" to petition both Parties and Govt
to recognize and accommodate these beliefs SEPARATELY and not impose policies of one on the other.
This is serious, as serious as the First Amendment and the Constitution; the Equal Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment against discrimination.

I'm just not sure where to begin:
There is the split between political beliefs in "right to health" and "right to life" that needs to be separated by party.
Now I see it may be tied to the split between beliefs in free market vs. government, with respect to ownership of labor and taxes.
Would petitioning the Party leaders be enough to sort out all these ramifications of dividing the tax and policies by Party?

WHO should be addressed with such a Petition to recognize "political equality" between "political beliefs"?
The Party leader? The members?
What positions in Govt? All of them?

Someone asked about a Constitutional Convention.
What if we called for one to address political equality and separating political beliefs by party?

I guess I will consult with Libertarians and Greens who have long had grievances
with both major parties for monopolizing the process and blocking equal participation
and representation of people from other parties. We could ask for corrections to avoid
a lawsuit over the problems caused by either party imposing their agenda on public policy.

Maybe the motivation will come from the third parties? To push for recognition of
political beliefs, and lack of equal inclusion as a form of "discrimination by creed."