Hobby Lobby wins Supreme Court case, limits the ACA contraception mandate

The aftershocks are starting....

Boom Flash Poofff......

Following the U.S. Supreme Court decision on Hobby Lobby, an Alabama-based Catholic television network was given relief from the federal government's "preventive services" mandate.

Within hours of the Supreme Court's ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby Inc. on Monday, Eternal Word Television Network was granted relief from having to pay fines for refusing to comply with the HHS mandate to provide various birth control pills.

In addition to EWTN, five other groups based in Wyoming were given emergency relief. They were the Catholic Diocese of Cheyenne, Catholic Charities of Wyoming, St. Joseph's Children's Home, St. Anthony Tri-Parish Catholic School, and Wyoming Catholic College.



Afte r Hobby Lobby Decision, Federal Court Grants Catholic Network Relief From Birth Control Mandate

a reply to: Bone75

Myself and a couple others have pointed this out a couple of times. Silence.......Like I said earlier, it's not against their faith apparently when it comes to investments.

a reply to: mOjOm

Because of the ACA everyone must get and pay for health coverage.

No.
You can opt not to purchase health coverage and pay the fine.

originally posted by: drivers1492
a reply to: Bone75

Myself and a couple others have pointed this out a couple of times. Silence.......Like I said earlier, it's not against their faith apparently when it comes to investments.

What about Conestoga Wood Specialties?

Do they have similar investments?

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Gryphon66

Obviously RFRA applies in the Hobby Lobby case.

Nope, wrong again. RFRA has clearly been declared unconstitutional (see above).

A law cannot be constitutional and unconstitutional at the same time.

It has not been challenged at the Federal level. It now soon will be.

Hobby Lobby was a Federal case.

Not State affected or infringed.

It applies.

Good Luck with your new case.

Aren't you cute? Sadly, in this case as in many, you're simply mistaken in point of fact.

RFRA has been ruled unconstitutional; that is a clear and obvious and direct fact. (See multiple references herein to Flores et. al. These four or five senile neocons are trying to push their own ideological nonsense down the throats of the American People. We will not stand for it. The majority of the public disagrees with the ruling.

Actually, we may not even need a new case, as soon as one of these Conservative goons on the current "Court" is replaced by a Democratic President, which we will have for the next few decades as least.

A reasonable and fact-based Court can revisit the issue at that point, and this ludicrosity will be assigned to the dust-bin of history where it belongs.

Then all the Wingnuts can go back to trumpeting about the abuse of Separation of Powers and the trampling of the Constitution, instead of cheering for such.

Hypocrites.

a reply to: xuenchen

I don't know why anyone should be surprised by this development. Weren't there like 14 cases pending, waiting on the outcome of the Hobby Lobby case?

Doesn't this prove that Scalia's "Narrow" ruling is bogus and that will effect all contraception and will leak into other areas as well.

It's time for "single payer", which is what Obama wanted in the first place. Looks like the Supreme Court is pushing us there.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: butcherguy

Do you think it's right that a national law should arbitrarily cover/protect some women but not others, based on who their employer is?

Do you think it is right that someone should be required to support actions that run against their faith? Specially when that law is patently unconstitutional. By calling Obamacare a tax they managed to get around that, but I dont think that is going to last long.

It clearly is not a tax. It clearly is a case of the govt requiring you to purchase a product. This is not like auto insurance. You still have a choice whether to drive or not.

It is the same difference, however, as requiring everyone to purchase life insurance. Or requiring everyone to purchase bicycles. Perhaps the govt could require everyone to purchase 32oz soft drinks? lol

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: xuenchen

I don't know why anyone should be surprised by this development. Weren't there like 14 cases pending, waiting on the outcome of the Hobby Lobby case?

Doesn't this prove that Scalia's "Narrow" ruling is bogus and that will effect all contraception and will leak into other areas as well.

It's time for "single payer", which is what Obama wanted in the first place. Looks like the Supreme Court is pushing us there.

I suspected that the ACA was written with failure in mind.... just to get to a single payer system.

a reply to: bbracken677

And it's so much better when the Government requires Americans to follow the dictates of someone else's religion?

I really don't get this neocon worldview, admittedly.

After a few expletive laced rants from men on the subject, i.e. "Eff u, Hobby Lobby",
I do have a question to ask;
To the men that emotionally apopletic on this topic, why?
I understand it takes two to tango in regards to birth control, but why are some men so emotionally involved in this subject?
As I've stated before, the women actually involved in this ruling, the dames that work at Hobby Lobby, are shrugging it off-
Fellas, why the outbursts?

a reply to: Gryphon66

These four or five senile neocons are trying to push their own ideological nonsense down the throats of the American People. We will not stand for it. The majority of the public disagrees with the ruling.

It's just my observation...but not only should more people have cared about things like imminent Domain than even bothered to learn what we lost in that dandy little Supreme decision ... They gave absolutely no mind or care to those who did express more than a little disbelief at unconstitutional stupidity, by a common man's definition.

I know many don't like this decision. A good many do support it, too.

The Court honestly doesn't care either way, as the Justices serve for life or until they choose to leave by their own action. 9 individuals form what is basically the entire meaningful head of the 3rd branch of Government. Even executive doesn't have quite that same power, in the same final way.

'tis the law of the land, whether we agree or not, and the court is limited in their otherwise awesome scope of power by one MAJOR check, meant to insure balance. They cannot take initiative. They cannot act of their own choosing. A matter must be brought to them to then decide if they'll take it up or review a previous precedent established. It may be a long time.

a reply to: butcherguy

That's not really an opt out option though now is it. You're still paying one way or the other, be it for Health Care or by Fine. The fact is none of us can get out of it. Just like all the other BS we all have to do because someone in washington decided that is what the country is going to do, like go to war, or bail out banks, we all just have to suck it up and do it. It's an all or nothing game so either we all follow the same rules or none of us follow the rules. But we shouldn't have Special Rules because Certain Persons Lobby Special Rules for themselves.

How many more Special Rules do we allow for Corp. Persons before enough is enough??? Multinationals get to cheat on their taxes by basing their headquarters off some island somewhere. Corps. now get to use their money as speech like individuals but Corps. aren't Individual People are they??? They don't eat, sleep, die, or age. They have protections from liability that others don't. They are considered People in all the ways that they want but aren't People when it suits them.

a reply to: butcherguy

What about Conestoga Wood Specialties?

You know, I find these people to be far more sincere in their beliefs, and truly believe that Hobby Lobby wouldn't have won without these humble Mennonites.

Where Hobby Lobby has over 500, 10,000 sq ft stores, CWS has 5 factories. Where Hobby Lobby employs over 20,000 unskilled workers, mostly women, CWS has 1,200 employees, mostly skilled tradesmen.

I highly doubt they get their wood and findings from China and I doubt their 401k's earn money from big pharm.

To say the Hobby Lobby is a closely held mom and pop corporation.................that's pushing it.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Hey Gryph! Good to see you again!

And who, exactly, is it that is being forced by the govt to follow the dictates of someone's religion? Key word there being "forced".

a reply to: TheCounselor

Indeed, one wonders why men, who can't get pregnant, feel that they have anything to say on the subject of pregnancy, birth control or abortion.

I mean, seriously, why would a "dude" care, huh? We can't get pregnant! AMMIRITE? /highfive

Unless, some men seem to think that women are second-class citizens who should have no say over their own bodies ... that men have a god-given right to state endlessly our opinions on something that CAN ONLY AFFECT a woman's body because, well, you know, we really do like "own" them right? I mean we act like they're equal an' all, but, yeah, we're the man of the house, AMMIRITE?

/barf

a reply to: Gryphon66

Aren't you cute? Sadly, in this case as in many, you're simply mistaken in point of fact.

RFRA has been ruled unconstitutional; that is a clear and obvious and direct fact. (See multiple references herein to Flores et. al. These four or five senile neocons are trying to push their own ideological nonsense down the throats of the American People. We will not stand for it. The majority of the public disagrees with the ruling.

The Supreme Court disagrees.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) prohibits the “Government [from] substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise ofreligion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability” unless the Government “demonstrates that application of theburden to the person—(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furtheringthat compelling governmental interest.” 42 U. S. C. §§2000bb–1(a), (b). As amended by the Religious Land Use and InstitutionalizedPersons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), RFRA covers “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” §2000cc–5(7)(A).At issue here are regulations promulgated by the Department ofHealth and Human Services (HHS) under the Patient Protection andAffordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA), ...........

BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES, ET AL. v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC., ET AL.

a reply to: bbracken677

Do you think it is right that someone should be required to support actions that run against their faith?

Why is one faith more important than another's? Hobby Lobby won, and now their faith is has been asserted over that of their employees. If their employee happens to agree with their faith, great. But if their employee is a Scientologist, say, and believes that having children is counter productive, her faith is secondary. She's the one burdened with obstacles, put there because of her employer's faith.

a reply to: mOjOm

Absolutely! I am sick and tired of the govt intruding into my life. I am sick and tired of those j-holes up in Washington believing they know how best to run my life down to how I should trim my toenails (slight exaggeration to make a point).

Do we really want the same govt that single-handedly screwed up our education system to control our healthcare? Do we really want the same govt that is screwing social security (THE Ponzi scheme deluxe) to be in charge of our healthcare?

I find it totally ridiculous that such a HUGE deal is being made about something that is as cheap and easily obtained as contraception. When I was in my ...err, my wife was in her childbearing years no insurance (that I know of) covered the cost of "the pill". That was not that big a deal back then. How can it be one now? Because someone feels slighted for not getting something for nothing at other's expense? wtf!!

a reply to: windword

How is that pushing it? The same man who started Hobby Lobby with one store, up from a garage business in 1972 is the same man who owns it today. He has 100% ownership of it, in fact, which is a tidbit I just learned myself. So the Corp sounds more like the traditional structure for liability and financial accountability than a shareholder supported corp with a true faceless nature to it, from that.

He means that literally. David Green has one of America’s great, little-known fortunes, having turned a makeshift manufacturing operation in his living room for arts and crafts into a retail monster, with 520 superstores in 42 states. Green and his family own 100% of the company and he ranks No. 79 on our list of the 400 richest Americans, with an estimated net worth of $4.5 billion. Hobby Lobby’s cash spigot currently makes him the largest individual donor to evangelical causes in America.

I hadn't known that last part there, either. It means the direct owner is a very religious man, however anyone may feel about that, and he walks the walk as well as talking to make a statement.

Rather than try to cure malaria or fix the U.S. public school system, he’s turned his arts and crafts empire into a massive missionary organization, the equivalent of the largest church bake sale in the world. Hobby Lobby takes half of total pretax earnings and plunges it directly into a portfolio of evangelical ministries.

Source: Forbes

The more I learn about him, the more I personally respect the guy. Agreement or not with his choices of causes and efforts? I personally respect the values and commitment to what he believes. It's a rare thing to see these days. Especially at that level of business success.

a reply to: windword

Aha! So how is the govt REQUIRING those employees from abstaining from taking contraceptives? Ohh, wait...they aren't.

They aren't requiring anyone to do anything, whereas they were requiring Hobby Lobby to provide the insurance.

So now, the playing field is even...no one is REQUIRED to either take, not take, or provide a PRODUCT by the govt...

See...your point would not be moot if the govt required employees of Hobby Lobby to remain working at Hobby and / or prevent those employees from taking contraceptives. But that is not the case. The employees are free to work elsewhere should they choose and they are free to purchase and use contraceptives, if they so choose.