http://www.azcentral.com/picture-gallery/opinion/2014/02/20/benson-cartoons-january-to-march-2014/5644503/

(By the way, I'm getting very nasty feedback from the Pottymouths for Jesus brigade that have been leaving foul-mouth "f"- and "a"-word messages on my answering machine. What would Jesus spew, indeed).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/26/2014 04:43PM by steve benson.

Hobby Lobby "Statement of Purpose

our company

In order to effectively serve our owners, employees, and customers the Board of Directors is committed to:

Honoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company in a manner consistent with Biblical principles...

...Providing a return on the owners' investment, sharing the Lord's blessings with our employees, and investing in our community.

We believe that it is by God's grace and provision that Hobby Lobby has endured. He has been faithful in the past, and we trust Him for our future."

The cartoon is certainly true in their fanatical, sectarian view.

I wouldn't shop there and I won't eat at Chick-fil-A, or enter City Creek. I can't support businesses that impose their religious views on others. The Bible Belt is just as repugnant as Morridor.

Ten percent discount for churches, BTW. Oh boy. I wonder how they arrived at that number.

I'd be more impressed if they were trying to protect the born.

Shame on them for denying access to contraception based on 2000 year old propaganda designed to make the tribe bigger and more powerful. We have 7 billion people now, isn't that enough yet?

Based on High Court precedent, the U.S. Justice Department's position invokes, among other things, standing case law for requiring Hobby Lobby to follow the mandates of the ACA:

" . . . [I]n 1990, . . . the Court ruled that as long as a generally applicable law — that is, a law that applies generally to all citizens — is neutrally applied, it is constitutional, even though it may have some unhappy consequences for some [religious] believers. . . .

"The government [argues] that when you are a commercial enterprise [as is the case with Hobby Lobby], you may have to make choices. Here, either provide the insurance or pay a fine and let your employees go to the health care exchange to buy insurance that may include public subsidies.

"The Justice Department cites as an example a Supreme Court decision involving an Amish cabinetmaker. He was required to pay Social Security taxes for his employees, even though he viewed such payments as against his religion and even though the Social Security law at the time had significant exemptions. . . .

" . . . [T]he government, not[es] that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says that the availability of contraception is a matter of public health 'necessity.' The government points to studies that have shown one-third of women would change their method of contraception if cost was not a factor and that the most effective methods are the most expensive. IUDs are 45 times more effective than the pill, given average use, and 90 times more effective than condoms. But IUDs are also the most expensive method, costing between $500 and $1,000 in one lump sum.

"The government also argues that requiring effective contraception and counseling in insurance plans is justified as a matter of gender equality.

"'For an employer to say, I will cover all the basic essential health needs for men, but I am picking and choosing for women, and I am simply going to take out contraception or specific forms of medically approved contraception, it is sex discrimination,' says Marsha Greenberger, co-president of the National Women's Law Center. It is sex discrimination, she argues, because such selectivity regarding an essential part of women's health care costs forces women to pay more for their care."

"The Hobby Lobby corporation and its owners counter that the simple answer to these arguments is to have the government pay for contraception.

"The government replies that is no answer. Otherwise, the government would end up paying for everything."

("Hobby Lobby Contraceptive Case Goes Before Supreme Court," by Nina Totenberg, 25 March 2014, at: http://www.npr.org/2014/03/25/293956170/hobby-lobby-contraceptive-case-goes-before-supreme-court)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/26/2014 04:49PM by steve benson.

How much does it cost to buy birth control?

$1000 or more for an IUD and up to $100 a month for BC pills. For many of their female employees the former would be about a months wages.

not abortion drugs

http://thefederalist.com/2014/03/25/five-false-perceptions-about-the-hobby-lobby-case/

Those "abortion drugs" do not abort anything. Additionally, why should an employer be able to make medical decisions for their female employees? That's what is being argued here. And if they are allowed to disregard laws they find to be against their beliefs, where do we draw the line? Does every company get to decide what laws they follow and what laws they don't?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/26/2014 05:03PM by Devoted Exmo.

making a decision for the woman?

she can't decide to buy them herself, or buy her own policy or work somewhere else?

. . . through the company's insurance policy for certain contraceptive drugs because such use is not in keeping with the employer's personal religious beliefs. The argument essentially being made by Hobby Lobby is that a corporation (per the Citizens United case) is, for all intents and purposes, a "person" and, therefore, as a "person," Hobby Lobby Corp. has the right to impose its personal religious views on its workers.

This position is absurd. It not only violates a woman's right to equal protection under the law, it is not in keeping with High Court precedent that limits the exercise of religious beliefs that are deemed to be at odds with the necessities and best interests of society (for instance, proscribing the use of peyote or upholding the denial of blood transfusions, both of which have been done in the name of God). The Court, in fact, has ruled that the government has the legitimate constitutional authority to require adherence to laws that believers may find objectionable under their personal religious creeds.



Edited 9 time(s). Last edit at 03/26/2014 05:34PM by steve benson.

I know facts are so hard to face sometimes, but here goes with a few;

Hobby Lobby currently covers 16 different forms of birth control for its employees. These cover virtually any condom, sponge, diaphragm, birth control pill, and even medical sterilization. Those of you who posted above claiming Hobby Lobby is against any form of contraceptive, you're wrong.

Morning after pills and IUD's can function to abort an embryo, and those are the only methods Hobby Lobby objects to. When you hear the hysterical screams of those opposing this, they conveniently omit this fact. They would prefer to give the impression Hobby Lobby rejects all birth control. But folks like Steve are not so much interested in the truth as they are getting a good talking point.

About 50% of Americans will ultimately be getting their insurance through the state and federal exchanges. The creators of the Affordable Care Act did not require insurers to offer free birth control in that forum.

So, why the outrage at Hobby Lobby? They willingly offer the vast majority of birth control without charge to their employees. But half of America will end up paying out of their pockets for all forms of birth control thanks to the way the ACA was created by the politicians.

If you all are truly concerned about getting free birth control into the hands of all Americans, why are you going after a company that offers most forms, but giving a free pass to the politicians who created a law denying it to half the country?

Pardon me, but your hypocrisy is showing.

Yes. Facts are hard: http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/02/22/172595689/morning-after-pills-dont-cause-abortion-studies-say

. . . IUDs and the morning-after pill, arguing that they are abortion-inducing drugs.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/26/2014 05:30PM by steve benson.

can they refuse to pay their employees because they might buy meat?

paying an employee is the same as buying an employees abortion drug?

Health insurance at Hobby Lobby is not a gift. It is part of the employee compensation package of which the employee also pays a part of the cost. The ACA mandates that insurance companies cover most contraception without copay. Hobby Lobby wants to limits on what the purchased insurance covers. So yes, Hobby Lobbys portion of the insurance payment is part of what they pay to their employees.

This is an important case of the limits of religion before a court. It's not supposed to be about politics. Judges are supposed to be apolitical.

There's some okay stuff on this thread, but it can't touch Catholics for Choice. They are really rocking this issue.

Look for a full-page ad from them in tomorrow's International New York Times.

They see this not as a political issue but a freedom of religion issue, which it is. And for those posters who argue that Hobby Lobby will fund MOST birth control for their employees, I don't think you really get it. The problem is that any employer can whimsically decide to deny you coverage based on the employer's idea of right and wrong. If this is upheld, then there is no reason a Christian Scientist employer can't deny employees ANY health coverage that involves doctors and modern medicine, all that being against their religion.

I keep waiting for the guys to realize that a woman boss could deny them their Viagra, but so far no light has dawned.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/26/2014 07:46PM by janeeliot.

I don't see how the Catholic church can play the persecution card here. In every other European country they are not allowed to opt out of insurance that covers these things for women. So how can it be ok in all of Europe, but against their religion in the US?

Thank you, Steve!

Corporations are not people, despite the deranged mumblings of the haircut known as Mitt Romney.

How the fuck does a corporation have a religion!?

Bad enough that the Mormon cult is just a religious front for a cheesy real estate corporation.

This whole issue is pure insanity.