The owners of arts and crafts store Hobby Lobby and Christian retailer Mardel begin the New Year fighting an old fight that, until Barack Obama’s election, was settled in America: the fight for the right to freedom of conscience. The Green family-owned businesses are refusing to comply with the Obama government’s order that they provide abortifacient drugs in their health care coverage for employees. Providing such drugs violates the family’s religious beliefs.
The Green family, along with the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty that is defending them, petitioned to the Supreme Court in 2012 to block that part of the ObamaCare law. The case went to Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who rejected that bid. The Green family announced that they would defy the mandate. Today is the day that that mandate kicks in across the nation.
Hobby Lobby is among scores of businesses, universities and organizations that are fighting the mandate. So far, courts have tended to side with religious institutions against the mandate, but have not granted Christian business owners the freedom to opt out of the mandate. In the Green family’s case, Hobby Lobby is a secular business that retails arts and crafts and hobby supplies, but Mardel sells only Christian books, music and other religious merchandise. A federal court did side with Tyndale House Publishers in November 2012, blocking the Obama Department of Health and Human Services from imposing the abortifacient mandate on the Bible publisher. That decision only applied to Tyndale.
In a few short years, the United States has moved dramatically, from it being controversial for taxpayer funds to be used to pay for abortions of any kind, to a government mandate forcing businesses to provide abortifacient drugs in violation of their religious beliefs.
Hobby Lobby and Mardel now face fines as high as $1.3 million per day as long as they remain in defiance of the mandate.
I have a strong desire that there be a United States, but I do think we are perhaps going to have to break apart as a people before we can become a unified one again, where each American is secure in the ability to live his life without fear that an overarching government, captured by an motivated and non-stopping interest, will seek to force him redefine his life and beliefs to their liking, upon pain of forfeiture of life, liberty, and property if he does not.
There already exists such a break; It’s called “Europe” and “Everybody else”.
There have always been Americans who think that the Constitution and all its requirements and “difficult” government is passe’ and oh-so-inconvenient.
Sadly, those same people think the expression, “then leave” is quintessentially moribund and rude in that the simple suggestion is somehow bordering on a lacking in sophistication. The real issue is just that, though. Self-sufficiency or constantly pickpocketing those who are.
“But we MUST take care of the less-fortunate”. Well, I’m all for taking care of those who cannot take care of themselves but for those who choose a lifestyle that fails, I am not. Drugs, gays, morally ambiguous, etc. “Less fortunate”, my a$$. I am reminded of the people in high-school who forgot their pencil, every day. Tough darts, kimosabe, I was not put here on earth to provide you a writing implement….take care of simple, basic requirements of life yourself or suffer the consequences.
And that’s the way it should ever be.
I have helped and will help those I know who through life’s misfortunes are going through difficulties: health, job, housing, bills, etc. Sometimes life plays cruel tricks on those who strive and try. But for those who choose to follow paths that inevitably lead to such distress and hardship, I don’t feel any particular need to help them. If they show by deeds that they wish to improve themselves and their situation, I will likely help some. If they want their unsustainable lifestyle and help, no way.
Thank You for putting into words what I have been thinking.. Thank You very much..
We had the chance to have this behemoth known as Obamacare stopped in its tracks and we blew it with the Roberts decision. Unless something is done to repeal it or defund it, the personal and religious rights of people are going to continue to be abridged. I know I’m stating the obvious but it should also be obvious that one size fits all healthcare is a lousy idea.
We blew it with the Obama re-election (though I always had doubts about Romney’s desire to really repeal it).
Don’t forget that the Pacific Legal Foundation is still leading the fight to repeal the entire law based on Roberts’s decision, which rendered the fine a tax–and made it an illegal law, since the Constitution is utterly clear that laws levying taxes must originate in the House, and Obamacare climbed out of the Senate like the creature from the Black Lagoon. The case (Sissel v. United States Department of Health & Human Services) is working its way up the chain now.
which rendered the fine a tax–and made it an illegal law, since the Constitution is utterly clear that laws levying taxes must originate in the House
After the infamous Kelo decision, anyone who believes the Supreme Court cares one whit about the Constitution or the rights of American citizens is fooling themselves. We sadly live in a time when the Constitution only means what 5 or more SC justices say it means. The Roberts ObamaCare decision simply follows Kelo.
“levying taxes must originate in the House.”
Lets assume for a moment that someone can make a showing of evidence the PPAC act orignated in ‘totality’ as passed, in the senate. (it actually ‘orginated’ from the White House/President as a matter of a campaign promise — as so many bills do by both party’s.
The fact of the matter remains, the bill enacted by BOTH HOUSES processes, contained a clause that mandated the IRS, not only as a collector but also, enforcer. Collector and enforcer of what? The IRS is only authorized to collect taxes for the treasury — and the treasury is only authorized to pay bills among a few other things. Now some can argue a variety of very complex mechanics involved, but that portion referring to IRS collecting and enforcing puts it squarely into the realm of taxes.
For some of the originators to have ‘floated’ the idea that taxes weren’t involved in the enacted bill, was complete idiocy as they come to realize.
The idea that’s being floated suggesting that the House was not the origin of the enacted bill and therefore, is constitutionally unlawful, is likewise, complete idiocy. There are very long established congressional rules and procedures setting precedence, that facillitate technical end-arounds between the House and Senate. Your elected representativwes can explain them to you.
I’m pretty certian you will find that ‘Roberts’ ruled on the bills construct language further supported by briefs and oral arguments of the parties.
Have any briefs been filed before the supreme court to date on this ‘origin’ claim? I think not! Just more activist noise!
Just like the Left’s (or should I say Fascist’s) war on Chik Fil A I will be going to Hobby Lobby to buy stuff (even if I don’t need anything).
I read on another blog that Jan. 5th is Hobby Lobby Day, like the Chik Fil A day.
Several websites are posting that Jan. 5, 2013 is a support Hobby Lobby Day.
They have really good candy right at the register. Who doesn’t need candy?!?!?!
I will not submit to anything thaat goes against my faith. I am sure if it went against the muslim faith they would be moving heaven and earth to change it to fit their beliefs. It is time christians stood up like the
Green family and said no, I don’t think so.
You can’t be ‘Left’, and a ‘fascist’…idiot. That’s impossible.
Unfortunately, there is no turning back Obamanomics and Obamacare playing by normal “rules”. The majority of voters at the presidential level may not realize it yet (but they will soon) that they have voted for economic and medical suicide. It is unfortunate that many of them will be badly hurt by the economic lesson they will soon receive. At this stage the most prudent thing to do is have the Republicans actually reverse course 180 degrees. They need to dramatically increase spending and borrowing. They should look to increase the yearly deficit by 5 or 10 times IMMEDIATELY making it 5 to 10 trillion per year. They should increase the US debt ceiling from the current level of 16+ trillion now to about 32 trillion – immediately. In less than 2 years – likely less than 1 year – the US and world economies would collapse. The discussion at the 2014 election will then be all about how to recover from an economic collapse. At that point, perhaps the populace will have figured out spending more than one can afford is a bad idea.
Trouble is, already about one half the US population has figured this out, but the other half never will, because “figuring” is “not in their job-description” in as much as they are all either unemployed or in some other way receiving “government” hand-outs, and in that sense are well taken care of and anxious to continue that way. Un- or under- or mis-educated low-information voters are the real “demographic shift” in recent years, the actual elephants in the room. How to deal with them is anyone’s guess!
Bad idea. Look at Greece, where hard-core socialist and fascist parties are on the rise. Our future is bleak.
Im going to make a point to purchase gifts from the Hobby Lobby going forward. Just as I make a point of eating at Chick Fil A.
Vote with your wallet. Use the power of the purse for positive reinforcement, not just negative reinforcment via boycotting.
These folks are going to incur legal expenses for this decision, and buying from them is an easy way to financially support that stand.
Now that here is one of the most ‘traditional’ american comments I’ve seen on this site in some time! That does so much more in problem solving than posting in anger (sometimes madness) ad nauseam on internet sites. The very precept of free enterprise — you don’t like somebody for any reason don’t spend your money there. You like somebody for any reason, spend your money there.
I would go one step further and take time to learn who the supporting corporations are. I choose Blackberry over IPhone because of Apples leftist leanings and because they use forced labor in China. Personal boycotts can be very effective if you share your ideas with enough people.
I’m not a lawyer, but my understanding is Sotomayer rejected the appear on technical grounds; i.e., because Hobby Lobby hadn’t yet been harmed. (Of course, undoubtedly she will uphold anything in Obamacare if a case presents substantive issues.) As of January 1, presumably it can pay the fine for one day, then qualify for relief from Obamacare’s penalties.
There will be a lot of ongoing amendments to the new health care bill going forward, for a couple decades or so — just like SSN, Medicare, Medicaid, the GI bill, food stamps, or any new complex bill enacted by congress. Some may originate from being directed back to congress from the supreme court and most will come from the congress itself, as situations that need tweeking come to light. In the meantime, many points make great fodder for heated discussions on the internet as opposed the the beauty shops, soda shops and pool halls of past.
This would qualify as a family sized windmill. Don Quixote would feel over-matched.
The local law will go by and padlock the doors, all the family assets will be seized, bank accounts attached and frozen. They better have a good sized get away kit ready and plane tickets under an alias.
Roberts should have stopped Obamacare, but he didn’t. Upholding the Government’s ability to force citizens to buy ANYTHING destroys the Constitution and America.
It’s all over, the ship is going under and it’s every man for his self.
Are you ready?
There is alot more to worry about out there than conterception people
No hills are worth dying on, but a million hills make a mountain. The mountain is already here. All hills are worth dying on. No more compromise, no more appeasement. No more holding your nose and going along to get along.
My understanding of Latin roots tells me that the word “conterception” means “understanding the story that’s told”. It might not be the most important thing ever, but it is quite important to understand what people are talking about.
Unfortunately, you don’t seem to think that literacy is important, either; most of the posters here disagree with you on that issue, too.
The store may be owned by religious types but it doesn’t have the right to dictate that religion to its employees. The owners are free to to go to the church of their choice and not get abortions. There is no removal of that right. Rather, they are seeking to abuse the right to freedom of religion and morph it into freedom to dictate religion. What they’re doing is wrong.
They aren’t dictating their religion. They aren’t forcing employees to go to church or believe in XYZ. They are spending (or in this case, not spending) their own money as they see fit. They are not wrong.
Before jumping into the fray on this one, I have a question of you.
Without putting yourself through tedious research, do you know of any insurance that does not or has not had coverage for a long time, for any ‘prescribed’ contracptive or abortion ‘pill’?
Admittedly, I haven’t read the briefs filed before the supreme court on this case so I don’t want to pretend I know the particulars.
On the other hand, it seems rather symbolic more than a matter of anything else. For example. If it were possible to have a group insurance policy delete a particular ‘pill’ from its policy for a particular insured group, the cost of such policy would only reflect most likely and literally, a few pennies difference in premiums – if anything at all.
Furthermore, it would seem that this retailer is opening themselves up for some unintended consequences. Since they are not a particular branded tax exempt Christian church, they cannot ask discriminatory questions to determine if their employees share in their christian values or members of any particular christain church. Thus, it would seem, they may well be heading into a very slippery slope — one that the supreme court will not grant to them. (My opinion having not read the filings of the case)
It isn’t about contraceptives…they are fighting against covering the “morning after pill” which causes an instantaneous abortion of an unborn at the youngest possible stage of life. They believe life begins at conception, so they feel covering the “morning after pill” is harmful to their religious conscience.
Not at all. As long as they are up front about their terms and conditions of employment, and nobody is forced to work there or deal with them in any other way, they should be well within their rights under our Constitution to not have to support behavior or inducements to behavior of which they profoundly disapprove, for whatever reasons. (A formal religious reason should not be the only permissible reason, even if that turns out to favor them. This issue illustrates how much is wrong with Obamacare and its particularly pernicious mode of implementation, not to mention its less than savory method of enactment.)
Whether our country’s perverted jurisprudence on this subject (private property rights and private contracts) will let them, well, that seems to be, these days, a very different subject. That should be otherwise. In any case, that’s what we need to recapture in this country!
Horse-hockey! Would you think it okay for you to be required to provide others with the means to obtain pornographic material which you personally are repulsed by and have strong objections to simply based on the argument that you don’t have to obtain it for yourself? You are not denying anyone the right to obtain that which you feel is repugnant. Nor are you trying to force your view upon them. You are simply declaring your right not to have to fund their behavior. You are simply stating that others can indulge that which you think is disgusting and degrading all that they wish but not on your dime. Got it?
No. he doesn’t get it. They never do. They know nothing about freedom and individual rights except as they define them.
Would you think it okay for you to be required to provide others with the means to obtain pornographic material [snip]
This has precisely dick to do with anything. It’s nonsense.
As an employer paying for health insurance for my employees, I reckon that my responsibility is to get the best plan for the best price and make sure that, as much as possible, the employees are getting the best coverage for the money. This is the responsible approach.
Actually, he made a very good point. Either you don’t understand the analogy, or it’s inconvenient to you so you resorted to vulgarity. (yawn).
You stayed away for a while after the Satanist leftwinger killed a bunch of Catholic schoolchildren so we weren’t able to get your important thoughts about “how those wascally Cwistians are the problem in today’s society” yadayada right afterward (actually, I was beginning to wonder if you were Adam whatshisname). That situation will impede your message’s effect for a while though; the images are still in our minds.
What exactly is wrong with expecting employed people to pay for their own contraception, so that they can have fun. Obviously that is all it is since children are not the desired results. That is like saying I should pay for someones sex toys or pornography because it makes sex more fun for them.
They could just hire only gay employees and get around the birth control issue that way.
We The People need an urgent wake-up call…….your nation is being stolen from you – in broad daylight – by those who never vested any interest, most of whom never served in the military or in elected office, but being minorities, have been able to gain powers in Washington far in excess of their rightful share.
Take it to the streets. The constitution is under siege in more ways than one. Who should defend it but us? Take it to the Streets!!!
One Hundred Eleventh Congress (online)
of the
United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
the fifth day of January, two thousand and ten
An Act
Entitled The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Public law 111-148
SEC. 1555 @42 U.S.C. 18115. FREEDOM NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN FEDERAL
HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAMS.
No individual, company, business, nonprofit entity, or health
insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage
shall be required to participate in any Federal health insurance
program created under this Act (or any amendments made
by this Act), or in any Federal health insurance program expanded
by this Act (or any such amendments), and there shall be no
penalty or fine imposed upon any such issuer for choosing not
to participate in such programs.
“In a recent conversation with an official at the Internal Revenue Service, I was amazed when he told me that, “If the taxpayers of this country discover that the IRS operates on 90% bluff, the entire system will collapse.”"
- Senator Henry Bellmon, 1969.