How Hobby Lobby Undermines All Americans' Freedoms (They're flipping their lids)

Lincoln Mitchell blog ^ | July 6, 2014 | Lincoln Mitchell

[2ndDivisionVet]

The Supreme Court's recent decision in the Hobby Lobby case demonstrates that the court, at least the five justices who voted in favor of Hobby Lobby, has little concern for, and probably little understanding of, women's health care. By ruling that corporations, on the grounds of the alleged religious views of their owners, can deny women access to some forms of contraception, the court set a horrible precedent that if followed will endanger the health and lives of many American women.

The Hobby Lobby ruling may at first seem like a victory for the minority of Americans who think that both abortion and contraception should be illegal, and for those who believe that the US should operate more as a theocracy than a country where state and church are separate. However, the ruling not only is terrible news for women seeking a guarantee of good healthcare through their employer, but also for anybody who believes in personal freedom.

In the US, where health insurance is linked to employment, health insurance is part of the compensation package. When most Americans are about to start a new job, or choosing between two or more jobs, one of the first questions they ask is about the quality of the health insurance they will get. In most cases, health insurance varies because some companies offer plans with lower co-pays, better dental care or things like that. Firms that deny dental care are doing it because of concerns about costs, not because they have an ethical or religious problem with healthy teeth. Hobby Lobby is doing something different, denying women access to some forms of health care because of the personal beliefs of the people who run the company.

This decision raises the question of whether the Supreme Court will next rule that employers can tell workers how to spend the money they earn at their jobs. This sounds a bit extreme, but in a very real way that is precisely what the court just did. By limiting how workers can use some of their compensation, the court, despite its own assertions that it was not setting a precedent, opened the door for further limitations. If Hobby Lobby can tell people how they can or cannot use their health care benefits, why can't they also tell people they can't, for example, use their salaries to, for donate to pro-choice political candidates or pro-marriage equality causes? The answer, one would think, would be obvious, but the recent court decision makes it considerably less clear.

The Republican Party has long, if not always sincerely, repeated a mantra of individual freedom, but the Hobby Lobby decision, in which all five justices who formed the majority were appointed by Republican presidents, undermines that. A central belief of all Republican politicians is that Americans should have a right to do what they want with, and keep as much as possible of, their hard-earned money. The Supreme Court made a big move against that idea this week, but the outrage from the Republican side has been absent.

Conservative opposition to healthcare have consistently argued that decisions about health care should be made by patients and doctors, not by the government. The death panel hysteria that Sarah Palin unleashed on the American people a few years ago took that point to a nutty extreme. After last week, conservatives who support Hobby Lobby should probably change their position and argue that health care decisions should be made not by a patient's doctor, but by a patient's employer. Similarly, for supporters of the Hobby Lobby decision, the new mantra of individual freedom should now be that Americans should be allowed to do whatever they want with their hard earned money, as long as their boss approves, but somehow that seems an unlikely campaign slogan for Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio.

The Hobby Lobby decision is about women's health care and individual freedom, but it also another sign of the consolidation of power by big corporations in the US. It is now legal for corporations to deny workers important medical services, and redefine their compensation packages, simply because, religious claims aside, they want to. During a very tenuous recovery in which real wages have not recovered, unemployment remains high and economic uncertainty on the part of working Americans is an enormous problem, the Supreme Court just gave more rights to corporations while taking wealth, as health care benefits are a form of wealth, out of the hands of working Americans.

[Secret Agent Man]

they can’t stop women from buying them themselves. they are hardly banned from using them by their employer.

they just aren’t going to pay for them.

tyranny is being forced into a contract you don’t want to be in and don’t agree with.

[Steve_Seattle]

"It is now legal for corporations to deny workers important medical services . . . "

If the author means that it is now legal for corporations not to PAY for SOME medical services, as was the case for 99% of our nation's history, he is correct. So "now legal" is very misleading. It was, until two years ago, legal, and always had been.

[big bad easter bunny]

http://pjmedia.com/blog/obamacares-muslim-exemption/

[JRandomFreeper]

Sometimes, authors of crap like this come to FR to see the comments. I hope the author sees the comments.

No-one is buying it. Lead balloon.

/johnny

[CharlesOConnell]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1f3qTt1YDk

How Does the Pill Kill Women?

• Blood clots
  • Heart attack
  • Stroke–CVA (Cerebrovascular Accident)
  • Leg–DVT (Deep Vein Thrombosis)
  • Pulmonary Embolism
• Cancer
  • Breast
  • Cervical
  • Liver
  • Other cancers

[driftless2]

This is a textbook example of how difficult it is to reason with liberals. First the gov. forces a business to provide some sort of healthcare for its workers. Then it tells the company it must provide every kind of “healthcare” including killing children. The company must obey the dictates of Big Government. If they do not help an employee kill their child, by liberal “logic” they are denying healthcare. Sure sounds logical and constitutional to me. (snicker)

[2ndDivisionVet]

Parody News: “Couple Avoids Jail: Will Keep Record Store Open”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3176510/posts

[Menehune56]

The leftists are freaking out because the supremes based their decision on the duly passed and enacted Religious Freedom Restoration Act from 1993 - settled law baby!

Hopefully this ruling will prevent any more cake makers being forced to make Adam and Steve wedding cakes.

[ought-six]

“Basic common sense is not a strong point with these gits.”

So very true.

[I cannot think of a name]

“The Hobby Lobby ruling may at first seem like a victory for the minority of Americans who think that both abortion and contraception should be illegal”

This is how the argument is one.

“If it truly is a “minority of Americans” Hobby Lobby’s business will soon drop like a stone and they will be gone. If in fact the overwhelming majority of people ARE actually moral and sane, then I guess their business will do just fine.

Why don’t we let the marketplace decide.”

[cripplecreek]

And I have yet to see an employer willing to buy me the gun I have an actual constitutionally named right to.

[2ndDivisionVet]

I think you meant “won” but I get what you mean.

[Dave911]

Another moron gets it wrong. Asking you to pay for something yourself is not denying you to have it.

[I cannot think of a name]

I frequently think faster than I can type!

[2ndDivisionVet]

I know, what up with that? Actually, I’ve had three employers buy me guns, but two out of three wanted them back when I left.

[FlingWingFlyer]

We may have found the missing Linc!

[driftless2]

"access;

Next it will be "free" food. The government will demand that businesses provide free lunches for its workers. If the businesses refuse and say it is not responsible for feeding its employess, by liberal logic it will be denying food and sustenance to the workers. Since people can't survive without food, supplying "free" food will be seen as the same as supplying healthcare. That's lib "logic" for your.

[Ray76]

That’s a good one! Bookmarked!

[Amendment10]

"The Hobby Lobby decision is about women's health care and individual freedom, but it also another sign of the consolidation of power by big corporations in the US [emphasis added]."

The Constitution's Clause 8 of Section 8 of Article I grants Congress the power to reward inventors and authors with temporary monoply power with respect to benefitting from their intellectual property.

Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

But note that Section 8 does not include language which prohibits citizens from enjoying their other privileges and immunities while also enjoying their monopoly power. So Section 8 is constitutional evidence, imo, that citizens can enjoy their constitutionally enumerated pretections which can also include corporate power.

As a side note to this post, I noticed what appears to be a discrepancy in Hobby Lobby's corporate definition. While one source is calling Hobby Lobby a franchise, Hobby Lobby web site seems to be claiming that it is not a franchise.

• "In a 5-4 ruling, the high court on Monday affirmed the religious rights of the evangelical owners of the arts-and-craft franchise [emphasis added] Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., ruling 5-4 to opt out on a health care law mandate that would have required it to provide insurance for birth control methods and drugs that conflict with company owners' religious beliefs." --Religious and conservative leaders applaud Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision

• Can I buy a Hobby Lobby franchise?: (Hobby Lobby web site)

  All Hobby Lobby stores are privately held. We do not sell franchises.

What am I overlooking?

[asinclair]

And the distortions of the marketplace continue. How many people remember the history behind employer-provided health insurance? Much of the push can be traced to the federal wage controls imposed during World War II. To compete in the labor market, companies started bundling health insurance as a lure. The wage controls were lifted after the War, but the practice of bundling health insurance continues.

Tax law continues and aggravates this distortion, by allowing companies and not individuals to deduct insurance expenses.

ObamaCare did nothing to correct this distortion.