Posted on 01/27/2014 5:57:03 AM PST by Kaslin
Senior advisor to President Obama, Valerie Jarrett, wrote for the White House blog and the Huffington Post that, "A Woman's Health Care Decisions Should Be in Her Own Hands, Not Her Boss's." I couldn't agree more.
Odd then that the administration is trying to insert bosses, many of them against their deeply held religious beliefs, into the private health care decisions of women. Ms. Jarrett writes that, "The ACA (Affordable Care Act) was designed to ensure that health care decisions are made between a woman and her doctor, and not by her boss, or Washington politicians."
In fact, the administration has done the opposite. It has forced employers to act as middlemen between women and their doctors by forcing them to participate in providing four potentially life terminating drugs and the whole gamut of FDA-approved contraceptives, even when they object on religious grounds. And then it thrust the issue right into the portfolio of Washington politicians by making it an election wedge issue, by using it to stoke partisan bickering, and by peddling lies about a "war on women."
Look no further than the Little Sisters of the Poor, the first of the non-profit plaintiffs to reach the Supreme Court to know that the Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate hurts women. Their complaint is proof that women are not some monolithic block robotically reacting affirmatively anytime the administration tacks the word "reproduction" onto a controversy.
Ms. Jarrett went on to write:
"A group of for-profit companies are currently suing to gain the right to deny employees access to coverage for birth control and contraceptive care, which are used by the overwhelming majority of American women in their lifetimes. Among the first cases to reach the Supreme Court is one filed by Hobby Lobby, an arts and crafts chain whose owners want to be able to take the option for birth control benefits away from their employees."
The fact is, however, Hobby Lobby, which employs 25,000 people, already covers and will continue to cover sixteen out of the 20-FDA approved contraceptives mandated by HHS. The only four forms of contraception not covered are the four which the government itself concedes can act to prevent implantation.
The owners of Hobby Lobby, the Green family, are Christians who cannot violate their religious beliefs by being complicit in the destruction of human-life, at any stage. The government has already exempted--for commercial and other reasons--over 100 million Americans from having to comply.
Imagine the gall of asking the government to be exempt from a policy that requires employers to facilitate those drugs because of religious objections.
But according to Ms. Jarrett, that's not gall, that's trying to "seize a controlling interest over the health care choices of women."
Hobby Lobby doesn't strike me as a company trying to seize anything. On the contrary. Its owners pay full-time employees 80 percent above the minimum wage, they close all stores on Sundays, and they offer medical benefits such as an on-site free clinic at its headquarters.
For the same reasons the Greens cannot be party to four life-terminating drugs, they cannot deprive their workers of a decent wage, a day of rest, and access to good health care. And that reason would be their Christian faith.
The government should be ashamed of its treatment of Hobby Lobby. The Obama administration has dragged a respectable company owned by principled people into the town square for a verbal and legal tar and feathering, solely because of their religious beliefs.
Right now, the legal opposition to the HHS mandate--led by the lawyers at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty--is the largest class-action religious liberty lawsuit in American history. The number of plaintiffs is 300 and growing by the day.
In trying to legally squeeze out those family businesses owned by people who conduct their affairs according to moral and religious principles, the government's behavior begs the question: What controlling interest are they after?
Ya can't fix stupid.
Both Taylor and Davis would have frequently encountered another politically active Chicagoan, Vernon Jarrett. Vernon Jarrett and Frank Marshall Davis worked together on the small publicity team of the communist-controlled Packinghouse Workers Union, which Frank Marshall Davis publicly called for nationalizing. Vernon Jarrett would one day become Valerie Jarrett’s father-in-law.
So, here we have Obama’s mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, working with the literal relatives of Valerie Jarrett — all serving together in Chicago’s Communist Party circles in the 1940s.
Valerie Jarrett comes from a long line of communist..read article here about her and family..She is doing all she can to tare down the rest of this wonderful country..
“A group of for-profit companies are currently suing to gain the right to deny employees access to coverage for birth control and contraceptive care...”
There is the essence of the libtard mindset, in a nutshell; “suing to gain the right to deny...access to...”, while at the same time decrying the opposition as wanting to be involved in the reproductive decisions of women. This is classic projection.
Only in this upside down, down the rabbit hole America could this notion be the mainstream.
I fear for the future of this grand experiment.
Interesting info - I was aware of part of it, but not all. Thanks
What’s so deceitful about the argument of the left is that none of the companies or organizations are suing to “deny access to” either contraceptives or abortions - they are suing to avoid being made to pay for those things. In the liberal mindset, if someone else refuses to pay for another person’s choices, they are trying to deny the second person’s freedom to act as they wish.
The solution would be to create a separate insurance pool that does not cover contraceptives and abortion, and let the employers who wish buy their coverage from that pool. Then let the insurance company offer a rider to cover contraceptives, etc. and charge the employee directly for that coverage. Voila! The employer can provide insurance without violating his conscience and the employee can get the additional coverage he/she desires.
There wasn’t a new mosque going up so how could they answer that question?
As for Hobby Lobby, I will certainly support them with the purchasing of any hobby needs that should arise as many will!
If ya can’t fix stupid, why did Christ come to this Earth at all?
So I am trying to figure out exactly what your point is. Are you suggesting that, instead of exercising their 1st Amendment rights, they should go shopping at Hobby Lobby? (At least that is, IMHO, one of the best ways to support Hobby Lobby.)
Personally I find protesting against an LDS temple or a mosque to be foolish (though perfectly legal and constitutionally protected) because it is an effort to prevent those groups from exercising their own freedom of religion.
What I am seeing is a bit of a contradiction. You seem to be opposed to the freedom of religion for Muslims, but in favor of it for Hobby Lobby?
Hobby Lobby sells a lot of *other* stuff that even non-crafting men can go buy to support them.
They have an excellent selections of adhesives, Exacto knives, tape, soldering irons, various and sundry storage boxes for any purpose and other ‘garage stuff’.
There’s a large selection of furniture and furnishings such as tables, chests of drawers, some chairs, clocks, decorative lamps, pillows, cool decorative statuary including lots of Harley/car/vintage automobilia, reproduction motorhead/sports signs for “man caves”, etc etc.
When all else fails, go buy some of their candy at the checkout lines.
You’d never imagine how much stuff is in that place.
We’ve had ours for over a year now and I *still* haven’t seen everything they have.
Get in there dudes and have a look around.
Why should we women have all the fun?
:)
I threw the mosque in because they are all "big balls" going after some Mormons but nary a peep going after Muslims because they are too scared to protest Muslims. (and we do have many mosques here)
Thanks for the reply. I do believe we are on the same page. And yes, there are many mosques here. But while I know that radical Islam is likely taught in some of them, these days I am more concerned with my own government than I am with a few mosques.
Islam is not a religion. It is a socio-political system with a military component, with religion as a beard. Masquerading as a religion, if you will.
I understand what you are saying, and I completely agree with you that Islam is a socio-political system. But in my opinion, almost every socio-political system is, in fact, a religion.
By that I mean a set of beliefs and rules that must be adhered to and against which individuals can be judged worthy or unworthy of being included or excluded from community. Under that description, Islam, Hinduism, Liberalism, Communism, Socialism, even Conservatism, Capitalism and (though this may get me in trouble) Freeperism.
Sometimes Christianity falls into that category but at its core, I do not believe Christianity is a religion (though it is not unreasonable to use that description in conventional language.) Jesus was pretty clear on the topic. The most "religious" people of his age, the Pharisees, were the ones he criticized the most.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.