Skip to comments.How Hobby Lobby Will Hurt Conservatives (Barf Alert!)
Posted on 03/27/2014 7:06:51 AM PDT by Kaslin
Lawyers for Hobby Lobby this week urged the Supreme Court to let companies opt out of certain health insurance rules for religious reasons, and they have a good chance of success. If employers are allowed to refuse to provide coverage that pays for certain types of contraception, it will be a big victory for religious conservatives. Or will it?
After all, they have found before that getting your way does not always mean advancing your cause. Sometimes winning is a recipe for defeat.
That was the surprising case with same-sex marriage. Not long ago, public opinion was strongly opposed to it. Going into Election Day 2012, same-sex marriage had been put before the voters in statewide referendums 32 times, and 32 times it had lost.
Besides upholding "traditional marriage," these measures helped elect Republicans. Former Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman said that in 2004 and 2006, White House strategist Karl Rove worked to get same-sex marriage on the ballot to spur social conservatives to get to the polls.
But in 2012, the balance shifted. Gay marriage was approved by voters in all four states considering the issue. Since then, opponents have lost a Supreme Court decision, and 17 states now permit gays and lesbians to marry. A Gallup poll last year found that 54 percent of Americans support the idea -- up from 27 percent in 1996.
Much of the opposition comes from Christians who see it as an affront to God's law and an assault on the foundation of society. When a ban appeared on the California ballot in 2008, the Catholic Church, evangelical groups and the Mormon Church joined in campaigning for it. A Catholic bishop explained the alliance as one of believers who understand same-sex marriage to be "an attack of the Evil One."
But most people who support same-sex marriage don't think they are under the influence of Satan. Statements like that had two effects: 1) discrediting opponents by making it appear they had no basis except their interpretation of the word of God, and 2) driving supporters of same-sex marriage away from churches and faith itself.
The rise of support for gay matrimony has mirrored the decline of conservative Christianity. In his book "The Great Evangelical Recession," evangelical pastor John S. Dickerson concludes that the number of people attending his type of church is falling. And he acknowledges one big reason: "The most common belief about Bible-believing Christians today is that we are homophobic, anti-gay bigots."
That's one reason so many people have decided religion is not for them. The Pew Research Center reported in 2012 that the percentage of American adults with no religious affiliation has reached nearly 20 percent, with nearly a third of those calling themselves atheists or agnostics. Among those under 30, the numbers are even higher.
Those statistics are bad news for Republicans and conservative causes in general, since 63 percent of the "nones" lean Democratic, with only 26 percent preferring the GOP. Those on the religious right find that their vocal rejection of same-sex marriage, once an asset, has become an albatross.
If religious opposition to same-sex marriage isn't enough to turn off voters, religious opposition to contraception should be. The Hobby Lobby case promises to spread the news that many conservative Christians and Republicans take a dim view of birth control.
Mike Huckabee, who may run for president in 2016, recently said that Democrats favor mandated contraceptive coverage to make women believe "they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government." Rick Santorum, who ran in 2012, said then that contraception is "not OK, because it's a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be." The Catholic Church opposes all contraception.
If Hobby Lobby wins in the Supreme Court, conservatives will stand with business owners who regard contraception as forbidden by their faith and exclude it from the health insurance they provide employees. As that policy is embraced by other religious capitalists, it will convey to everyone that if you use birth control, you're at odds with Christianity and the Republican Party.
The Guttmacher Institute reports that more than 99 percent of women aged 15-44 who have ever had sex have used at least one type of contraception. Conservatives probably can't antagonize this entire group, but you have to give them credit for trying.
I think that I resolved the eternal question, “would you rather be right or would you rather be popular”? in about the eighth grade. I’d rather never again win an election rather than compromise my values and principles.
If I were to do that I’d just be another dhimmicrat.
hell's bells! make your pronouns agree!
But why does your employer need to pay for it? Should your employer be required to pay for your vitamins and running shoes, too? How about your meals?
California* (June 28, 2013), Connecticut (Nov. 12, 2008), Iowa (Apr. 24, 2009), Massachusetts (May 17, 2004), New Jersey (Oct. 21, 2013), New Mexico (Dec. 19, 2013)
8 by State Legislature
Delaware (July 1, 2013), Hawaii (Dec. 2, 2013), Illinois (law will take effect June 1, 2014), Minnesota (Aug. 1, 2013), New Hampshire (Jan. 1, 2010), New York (July 24, 2011), Rhode Island (Aug. 1, 2013), Vermont (Sep. 1, 2009)
3 by Popular Vote
Maine (Dec. 29, 2012), Maryland (Jan. 1, 2013), Washington (Dec. 9, 2012)
It’s sad townhall would publish such anti Christian arguments.
I stand with Hobby Lobby NOT because I oppose birth control (I don't), but because I SUPPORT their freedom to do whatever THEY like with THEIR business.
IS THAT SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?
This guy has a promising career with the RNC.
This nonsense made Townhall?
Support freedom of conscience or be seen as bigots! What a choice!
Propaganda straight from the voice of the gOpE spokesperson TokyoRove. The case has NOTHING to do with homosexuality; it's simply thrown into the article for more hysterics from the squishy moderates who run from all social issues. The Hobby Lobby case, in addition to being about the foundational First Amendment right to Religious Freedom, is only about the four required forms of birth control which can cause an abortion
It's a question that cuts to the core of Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius, two consolidated cases over whether the government can force a private business to provide preventive care that includes 24 forms of birth control, four of which can cause an abortion.
The Christian families who own the two companies in these cases believe that life begins at conception. Yet violating the mandate from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) carries an annual penalty of $36,500 per employee. The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and the Alliance Defending Freedom have taken these two cases (out of roughly 100 lawsuits filed against this mandate) all the way to the Supreme Court, arguing the regulation violates both the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
On the contrary. I do hope they win this but if they go under, so do thousands of jobs. They won’t be too popular if that happens.
The democrats won’t be too popular, that is.
Abortifacient pills aren't contraception pills.
Astonishingly dishonest journalism.
They need to put this Chapman guy on staff at National Review. He and Jason Steorts can be Best Buddies and take turns writing attacks on Mark Steyn.
“The rise of support for gay matrimony”
Pardon me, but I don’t remember any election on this point? A well organized group of perverts terrorized weak-kneed companies and politicians into caving, but that hardly represents a ‘rise.’
Bet the supporters would never allow this to come to a popular vote.
And oh by the way, liberal and other scum have been very successful into making this issue into a ‘Bible versus perverts’ thing. It is not. You don’t require either the Bible or God to know what sick and perverted is.
And if tomorrow a missing book of the Bible were found that said homosexuality is OK, there are millions of around that are still going to say, “no it is not - it is still sick and perverted!”
This is argument is about whether I, as your employer, must be forced by law to pay for drugs whose sole purpose is to produce an abortion of your baby!
Folks this isn't about me, as an employer, paying for acne, diabetes, high blood pressure, life saving heart drugs, or me, as an employer, by force of law created by the Obama Administration and one political party only, being forced to pay for drugs whose sole purpose is to kill the babies of my employees.
Do I, as an employer, have the moral right to refuse to participate in the premeditated murder of the unborn or must I choose between participating in the murder of innocent unborn babies or shutting down a business that provides for the livelihood of thousands of people?
Unrepentant homosexuality is a sin. The Bible is quite clear on that, so any Christian who claims otherwise is simply wrong. This doesn’t mean homosexual offenders can’t repent. The Bible is quite clear on that, too. Homosexuality can be forgiven just like adultery, lying, stealing, and other sin, but one has to #1 accept that these are evil things to do and #2 repent of doing them.
So the author of this ridiculous article thinks the above opinion might make me unpopular. Maybe I’m one of those right wing Christians who actually believes God’s revealed Word. Guess what? There’s no such thing as right or left Christians. A Christian, by definition, must believe and follow what Jesus and the apostles revealed to us. If one doesn’t follow Jesus, one cannot be a Christian.
The author also makes the equally ridiculous claim that Christians oppose contraception. Some Christians do, but most don’t. The author has wrongly characterized the situation. It isn’t about taking birth control away from women, i.e. the so-called War on Women.
The conservative opposition to mandated “free” birth control revolves around two main issues. The first involves using law to force people to violate sincerely held religious views. The second has nothing to do with religion. It’s about using law to force businesses to pay for “free” contraception as a price of doing business.
This is an impossibility...gay matrimony. The "matri" part of matrimony means "mother". It's the institution that exists to provide for mothering...and impossibility for homosexuals. The word "marriage" can be used by homosexuals, but matrimony is not possible. This author is lacking in his thoughtfulness.
I don't expect Hobbly Lobby to win....just a gut feeling I have says that Anthony Kennedy, being pro-gay, is also pro-abortion.
That said, Hobby Lobby's best recourse is not to provide any coverage for their employees. They will be fined 2000 for each full time employee. That's less than what they are those employees' medical care package costs.
They then need to find a way to return to their employees a non-taxable portion of what used to be spent on health care. Medical savings accounts would be good, but I don't know if they're still in existence with ObamaCare.
Who wrote this, Bob Beckel?
Sooth2222: “Should your employer be required to pay for your vitamins and running shoes, too? How about your meals?”
If one is logically consistent, yes. Under Obamacare, the government could just as easily mandate that health insurance cover exercise equipment and healthy food.
The ACA gives government virtually unlimited power to decide what is or is not health care. Even worse, the SCOTUS has ruled the fines are actually income taxes. Meaning? The government could fine someone up to 100% of income for failure to comply with the ACA mandates, because there is, of course, no constitutional limit on income tax.
Mr. Chapman can keep his vagina out of my wallet and we will both be happy.
Gee, I wonder why nobody has ever thought of this before........
Steve Chapman, the author, is trying to frame the issue as something it’s not. There’s a word for that. He’s lying!
Hobby Lobby, for example, is NOT opposed to contraception or even opposed to paying for it as part of their employee insurance. They are only religiously opposed to abortion, including drugs used to induce it.
Steve Chapman is wrong and I would rather our party would not win more elections under these circumstances
If Steve Chapman knew even half as much about Christianity as he apparently claims, he’d know Satan is a liar. He’d also know there’s a prophecy about how people will say evil is good and good is evil in the end times. In other words, people will be deceived!
As far as deception goes, I think I’m safer believing the same things as Christians over the last two thousand years. That’s probably a better idea than falling for the belief (in some churches) that it’s OK for two homosexuals to sodomize each other so long as they’re “married.”
How long will we be Charlie Brown to the GOPe’s Lucy? You can only run at the football so many times till you figure out you will never get to actually kick it.
They don't want us. Let them go.
Substitute “abortifacients” for “contraception” in this article, and it makes utterly no sense.
The problem is that the employees who might also object to having to purchase insurance from a company that pays for abortifacients will so be fined if they don't purchase the insurance from an exchange.
This law is evil. There is no getting around that fact.
Good point. I agree that it’s just passing the buck.
But then it’s an individual complaining about their religious rights instead of a corporation.
They can then argue that conscientious exemptions are given for many other issues involving religious faith
Marriage is between a man and a woman. God said it, that settles it.
Apparently the best results are obtained by scattering blood and chicken feathers. :’) Thanks Kaslin.
Either the author of this article really doesn't understand the difference between something that prevents pregnancy by using hormones or pills that are taken after sex to eliminate the impregnated egg from progressing to a full term baby; or lying to confuse the "low information crowd" (or could it actually be that this author and other "anti-life liberal media ARE actually members of the low information crowd!!!!")
The argument against gay marriage needs to move away from the religious perspective as is too easy for the left to attack. The left is trying to define the argument as discriminating against people trying to celebrate their love and commitment.
Marriage as a social institution has evolved across all cultures as a means of managing reproduction and stabilizing the family unit for the raising of children. The survival of the species is it’s primary function and the reason Marriage exists. Homosexuals unions are not reproductive therefore homosexuals do not qualify for marriage.
“That” is the correct way to argue with the left on the issue of marriage. Gays are not being discriminated against; they are instead trying to game the tax system to gain deductions designed to compensate reproductive couple for past, present or future expenses incurred raising children.
How many of the stores are owned by the main corp? Can they decide to close those & just keep collecting from the franchisee’s???
That particular ship sailed a looonnngg time ago. Very extensive regulations are in place that require businesses to do many things they would probably rather not do.
IOW, one simply cannot make a principled argument against this particular policy on this basis. One can attempt to make a principled argument that it is wrong or unwise to add this particular item to the lengthy list of impositions on business. But then you have to explain why it's acceptable to require businesses to do A thru Q, but adding R is a step too far.
From the article: "But in 2012, the balance shifted. Gay marriage was approved by voters in all four states considering the issue. Since then, opponents have lost a Supreme Court decision, and 17 states now permit gays and lesbians to marry. A Gallup poll last year found that 54 percent of Americans support the idea -- up from 27 percent in 1996."
Conservatives will never win by refusing to accept when they are losing. And we are losing on this issue big-time. From a small minority position <20 years ago to a considerable and rapidly increasing majority today.
When you are losing you need to either accept defeat gracefully and adapt to the new reality, or figure out how to reverse the trend of public opinion.
But refusing to accept reality certainly won't accomplish anything but to maximize the bad consequences of defeat.
Your concern has been duly noted.
Your statement is totally correct. They were discussing this on Hannity last night and he said that their insurance provided and Hobby Lobby agreed to 44 birth control pills, they just didn’t agree with 4. I may have missed it, I was switching channels during commericals, but I don’t recall him mentioning that the 4 they disagreed with were specifically aborticants.
Chapman is a pathetic Cultural Marxist quisling. Don’t fight the left,embrace it. The retard doesn’t understand that this is a cultural revolution.