Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hobby Lobby provided emergency contraceptives before they opposed them
Red Dirt Report ^ | March 27, 2014 | Brian Woodward

Posted on 03/27/2014 12:02:35 PM PDT by shepardspie33

It is quite hard to take the claims by Hobby Lobby seriously. The main drugs in question in the case brought before the Supreme Court are the emergency contraceptives Plan-B and Ella. One huge problem with this situation is that up until 2012, Hobby Lobby provided them as part of their insurance plan. Only when they realized that Obamacare was going to mandate this coverage did they suddenly become interested in not providing these drugs.

In their initial complaint to the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, Hobby Lobby stated, “After learning about the current HHS mandate controversy...Hobby Lobby discovered that the formulary for its prescription drug policy included two drugs - Plan B and Ella - that could cause an abortion” (pg. 15, pt. #55). This is a huge indictment upon the Green family and Hobby Lobby.

How can they be expected to be taken seriously when the precise drugs they want relief from providing, they provided in the past? What does it say about their commitment to the “unborn” that they had no clue that they have been for years providing the drugs which they assert “can cause abortions”?

(Excerpt) Read more at reddirtreport.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; US: District of Columbia; US: Oklahoma
KEYWORDS: 0carenightmare; 1stamendment; abortion; blogpimp; brianwoodward; deathpanels; demagogicparty; hobbylobby; ibtz; liberalagenda; memebuilding; obamacare; partisanmediashill; partisanmediashills; prolife; religiousfreedom; scotus; sleepertroll; zerocare
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last

1 posted on 03/27/2014 12:02:35 PM PDT by shepardspie33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: shepardspie33

So?

Did they lie to their employees? People are welcome to go find another job.


2 posted on 03/27/2014 12:04:42 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shepardspie33

Is this from your own blog?


3 posted on 03/27/2014 12:05:07 PM PDT by Graybeard58 (God is not the author of confusion. 1 Cor 13: 33)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

no, I just live in Oklahoma and its a local Oklahoma publication. I am not saying I completely agree with the article. I just think that a lot of people did not know this, and I think Hobby Lobby will win, and I think it is a legitimate case and has profound repercussions. However, if as they claim they were so against it how could they have provided it all those years and not known, Plan-B has been around for 15 or so years.


4 posted on 03/27/2014 12:08:37 PM PDT by shepardspie33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: shepardspie33

“Hobby Lobby discovered that the formulary for its prescription drug policy included two drugs - Plan B and Ella - that could cause an abortion” (pg. 15, pt. #55)”

There’s a difference in “Could cause” as in side effect and deliberately prescribing them to cause an abortion.

Their abjection is to mandated funding for abortion and infanticide. Not potential side effects of some medications.


5 posted on 03/27/2014 12:08:43 PM PDT by CrappieLuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CrappieLuck

I agree that the govt should not mandate it, any mandate is wrong, or “tax” as our chief justice called it. But they clearly also say they oppose the drugs.


6 posted on 03/27/2014 12:10:54 PM PDT by shepardspie33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: shepardspie33

This should be a Constitutional ruling not a hypocrisy one.


7 posted on 03/27/2014 12:12:08 PM PDT by Starstruck (If my reply offends, you probably don't understand sarcasm or criticism...or do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CrappieLuck
There’s a difference in “Could cause” as in side effect and deliberately prescribing them to cause an abortion.

There is also a huge moral difference between innocently covering a LONG list of drugs (prepared by a physician who may not have cared about early abortion), without being aware of the uses of all of them and continuing to cover those drugs once you are aware of the moral dimension. Once ObamaCare drew attention to the formulary and to that particular issue, Hobby Lobby was morally obligated to stop coverage.

8 posted on 03/27/2014 12:13:04 PM PDT by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: shepardspie33

The issue is FREEDOM.


9 posted on 03/27/2014 12:13:34 PM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CrappieLuck

“Their abjection is to mandated funding for abortion and infanticide. Not potential side effects of some medications.”

True, BUT they also specifically object to insurance coverage for those two specific ergs, which they provided previously. I don’t think it matters (companies can change their minds just like anyone else), but something like this just may be enough to sway a “centrist” guy like Justice Kennedy - he may look at this and say that it suggests that Hobby Lobby’s religious belief is “insincere,” or something like that. Gives him an easy way to decide the case without having to decide the religious liberty issue.


10 posted on 03/27/2014 12:15:34 PM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: shepardspie33

I’d like to see the exact formulary. Most drugs used for abortions are naturally occurring hormones or metabolize into them, and as such also have legitimate medical uses.


11 posted on 03/27/2014 12:17:19 PM PDT by Slings and Arrows (Richard Warman censors free speech.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shepardspie33
What does it say about their commitment to the “unborn” that they had no clue that they have been for years providing the drugs which they assert “can cause abortions”?
It says that their commitment is very high considering their actions since they learned about those drugs.
12 posted on 03/27/2014 12:18:19 PM PDT by Berlin_Freeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shepardspie33

Brian Woodward

@brianwoodward24

Writer, Political Junkie, Study political science at the University of Oklahoma

Norman, OK

https://twitter.com/brianwoodward24


13 posted on 03/27/2014 12:19:17 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shepardspie33

The statements above from the article are contradictory. The second statement suggests that Hobby Lobby did not know that its insurance policy included abortion-related drugs until the HHS mandate prompted Hobby Lobby to take a closer look at the fine print. Corrections welcome.

14 posted on 03/27/2014 12:19:19 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Starstruck

Amen.

Maybe they didn’t know the drugs were covered. Maybe they did and now they don’t want them covered. Doesn’t matter.

They should be free to make decisions today about today. Changing one’s position is not a crime.


15 posted on 03/27/2014 12:20:45 PM PDT by posterchild
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: shepardspie33; humblegunner

writing on blogs is fun! it’s even more fun when its mandatory!!

Thus the logic of the hobby lobby case.


16 posted on 03/27/2014 12:21:00 PM PDT by KC_Lion (Build the America you want to live in at your address, and keep looking up.- Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shepardspie33

Brian Woodward

Brian Woodward is a native of Oklahoma and currently resides in Norman, Oklahoma. However, he has lived and worked across the country in several cities including New York, New York; Austin, Texas; and San Clemente, California. He studied political science at the University of Oklahoma and describes himself as politically homeless, refusing to subscribe to any certain ideology.

17 posted on 03/27/2014 12:21:40 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shepardspie33

I read Red Dirt Report quite often. It is an interesting part of the story. Thanks for posting.


18 posted on 03/27/2014 12:21:49 PM PDT by yellowdoghunter (Welcome to Obamastan! (Mrs. Yellowdoghunter))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: shepardspie33; xzins

What they did in the past is irrelevant.

The parties to this suit have all stipulated that Hobby Lobby has a heartfelt religious opposition to being required to provide insurance which pays for abortifacients.

The ruling will be based on this stipulation. The court cannot question the legitimacy of stipulated facts. The must assume that those facts are true.


19 posted on 03/27/2014 12:22:50 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (There can be no Victory without a fight and no battle without wounds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

Do we know that the owners were aware of the details of their past coverage? Often large corporations have employees in charge of procuring contracts. If they were not aware what past policies covered, their concern may have began as a result of the media coverage about ACA.


20 posted on 03/27/2014 12:28:52 PM PDT by inpajamas (http://outskirtspress.com/ONE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: shepardspie33

Hobby Lobby provided emergency contraceptives before they opposed them

_________________________________________________________

When the headline is a boldface lie, its easy to dismiss the article as crap also.

First of all - Hobby Lobby DID NOT provide contraceptives. The group health insurance company they contracted with may or may not of provided for that. But that is beyond the scope of Hobby Lobby.

Second of all. Did I mention this article is crap? I did? Good.


21 posted on 03/27/2014 12:30:30 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shepardspie33
"They may have, as they assert, not known it was part of their policy. That is fairly feasible."

OK, so what's the problem?

The company is called "Hobby Lobby", it's not called "Medical Formulary Analysts for Employee Coverage Benefits".

It's also very likely that their previous insurer did not make the huge issue out of "women's health rights and family planning" that the ACA has, not to mention mandating specific coverages. Which served to draw everyone's attention, including the company's, and there you go. Their previous "generic health care plan" came under scrutiny as well as the new Obamacare mandates. Better late than never, and completely understandable.

Query: if you have health-care insurance from an employer, have you ever asked the owner/CEO/President if she/he knows exactly what's covered under "women's health"? OB/GYN...could be a lot, could be a little, but a normal CEO would go for providing a "comprensive" but not "deluxe" benefit at a reasonable cost, based on the insurer's available and recommended policies, and that's ALL! They wouldn't read the entire detailed benefits analysis, they have other things to do, and I see nothing "hypocritical" about that.

JMHO.

22 posted on 03/27/2014 12:31:39 PM PDT by 88keys (broken glass GOP; it matters, replace the Dems. 2014!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shepardspie33

Were they aware that these drugs and devices were covered? Was the onus of paying for them put totally on them?


23 posted on 03/27/2014 12:31:49 PM PDT by lastchance ("Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis" St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shepardspie33

http://shop.hobbylobby.com/


24 posted on 03/27/2014 12:32:04 PM PDT by Berlin_Freeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative
something like this just may be enough to sway a “centrist” guy like Justice Kennedy - he may look at this and say that it suggests that Hobby Lobby’s religious belief is “insincere,” or something like that.

He can't change the stipulated facts. There is a stipulation the Hobby Lobby has a sincere religious objection. The ruling must be based on this FACT.

The SCOTUS does not decide factual issues. The facts must be stipulated before the appeal is filed. If there is a dispute on the facts, then the court has no jurisdiction to take the case. They can only rule on the law. They don't decide the facts.

25 posted on 03/27/2014 12:33:56 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (There can be no Victory without a fight and no battle without wounds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1

What you said - should have read the thread before posting! AGREED! ;)


26 posted on 03/27/2014 12:34:05 PM PDT by 88keys (broken glass GOP; it matters, replace the Dems. 2014!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: kcvl

“Brian Woodward...describes himself as politically homeless...”

Politically boneless is more like it. Probably raised on Gary Larson’s chicken ranch. I’m picturing him in red plaid pajamas.


27 posted on 03/27/2014 12:40:28 PM PDT by beelzepug (if any alphabets are watchin', I'll be coming home right after the meetin')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: beelzepug
I’m picturing him in red plaid pajamas.

He buttons the top button of his polo shirt. That's just as bad.

28 posted on 03/27/2014 12:43:29 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (There can be no Victory without a fight and no battle without wounds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: shepardspie33

I’m guessing some affirmative action hire in HR saw Plan B and Ella in the pharmacopeia and had nary a clue what they were.


29 posted on 03/27/2014 12:43:59 PM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shepardspie33

I wish the blogger had explained exactly how the Hobby Lobby insurance offered these drugs before?
Unless the old policies paid 100% then it is not exactly the same
I bet it was an options choice among so many things offered and I bet it didn’t cover it 100%

and I can easily see how this provision could have been unknown by them.


30 posted on 03/27/2014 12:45:04 PM PDT by RWGinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RWGinger

ya that would be helpful. I read the link to Hobby Lobby’s complaint and all it said was they provided coverage, so your probably right that they likely had a co-pay and that the HHS mandate says you have to give them without a co-pay.


31 posted on 03/27/2014 12:48:00 PM PDT by shepardspie33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

“The SCOTUS does not decide factual issues. The facts must be stipulated before the appeal is filed.”

It didn’t stop the court from finding that the penalty on Zerocare was a tax, despite the law having stipulated that it was a fee, NOT a tax. Roberts could do it again.


32 posted on 03/27/2014 12:48:38 PM PDT by beelzepug (if any alphabets are watchin', I'll be coming home right after the meetin')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
The ruling will be based on this stipulation. The court cannot question the legitimacy of stipulated facts. The must assume that those facts are true.

This is a good legal summary. Sadly, I have as much confidence in your statement as I do that the ruling will be based on the Constitution. Four justices have no interest in the Constitution, just in furthering their political agenda. In that situation, any tie to the Constitution is tenuous at best, as is the legitimacy of FedGov itself under such conditions.

33 posted on 03/27/2014 12:53:44 PM PDT by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: shepardspie33

“It is quite hard to take the claims by Hobby Lobby seriously”

It’s a lot harder take Red Dirt seriously!


34 posted on 03/27/2014 12:54:01 PM PDT by Rock N Jones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: inpajamas

good point

It just amazes me that someone can go to work for a group of nuns and then act surprised that birth control isnt paid.


35 posted on 03/27/2014 1:01:47 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: beelzepug

No, you’re mixing up the meanings. A stipulation is an agreement among the litigants, and has nothing to do with the wording of a statute. The parties can agree to who did what to whom. It saves the courts time and money to do that. But what the law says is not a stipulation, but a legal question, and as such is subject to the Court’s review.


36 posted on 03/27/2014 1:07:13 PM PDT by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: shepardspie33

A company should not be allowed to limit medical care based on their religious beliefs. If they believe having a blood transfusion is a sin, then they could eliminate having a blood transfusion from that policy. To allow a company to offer only what they consider to be “Godly”, is a slippery slope into their dominating what care one can get. A government shouldn’t be able to limit your medical care and neither should a company. Democrats want to limit your medical care and so does this company. Perhaps it doesn’t bother you due to you won’t use these pills, but what if blood transfusions or making an incision into the body is the next medical procedure they think isn’t “Godly”?

Don’t say go get another job. If a person has a job right now, that person can’t just quit and immediately find another job.


37 posted on 03/27/2014 1:10:18 PM PDT by Marcella ((Prepping can save your life today.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shepardspie33

Hobby Lobby is not opposed to paying for contraceptives. They are opposed to paying for abortions.


38 posted on 03/27/2014 1:13:45 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum ("The man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: inpajamas

Obamacare mandates paying for abortions. That’s what Hobby Lobby is contesting.


39 posted on 03/27/2014 1:14:22 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum ("The man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: kcvl

“Homeless,” my axx. He’s deep under the covers with the Democrats. ALL his articles are predictable left-wing hash. He is completely at home on the Democratic left.

The sum total of his articles at Red Dirt art pro-pot, pro-illegal immigration, anti-fracking and anti-religious freedom.


40 posted on 03/27/2014 1:17:25 PM PDT by cookcounty (IRS = Internal Revenge Service.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: shepardspie33

Frankly, a lot of companies don’t examine these things very closely (and rely upon their corporate legal advisors for everything) until push comes to shove. Now that this has been made a issue by Obama, however, Hobby Lobby is quite right to respond.


41 posted on 03/27/2014 1:25:59 PM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer

Thanks for that. I’m a legal translator, and it always annoys me when people - including many translators - misunderstand “stipulation.” Not to mention that it misleads the client...


42 posted on 03/27/2014 1:28:01 PM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

I’m not aware of any such stipulation. If it exists, then you’re right about how things SHOULD work. But, since there is no court above the Supreme Court, there really is nothing stopping the justices from basing their decisions on improper/factual grounds.

Again, this shouldn’t matter. But, with a wishy-washy guy like Kennedy as the swing vote, any little thing may be enough to cause him to switch sides.


43 posted on 03/27/2014 1:34:22 PM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Marcella
Wow. So many wrong things here.

A company Health plan is a BENEFIT, not a right. They offer plans to their likings as a benefit to employees in order to stay competitive and to reward employee loyalty and workplace contributions.

They are under no obligation to pay for any medical care. It is something they do by choice. Because they are contributing their own cash, they are entitled to their religious objections to a paltry couple of coverage items.

Plan B isn't all that expensive. It's not like they're choosing to not cover heart surgery.

As to the absurd idea that companies are going to stop providing blood transfusion coverage on religious grounds, I think you'll find it difficult to find entrepreneurs from those religions.

44 posted on 03/27/2014 1:34:44 PM PDT by TitansAFC (2016: 1. Palin, 2. Cruz, 3. Perry, 4. Walker, 5. Huckabee (to make the GOP-E see what WE go through))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC
“...they are entitled to their religious objections to a paltry couple of coverage items.”

Right now it is a “paltry couple of coverage items” but it won't stay that way if Hobby Lobby wins.

“As to the absurd idea that companies are going to stop providing blood transfusion coverage on religious grounds, I think you'll find it difficult to find entrepreneurs from those religions.”

No it isn't difficult, there is a prominent religion that doesn't allow blood transfusions. If the owner believes it is a sin for men to have vasectomies, he can take that out, too.

I said it is a slippery slope and it is when the owner of a company can dictate what medical care you can have. That owner is a death panel just like the government will have a death panel to decide what you can have. That federal panel is provided by law in Obamacare.

45 posted on 03/27/2014 1:50:05 PM PDT by Marcella ((Prepping can save your life today.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: CrappieLuck
There’s a difference in “Could cause” as in side effect and deliberately prescribing them to cause an abortion.

Their abjection is to mandated funding for abortion and infanticide. Not potential side effects of some medications.

Exactly!

In East Africa, many girls would try a high dose of chloroquine (malaria prophylaxis & treatment) as an abortifactant).

46 posted on 03/27/2014 2:20:32 PM PDT by BwanaNdege
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: shepardspie33

What is the BIG deal about this? A person or a corporation can change their mind about anything. To be unable to think and evaluate situations and change policies would be tantamount to being dead.


47 posted on 03/27/2014 3:01:22 PM PDT by Gumdrop (Q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Marcella
-—”I said it is a slippery slope and it is when the owner of a company can dictate what medical care you can have.”-—

You're right. They should be forced to cover sex change operations, medical marijuana, travel expenses for overseas treatment, penile enlargements, liposuction, tattoo removal, tongue splitting, artificial insemination, rhinoplasty, Sexual surrogacy, and everything else. Why should they get to pick and choose?

1.) Arbitrary abortion isn't medical care

2.) A benefit is not a right

3.) The employer is NOT DICTATING WHAT MEDICAL CARE YOU CAN HAVE. They are dictating what medical care they are willing to give you. NOTHING is stopping you from getting medical care or coverage for those other things.

48 posted on 03/27/2014 5:00:51 PM PDT by TitansAFC (2016: 1. Palin, 2. Cruz, 3. Perry, 4. Walker, 5. Huckabee (to make the GOP-E see what WE go through))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Marcella
I said it is a slippery slope and it is when the owner of a company can dictate what medical care you can have. That owner is a death panel just like the government will have a death panel to decide what you can have.

I was about to post "Welcome to Free Republic, Newbie" but to my amazement you have been a Freeper since 2000.

If you don't like your employer's policy, then go out and purchase one you like. Be thankful if they provide any coverage at all.

49 posted on 03/27/2014 9:00:30 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (There can be no Victory without a fight and no battle without wounds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
I am retired so don't need a company policy. I just see the problem with a liberal or a religious person or communist Hussein Obama deciding what medical care you can have and not have. Most employees don't get their health insurance totally free from their employer - they have to pay for it, too, per mth..

Yes, I have been a member of FR for a long time and those who know me, even JimRob, would say I am a conservative.

50 posted on 03/27/2014 9:56:29 PM PDT by Marcella (Prepping can save your life today. Going Galt is freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson