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 ...
So?
Did they lie to their employees? People are welcome to go find another job.
Is this from your own blog?
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.
“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.
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.
This should be a Constitutional ruling not a hypocrisy one.
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.
The issue is FREEDOM.
“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.
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.
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.
Brian Woodward
@brianwoodward24
Writer, Political Junkie, Study political science at the University of Oklahoma
Norman, OK
https://twitter.com/brianwoodward24
Only when they realized that Obamacare was going to mandate this coverage did they suddenly become interested in not providing these drugs.
Hobby Lobby stated, “After learning about the current HHS mandate controversy...Hobby Lobby discovered (emphasis added) that the formulary for its prescription drug policy included two drugs - Plan B and Ella - that could cause an abortion”.
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.
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.
writing on blogs is fun! it’s even more fun when its mandatory!!
Thus the logic of the hobby lobby case.
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.
I read Red Dirt Report quite often. It is an interesting part of the story. Thanks for posting.
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.
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.
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.