So?
Did they lie to their employees? People are welcome to go find another job.
Is this from your own blog?
“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.
This should be a Constitutional ruling not a hypocrisy one.
The issue is FREEDOM.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Were they aware that these drugs and devices were covered? Was the onus of paying for them put totally on them?
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.
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.
“It is quite hard to take the claims by Hobby Lobby seriously”
It’s a lot harder take Red Dirt seriously!
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.