Hobby Lobby sues over morning-after pill coverage requirement in health reform law
OKLAHOMA CITY — Christian-oriented Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday challenging a mandate in the nation’s health care overhaul law that requires employers to provide coverage for the morning-after pill and similar drugs.
The lawsuit by the Oklahoma City-based chain claims the government mandate is forcing the company’s owners “to violate their deeply held religious beliefs under threat of heavy fines, penalties and lawsuits.” Failure to provide the drugs in the company’s health insurance plan could lead to fines of up to $1.3 million a day, the company said.
“By being required to make a choice between sacrificing our faith or paying millions of dollars in fines, we essentially must choose which poison pill to swallow,” David Green, Hobby Lobby CEO and founder, said in a statement. “We simply cannot abandon our religious beliefs to comply with this mandate.”...
Jim Lincoln wrote: --- You're fondest wishes apparently aren't going to happen Mike of N.Y., because apparently Obama is pulling ahead of the anti-Christian dynamic duo,... ---
Yes, I heard the desperation driven poll numbers. Keep your hope alive, Jim. There is still time for your anti-Christian incumbents to find more dead people to vote, and again attempt to keep the overseas military from having their votes counted.
Obama is pulling ahead? Keep believing, like those who promoted the idea that the Mondale and Carter pre-election poll numbers indicated they actually had a chance of winning against Reagan.
PS Have you noticed the media's promotion of Obama's likeability? The same media belittled the likeability factor when it was Bush. Perhaps your selective historical memory won't allow you to remember. But then, O can't run on any record, so instead let's consider how nice he smiles. See, millionaire presidents drink beer, just like real people
If it is a law now operational, of course they can file a lawsuit for something the perceive as violating their rights. I have absolutely no problem with that, q.v, Hobby Lobby Sues HHS Over Contraception Mandate. I will thank you for pointing that out. One might think there were lawsuits opposing Romneycare, which would have similar ideas in it?
So, there I hope that makes for an evenhanded approach? You're fondest wishes apparently aren't going to happen Mike of N.Y., because apparently Obama is pulling ahead of the anti-Christian dynamic duo, oh, remember the great commentary by Mike Gendron, Roman Catholics, Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses? So, to point out again, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.
Green is right wrote: The HHS Contraception Mandate compliance effective dates: August 1, 2012 for corporations. August 1, 2013 for religious organizations (e.g., schools, colleges, universities, hospitals, clinics). Thus, as a corporation, Hobby Lobby must comply with this mandate and provide abortive pills and devices to their emoyees at this time. Religious and faith-based organizations shall be compliant in 10-1/2 months. Religious freedom sunsets on Thursday, August 1, 2013 in the USA.
Vote Obama out. Perhaps religious freedom might then stay for a while.
The HHS Contraception Mandate compliance effective dates:
August 1, 2012 for corporations. August 1, 2013 for religious organizations (e.g., schools, colleges, universities, hospitals, clinics).
Thus, as a corporation, Hobby Lobby must comply with this mandate and provide abortive pills and devices to their emoyees at this time.
Religious and faith-based organizations shall be compliant in 10-1/2 months.
Religious freedom sunsets on Thursday, August 1, 2013 in the USA.
Jim Lincoln wrote: They can holler all they want, it does give them publicity, but as far as the court system is concerned the "fruit hasn't ripened" so you can't pick it. This will probably be decided the same way by any judge that doesn't have a political agenda either wacko-left--or wacko-right. Really none of the judges have ok'ed it, which I wish you would see Mike of N.Y., it's like suing someone for an accident that hasn't happened yet. An injunction can be put into place when the law has "ripened," so it couldn't be carried out until it did go to court, and worked its way through the court system. As I said, these lawsuits are either done by the ignorant or publicity-seekers. You know,
Publicity stunt? The Green's support many groups and they do it all within the law but they do it not for the glory of men so most people have no idea of how they live their faith. Having heard the Green's give their testimony and having seen some of what they do "behind the scenes" I do not believe the Green's would purposely do something like this for publicity.
If I follow your logic then if someone finds out that a local speed limit is going to be lowered then they should wait until the limit is reduced and they receive a ticket before going to the judgevs going to the judge before the new limit is posted.
They can holler all they want, it does give them publicity, but as far as the court system is concerned the "fruit hasn't ripened" so you can't pick it. This will probably be decided the same way by any judge that doesn't have a political agenda either wacko-left--or wacko-right.
Really none of the judges have ok'ed it, which I wish you would see Mike of N.Y., it's like suing someone for an accident that hasn't happened yet. An injunction can be put into place when the law has "ripened," so it couldn't be carried out until it did go to court, and worked its way through the court system. As I said, these lawsuits are either done by the ignorant or publicity-seekers. You know,
Matthew 6 5 "And when you pray, you are not to be as the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners, in order to be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full.---NASB
Jim Lincoln wrote: One reason that other outfits haven't filed for exemption because there's nothing to file on, since the law hasn't taken effect yet. It is really not more than a publicity stunt, until the law, if it isn't changed can be acted upon--as more than one judge has pointed out. It's hollering before you're hurt. ---
Good advice, Jim, if you're a liberal. It's like saying, let's wait until the fox is truly in the henhouse before attempting prevention. After all, it's hollering before you're hurt. Wait until you get eaten, THEN complain. But you can't see the dumbness of the judges decision that ok's this, can you?
One reason that other outfits haven't filed for exemption because there's nothing to file on, since the law hasn't taken effect yet. It is really not more than a publicity stunt, until the law, if it isn't changed can be acted upon--as more than one judge has pointed out. It's hollering before you're hurt.
"Being Christians, we don't pay for drugs that might cause abortions. Which means that we don't cover emergency contraception, the morning-after pill or the week-after pill. We believe doing so might end a life after the moment of conception, something that is contrary to our most important beliefs. It goes against the biblical principles on which we have run this company since day one. If we refuse to comply, we could face $1.3 million per day in government fines." -David Green, Hobby Lobby CEO
"Hobby Lobby is the largest and only non-Catholic-owned business to file a lawsuit against the Health and Human Services mandate that forces all companies, regardless of religious conviction, to provide coverage of drugs the lawsuit alleges are abortion-inducing, including the morning-after pill and week-after pill."
Wonder why Chick-fil-A didn't also lead in this moral and Constitutional crisis.
1
There are a total of 11 user comments displayed | add new comment |
COMMENTS | 
Keep believing, like those who promoted the idea that the Mondale and Carter pre-election poll numbers indicated they actually had a chance of winning against Reagan. 
