Obamacare, Business and values--Hobby Lobby
By chrystalia
@chrystalia (1208)
Tucson, Arizona
November 20, 2012 2:20am CST
For those who aren't crafters-- Hobby Lobby is the ultimate crafting paradise. A combination of a Jo-Ann fabrics, a Micheal's, and Pier 1, with glass and metalworking thrown in-- it is also a christian run company, that is closed on Sundays, among other things.
And therein lies the problem.
Obamacare mandates that all companies offer morning after and week after emergency contraception-- which Christian groups and many others consider a form of abortion, rather than contraception. Hobby Lobby (and another Christian company, Marden) appealed to the federal court for an exemption from this part of Obamacare, as it violates the company's Christian based operating principles. It should be stated here clearly that hobby lobby employs people of all faiths, and does not proselytize-- but their corporate philosophy is Christian based, and Obamacare mandates coverage of certain types of IUDs as well, which the owners are also against, for the same reason.
The judge denied this request for an exemption. While such exemptions are being made for church run organizations, they won't be made-- yet-- for secular businesses. Hobby Lobby has over 13,000 employees who are eligible for insurance and get it now, and the fine for non-compliance, beginning January 1, 2013, would be 1.3 million dollars--per DAY. Hobby Lobby is more than willing to continue providing insurance for their employees, and has no plans to lay people off-- and they will also continue to provide coverage that offers OTHER forms of contraception-- just not those that prevent a fertilized egg from implanting.
The argument being made is simple-- this company, with 500 stores nationwide-- is founded and run on biblical principals, and the family doesn't feel the government has the right to force them to compromise their beliefs to stay in business. Since they will still be covering standard contraception-- their only objection is to the grey area of morning after solutions and IUDs--and their practices don't violate the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights--
Where do you stand?
Should the government be able to order you, as a business person, to pay for medical treatment of this type? And as citizens-- how do you feel about your tax dollars paying for these services, regardless of how you, personally, feel about them?
Even the judge, in his 28 page decision (and boy the legalese is bad) said the government is in "uncharted waters" with this-- how far will this law allow the government to intrude in the business sector?
I'm still trying to determine that.
5 people like this
7 responses
@marguicha (215492)
• Chile
21 Nov 12
I don`t understand. Does that mean that the working place must pay for a worker`s morning-after pill? Did I understand right? Please explain so that I can give my point of view.
2 people like this
@chrystalia (1208)
• Tucson, Arizona
21 Nov 12
Yes--under Obamacare, if companies don't cover IUDs and morning after pills, they have to pay a fine-- in the case of hobby Lobby, the fine would be over 1 million dollars a DAY. The options they have are:
Cutting all their employees to less than 30 hours a week to avoid having to give them insurance
or, Keeping them insured, and paying for insurance that covers IUDs and morning after pills. Their current insurance doesn't cover those options, though the company insurance does pay for regular birth control. And if they keep their employees full time and Don't offer insurance, then the 1 million dollar a day fine happens also.
1 person likes this
@chrystalia (1208)
• Tucson, Arizona
22 Nov 12
well it just became the responsibility of the employers here, and a lot don't like it at all. The way it works here is employers choose an insurance plan they can afford, and employees, even part time ones, can generally "buy into" the plan-- the amount they pay is based on whether it is a single or family, and whether it is full or part time. Because of the high cost of insurance here, many part time workers don't buy into the plans. That's the way it USED to work-- employers only had to provide insurance to people who worked over 37.5 hours-- and in some states they didn't need to provide it then, though most did.
Under Obamacare, it now has to be provided to everyone who works over 30 hours-- so employers are cutting hours. Under Obamacare, insurance companies are no longer allowed to refuse to provide insurance for existing conditions, so they are raising their rates as well. Under Obamacare, insurance providers are now required to provide a plan that covers the morning after pill the week after pill and IUDs, and that's the plan employers MUST provide for employees. And employers' insurance plans must also cover abortions now, whether elective or necessary, in many cases-- though churches are exempt, as are religious run organizations from the contraception and abortion clause.
All in all, Obamacare is going to prove to be a serious problem if it isn't repealed and overhauled or scrapped-- since it will actually make it much harder to get good health care than it is now.
1 person likes this
@marguicha (215492)
• Chile
22 Nov 12
That`s something I had never heard of before. In my country, all employees must pay 7% of their salary towards health care. Employers take the 7% from them and place them in the health insurance institutions. But besides that, it`s up to each person if they spend more money in health insurance. And none of them would pay for birth control devises. If a person wants some method of birth control (provided it`s not an abortion as it`s against the law) he is free to buy whatever pill or devise he wishes. I don`t see why that should be the responsibility of the employers.
2 people like this
@JenInTN (27514)
• United States
22 Nov 12
I understand the reasoning behind it, but I don't agree with the path being taken to accomplish it. He is trying to reduce the population which will ultimately raise the living standards. He is saying that we will spend here and now tax dollars on contraception versus the amount of children that would be born into poverty and supported with taxes in the long term..plus the possibility that they will have tax supported children of their own later. Reducing the competition for jobs in the future would be another goal but there was a very important factor forgotten. Belief systems. It is our right to practice and maintain our religious standards. Violating those takes another freedom factor from us. This is certainly an uncharted area and we will soon see based on the court cases that come up exactly where this is going to go.
2 people like this
@chrystalia (1208)
• Tucson, Arizona
23 Nov 12
Well, in this current society we couldn't license people to have kids-- but someday, in the right time and pace, it would be worthwhile to consider. I agree that some good old fashioned shame is needed here-- for both the boys and the girls. If we had a society where no decent girl would be seen with a guy who played around, then guys wouldn't play around-- and the ones who wanted to would find it very difficult to find an "easy" girl if girls were taught that having children irresponsibly, with no support, ruins your life. I think our planned parenthood social experiment is a dismal failure-- considering the number of illegitimate children we have running around or crawling around. it doesn't help that the welfare system doesn't penalize women who get pregnant while receiving services, everywhere (I think some states do, have to check)-- if we are going to give out birth control, it should be mandatory that people on welfare take it-- or get Norplant, and if you have a kid, you either give it up for adoption or lose your benefits. And yes, that probably sounds draconian and harsh-- but until we as a society, and our government, begin to punish those who choose to continue making choices that hurt everyone--especially the kids-- things won't change at all, other than getting worse. When it comes to children, and parenting, I tend to have very strong ideas.
1 person likes this
@chrystalia (1208)
• Tucson, Arizona
22 Nov 12
Well Hobby Lobby is appealing, but I don't think they'll win the appeal. As to the reasoning-- that would work, somewhat, except that most of the people who should be using birth control, don't-- and there is no law that mandates it for those on Welfare or food stamps. And last year, almost 1/2 the babies in the USA were born to unwed/single moms, and young ones-- highest illegitimate figure ever. These kids are at a much greater risk for abuse and poverty, but He's not mandating that indigent people or teens be provided birth control-- I would bet that most of the people who will be using the contraceptive options will be the people who already are-- the responsible ones. Planned parenthood has offered free and low cost Birth control for years-- and who uses it? In Arizona at least, and here in Washington, it's mostly educated women and girls from middle class families, and college girls-- not the people who should be using it, teens and single moms on assistance. The way to reduce a population for the benefit of all is to make sure that people who can't support children, financially, emotionally physically are not allowed to have them. Yes, that sounds harsh, and probably racist and elitist to some-- but no other solution is truly practical.
I am against the provision because it violates people's belief systems-- whether those belief systems are my own is immaterial, though in this case they are to some extent. What is important is the government is once again removing a guaranteed liberty here, encroaching on the Constitution, definitely-- and I think a lot of people don't realize how serious this issue is for everyone-- if they curtail the constitutional liberties of one group and get away with it, they can do the same to everyone--I oppose all such encroachments based on that principal-- because I firmly believe :what is hateful to you, don't do to your neighbor. And I certainly find having my Constitutional rights stomped on hateful.
1 person likes this
@JenInTN (27514)
• United States
22 Nov 12
That is true chrystalia. Planned parenthood and such other programs have offered low/free birth control options for a very long time to no avail. Even though I hate to think of it as a cycle, there are numbers that certainly point to the fact that it is. I don't think you sound harsh..just fed up. I feel that way too.
As far as choosing who is worthy of having children to reduce population, well, that might get a little hairy when you think about who it is one lays the power in to make that choice.
I don't like the provisions that violate people and their rights either. It has been becoming more serious for a while now. When the government starts to step in on every aspect of our lives..freedom is being lost more and more.
2 people like this
@laglen (19759)
• United States
24 Nov 12
Sounds like we are on a path to government run everything. Businesses around the country are trying to let people know that they can't and won't take this kind of nany state. Their businesses just can't be run effectively. 500 stores nationwide. Built on Christian principles, are being forced to choose. This is not the country I thought it was, nor the country I want to see.
2 people like this
@dragon54u (31636)
• United States
20 Nov 12
The part of the constitution that forbids the government to endorse a religion or prevent worship should cover this. No one has any right to make anyone do anything that is against their religion--but the government has been doing this for years in donating our taxes to fund abortions via Planned Parenthood and other organizations.
Even if Hobby Lobby stops insuring and lets the government do it, their taxes are still being used to fund the morning after pill so I don't see what they can do other than employ only people who believe as they do who won't take that particular pill. And that, of course, would be discrimination.
Maybe people will begin to stand up for what they believe and demand the government stop its interference now that it is threatening their core beliefs but I doubt it. This has crept up so gradually that many don't realize how their liberties have been curtailed.
fwiw, I don't know why the controversy exists. The MA pill, from what I understand, is preventing the egg from reaching the uterus. The birth control pill is preventing the egg from escaping the fallopian tubes. Either way, same result and no embryo is murdered. Contraception foam destroys sperm but the Catholic church endorses it. I think people should pick their battles and this one just has too many contradictions as I see it.
2 people like this
@angelwithkids (1256)
• United States
21 Nov 12
WOW!!!! I knew there was a reason why I love shopping at Hobby Lobby! It goes to show that the government is taking more of our rights away. I will continue shopping at Hobby Lobby. They have my full support. These people that are running our country, is taking away our freedoms. We need to get them all out of office and elect new people that actually LISTEN to what we want.
@chrystalia (1208)
• Tucson, Arizona
21 Nov 12
yep-- I love Hobby Lobby too, I wish there were one near me 
They are actually very clear about their beliefs-- the sign on most of their stores, right on the front door, explains why they are closed on Sundays. i guess people probably don't read it-- but it apparently has never hurt their business, which is a good thing. I was kind of hoping to see someone mounting a rally campaign on social media to support them, as people have done with Papa John's-- but I guess there are less crafters than pizza eaters 
And I guess maybe Christians either don't know, or are choosing to keep silent. I wonder why?
They are actually very clear about their beliefs-- the sign on most of their stores, right on the front door, explains why they are closed on Sundays. i guess people probably don't read it-- but it apparently has never hurt their business, which is a good thing. I was kind of hoping to see someone mounting a rally campaign on social media to support them, as people have done with Papa John's-- but I guess there are less crafters than pizza eaters
And I guess maybe Christians either don't know, or are choosing to keep silent. I wonder why?2 people like this
@hoseasmate (720)
• United States
23 Nov 12
Are you kidding? The Chik-fil-A restaurant chain was told they weren't welcome in some cities because of the stand on marriage. The Christian community turned out in force to a 'shop Chik-fil-A' day. The long lines and the packed stores was never covered by the media. All that furor because the owner made a statement in a meeting about his definition of marriage...not a march, not a lawsuit, not lobbying the government...He has just as much right to his opinion and his freedom to speak about that opinion as the Gay Pride has to voice their opinion and the freedom to speak their opinion. The difference is that the Gay Pride are attempting to force everyone to accept their definition of marriage and the owner of the restaurant was not. The government is trying to force the populace to carry insurance or face a 'fine'. I'll pay the fine, it's cheaper! The issue should have been decided back at 'forcing coverage', before the point of no return. It's law now and as Christians we are advised to follow the law of the land.
2 people like this
@chrystalia (1208)
• Tucson, Arizona
25 Nov 12
Following the law of the land doesn't negate our responsibility to try to change those laws that are wrong, in my opinion. I haven't heard anything in the news about people lining up to support Hobby Lobby as they did Chik Fil A-- Heck, I supported Chik Fil A myself, though I had to drive a ways to do it. There was quite a bit of media coverage-- nut not on the networks, or CNN. Hotbeds of liberalism ignored it, FOX and other more conservative news sources didn't as a matter of fact. And there was a lot of local coverage in some cities as well. One of the advantages to living cyberly is you have all the news you want at your fingertips, so you can see everything. I have been surprised by the lack of outcry on this as opposed to Chik Fil A.
1 person likes this
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
21 Nov 12
The government doesn't have a right to tax me against my will to begin with, if you're a strict constitutionalist. But to tax me to pay for someone else to do something I feel is immoral, is adding insult to injury.
I heard Charles Krauthammer say that cases like this will end up in the Supreme Court. I say it's already in GOD's court and we're screwed as a nation for turning our back on HIM.
1 person likes this
@chrystalia (1208)
• Tucson, Arizona
21 Nov 12
well, I don't have the Constitution in front of me at the moment, but under Article 1 section 8 the powers of Congress, I believe congress is empowered to borrow money, coin money, etc-- and under the 16th Amendment, tax people to get money. But, like PELOSI-- I'm not sure which Amendment 
OK-- I checked-- 16th. Article 1 section 2 clause 3 covers direct taxes-- a different animal.
Even if it lands in the Supreme court, that's no guarantee the issue will be resolved in a fair manner-- especially since a couple of the current Justices may well retire during this administration-- there are some serious geezers on the bench, I believe. I'm just waiting to see what Hobby Lobby and businesses like them will do-- 1.3 million a DAY is a lot of money. It will be a difficult moral dilemma for them and other businesses like them-- stand on principals and risk losing everything, and hurting loyal employees-- or bow to expedience to save the business and jobs?
OK-- I checked-- 16th. Article 1 section 2 clause 3 covers direct taxes-- a different animal.
Even if it lands in the Supreme court, that's no guarantee the issue will be resolved in a fair manner-- especially since a couple of the current Justices may well retire during this administration-- there are some serious geezers on the bench, I believe. I'm just waiting to see what Hobby Lobby and businesses like them will do-- 1.3 million a DAY is a lot of money. It will be a difficult moral dilemma for them and other businesses like them-- stand on principals and risk losing everything, and hurting loyal employees-- or bow to expedience to save the business and jobs?1 person likes this
@chrystalia (1208)
• Tucson, Arizona
21 Nov 12
My reps in Arizona didn't pass it either (the crowd in Washington State probably did, will have to check). I agree the 16th amendment is fishy, but then again, more than one amendment is fishy, and more than one SCOTUS decision (roe v. wade comes to mind first, though not last) is also suspect. I am watching Hobby Lobby closely, because as I said, they have a seriously tough moral choice to make, and I am interested in seeing what they choose to do. Lots of businesses, including ours, will be shutting down--and lots will be cutting hours, raising prices or both. Since there is that little provision that a business has to pay a fine for not insuring, even if they DON'T Hire an applicant under certain circumstances, it will be tough to get a job, for a lot of reasons, for a long time.
2 people like this
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
21 Nov 12
My elected representative did not have a hand in passing Obamacare the TAX. And I've read some pretty convincing research that the 16th amendment was not legally ratified. You'd have to be a gazillionaire to fight it, but some have, one even one I think.
Three judges (not SCOTUS) have favored Hobby Lobby and three haven't. I look for many businesses to just close down or cut hours.
1 person likes this
@mehale (2200)
• United States
27 Nov 12
First off, good to know about Hobby Lobby! I knew I shopped there for some reason, lol. On the more serious side, though...this is just one of many ways that Obamacare encroaches on our freedoms. Not only are we told that we have to buy coverage or pay a fine (which the supreme court decided was legal and was only a tax) but we are also told that we have to buy coverage for contraceptive services whether we want them, need them, or will ever use them. It does not matter if it goes against our religion or not..so much for religious freedom in the great United States.
The more I think about the healthcare plan and what it forces on us, the more angry I get. We have to stop the government take over of our freedoms before we no longer have any freedom...and that is not too far in the future I fear.
1 person likes this
@chrystalia (1208)
• Tucson, Arizona
27 Nov 12
I wrote an email to corporate hobby lobby when the story broke-- to the extent it DID break, which was hardly at all--expressing my hope that they find a way to stand on their principals. But I don't envy them at this point at all-- it's a bad deal all the way around, for them and their employees.
What does it profit a man to gain the world, if he loses his soul?
We shall see what the appeal brings, but I doubt it will bring good news, for Hobby Lobby or its employees.
