March 25, 2014

Hobby Lobby Supreme Court Case: Kudos to Church Officials Defending Liberty

Press Release | March 25, 2014
Contact:  Jeff Walton office: 202-682-4131, cell: 202-413-5639, e-mail: jwalton@TheIRD.org

 

Unlike the religious supporters of Obamacare’s coercive HHS abortifacient mandate, they envision a transcendent community of truth, love and beauty.”
-Mark Tooley, IRD President

 

Washington, DC—Today the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Hobby Lobby case against Obamacare’s HHS mandate compelling religious employers to subsidize insurance for contraceptives and abortifacients.  The owners of Hobby Lobby are Evangelical and object to abortifacients.

The United Methodist General Board of Church and Society, along with the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, which includes the Episcopal Church, Presbyterian Church (USA) and United Church of Christ (UCC), have endorsed the HHS mandate that requires employers to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives and abortifacients. So too have the UCC’s president, the Reformed Church in America’s general secretary, the Episcopal Bishop of Washington, D.C., the president of Union Seminary, the dean of Vanderbilt Divinity School, and the president of Episcopal Divinity School, plus the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good.

In contrast, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, National Association of Evangelicals, Southern Baptist Convention, Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, National Religious Broadcasters, and Council for Christian Colleges & Universities have identified the HHS Obamacare mandate as an assault on religious liberty.

IRD President Mark Tooley commented:

“How sad that some church officials and religious groups are so zealous in their enthusiasm for the Welfare Entitlement State and for the Sexual Revolution that they would have Caesar by force compel religious employers and other persons of conscience to subsidize even abortifacients.

“Of course, the drugs at issue in the Hobby Lobby case are readily and inexpensively available, yet these religious opponents of religious liberty disingenuously cite ‘access’ as the issue. These Religious Left advocates don’t even bother to examine the ethics of abortifacients from a Christian ethical perspective. Seemingly, for them, the willful autonomous individual, and sexual freedom, trump all other considerations, even the destruction of human life.

“What other freedoms, religious or otherwise, are these Religious Left figures willing to trample in their pursuit of a new society where religion and conscience are marginalized while the state arbitrarily imposes a radical secularist zeitgeist shorn of transcendent truth and beauty?

“Kudos to the Catholic bishops, Orthodox rabbis, Evangelicals, Southern Baptists, Missouri Synod Lutherans, religious broadcasters and Christian schools who affirm liberty of conscience and dignity for all persons. Unlike the religious supporters of the Obamacare HHS mandate, they envision a transcendent community of truth, love and beauty.”

www.TheIRD.org


20 Responses to Hobby Lobby Supreme Court Case: Kudos to Church Officials Defending Liberty

  1. Marco Bell says:

    Even if the ruling stands that ALL employers must provide the ‘complete package’, the option still exists for the employees to NOT purchase said abortifacients.

    These issues are certainly meaningful to those that are determined to overturn Roe v Wade, but get over it… it’s the law!

    Just like if you don’t approve of abortion, simply DON’T have one!

    • cleareyedtruthmeister says:

      Marco, if only it were as simple as you frame it!

      Employers, who earn money via the sweat of their brow, are being forced by a dictatorial government to pay for something against their religious conscience. That is borderline slave labor for the state. It is not just a violation of the 1st amendment, it is wrong.

      • Marco Bell says:

        Dear Cleareyedtruthmeister,
        It is the employees’ sweat that is spent, to ‘earn’ their benefits, not the employer’s sweat.

        And to deny any employee their fair share of medical benefits is an infringement upon the employee.
        For the same cost per employee, withholding something as important as planning pregnancies, is a vital aspect of maturing responsibly.

        Also, unless that Employer/Company is a Church or religious organization, who has certain exemptions, they are suppose to be in business to ‘capitalize’ on making money, not evangelize their ‘personal’ religion. Those rules of operation, or behavior are written into Corporation/Charter guidelines.

        • cleareyedtruthmeister says:

          Marco, obviously you’ve never been an employer, at least not to any significant degree. If you had you would know what I meant by “employer sweat.” You seem to think that employers just sit back and rake in the money…quit buying the left-wing fictions!!

          And no one is denying employees their “fair share”….again, please, spare us the political propaganda.

          If you believe the government is the final arbiter of morality then you should review the Constitution and natural law.

          • Marco Bell says:

            Dear Cleareyed…

            So explain to me “Employer’s sweat”, and how it differs from Employees’ sweat?

            Denying a female employee any form of birth control, is an infringement on that person by gender.
            This is dealing with Health care, and we all know that pregnancy is a health condition, therefore why would you (or an employer) withhold any type of medical service or device which would serve that employees health needs?

            Do you support the inclusion of drugs for males such as Viagra, in the Healthcare plan?

            This is not Left-wing diatribe, it is common sense thinking, for a common sense subject, which some folks on the extreme Right feel is wrong!

          • cleareyedtruthmeister says:

            I didn’t say the employees’ sweat was different from the employers’ sweat. You said that the employers didn’t even sweat! Anyone who has ever owned and run a business knows that is patently absurd.

            And no one…NO ONE…is denying ANYONE birth control. Buy anything you want, and it’s pretty inexpensive. Some bars even give out free condoms….so please discontinue that canard.

            And there’s always the option—I know this is shocking to the contemporary left—to actually abstain from sex!

            As far as I know Viagra has no potential to induce abortion when used appropriately, so there is not the same level of moral concern. So, again, in parroting leftist talking points you continue to inaccurately frame the argument.

            Personally, I don’t think the government should force employers to provide health care in the first place, much dictate to employers what that health care should provide under the insulting assumption that the government knows your health care needs better than you do. This is not only paternalistic, it is an affront to liberty.

    • Brad says:

      The employees of Hobby Lobby already have the option to NOT purchase abortifacients. They also have the option TO purchase said abortifacients. The issue is the man with the “pen and phone” via the HHS mandating that the owners of Hobby Lobby provide abortifacients to their employees for “free”, thus making them a potential party to the ending of a human life.

      • Marco Bell says:

        Brad,
        The benefits of one’s ‘Employer provided healthcare plan, is paid for by the labor of the employee. Thus nothing is “free”.

        I personally admire our current President for making strides to provide healthcare to ALL Americans. Something that has become a luxury beyond their grasp in the past. Halelujah for President Obama!

        And technically, an abortifacient, is only an “abortifacient” if the fertilized egg is “implanted”, thus the argument of when conception occurs is the determining factor.

        Question: What are Non-abortifacients? Condoms? “Rhythm”? Menstrual cycles?

        • Brad says:

          How very progressive of you to reserve your “admiration” and “hallelujahs” for Obama.

          I prefer to admire the Greens for starting a company out of their garage in the ’70’s to one that has over 500 stores and 12,000 (?) employees. All while trying to stay faithful to their Christian beliefs.

          The Greens were already paying above minimum wage, providing health insurance (including most contraceptives) and other benefits, staying closed on Sundays, etc, for the benefit of their employees. They were already doing this, based on their beliefs, even before the One for Whom you have Great Admiration, thought it was his bright idea.

  2. Didaskalos says:

    Speaking of church officials defending liberty, Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod President Matthew Harrison writes: http://blogs.lcms.org/2014/tired-of-hobby-lobby — “Tired of Hobby Lobby?”

    • Marco Bell says:

      Didaskalos,
      By allowing the Greens (Owners of Hobby Lobby) to assert their preference in their business, it is going to make the “slippery-slope” even more slippery.

      If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Greens, the precedent will be set to allow any other capitalist to assert their personal desires and preferences upon their consumer. ie: Using the recent (ill-conceived) Citizens United case, that Companies will now be given the same exemption as a religious organization. Does a Corporation deserve the same rights as a religion?
      Can the luxury of “Personhood” then exist for Corporations? Should Corporations possess a ‘soul’, a ‘body’ a ‘conscience’? Is a merger the same thing as a marriage?
      Presently, Charter Law denies a corporation the luxury that most individuals enjoy. It should remain so!

  3. gary says:

    if you can’t afford to supply your own birth control then don’t have sex. this isn’t “health care” it is forcing someone to buy your tickets to the amusement park.

    • cleareyedtruthmeister says:

      No, you don’t understand. The intelligentsia of the modern left–such as it is–holds that we are barnyard animals with no control over our urges. Ergo, sexual liberation is a must, birth control a necessity.

      • Marco Bell says:

        You are partly correct, Cleareyed…
        Birth control IS a must. Unless it is expected that every intimate exchange is expected to produce offspring?
        Only barnyard animals are employed for that kind of procreative production.
        Control over urges should include a responsible plan to avoid unwanted results.
        (I’m sure I’ll catch some guff for inferring that “Unwanted results” is the same thing as a yet un-conceived child!)

  4. Donnie says:

    I’ve come to the conclusion that we should make all non-abortifacient forms of birth control OTC. Provided that they’re restricted to adults only.

    Women could then buy their own BC on their own, and leave employers and insurance companies out of it. Then individual insurance companies could decide whether or not to cover abortifacients. And businesses could then decide which insurance companies they do business with based on that. Sounds like a win-win all around to me.

    • Marco Bell says:

      Donnie,

      What are NON-Abortifacients?
      Condoms? “Rhythm”? Menstrual cycles?

      I think I agree with you regarding whether certain Insurance companies possibly including abortifacients. But do Insurance companies of any kind NOT want to include those items?

      And by leaving the decision to the Employers, that allows them to limit, or restrict certain aspects of Healthcare to their employees. As I think we all know, pregnancy IS a health condition, and preventing a (possible) pregnancy, should be part of any woman’s health care insurance plan coverage.

      It is also a case of Womens’ Rights and Medical benefit-pay equality!

  5. Marco Bell says:

    Dear Cleareyed….

    Freedom IS a personal issue, and if the Government is in the offering of issuing Healthcare, then, that sounds like a perfectly good idea to us!
    Our freedoms conjoined with our guaranteed health coverage (paid through the already corrupt corporate system), will be just fine by me. Thank you President Obama!!
    We now have health insurance for the first time in thirty years. Hallelujah!!

    For the record, I never said that Employers never sweat. I said that the sweat of the employees is what is paid for by the employer, and if that company offers Health Insurance, then every employee deserves to receive whatever coverage is available.

    If Bars offer free condoms, what does that offer the woman who wants to take responsibility for herself? Really?!

    And if Viagra isn’t technically an abortifacient, isn’t it prudent to consider THAT drug to be a social concern, for the general population?
    Funny how something that provides an erection to the almighty male, is lesser concern to the Christian Right, than the legal right of a woman to seek an abortion. JEEZ!

    • cleareyedtruthmeister says:

      Marco, you embarrass yourself with each new post. Here is your direct quote: “It is the employees’ sweat that is spent, to ‘earn’ their benefits, NOT the employer’s sweat.” “Jeez” is right.

      Hallelujah for health care for the first time in 30 years?? What the heck are you talking about? Current estimates are that, after turning the health care system upside down, only a few hundred thousand people now have health care coverage–supposedly, but we really don’t know how many have actually paid a premium–that didn’t have it before. (And as I write this we find out that Kathleen Sebelius has resigned, a tacit admission that this whole thing has been a fiasco).

      As far as your ludicrous remarks about Viagra–well, at least there is some entertainment value in your comments even if they are totally detached from reality.

      • Marco Bell says:

        I love you Cleareyed…!

        When one employs a person, that person’s ‘sweat’ is the act of performing their respective task. For that, they are paid. So what is not consistent with that analogy?

        I have no problem enduring the slings and arrows from you or other religious zealots. When it comes to civil liberties I stand for the underdog… as long as they can prove their position without resorting to selective dictates of archaic religious texts for the purpose of deciphering Civil/Legal matters.
        Since we all must live and work together, Religion should stay in your heart, and not on your employee ID tag.

        The idea that a drug like Viagra wouldn’t ruffle the feathers of the Right, seems preposterous.
        I think we might all agree that TESTOSTERONE is the sole problem in this whole fiasco.

        The suggestion by Donnie that all non-abortifacients be available over the counter to adults only, leaves the poor (minor) female without an option to abort an unwanted pregnancy…even one that may have been implanted by a righteous Viagra user.

        And what IS a NON-abortifacient anyway?!

        Sill loving you Cleareyed…
        Sincerely,
        Marco

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *