Religion Clause: 7th Circuit Again Upholds Contraceptive Mandate Accommodation For Religious Non-Profits

So for the past week or so. I have been trying to get a handle on this recent ruling concerning "Contraceptive Mandate Accommodation For Religious Non-Profits".

In Grace Schools v. Burwell, (7th Cir., Sept. 4, 2015), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, rejected a RFRA challenge to the Obama administration's accommodation under the Affordable Care Act for religious non-profits that object to furnishing contraceptive coverage under their health insurance policies. The majority, relying to a large extent on the Circuit's recent decisions in Notre Dame and in Wheaton College, held that the accommodation does not impose a substantial burden on the free exercise rights of various Indiana-based Catholic non-profit charitable, educational and health care institutions.

I guess what I struggle with is, "how" there is an issue with the "accommodation" aspect at all. I mean seriously, how the hell is informing the government that [insert religious organization of choice] has a religious objection to the mandate a "burden" under RFRA?  The mandate isn't the issue per se (in this particular instance), it's the process of "getting" an "accommodation" they're bitching about. 

Recall that the accommodation now allows a religious non-profit that objects to the contraception mandate either to complete a government form or to simply inform the government that it has a religious objection to the mandate. If so, the government then informs the non-profit's health insurer or third-party administrator that the insurer or TPA has to provide contraception directly to the non-profit's employees and students free of charge,,,.

,,,the accommodation itself violates their religious freedom, because it makes them complicit in the provision of contraception. ("But for" their certification, they say, their insurers or TPAs wouldn't be required to provide contraception. Moreover, they claim a religious objection to doing business with insurers or TPAs who provide contraception to their employees, even if required by the government.)

I also find Manion's dissent a little bizzare,

The court, through a perfunctory examination, interprets the accommodation’s twisted framework and holds that it frees the religious nonprofits from having to power the mandate themselves and, thus, does not violate the RFRA. The court is wrong: A thorough examination reveals that the accommodation’s tangled mess is hiding the fact that the extension cord gets its power from the nonprofits’ health plans and must be plugged in before it will work. It also exposes the fact that the government is forcing the nonprofits to plug in the accommodation themselves by signing the self‐certification or providing the alternative notice.

Who exactly generates that so=called "power" the religious nonprofits enjoy?

Religion Clause: 7th Circuit Again Upholds Contraceptive Mandate Accommodation For Religious Non-Profits

Conservative Federal Judges Wave The White Flag On Obamacare | ThinkProgress

Another little known case with huge implications:

More than a year ago, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit handed down its decision in Sissel v. Department of Health and Human Services. Matt Sissel and his attorneys claimed that a key provision of the Affordable Care Act must be struck down because of an alleged procedural error committed by Congress while the law was debated and passed. The three-judge panel rejected this claim, but Sissel’s attorneys responded by asking the full DC Circuit to reconsider the case. That petition, seeking full court review, languished for months without an answer from the court’s judges.
,,,
Sissel challenges the Affordable Care Act under a provision of the Constitution known as the Origination Clause, which provides that “[a]ll Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.” In practice, this clause creates a procedural roadblock that Congress frequently avoids through the Senate’s broad amendment power. Though a “Bill for raising Revenue” must begin in the House, the Senate has the power to amend such a bill with an amendment that completely rewrites its text. Thus, to avoid violating the Origination Clause, the Senate will take a bill that already passed the House, amend it to replace that bill with its own preferred language, and then pass the amended bill and send it back to the House.

This is a common practice that the Senate has used for many years. In 1986, for example, the Senate used this process to enact tax reforms that were signed into law by President Ronald Reagan. The same process was also used to enact the Affordable Care Act.

Sissel, however, claimed that this process could not be used to enact Obamacare, in part because original House bill that the Senate amended “had nothing to do with health insurance reform.” Yet, as Judge Brett Kavanaugh explained in an opinion joined by the DC Circuit’s three other Republican members, this claim has no basis in the text of the Constitution. “The Origination Clause,” Kavanaugh explains, “imposes no germaneness requirement on the Senate when it amends revenue-raising bills that originated in the House.”

Kavanaugh summarizes the fatal flaw in Sissel’s argument in just a few sentences:

The Origination Clause permits the Senate to “propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.” The text of the Origination Clause therefore grants the Senate as much authority to amend revenue bills as it grants the Senate to amend other bills. There is no general germaneness requirement when the Senate amends other House bills. It follows that there is no germaneness requirement when the Senate amends revenue bills. “As on other Bills” means “As on other Bills.”

Conservative Federal Judges Wave The White Flag On Obamacare | ThinkProgress

Republicans schedule new 'Obamacare' repeal vote | MSNBC

"The very idea of repealing an effective health care law is increasingly bizarre, and as Senate GOP leaders realize, there’s zero chance of the repeal measure passing. The fact that Mitch McConnell sees this as a necessary part of the debate,,,"

Bizarre considering their own people have said it is working,

Obamacare is working. There's no better evidence of this than a brief filed on behalf of the government in King by the Hospital Corporation of America, better known as HCA, the largest health care provider in the country (once run by Obamacare foe Florida Gov. Rick Scott). HCA argues that the legal theory advanced by the plaintiffs is "absurd," but, more importantly, it presents detailed data drawn from its own operations that demonstrate that the health care law is helping patients and the company itself.

Republicans schedule new 'Obamacare' repeal vote | MSNBC

BREAKING: Obamacare Death Panels Have Arrived, First Patient Executed Today |

This is another one of those WTF moments. Although with this one, even though I disagree with the conclusions reached in the article I can "see" where the twisted reasoning is coming from.

So again I was trolling my news feed (shocking) and this headline popped.

BREAKING: Obamacare Death Panels Have Arrived, First Patient Executed Today

Followed by this comment.

Everyone qualifies for Affordable Health Care, unless you are really sick...

Now I have my views concerning the PPACA and y'all are going to have yours. I'm not arguing for or against. What I would like to point out is how "gullible" (to borrow from The Bashful Bloviator) people can be and why it is so important to do honest fact checking and not accept something (a headline or article) and then push it as "fact" just because it fits your preconceived notions, "They always let you know what's happening before they roll it out."

But I digress and I'm totally off-topic,,,

So today whilst waiting for one of my pod-casts to go live a friend posted this,

Betty White is ALIVE all of you posting she is dead..its a hoax!

(Supposedly White DYED whilst doing her hair). Which brought me back to the above headline and attached article, also a hoax which I confirmed in less than 30 seconds. Not only is it a hoax but the original article has been plagiarized, chopped and altered according to Carr:

The American News version deleted a line from the original claiming the woman was to be executed by firing squad, in order to make it sound more believable.

The strange apologetics began when I pointed that "fact" out after discovering for myself that The Daily Currant, a known satire site, was the first entry in my search. Carr's site was number 3 or 4. Nice to have my sanity verified.

James Kosur at B2C concludes his piece about Betty White with these wise words, "If nothing else, this hoax further proves that a lot of those social shares from your friends are from stories they never even read. Talk about a rousing endorsement for social sharing… or not."

BTW, a bit of synchronicity ",,,86-year-old Dorothy Zborknak has been ordered to death. The reason? According to the administration, she is no longer useful." Bea Arthur is already dead,,,lol,,,and who can forget "the Golden Girls."

BREAKING: Obamacare Death Panels Have Arrived, First Patient Executed Today |

See also: Known US based satire sites that I am aware of:

• The Daily Currant
• National Report
• The Onion
• SatireWire
• ScrappleFace
• Weekly World News
• Landover Baptist Church
• Objective: Ministries

You world be surprised by the number of people "offended" by "the juvenile antics and internet graffiti" these sites report on. Obviously some individuals do not understand satire.

Christian activist: Supporting Obamacare means promoting homosexual ‘deathstyle’

Conservative Christian activist and vlogger ‘Coach’ Dave Daubenmire argued on Saturday that any Christian who supports the Democratic Party is not being true to their faith, in part because the Affordable Care Act is promoting homosexuality.

“Friends, homosexuality is a deathstyle, it’s not a lifestyle,” he said in video posted by Right Wing Watch. “The medical consequences of what homosexuals do is staggering — not only to them, but to the medical care system, the Obamacare. Do you know that when you support Obamacare, you support the medical care of those who are engaged in self-destructive behaviors, including male-on-male sodomy?”

Daubenmire also said that the Democratic Party has used abortion rights and marriage equality as its “main platforms” for attracting voters, which put it on the wrong side of the “laws of nature.”

Christian activist: Supporting Obamacare means promoting homosexual ‘deathstyle’

Anti-Gay Activists Hopeful Hobby Lobby Will Lead To License To Discriminate | Right Wing Watch

And it starts.

As I suspected when this case first hit, the real motivation comes forth. Nothing the Reich does is "individually" motivated (this is not about the Green's personally held religious convictions) and as I have posted before, it centers around a point made by Michael Meyerson in writing about Newland v. Sebilius.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that religious organizations have the power to decide for themselves, free from governmental interference, matters of internal discipline and governance. Thus, the courts are barred from stepping in to settle a dispute over which of two religious factions is the rightful owner of particular church property. Judges may not question a church's interpretation of its own internal documents.

If such rights were extended to for-profit corporations, much of modern corporate law would have to be discarded. By describing their internal structure as one of a religious hierarchy, those running a corporation could engage in all manner of manipulation free from the fear of governmental oversight or judicial review. Many private employees would be vulnerable, for the first time since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to discriminatory treatment due to the religious preferences of their employers.

The special protection that is given to religious organizations so that they are free to perform their religious functions cannot logically or properly be ripped from its rightful context and applied to secular, for-profit corporations.

In other words, the Reich will "now" be able to exempt themselves from any laws that they don’t like; that they find “religiously’ objectionable.” In Peter LaBarbera's own words, "LGBT Left has been winning in the courts, but now we have hope that SCOTUS will honor small biz conscience exemptions on homosexuality."

Regretfully I do not share in the optimism of Dylan Scott over at TPM:

While the company Hobby Lobby triumphed at the U.S. Supreme Court in challenging Obamacare's contraceptive mandate on Monday, the Court does not seem to have flung opened the floodgates for anti-LGBT discrimination as some had feared it might. 
,,,
Based on initial readings of the Hobby Lobby decision, LGBT advocates seemed to have dodged a bullet. The Court's ruling, written by conservative Justice Samuel Alito, is explicitly narrow in effect. But some advocates worry that those pushing anti-LGBT bills will see an opening to introduce new bills and file new lawsuits to legitimize discrimination. Whether they'd win, though, is much less clear.
,,,
"This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs," Alito asserted. "Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice." 

Anti-Gay Activists Hopeful Hobby Lobby Will Lead To License To Discriminate | Right Wing Watch

REPOST::Stop calling Hobby Lobby a Christian business - The Week

Finally someone gets it and isn't afraid to say it,,,

"We're Christians," Hobby Lobby's president Steve Green proclaims, "and we run our business on Christian principles."

That is music to the ears of many conservative Christians, who rallied around Hobby Lobby when the retail chain argued at the Supreme Court that ObamaCare's contraception mandate unlawfully burdened their religious beliefs. But a closer look at Hobby Lobby's actual business practices reveals this claim to be as hollow as a flute. Turn over just about any trinket in a Hobby Lobby store and you'll find a gold oval stamped with "Made in China," a country that is one of the worst offenders of human dignity, unborn infant life, and economic justice anywhere in the world.

As such, those shiny stickers littering every Hobby Lobby from sea to shining sea are more than a statement about a product's geographical origin; they are also a stinging indictment against the way the retailer has sought to label itself.

[,,,]
Now, of course, a huge number of American companies outsource labor to China, and thus help prop up this shameful status quo. But very few of these American companies simultaneously trumpet themselves as "Christian businesses," arguing in court that providing employees with health insurance covering contraceptives violates their religious beliefs. How can this ObamaCare mandate be so foul to Hobby Lobby executives, while they say very little about Chinese policies forcing women to have abortions against their wills? Is abortion wrong only when the terminated life is American?

The most glaring inconsistency between Hobby Lobby's ethical proclamations and its business decisions concerns the matter of religious liberty. The craft store chain is hailed by conservatives as standing up to Uncle Sam and fighting for religious freedom. Yet Hobby Lobby imports billions of dollars worth of bric-a-brac from a nation that denies 1.35 billion citizens freedom of worship.

If Hobby Lobby was concerned with religious freedoms — not just those of conservative American Christians — it would quit doing business in China.

Stop calling Hobby Lobby a Christian business - The Week

House Republicans Gear Up For 50th Vote To Dismantle Obamacare

"Maybe if you buy 50 repeal votes, you get one free. We get it. We understand. We get you don't like it. I got it."
--
The House is set to vote Wednesday on a bill by Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-KS) to effectively delay the individual mandate for one year by reducing the penalty in 2014 for not buying insurance from $95 to $0. (Inclement weather in Washington could conceivably delay the bill further.)

The Republican-led chamber passed a similar bill last July, capturing 22 Democratic votes. Now that it's an election year, it's plausible that a significant number of Democrats will defect, given the unpopularity of the individual mandate and the likelihood that Senate Democrats will throw the bill in the garbage once it arrives.

It's the House GOP's first vote to wipe out a central feature of Obamacare since the law's major provisions took effect on Jan. 1. For all its rollout woes and negative press, millions of Americans are benefiting from the law and the consequences of full repeal are no longer theoretical. But the dreaded mandate remains an easy target that's ripe for politicking.

"The Simple Fairness Act will give hardworking Americans a one-year delay of the individual mandate tax to provide relief and protect families from this unworkable law," said Jenkins, the vice chair of the Republican conference.

House Republicans Gear Up For 50th Vote To Dismantle Obamacare

Legislative panel approves special-language amendments to Private Option | Arkansas Blog | Arkansas news, politics, opinion, restaurants, music, movies and art

Well it's official, a Teapug admitted that they are doing everything possible to submarine the ACA,,,

Bell explicitly acknowledged that “without active marketing, you probably get declining enrollment.” That is, for Bell, a feature, not a bug: "We're trying to create a barrier to enrollment." Less enrollment means lower costs, he said. "In general, as a conservative," he said, "if I have the opportunity to reduce government spending in a program from what’s projected … I’m probably going to take that deal."

The other thing to bear in mind: the get here for Bell is not just taking the foot off the accelerator on private option enrollment; he's also continuing to block spending on outreach — and completely eliminating the guides program come July — for the Obamacare Marketplace (the non-private-option pool, above 138 percent of FPL). Technically, almost all of the outreach funding that his amendment would kill was only supposed to be directed at non-private-option consumers above 138 percent of FPL; thus, Bell's amendment would be landing a blow against the enrollment process in Obamacare wholly aside from the private option.

[,,,]
Several Democrats were visibly angry and frustrated, and were aggressively critical of the amendments during the committee hearing. (One asked, "You're saying we should keep our citizens ignorant?" Another asked, "what is next — should we stop the federal government from signing people up for Medicare?"). At least some said they would not vote for the private option with these amendments attached,,,

Legislative panel approves special-language amendments to Private Option | Arkansas Blog | Arkansas news, politics, opinion, restaurants, music, movies and art

How Texas Health Care Failed Israel, A Man With Terminal Cancer Who'd Worked His Whole Life | ThinkProgress

In 2013, Israel began to develop severe headaches. They soon turned into seizures. He went to the emergency room, where the neurologist diagnosed him with depression and sent him home. The seizures stopped for a while, but soon came back with a vengeance.

“Maybe if I did have some type of health insurance, I would’ve been able to afford to get a second opinion,” Israel said. But he was caught in a doughnut hole. The jobs he’d worked didn’t offer insurance and he was too poor to buy it on his own. Last year, his income was $13,334, but that was nearly $10,000 higher than Texas’s cutoff to qualify for Medicaid. So he went without.

After six months he finally went back to the hospital where he was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer. The doctors removed as much as they could, but it was too late to get it all. “So right now they’re just trying to work as far as extending the length of…time that I’ll have,” Israel told ThinkProgress, choking back tears. Doctors estimate Israel has 18 months to live. If he had been able to get a second opinion earlier, “Maybe the tumor would’ve been smaller, might have been able to treat it better,” his sister, Miriam Mora, added.

[,,,]
A new organization, Texas Left Me Out, has been launched in the state to collect stories from some of the 1.5 million Texans who would benefit if Gov. Rick Perry (R) and his legislative allies decided to accept the Medicaid expansion.

How Texas Health Care Failed Israel, A Man With Terminal Cancer Who'd Worked His Whole Life | ThinkProgress

Is Target right to send its part-timers to Obamacare? Probably. - latimes.com

Not exactly. As Trader Joe's did in September when it took a similar step, Target is suggesting that most of the affected workers will do better under the exchange system than they were with company-sponsored insurance. Target is probably right.

We say "probably" because the Minneapolis retail giant refused our request for data that would help nail down the pluses and minuses. We asked for the average wage of part-time employees affected by the change in policy; the number of part-timers; their average hours per week; and the benefits and premiums they were eligible for up to now. (The new policy takes effect April 1.) Target said none of that information is public.

Target also said workers averaging more than 32 hours a week would remain eligible for its company-sponsored health plan. That's curious, because the ACA requires big employers to provide coverage for full-time employees, who are defined as those working 30 hours a week or more. Target refused to clarify the discrepancy, though it's proper to note that the employer mandate doesn't kick in until next year.

[,,,]
What's happening under the surface, of course, is that these companies are shifting some of their own employee benefit costs to the taxpayers, who are providing the applicable subsidies.

But that's not a bug in the Affordable Care Act; it's a feature. Its goal was to get more people covered, in part by spreading the cost society-wide. And that's what's likely to happen. The cost of employee healthcare for part-time workers was on the long road to unaffordability long before enactment of the law.

[,,,]
The missing piece of the puzzle, still, is what the companies do with the money they save. If they use at least some of it to pay their workers better, that's a net gain for everyone. If they merely shovel it out to top management and shareholders, then they've gotten something for nothing, and acted shamefully.

Is Target right to send its part-timers to Obamacare? Probably. - latimes.com

Mitch McConnell to Dems: Kill Obamacare if you want unemployment benefits | The Raw Story

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) on Tuesday moved to hold long-term unemployment insurance benefits hostage in an effort to delay President Barack Obama’s health care reform law.

As the Senate was set to vote on breaking a Republican filibuster and extend the benefits that had been cut off last month, McConnell came to the Senate floor on Tuesday with a proposal that Democrats delay the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate for one year.

“I’m sure that many on my side who would like to see these additional weeks of benefits extended, if like the Speaker of the House indicated he supported we could find a way to extend them without actually adding to the national debt,” the minority leader opined. “So to that end, I’d like to propose that we be allowed — my side be allowed to offer an amendment to pay for these benefits by lifting the burden of Obamacare’s individual mandate for one year and take care of our veterans who were harmed by the recently agreed to budget deal while we are at it in the same amendment.”

Mitch McConnell to Dems: Kill Obamacare if you want unemployment benefits | The Raw Story

'Political Stunt': Republicans Battle Over Denying Health Care Subsidies To Staff

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) issued a scathing statement on Monday criticizing Sen. Ron Johnson, a fellow Wisconsin Republican, over his lawsuit to block health care subsidies for congressional lawmakers and staff under Obamacare.

He slammed it as a "political stunt" and "frivolous" lawsuit that would, if successful, result in a brain drain of congressional staff from Capitol Hill.

"Senator Johnson's lawsuit is an unfortunate political stunt," the congressman said. "I am committed to repealing Obamacare, but the employer contribution he’s attacking is nothing more than a standard benefit that most private and all federal employees receive -- including the President. Success in the suit will mean that Congress will lose some of its best staff and will be staffed primarily by recent college graduates who are still on their parents’ insurance. This will make it even more difficult to fight the President and his older, more experienced staff."

Johnson announced its lawsuit in a Wall Street Journal op-ed and a press conference Monday, flanked by former U.S. solicitor general Paul Clement and lead attorney Rick Esenberg. He is seeking to invalidate a ruling by the Office of Personnel Management, which interpreted an ambiguity in the statute to say members of Congress and staff who are required to buy insurance on the Obamacare exchanges are entitled to an employer contribution.


'Political Stunt': Republicans Battle Over Denying Health Care Subsidies To Staff

Barry Lynn talks Hobby Lobby on Point of Inquiry (Pt 15)

Q::Do you feel that Hobby Lobby has a larger agenda against Obamacare as a whole?  That his "religious freedom" is being used as a bit of a fig leaf for hostility to corporations having to participate in insurance in general?

I think that Hobby Lobby (I can’t speak for Hobby Lobby’s entire agenda or lower agenda), but I wouldn’t doubt that it’s there, but I’m not sure about that.

What I am sure about is that the United States Catholic Conference supports their view.  Most of the Religious Right supports their view.  They do have a a not so hidden agenda and that hidden agenda (or not so hidden agenda) is, “WE want to be able to exempt ourselves from any laws that we don’t like; that we find “religiously’ objectionable.”

So that’s why when some of my friends talk about this as if it’s “merely” about contraception, I have to correct them.  I say it’s about EXEMPTION by companies from the laws that apply to the rest of us, the imposed costs or burdens, or doing something which people may find objectionable.

There’s no question that the Religious Right hates the whole ACA.  They don’t just only hate the revision of it, they have always hated it.  They have always hated this President even before he got it passed.  So when you start with that premise, you know this is one of the weapons they want to use to try to tear the statute apart.  Having failed to do the thing they had hoped to do earlier, that is two years ago, to dismember the ACA by claiming that a personal mandate (individual mandate) was unconstitutional.  In that case they lost the Chief Justice [John Roberts] and that’s why we have the ACA going into effect; albeit slowly and tripping along the way.  But it is going into effect on January 1st.

[Edited for clarity]
So they take the law, nitpick at one section of it, and to achieve what they hope is another ding into the creditability of the ACA.  As I said earlier in a broader sense they will go after other laws they wish to be exempted from following.

Barry Lynn talks Hobby Lobby on Point of Inquiry (Pt 3)

Q::Companies are legal fictions in that they are not natural persons, like humans.  It is a convention as to which rights they have and which rights they don't relative to person-hood.  What is the legal argument for why a company should have the tight to speech but not a right to vote?

In his response Lynn highlight a very important point:  ",,,we allow people in business to set up a corporation for the purpose of getting certain legal rights and avoiding certain legal responsibilities." 

Lynn explains this by use of a slip and fall lawsuit.  In general, if you are set up as a company and your company is sued, it is not the individual owner(s) as such that are being sued but the company (corporation) they set themselves up as to protect themselves.  [In other words direct personal responsibility is removed from the mix.]

Lynn continues, "Now when it becomes convenient for those same people who set up a corporation (for their benefit) to now all the sudden want to talk about their INDIVIDUAL rights as the guy who runs the company; they really want to have it both ways."

Basically what Lynn is saying, they want corporate protections (when convenient for them) and to be able to use those protection to cover their individual asses (ie bankruptcy).  But when things don't quite go the way they want, on a individual basis, they want to throw the title of corporation out the window.  Eat cake much?

Lynn does submit that corporation do have some free-speech right; the right to advertise for example.  But when it comes to exercising religious activity not so much.

Q::How does the Religious Freedom Restoration Act figure into all this?

[Lynn's response did not seem very clear to me so I will be paraphrasing and clarifying were possible.]

The RFRA (1993), which is supported by a large number of groups including the ACLU, was brought into effect for the purpose of protecting religious INDIVIDUALS and ORGANIZATIONS against government interference with the practice of their faith.

The example Lynn used is as follows: You are a male, Muslim, (city paid) firefighter who wants to grow a beard. [For clarity, Muhammad wanted his Muslims to look different from infidel Christians and Jews, he ordered them to trim closely the mustache and grow the beard.  The beard is a dictate of religious adherence.]  The (city) fire department you are employed by has a "no facial hair" policy.  Under the RFRA you can bring a lawsuit if that law (or other "governmental" action) substantially burdens your religious practices.  It is then up to the government to demonstrate that its actions served a compelling interest and that there were no less restrictive ways to accomplish its goals.

Lynn continues by pointing out that during the years that the RFRA was being discussed no one ever thought that the RFRA applied to FOR PROFIT companies.  What this law implies is that "churches could make some decisions on their own, church autonomy, like where to put an alter in a building.  The government can't come in and say, 'put it on the right side' if you want it on the left side.  It is this kind of very modest protections for the right of people to worship as they choose.  That is what this statute is all about."

"There is not a shred of legislative history that suggests that this was for Hobby Lobby, for the Mennonite furniture company or for other groups of people who are out there agitating for why they should be exempted from the ACA's provision of insurance coverage of contraception for women employees."

"Some of these companies are huge.  Hobby Lobby employs thousands of women around the US and they will be dictators of the CONSCIENCE RIGHTS of these employees if they prevail with the SCOTUS."

Barry Lynn talks Hobby Lobby on Point of Inquiry (Pt 2)

Opening comments dealt with the overall implication for the separation of church/state (SOCAS), medical freedom, and peoples freedom to make their own medical decisions.

Lynn states that the primary concern is contraceptive coverage under the ACA; but the agenda of the Religious Right is the right to opt out of ANY federal or state law(s) they do not like because of actual or alleged violation of THEIR religious principles.

Q::So if Hobby Lobby (HL) prevails, would that open the door for a Jehovah Witness owned company to not have to insure blood transfusions, or a Christian Scientist owned company to not insure anything at all in terms of health care?

Lynn agrees that could be a possibility also pointing out that it could also affect Pharma companies. Consider the gelatin used to make tablets, it comes from pork or beef products, which makes them unusable based on the belief systems of many Muslims.

Lynn then poses a "rhetorical" question of sorts: If you can be exempt from an insurance law that is supposed to bring medical care to everyone, why not just ask to be exempt (as some of these groups have) from pay equity statutes, from civil rights laws (effecting lesbian and gay Americans)? There is no stopping this once you go down this slope of exemptions based on religious claims for FOR PROFIT COMPANIES.

Following the "for profit companies" line of thought,,,

Q::That's really the issue isn't it, that these are for profit, large employers? Actual religious organizations that employ people already have an exemption under the ACA, correct?

In his response, Lynn draws a comparison to the Citizens United (CU) case in which corporations, though fictional entities, were given broad free speech rights. "If you don't like free speech rights for companies, you certainly don't like a 'conscience coverage' for those same companies."

"What these folks really want is to create a kind of fictional CORPORATE CONSCIENCE. The next time I see (in the case of Hobby Lobby) a DIY gnome sitting next to me in a pew in church; or the next time I sit on a piece of wooden furniture (made by a Mennonite company) and it starts praying with me, then I'll say 'maybe it does have a conscience.

Barry Lynn talks Hobby Lobby on Point of Inquiry (Pt1)

On December 9th, Lindsay Beyerstein of Point of Inquiry engaged in a conversation with Barry Lynn, Executive Director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. The topic of conversation was the Hobby Lobby case that is currently being looked at by the SCOTUS. Lynn explains how Hobby Lobby's court challenge of the birth control proviso in Obamacare could open the door for Jehovah's Witness-owned companies to refuse to cover blood transfusions, or for Christian Scientist-owned companies to refuse to cover any medical care.

For the past few days I have been picking away at the interview.  Writing up a sort of transcript and filling in some gaps that some may not be aware of.  I am about half way through the 30 minute interview, and will be publishing information in multiple posts.
__________

A few items for clarification purposes: This case is also linked to/with: Autocam Corp. v. Sebelius AND Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius.

Autocam is Catholic owned, Conestoga is Mennonite owned. Both "lost" in their challenge in regards to Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) which prohibits the government from substantially burdening a PERSON'S exercise of religion. (Think Citizens United, corporations are people). The 6th and 3rd Circuit courts ruled that a for-profit company does not qualify as a “person” under RFRA and therefore cannot use it to challenge the HHS mandate. This contrasts with Hobby Lobby in which the 10th Circuit ruled in Hobby Lobby Stores v. Sebelius that for-profit businesses are protected by RFRA.

Prior to listening to this interview, a few conversations amongst friends came up in regards to some of the issues involved.  Robert Baty in a guest column featured on Forbes discusses "how the thinking behind the desire for conscience exceptions to Obamacare provisions compares to that behind the clergy housing allowance." In the article Baty connects some interesting dots and sums up his thoughts as follows:

Another possible analogy also comes to mind that might be worthy of notice; some of most vocal apologists for doing little or nothing with reference to the income tax free ministerial housing allowance might look and sound like some of the most vocal apologists for expanding the health care exemption to any organization, business or individual who utters the magic words “religious conscience”.

As we will see this "conscience exceptions" or "religious conscience" idea  is an issue that Lynn hammers homes in the interview using the term "corporate conscience:"

a business owner's claim that their consciences prevents them from, in this case, providing insurance coverage for their employees knowing that some of them will use the coverage to get birth control pills. 

This conscience claim would primarily be in regards to Autocam as it is a Catholic tenet/doctrinal issue based on Pope Paul VI Humane Vitae of 1968. But since most American Catholics have ignored this "mandate" I'm am unsure as to what influence this would have. Although there are 5 Catholic judges sitting on the SCOTUS. One must also take into consideration the "false" beliefs/claims that birth control pills are abortifactants.

[For disclosure, Robert Baty and I are "friends" on Facebook and discuss various issues.  His articles are included  because they are relevant to the issue at hand.]

A second issue that came to mind in discussions prior to publication of the interview:  Would it be wrong to call Hobby Lobby (ownership as well as corporate entity) a bit hypocritical in their stance considering a majority of their product (I have read as high as 98% of said product) comes from China where pregnancy termination is State sanctioned? Estimates of 300+ million abortions over the course of the past 20 years, but yet they are bitching about contraception!  A point echoed by a recent comment attached to the interview:

The most obvious line of questioning that should emerge in challenging the Hobby Lobby religious exemption should start with their purchase of goods for resale from China, an officially atheist state that can enforce its one child policy with abortion. With well over 90% of its resale goods imported from China - thus allowing the company to make significant enough profit to expand into the large corporation that it is - where is the fidelity to this religious tenet that they claim for an exemption to pay for certain types of contraception?

And finally, one very important point to keep in mind when considering this case (Hobby Lobby), only FOR PROFIT corporations are affected. Lynn makes a very important point concerning this early on the interview.

Special Investigation: How Insurers Are Hiding Obamacare Benefits From Customers

Moral of this story "Don't just take what your insurance company says, make sure you shop around. You have the right to buy any plan inside the new exchange or in the outside market,,," Use your heads people, if your insurance company tells you "buy now" go look it up for yourself. When you shop for a car do you buy the first one you see, or do you shop around for the best price, the best fit for your money? No! When buying a house (or renting for that matter), do you plop a deposit down when you walk through the front door the first time? No!

Across the country, insurance companies have sent misleading letters to consumers, trying to lock them into the companies' own, sometimes more expensive health insurance plans rather than let them shop for insurance and tax credits on the Obamacare marketplaces -- which could lead to people like Donna spending thousands more for insurance than the law intended. In some cases, mentions of the marketplace in those letters are relegated to a mere footnote, which can be easily overlooked.

The extreme lengths to which some insurance companies are going to hold on to existing customers at higher price, as the Affordable Care Act fundamentally re-orders the individual insurance market, has caught the attention of state insurance regulators.

The insurance companies argue that it's simply capitalism at work. But regulators don't see it that way. By warning customers that their health insurance plans are being canceled as a result of Obamacare and urging them to secure new insurance plans before the Obamacare launched on Oct. 1, these insurers put their customers at risk of enrolling in plans that were not as good or as affordable as what they could buy on the marketplaces.

[,,,]

After receiving the letter, which you can read here, some customers were badgered through phone calls to make a decision, Clark said. Of the 6,500 people who received a letter, 2,200 actually responded and gave the company their answer before they had a chance to look at what the Kentucky marketplace had to offer.

But Clark's office soon stepped in. They fined Humana $65,000 for the "misleading" information, and the 2,200 respondents were released from their obligation to Humana and freed to shop for insurance through the Obamacare marketplace starting Oct. 1.

The most troubling part of the Humana case is that the company was pushing customers into a Humana insurance plan that was more expensive than the plan Humana was selling on the Obamacare marketplace, without the financial help available under Obamcare.

Special Investigation: How Insurers Are Hiding Obamacare Benefits From Customers

Are you ready for round two?

All the while "he" made $900,000 while costing the US $24,000,000,0000,,,

“I would do anything, and I will continue to do anything I can to stop the train wreck that is Obamacare."




The Tea Party and Ted Cruz Getting Ready for ‘Shutdown: The Sequel’

Again, I have to ask: if Obamacare is a trainwreck with an approval of 38 percent, what kind of wreck is the tea party with an approval of 21 percent? The interview continued:

KARL: So you might do it?

CRUZ: What I intend to do is continue to stand with American people to stop Obamacare.

[,,,]
It’s difficult to fully encapsulate in words the dangerous repercussions of the whimsical, nihilistic behavior of this faction. American politics and government hinges upon a basic respect for certain unwritten rules and traditions. The tea party, as we’ve witnessed for years and most prominently this month, is actively engaged in a contemptuous effort to rewrite those rules. We’ve witnessed signs of this trend early on when yokels like Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) shouted “You lie!” at the president during a prime time joint session address. We’ve seen it when tea party members of Congress embraced Birthers and endorsed wild conspiracy theories. And since 2011, the brinksmanship with the debt ceiling has allowed a small, fringe congressional minority to not only have a staggeringly loud voice but also to be granted latitude to shove the entire economy to the edge of disaster in the name of its pet peeves and political action committees.

62 percent of House Republicans oppose deal - Ginger Gibson - POLITICO.com

Two things that are apparent:

1] The 144 Republicans who opposed re-opening the government need to be "removed" from office whether by charges of sedition, recall vote, or the standard election process

2] The so-called Hastert Rule, needs to go. It is a bully rule, a "majority of the majority" dictate. Although I give Boehner credit as he has bypassed the Hastert Rule 4 times. My contempt to this "rule" is that it leads to a breakdown of the legislative process under the false assumption that it is something official when in fact it is an artificial concept.

Not a single House Democrat voted against the plan to reopen the government and extend the debt ceiling, a stark contrast to the 144 Republicans who opposed the bill despite urging from their leadership.

A full 62 percent of House Republicans voted against the deal — a clear violation of the so-called “Hastert rule,” which mandates a majority of the Republican Conference support any bill that hits the floor.

But House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) delivered 198 Democrats to back the bill, joining 87 Republicans.

62 percent of House Republicans oppose deal - Ginger Gibson - POLITICO.com