Hobby Lobby To Deny Contraception To Employees, Ignoring Court Order
12:11 pm - 12/29/2012
Craft store chain Hobby Lobby announced on Friday that it will ignore the ruling of U.S. courts and refuse to provide copay-free birth control access to its employees. It will do so despite whatever costs it may incur, even if they are higher than the cost of birth control itself.
Upon learning that Obamacare required employers and insurance companies to provide birth control with no cost to employees, Hobby Lobby sued, saying that, despite the secular nature of the business, the company’s owner’s religious objections should be taken into consideration. When a court denied that line of reasoning, Hobby Lobby took its grievances to the Supreme Court and asked for an injunction. The highest court in the land denied that request, telling Hobby Lobby that it must allow its employees access to birth control as it seeks further litigation.
But Hobby Lobby is saying no.
The store plans to ignore the provision anyway, opting to pay a fine instead of provide birth control, including the morning after pill commonly known as Plan B, which the owner feels goes against his personal religious values:
With Wednesday’s rejection of an emergency stay of that federal health care law by Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Hobby Lobby and sister company Mardel could be subject to fines of up to $1.3 million a day beginning Tuesday.
“They’re not going to comply with the mandate,” said Kyle Duncan, general counsel of The Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing the company. “They’re not going to offer coverage for abortion-inducing drugs in the insurance plan.”
As for the potential fines, Duncan said, “We’re just going to have to cross that bridge when we come to it.”
This ignores two obvious points — first, that Plan B is not an ‘abortion-inducing’ drug, as Hobby Lobby claims, and second, that the company may well end up paying more to avoid covering contraception than they would simply providing access. It also takes a twisted view on the ‘Freedom of Religion’ argument; the company is actually forcing its owner’s religious beliefs on all employees, no matter their personal religious views.
source
Upon learning that Obamacare required employers and insurance companies to provide birth control with no cost to employees, Hobby Lobby sued, saying that, despite the secular nature of the business, the company’s owner’s religious objections should be taken into consideration. When a court denied that line of reasoning, Hobby Lobby took its grievances to the Supreme Court and asked for an injunction. The highest court in the land denied that request, telling Hobby Lobby that it must allow its employees access to birth control as it seeks further litigation.
But Hobby Lobby is saying no.
The store plans to ignore the provision anyway, opting to pay a fine instead of provide birth control, including the morning after pill commonly known as Plan B, which the owner feels goes against his personal religious values:
With Wednesday’s rejection of an emergency stay of that federal health care law by Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Hobby Lobby and sister company Mardel could be subject to fines of up to $1.3 million a day beginning Tuesday.
“They’re not going to comply with the mandate,” said Kyle Duncan, general counsel of The Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing the company. “They’re not going to offer coverage for abortion-inducing drugs in the insurance plan.”
As for the potential fines, Duncan said, “We’re just going to have to cross that bridge when we come to it.”
This ignores two obvious points — first, that Plan B is not an ‘abortion-inducing’ drug, as Hobby Lobby claims, and second, that the company may well end up paying more to avoid covering contraception than they would simply providing access. It also takes a twisted view on the ‘Freedom of Religion’ argument; the company is actually forcing its owner’s religious beliefs on all employees, no matter their personal religious views.
source
I hope they start circling the drain in short order. I don't know that there's a company that could stand a siphon of over $365 million dollars a year and still keep the lights on. I'm going to be curious to see how long their "moral principles" will hold out once it becomes clear that this move is going to chuck their company into the dustbin. Not to mention seeing how far they get once they can no longer afford to pay their lawyers.
But fuck I'd love to walk into one of their stores at be all "SEE YA FUCKERS YOU'RE ON YOUR WAY OUT"
Of course this also solidifies my feelings that we need to drop "birth control" as the common name. "Period Regulator" or "Rag Stopper" "Ovulation Inhibitor" - anything but "birth control" because stupid folks like this just automatically see the BIRTH part and just assume it to be ABORTION.
That said, there should be NOTHING WRONG with medication to regulate your own reproductive system. I hate the idea of throwing the issue of sexual agency under the bus to negotiate with controlling assholes and convince them to stop fighting against access to basic medical services.
Your ~religious values~ are shitty and misogynistic. Claiming they come from your religion does not eradicate this fact. Dick.
Edited at 2012-12-29 06:06 pm (UTC)
But just because the company was started by a religious person doesn't mean that everyone employed by them should be held to the same standard or religious expectations. That's forcing their religious beliefs on others, just like the article said. I hope this bankrupts them or they're forced to give in. Contraception is a valid medical treatment and should be treated that way.
Birth Controls for a test run...)
Just waiting now for a company to outright say it won't hire women to get around the birth control issue... unlikely because of the problems it would cause, but someone outright admitting to misogyny would be refreshing.
Part of me wishes I lived on the side of town with two independent yarn stores, but part of me is really glad (namely, the pocketbook part - all those pretty, expensive, yarns just begging to be made into something).
So they had been providing it. ACA tells them they have to cover it. They remove that coverage and file with the Supreme Court about how its unfair they have to cover it.
PDF of Supreme Court case: scroll down to page 14 to see the relevant info
There's some laws I don't necessarily agree with, but I have to follow them, just like everyone else. (I also hear everyday people complaining about their disagreement about the emission law for my state and how I'm a government worker who is stealing their hard earned money). *Rolls eyes* Of course Head of Ecology didn't make it easier for us.
Ok sorry got OT /csb
And if not, holy shit. I've heard of a bunch of companies that hate women and/or Obama, but I've never heard of a company that hates them more than they love money. This is some crazy nose-cutting shit right here.
Idiots.