Burwell v. Hobby Lobby: God Wins, Humanist Socialism Loses

Subject: The U.S. Supreme Court Dismisses Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, Ruling in Favor of the Establishment Clause and the Wall of Separation

Section I: Preface and Prelude to the Topic

With so many scandals seemingly revealed daily or sometimes hourly, I find it very difficult to address each one, and I have yet discussed in any detail what exactly is occurring now that the ISIS claims to have established its fledgling new caliphate by toppling Iraq and Syria, if reports are indeed correct. With this taxonomy of religious institutional coercion in the Islamic world and the continuity of the Arab Spring apparently accelerating faster and more perniciously than ever before since 2010, the fact President Obama still insists upon selectively recognizing the rights to some faiths - again, Islam domestically, where now hundreds of Muslims are travelling over to the Persian Gulf to fight for ISIS and other militants are crossing the Rio Grande undetected and championed by Nancy Pelosi personally visiting the border - while Christians and the national Jewry are being denied their rights to largely exist as they have for millennia in practicing their faith and endeavoring in charitable works. 

I read once that the private sector has receded under the Obama presidency by some 40%, and this was likely one year ago when I first launched this blog. This is part of his plan to nationalize as much of the U.S. economy as possible until one day after gradual hostile government takeovers have amassed a burial mound from what used to be an anthill, we will be working for Uncle Sam and paying him to do so. There have been discussions of banning corporate and small business profits, and despite Walmart's recent reply over disparaging government remarks over gun control and other issues, the Waltons supported the Brady Crime Bill in 1993 and are rather duplicitous in terms of enforcing open and concealed carriage of firearms while Walmart actually sells very cheap rifles, corporate America, like the rest of our nation, is also dying, if not by how the Obama government purchased General Motors and turned a $12 million loss in revenue and now the company just recalled more than eight million vehicles - more already than all vehicles purchase over the past so many years individually - he will do so via draconian regulations were compulsory hirings, medical coverages and what he insists is a nationally-mandated increase of the minimum wage from $7.15 per hour to likely about $15 and therefore, render a full economic collapse the likes of which neither the Great Depression nor stagflation era economies could ever compare in severity or totality.

United States Supreme Court Justices, 2014; Left to Right: Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor, Antonin Scalia, Stephen Breyer, Chief Justice John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg

On Monday June 30, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, which was another test of how far religious liberty can be extended within the private sector of the economy. As with public schools, socialists on the Far Left demand to destroy all vestiges of faith in America; this has almost been achieved in Europe, but will end once radical Islam completes the transformation of each state from ones recognizing a sovereign church to ones governed under Sharia law. As today there is a case involving a pharmacist once employed by Walgreen's who was terminated for his refusal to sell Plan B to a customer while in Britain in Middle Tennessee in Jamestown, Subway was forced to change their menu to providing only halal meat while stripping it of all others, we are as a world in more danger today than ever before in our history, including the evils of fascism and communism. If a conflict such as the one involving the ISIS entails an opponent driven to genocide in accordance to its faith to act, that is far deadlier than one where an aggressor does the same through enforced secularism.

In expressing their deepest gratitude to their supporters and customers, the Greens issued the following recorded statement:

As one might surmise, the High Court's ruling infuriated all on the Far Left, including its two major public proponents in President Obama and the lady Rush Limbaugh called a "whore" over his programming, Sandra Fluke. For Ms. Fluke, who testified before a House committee that she paid approximately $1,000 per month while in law school at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. and yet is married to a wealthy socialist "sugardaddy" in Adam Mutterperl while she demands her choice to engage in promiscuous sexual practices sans even protection be subsidized by tax dollars from civilians who have no need for them or choose to behave responsibly. In an unintelligible twist of irony, it appears today that the radical feminists on the socialist Far Left are vociferous in their demanding to be subsidized essentially to have promiscuous sex and are as usual hypocritical to the point where the Gloria Steinem-led feminist movement initiated during the 1960s has evolved past greater access to well-paying jobs through right to work laws or equal opportunity statutes and pay scale equity to their male counterparts, but now are demanding that their private lives comprised of not working and serving as incubators for fetus' either to be delivered or aborted. They want to be fully subsidized to be housewives, a phenomenon long since passed - or so we thought - as films like Nine to Five served as an expose on workplace sexism. Not coincidentally, one of the headlined actresses in that film was none other than Jane Fonda, better known to all as Hanoi Jane for her pledge of support through a photo opportunity in North Vietnam with the Viet Cong troops which drew the ire and wrath of majority of the American public stateside.

President Obama, who has essentially rendered Congress as an impotent legislative body of wasted taxpayer-funded politicians who within the GOP are about as spineless as one can be, pledged he would find a way to subvert the will of the High Court.

Andrew Jackson, President of the United States, 1829-1837

John Marshall, Chief Justice of the United State Supreme Court, 1800-1835

Recall that in a misattributed quote by President Andrew Jackson in 1832 following an unfavorable ruling by Chief Justice John Marshall in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia where he is thought to have stated or at least in a different phrasing, and quote:

"John Marshall has had his say. Now let him enforce it!"

The Miller Institute at the University of Virginia, which has conducted thorough studies of each president, referred to Old Hickory as the closest president to a Caesar the nation has ever known. I do believe, in hindsight, that two presidents - Franklin D. Roosevelt and now Barack Obama - have easily stolen that infamous title over the 177 years since the Age of Jackson. And while Jackson was the most active president to ever occupy the office to that time, he was fiscally what today would be considered conservative, as he is to date the only president ever to have completely balanced the budget, and in winning the battle of wills and political clout, stood toe-to-toe with legendary South Carolina politician and vice president John C. Calhoun in ending the Nullification Crisis, thus averting a movement by the South towards succession nearly 30 years before South Carolina did so in December 1860. If President Jackson was capable of ignoring Chief Justice Marshall's ruling with little to no political consequences incurred, what may we expect in the future from President Obama, who has now proven complicit at the creation of the new caliphate through funding the ISIS in Syria and now refusing to engage in further activity other than sending token advisers and our version of the U.S. military's 300 which stand as much a chance at surviving an attack of thousands of the al Qaeda-originated forces at the embassy in Baghdad. In effect, coupled with the tacit provisions for a new period of Taliban and al Qaeda sovereignty in Afghanistan by swapping five of the highest-ranked Taliban officials for one army derelict in Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, whose father is engaged in subversive activities to topple the government in Kabul according to the tweets I have in possession. With Obama's setting up nations as far south as northern South America to send the refugees to our borders to immigrate and go virtually undetected as to their intention, much less a presence, or what crimes or affiliations in which they are associated except for those apprehended particularly in Texas under the directive of Gov. Rick Perry, who reported that Syrian civilians were apprehended and interrogated alongside drug lords from Mexico, we today have never known a greater threat to national security simply at our borders than what we now are seeing on the news daily, especially now that the Mexican military is crossing over into our sovereign land attacking border patrols while no action by the president has been taken to send even national guard forces to defend our own homeland. This in theory is what I would have initially associated as the purpose for the Department of Homeland Security upon its establishment in 2001 at the directive of George W. Bush; the Cabinet position instead serves as nothing more than the federal government's very Americanized Gestapo and Nazi SS service to apprehend or target enemies of the president.

The Case: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, as Decided on June 30, 2014

I finally am segueing into the true purpose of this article, which is the ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby's refusal to pay for Plan B or other "morning-after" contraceptives post-insemination. This charge was spearheaded in 2012 again by then-Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke, in which I will provide the video of her testimony:

We know of course how Rush Limbaugh reacted and the hostility displayed by Ms. Fluke and Nancy Pelosi in response. Around that time, the Hobby Lobby controversy emerged on the national stage, in which the corporation faced a $475 million annual fine for none compliance. The Green family, who own the chain of Christian-based craft stores, were very willing to close shop to stay true to their faith. And a mere matter of hours following the High Court's ruling to dismiss the case, social media exploded with socialists of all walks of life protesting the decision. Below will be some examples of tweets, including those from Ms. Fluke herself:

Now, Julie and I do not always agree in principle upon some issues; in fact, I am fairly certain I alienated her over my comments over the past year that hardline libertarians believe in no order other than vacuum of anarchy as I cited numerous times Murray Rothbard, an Austrian economist and noted libertarian thinker who was the primary mastermind behind anarcho-capitalism, which entails the total abolition of the state in favor of absolute liberty based upon a capitalist model as opposed to a communist one since despite my regular replies, she has yet to write me a response to any length at all. As you see, more information is available courtesy of Princeton University for further consumption. She and I, however, do concur over maximizing liberty as much as possible so long as within my ideal construct the state serves as the arbiter in protecting life, liberty and property per John Locke's writings within his Second Treatise of Civil Government . The difference for those within the conservative and classical liberal/libertarian views as opposed to those of socialists and communists is the matters for interpretation. For those of the former persuasions (hopefully most of my readers), life, liberty and property are matters for the individual to reconcile; they should not be infringed upon by the state. With regards to the life portion, that in and of itself is the most fundamental natural right, and in the state of Nature, not all are guaranteed to even be born. For an expectant mother to determine that her own promiscuity is so precious to her as to decide to simply abort a fertilized ovum is the utmost epitome of humanity's abomination on Earth; that rather than permit God or the Creator to determine the life cycle of each individual, these women choose for them, not the other way around, by justifying that upon insemination, the ovum is not a living being, nor anything else other than a fetus. As with those of faith who never feel the necessity to justify why they are God-fearing nor if He actually exists, those of the humanist persuasion, or atheism, must rely upon science to explain why there is not, and how now that many are accepting the concept of a supreme being as not one of divinity officially, but of intelligent design, the denial and necessity of further finite measures to explain what is infinite and undefinable simply perpetuates in how once a secular state is formed, the government's head tends to adopt a cult of leadership, or a demagogical or god-like megalomania that ultimately will lead to the destruction of such a totalitarian nation as humanity is fallible while God or whatever a legitimate faith's choice of divinity may be pervasive in such a society as the basis for infrastructural morality and the rule of law is permanent, based upon a concrete foundation free of a finite, fallible presence's fickle nature, and will remain for all time the bedrock in principle, only to change as mankind learns more about such faith's teachings to apply it further into practice. Even Islamic states under Sharia law have achieved this, which is why the Islamic Republic of Iraq - Levant has successful declared the establishment of a new caliphate in Iraq and Syria as both Glenn Beck and myself predicted one year ago. I will provide for you the links to each article, both addressing the same issues, but the first was written in sheer terror by me as I uncovered details rather sensitive in detail regarding President Obama's links to the Shiite teachings of the Mahdi, or the Twelfth Imam, which will usher into affect the end of days. It should be noted that for lack of coincidence and for giggles and grins, Nostradamus insinuated in his typical anagram encryptions the third antichrist would come to rule over the Middle East and Persian Gulf region.

Akin to what at least two homosexual men stated in interviews who oppose same-sex marriage, the radical feminists are intent upon ushering onto the American stream of consciousness its own variety of totalitarianism based upon matriarchal governance in defiance to the historically patriarchal domination through human history. The rallying cry will always be in the immortal term coined by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) as fighting the war on women, and all in which would defy women not just absolute equity to men in every facet of present society, but the domination of men. Some of this has already been realized; for example, Florida recently passed legislation permitting the state to sterilize men convicted of rape and child molestation. Women have never faced such a punishment befitting of a similar crime, and the double standards set by the socialist Far Left continue to proliferate ad nauseum, with no end in sight.

Feminism should be considered a matter of choice for each individual woman, but the radical feminists on the socialist Far Left have defined the standards by which the nation's most powerful collective of spokeswomen and Democratic Party leaders enforce regardless of individual preference. In the next tweet by a very disgruntled, vile woman, it is indescribable just how intense their desires to dominate the sexual revolution to the point of totalitarianism the radical feminist movement is and continues to metastasize as if a cancer of conscience:

And from this woman:

And the dark horse in the 2016 Democratic Party race for the Presidential nomination and one of the most extreme socialists in either house of Congress:

And now for the support group cast:

How vile Ms. Valenti is, so extraordinarily sarcastic in her rhetoric is "recoveringhipster", and how I would pay good money to see how they justify solicitation of what would be tantamount to prostitution since they would consider throwing their bodies at any man meandering in the vicinity either free, cash or charge! Considering that she demands her right to choose, she seems to be completely oblivious to how she is not supporting the right for herself to choose, but rather to be told how much money or how often she may procure through the Affordable Care Act (ACA; or Obamacare) such supplies. I seriously doubt that she cares because this is not the true intention for Sandra Fluke or the Democratic Party, especially the president, to achieve. They have launched already a full-scale media blitz in both Forbes and Mother Jones attempting to expose a perceived hypocrisy within the Christian corporate policies of Hobby Lobby's insurance and benefits packages. For my purposes, I will simply post the Forbes article profiling the Mother Jones report by the left-wing columnist Rick Ungar from yesterday, Monday June 30, 2014:

Hobby Lobby Invested In Numerous Abortion And Contraception Products While Claiming Religious Objection

Comment Now Follow Comments 

In what just may be the most stunning example of hypocrisy in my lifetime, Mother Jones has uncovered numerous investments on the part of Hobby Lobby’s retirement fund in a wide variety of companies producing abortion and contraception related products.

Hobby Lobby is currently seeking relief from certain contraception benefit requirements of Obamacare in a United States Supreme Court case that promises to be a landmark decision on the rights of corporations and the extension of personal religious protections to corporate entities. In the case of the Hobby Lobby corporation, the company is closely held by the Green family who purport to have strong religious objections to certain types of contraceptive devices and are suing to protect those religious rights.

Remarkably, the contraceptive devices and products that so offend the religious beliefs of this family are manufactured by the very companies in which Hobby Lobby holds a substantial stake via their employee 401(k) plan.

As I suspect many readers will find this as hard to believe and digest as I, the data can be confirmed by reviewing the company’s 2012 Annual Report of Employee Benefit Plan as filed with the Department of Labor.

This according to Mother Jones’ Molly Redden:

Documents filed with the Department of Labor and dated December 2012 (see above)—three months after the company’s owners filed their lawsuit—show that the Hobby Lobby 401(k) employee retirement plan held more than $73 million in mutual funds with investments in companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and drugs commonly used in abortions. Hobby Lobby makes large matching contributions to this company-sponsored 401(k).

Hobby Lobby Huber Heights

Hobby Lobby Huber Heights (Photo credit: Nicholas Eckhart)

Redden additionally notes that, in a brief submitted to the Court in support of Hobby Lobby’s position in the case, the company specifically names contraceptive products such as Plan B, Ella, and IUDs as violating their religious beliefs because they work by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in a woman’s uterus.

According to the Green family, interfering with an already fertilized egg is tantamount to abortion—an act unacceptable to the family and one they refuse to participate in no matter what the Affordable Care Act may require.

However, it turns out that the owners of Hobby Lobby do not appear to have any problem with profiting from the companies that manufacture the very products that so grievously offend their religious principles.

The following is a summation of the companies manufacturing these products that are held by the Hobby Lobby employee retirement plan, as set forth by Ms. Redden’s remarkable reporting:

These companies include Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes Plan B and ParaGard, a copper IUD, and Actavis ACT +0.43%, which makes a generic version of Plan B and distributes Ella. Other holdings in the mutual funds selected by Hobby Lobby include Pfizer PFE +1.35%, the maker of Cytotec and Prostin E2, which are used to induce abortions; Bayer , which manufactures the hormonal IUDs Skyla and Mirena; AstraZeneca AZN +0.66%, which has an Indian subsidiary that manufactures Prostodin, Cerviprime, and Partocin, three drugs commonly used in abortions; and Forest Laboratories, which makes Cervidil, a drug used to induce abortions. Several funds in the Hobby Lobby retirement plan also invested in Aetna AET +1.21% and Humana, two health insurance companies that cover surgical abortions, abortion drugs, and emergency contraception in many of the health care policies they sell.

When added up, the nine funds holding the stated investments involve three-quarters of Hobby Lobby’s 401(k) assets.

You may be thinking that it must have been beyond Hobby Lobby’s reasonable abilities to know what companies were being invested in by the mutual  funds purchased for the Hobby Lobby 401(k) plans—but I am afraid you would be wrong.

Not only does Hobby Lobby have an obligation to know what their sponsored 401(k) is investing in for the benefit of their employees, it turns out that there are ample opportunities for the retirement fund to invest in mutual funds that are specifically screened to avoid any religiously offensive products.

To avoid supporting companies that manufacture abortion drugs—or products such as alcohol or pornography—religious investors can turn to a cottage industry of mutual funds that screen out stocks that religious people might consider morally objectionable. The Timothy Plan and the Ave Maria Fund, for example, screen for companies that manufacture abortion drugs, support Planned Parenthood, or engage in embryonic stem cell research.

Apparently, Hobby Lobby was either not aware that these options existed (kind of hard to believe for a company willing to take a case to the Supreme Court over their religious beliefs) or simply didn’t care.

For me, this story will forever be filed under the heading of “no good deed goes unpunished”.

While I have disagreed with Hobby Lobby’s legal position in their case before the Supreme Court on a number of levels, I have gone out of my way—both in print and on radio & television—to advise others not to vilify the Greens as individuals just because you might disagree with their position on contraceptive coverage via the Affordable Care Act. I say this because, from what I had previously been able to learn, these were  decent people who have long taken appropriate care of its employees by paying in excess of minimum wage and providing all employees with healthcare benefits.

But to now discover that these people are seeking to avoid their obligation under the law to provide their employees with a contraceptive benefit at the same time they are allowing their 401(k) to invest in—and profit from—these very products is, in my view, completely unforgivable.

For those wondering if the family is personally participating in the 401(k) program, I have been unable to get anyone at Hobby Lobby to confirm or deny the same. However, it would be highly unlikely that, as officers of the company, the Greens would not be participating in the 401(k) plan as they are employees of the corporation.

While these revelations will likely have no impact on the outcome of the case pending in the Supreme Court, the sheer and stunning hypocrisy of these people will forever stain any finding by the Court in favor of Hobby Lobby—should this come to pass.

While I may not agree with the legal position Hobby Lobby has taken in their lawsuit, I always stand in admiration of those willing to fight for their constitutional rights when they believe they are being taken.

Hobby Lobby is entitled to no such admiration—only contempt. You simply can’t say that you will give your all in defense of your closely held beliefs when it suits you while seeking to make money in violation of those beliefs. You also cannot pretend you were simply negligent in learning what investments you hold if you are going to hold yourself out as an example of righteousness.

By setting this perfectly awful example, Hobby Lobby’s hypocrisy will do little to aid—and much to deter—others willing to stand up for the Bill of Rights in the future. All they have accomplished is to provide more air to the cynicism that already envelops the nation, cynicism that exists precisely because of entities like Hobby Lobby.

Contact Rick at thepolicypage@gmail.com and follow me on Twitter and Facebook.

UPDATE- July 1, 2014:

Because of the renewed interest in this article following yesterday’s SCOTUS decision, and the large volume of comments in response to the same, an update appears in order.

I have to say that, while I am more than accustomed to readers taking a dim view of  articles I post and letting their feelings be known in stark detail via the comments section, the comments to this article have been surprisingly misguided and reflective of the reader missing some key points.

Many have noted that, as a 401 (k) plan, the employees (not the Greens) are responsible for making the choices as to what investments their plan choses to participate in (via choosing among the choices provided) and, therefore, I am unfairly blaming the Greens.

First of all, where do you imagine the 401(k) comes from? Rather than falling from the sky like manna, the program is established and set up by management. And who is management? The Greens.

Once established, many of you point out that the program is run by an outside administrator. You are likely correct. Who do you imagine picks that outside administrator? Management. And who is management? The Greens.

Now, many are quick to point out that it is the outside administrator that chooses the funds that will be included in the 401(k) program. Right again. But who gives the administrator the marching orders and parameters as to what funds are acceptable Management. And who is management? The Greens.

And then many are all too fast to point out that the Greens are not benefitting and profiting from the 401(k) investments in the very products they went to SCOTUS to avoid having to provide based on their religious beliefs. Yo argue that it is the employees- not the Greens- who are benefitting. And yet, the Greens ARE employees and, as such, participate in the 401(k) program! While you seem to only view them as the shareholders of the corporation, you forget that they are also employed by the corporation in the most senior management positions! They are, as much as anyone else drawing a paycheck from Hobby Lobby, employees. thus, if the 401(k) is profiting, then the Greens are profiting. And with 75 percent of the funds included holding investments that would fail the Green’s religious test as stated in their SCOTUS brief, I’ll gladly take the bet from anyone who cares to wager that the Greens are not choosing some of these funds in their 401(k).

Finally, and my admitted favorite, some of you like to point out that these investments in companies that offend the Greens, per their SCOTUS case, are a tiny fraction of the total investment so why am I being so unfair to them? This is no doubt true. However, I never understood that the percentage of ownership would be dispositive of the issue of hypocrisy. If this is the case, then I really don’t understand why you are so upset about the provision of Obamacare that required Hobby Lobby to provide these contraceptive products to their employees via health insurance. Why? Because that provision is but a tiny fraction of the total impact and requirements of Obamacare! By your logic, it is therefore to be dismissed as no big deal.

So, please stop pretending I don’t understand 401(k) plans, mutual funds, or whatever. Please stop pretending that the Greens are not employees benefiting from the 401(k) program. Please stop pretending that they do not have ultimate authority over what investment fund choices are made available to all employees via the 401(k) plan. And please stop pretending that there are not ample funds out there that are earning at the level of the funds included in the Hobby Lobby 401(k) plan that specifically avoid this sort of investment.

And if convincing yourself that holding only small amounts of investments in companies that make and sell products that offend the religious sensibilities of the Greens-or anyone else-works for you when rationalizing this conflict, knock yourself out. But do not expect me to fall for this.

I welcome even the most personal and offensive criticism (obviously, based on what I’m getting) but would it hurt to think it through just a bit before cutting loose?

"In what just may be the most stunning example of hypocrisy in my lifetime..."? Pump that fist high and cry "Power to the people!" for Big Brother! Mr. Ungar's first mistake was quoting Mother Jones for any reason at all; that is a blatant violation of what little journalistic integrity he has in determining Mother Jones is in fact a viable, non-biased news source. That would be tantamount to having Ann Coulter, the wench that she is for her gross stupidity of claiming soccer's growing popularity a sign of the decline of American moral fiber, quote Town Hall or Right Wing News in detailing what occurred in the case since in both cases, it is stated from the beginning that the article is published by a media service with a very specific agenda and will indeed employ tactics such as emotional guilt-tripping as an example to appeal to its readers' sensibilities rather than through simple pure logic or cold, hard information. As a measure of preference, I would select either of the latter two conservative choices or even FreedomWorks, for whom Miss Borowski is a regular political contributor for libertarian analyses. However, I would never refer to any of those sources without also using others considered more mainstream from both the right and left persuasions to ascertain all perspectives in order to formulate my own opinion. Regardless of whether you are of the right-wing or of the left-wing ideological base, one thing is clear: both are prone to manipulating details to fit their agendas. If you do not believe me, consider accessing the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library on YouTube and take note at how his address to the nation about the Iran-Contra scandal is conspicuously missing from its catalogue. 

My response to the Mr. Ungar's very facetious column will be as follows. It was a reply to a dear friend from high school named Brittany with whom we still remain in touch:

Not one article I have read has provided the information for when Hobby Lobby invested the reported $73 million other than regarding the corporation's choice to cut off this practice in 2012. If indeed they started paying for these alleged birth control initiatives beginning in 2009 when the Affordable Care Act was passed, many corporations were already preparing to brave the storm since premiums and deductibles for private insurance skyrocketed and waiting became eerily similar to those within nations with single payer socialized health care systems mired in inefficient recordkeeping and in Britain's case, with 45% of those covered dying before receiving treatment much like our veterans at the VA hospitals who were neglected. Many regulations related to the ACA entered into effect shortly thereafter, corporations and small businesses large and small start laying off workers while also cutting back on hours and nearly all hires, wages were slashed, etc., because these businesses could not afford to pay for the ACA's mandates, which included paid abortions and other varieties of contraceptives. Of course Hobby Lobby initially paid for these services, and if they initiated this policy within their employee health benefits and retirement packages around 2009 or 2010 before full law was to be fully implemented - which as of yet the employee mandate is not since no one actually knows how many people have had access to Healthcare.gov in order to do so nor how many traditional mailed applications have either been received or lost - the mandates in birth control were still the same despite this. And all this commotion by the socialist Far Left is occurring because four particular varieties of birth control and contraceptives - one of which is Plan B - are being chosen by Hobby Lobby the employer to not be covered, but the 16 which the ACA mandates which still must be. Those 16 are as follows, following by the corroborative URL hyperlink:

1. Male condoms

2. Female condoms

3. Diaphragms with spermicide

4. Sponges with spermicide

5. Cervical caps with spermicide

6. Spermicide alone

7. Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin (“Combined Pill)

8. Birth-control pills with progestin alone (“The Mini Pill)

9. Birth control pills (extended/continuous use)

10. Contraceptive patches

11. Contraceptive rings

12. Progestin injections

13. Implantable rods

14. Vasectomies

15. Female sterilization surgeries

16. Female sterilization implants

These are what Hobby Lobby refuse to cover, and by right, it should be the company's choice and not the federal government's, which is a foreign concept for militant radical feminists and of course other groups on the socialist Far Left who accuse the Christian right of the same:

1. Plan B (“The Morning After Pill”)

2. Ella (a similar type of “emergency contraception”)

3. Copper Intra-Uterine Device

4. IUD with progestin

If the legal representation for Hobby Lobby had not provided the fully-detailed evidence of all covered items under its health care plan for which it pays and for which 90% of its employees earn in excess of $14 per hour as the company's minimum pay rate as opposed to the $7.15 it is mandated to provide no less, someone along the U.S. Supreme Court panel would have charged the Green family with perjury most likely and perhaps obstruction, and it likely would have cost the corporation millions more alongside the $475 million it stood to hemorrhage annually for not covering all of what the ACA mandated. 

The fact Hobby Lobby is willing to pay for vasectomies is infuriating misandrous feminists vehemently condemning the U.S. Supreme Court's decision. But in fact, this was a practice most corporations, including ones of faith, had implemented for decades. And since women are provided with the appropriate coverage for sterilization and emergency abortions for compromised pregnancies (ectopic pregnancies, for one) that threaten the laboring mother's life, it is only too convenient how Ms. Fluke nor the Far Left in the media cannot provide a single adequate and detailed response to this practice with anything other than bluster and bellicose tweets with the obligatory hashtagged exclamations on social media. As churches and other faiths opposed to same-sex marriages are now being coerced into performing these ceremonies under threat of their tax exempt statuses being rescinded, the matter of choice is never to be mistaken as anything else other than a government-arbitered provision, not a natural right or liberty to have ever existed. No one is forcing people to either work or shop at Hobby Lobby, like no one did with Chick-fil-A when Dan Cathy, the corporate CEO, vocalized his opposition to same-sex marriage and now that restaurant is the most successful of all fast food establishments in profits per unit, which was yet another attack not on just the Establishment Clause within the Constitution, but against free enterprise and capitalism in favor of nationalizing the economy via Chief Justice John Roberts' assertion that the ACA is constitutional due to its serving as a direct form of taxation. And if Sandra Fluke and President Obama wish to further pursue the angle of applying emotional excoriations or public ostracism amid their accused morally bankrupt, hypocritic opposition for true choice in all facets of the private sector and appealing to women who akin to Ms. Fluke do not need $1,000 per month as she testified before Congress in 2012 to simply walk down to the corner drugstore to buy contraceptives, perhaps they should all review the entire legal briefing and the actual writ of certiorari which, accompanied by what should have been the entire corroborating evidence, provided this case grounds for which to be heard, before they are foolish enough to comment on them.

In the end, just as with the Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton who use militant tactics and reverse discrimination to pursue their agendas to acquire political power or with the LBGT movement with the late Harvey Milk, radical feminism exists not to merely acquire sexual liberty in a patriarchal world, but to reverse the trend and instead of manifesting equity, recreating the old order with the new one comprised of matriarchal rule as with the Greek island of Lesbos inhabited reportedly by only women. Since it was the radical feminists who have successfully achieved sterilization of convicted rapists and child molesters in some states (Florida for example) but nothing has been done for women legally for any equivalent reasons, they are just a generation away from perhaps the near-fulfillment of their agenda. Why would the Sandra Flukes of the world truly care about reproductive rights as the main impetus for the war on women if Bill Clinton and the Kennedys never were actively assailed for what in some cases amounted to murder in their infidelities?

Of course the socialist Far Left insists upon defaming the character of the Greens over their role of funding the 16 total measures for birth control and contraceptives! Of course they are differing, because for them, their right to dictate the terms by which who and how one will live was aborted as much as their love affair with a clothes hanger and medical vacuum devices! Of course they are hurling disparaging remarks and insults because to them, they will argue over the sake of agreeing if it made their feelings less hurt! Perhaps being totally incompetent upon the issue of actual social equity, they would be only too delighted to use the church pulpit as their platform for denouncing the Greens as Christians for hypocritically paying for these items at all! Planned Parenthood certainly had its say in the eternal battle cry of the Right's war on women, but do they take into consideration how they strategically establish centers in predominantly black communities of poor inner-cities public housing tenants as well as for Hispanics? Did anyone ever bother to discuss the organization's founder, Margaret Sanger, and how she brought to the public's attention the concept and science behind institutional genocide in general with her eugenics? Of course they will not, and of course they will never admit how like Sanger, it is the most racist institution in America alongside the Ku Klux Klan, as Sanger herself closely associated with the KKK. To read the following post published in 1992 will horrify you as to the extent of why the worst racial ethnicity to be born in demographically is a member of the black community, courtesy of Black Genocide.org, as well as such disturbingly-incendiary quotes by Sanger herself:

"It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stoop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them."

And...

"Friends, Co-workers, and Endorsers... not to present facts to the committee but to intimidate them by showing a Catholic block of voters who (though in the minority in the United States) want to dictate to the majority of non-Catholics as directed from the Vatican in social and moral legislation ... American men and women, are we going to allow this insulting arrogance to bluff the American people?

Still more...

"Today by the Roman Catholic clergy and their allies . . . Public opinion in America, I fear, is too willing to condone in the officials of the Roman Catholic Church what it condemns in the Ku Klux Klan."

A favorite Catholic-baiter of Sanger's was Norman E. Himes, who contributed articles to Sanger's journal. Himes claimed there were genetic differences between Catholics and non-Catholics. (citing the website)

"Are Catholic stocks . . . genetically inferior to such non-Catholic libertarian stocks and Unitarians and Universal . . . Freethinkers? Inferior to non-Catholics in general? . . . my guess is that the answer will someday be made in the affirmative. . . and if the supposed differentials in net productivity are also genuine, the situation is anti-social, perhaps gravely so."

Sanger's attack on Catholics appeared to be an attempt to divert attention from the class politics of Planned Parenthood. The Rev. John A. Ryan wrote:

 "... their main objective is to increase the practice of birth-prevention among the poor . . . It is said that the present birth-prevention movement is to some extent financed by wealthy, albeit philanthropic persons. As far as I am aware , none of these is conspicuous in the movement for economic justice. None of them is crying out for a scale of wages which would enable workers to take care of a normal number of children." 

Donald B. Strauss, chairman of Planned Parenthood World Population, urged the 1964 Democratic national Convention to liberalize the party's stated policies on birth control, and to adopt domestic and foreign policy platform resolutions to conform with long-sought Sangerite goals: 

"[While almost one-fourth of nonwhite parents have four or more children under 18 living with them, only 8% of the white couples have that many children living at home. For the Negro parent in particular, the denial of access to family planning professional guidance forecloses one more avenue to family advancement and well-being... Unwanted children would not get the job training and educational skills they needed to compete in a shrinking labor market; moreover, unwanted children are a product and a cause of poverty."

Guttmacher noted in 1970 that "[Birth control services are proliferating in areas adjacent to concentrations of black population." (In the 1980's, targeting the inner-city black communities for school based sex clinics became more sensitive than expected.) But Guttmacher did not completely reject forced population control: Predicting 20 critical years ahead in the struggle to control the population explosion, Dr. Alan Guttmacher, president of Planned parenthood World Population, continues to urge the use of all voluntary means to hold down on the world birthrate. But he foresees the possibility that eventual coercion may become necessary, particularly in areas where the pressure is greatest, possibly India and China. "Each country," he says, "will have to decide its own form of coercion, and determine when and how it should be employed. At Present, the means are compulsory sterilization and compulsory abortion. Perhaps some day a way of enforcing compulsory birth control will be feasible."

It should be noted that coerced abortion is already practiced in China, with the International Planned Parenthood Federation's approval.

(Please refer to the hyperlink here if you are unwilling to scroll above to the first provision.)

Conclusion: Julie Borowski's Condemnation of the Attack on Hobby Lobby as an Act of Bullying

I choose to conclude this article by posting Miss Borowski's commentary from FreedomWorks for your consumption. She stated more extensively my already-formed opinion of the socialist Far Left not truthfully being concerned with regards to advancing women's reproductive rights, but rather to dominate the general public, demanding those who will never use contraceptives or birth control to sink or swim by rule of their totalitarianism and pay for the millionaires like Sandra Fluke demanding her $1,000 monthly to purchase contraceptives and birth control, and likely other discreet purchases like vibrating dildos that will never be accounted for by the Department of Health and Human Services. Fluke and others could care less about the taxpayers footing the bill to assist in their getting their rocks off at no consequence nor cost of their own; they want to ensure that they are the sovereignty of the nation, one of the loudest minority demographics-of-mind who are unafraid to vocalize their grievances and therefore are like a spoiled child raised by a bad parent who is bought her toy or candy to get her to hush. Miss Borowski will demonstrate this in greater detail below: 

Libertarian Political Analyst Julie Borowski of FreedomWorks

Hobby Lobby Decision isn’t About Birth Control, it’s About Bullying

Julie Borowski, Policy Analyst for FreedomWorks

By: freedomworks (Diary)  |  July 1st, 2014 at 11:58 AM  |  0

RESIZE: AAA

Share on Facebook 7K 7K SHARES

The Supreme Court made the right decision by ruling that the owners of Hobby Lobby are not required to pay for certain forms of birth control that conflict with their religious beliefs. Make no mistake- I have nothing against birth control. Nor do I think that the birth control methods in question are abortifacients. My opposition to ObamaCare’s contraceptive mandate is that the government is forcing people to pay for something against their conscience.

To me, it doesn’t matter what the government is mandating that employers purchase. I don’t even particularly care about why an employer is opposed to providing a specific product or service to their employees. It could be for religious reasons or it could not be. It also makes no difference to whether I agree with their reasoning or not.

The fact of the situation is that the government is forcing someone to pay for something that they oppose. I find that to be a form of bullying, and that’s why I do not support ObamaCare’s contraceptive mandate.

Some people who are angry about the court’s decision are claiming that employers are “denying” women contraceptives. First of all, the Hobby Lobby decision is not banning birth control. It merely says employers with religious objections don’t have to pay for certain forms of birth control.

Not paying for someone’s birth control is not denying them birth control. Employers have every right not to directly pay for it and employees have every right to spend their paycheck as they please. There’s nothing stopping anyone from purchasing birth control in this decision.

A common complaint is that it’s “unfair” for employer provided health insurance to cover Viagra but not Plan B emergency contraception pills. However, it would be just as wrong for the government to mandate that employers pay for male enhancement pills. The government shouldn’t be able to prohibit any employer from covering birth control pills in their insurance plans either. It goes both ways.

Others are saying that their boss should have no say in their health care decisions. Why then, are these same people advocating that the government force their boss to directly pay for their birth control? They just made it their bosses’ business. If your boss is paying for your birth control, he or she is very much involved in your intimate health care decisions—by footing the bill.

Some are worried about what other challenges might come next due to the Hobby Lobby case precedent. In the dissenting opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg writes,

“Reading the Act expansively, as the Court does, raises a host of ‘Me, too’ questions. Can an employer in business for profit opt out of coverage for blood transfusions, vaccinations, antidepressants, or medications derived from pigs, based on the employer’s sincerely held religious beliefs opposing those medical practices.”

For sure, we live in a diverse country and some employers may have objections to certain medical practices. That’s one reason that we should have freedom of association—employers can choose what to cover and employees can choose to work for the employer that matches their values and preferences.

But moreover, it brings up questions on why health insurance should be tied to a job in the first place. For those concerned about employer meddling in their health care decisions, how about calling for a separation of health insurance and employment?

Bosses didn’t always have a say over their employee’s health care decisions. It sounds weird when you really think about it. Just imagine your employer offering car insurance, for instance.

Employers only started offering health insurance to their employees during the wage freeze imposed by the government during World War II. Since employers were forbidden from offering higher salaries to attract new workers, they offered health insurance instead.

Things have changed a lot since the 1940’s. No longer do most people stay at the same company for their entire career. By 42, the average American will change jobs 11 times. Since employer based health insurance is not portable, people lose coverage every time they change jobs.

Instead, how about your employer paying you a higher salary and you can purchase your preferred health insurance on your own?

This is a popular idea that allows people to have more choice over their health insurance while keeping their bosses out of it.

The underlying issue has nothing to do with birth control. The question is should the government be allowed to force people to purchase things against their will? I say no.

   

34