Hobby Lobby Birth Control Case at Supreme Court

BlazerBob wrote:

Photo-fish wrote: You can ask the company that manages your mutual funds to not invest in certian companies if you do not want them to. Hobby Lobby definately has the $$$ weight behind their business to be able to have their employees plans (which the owners set up) structured anywhay they want.

Sorry PF.
Funds manage trillions. Hobby lobby isn't even a pimple on their ass.

OMG, a pimple. Not even a follicle.

This is from Mother Jones so it must be true. :rofllol :rofllol

"Documents filed with the Department of Labor and dated December 2012—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)."

PF, do you really think 73 million gives them a vote? The left is desperate.

Just because there is an administrator with fiduciary duties to the plan, certainly does not bar the plan sponsor (The Greens) from setting ground rules for what the plan invests in. 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.


Bob, if you read the Mother Jones report, you will see that an investment advisor they spoke with told them that the returns from the mutual funds that screen for offensive investments are showing the same returns as the other ones.

Which only supports the idea that the Greens are not forcing their beliefs on anyone. The matching funds provided by the Greens do not belong to the Greens, but to their employees. It is money promised to them by the Greens if they contribute their own money towards saving for a retirement. It is not for the Greens to decide how an employee decides to invest their money and they make no intrusion into that decision by limiting or restricting what investments their employees may or may not make based on the beliefs held by the Greens. Kind of hard to substantiate the allegation that they are forcing their beliefs onto others given every indication to the contrary, isn't it?

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.

The company did not only match the employees investments , but also invested themselves.

To deny insurance coverage for birth control based upon their religious beliefs is actually violating employee’s religious freedom by forcing the employers beliefs upon those of their employees.

http://llwproductions.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/hobby-lobby-storefront.jpg?w=642

Why didn’t they oppose their coverage of contraception before ACA???

I s'pose their employees should be glad the Green's religion does not ban blood transfusions...

Photo-fish wrote: Why didn’t they oppose their coverage of contraception before ACA??? .

That's an easy one. prior to the (un)Affordable Care Act's hostile mandates contraception was rightly seen for what it was - an elective choice made by the individual regarding their own reproductive decisions for which they, and they alone, were responsible for providing. Now then, do you want to continue to trade turns being obnoxious with the size and thickness of type or have a discussion reagarding the facts?

Aww. Sorry I raised my voice and used big words.

They covered all kinds of contraception prior to 2012. What made them decide to limit out the 4 they no longer agree with after ACA?

Yes, 401(k) plans are directed and invested by employees, not by employers. And healthcare decisions are made by employees, not employers. They are the ones, not their bosses, who choose whether or not to use contraception. In both cases the employer is providing the means, not making the decision for them. By voluntarily providing the means to invest in companies that make said contraception (and by matching those investments) how are they not running afoul of their own religious convictions?
If HL is so religiously sensitive to not follow the law and take the issue to the Supreme Court, then it is reasonable to think that they would have similar sensitivities with their 401K plans.

FAITH-BASED MUTUAL FUNDS:
Ave Maria Mutual Funds
Timothy Plan
Pro-Life Mutual Fund
Epiphany Fund
MMA Praxis Mutual Funds
American Trust Allegiance Fund
NOAH Fund
Catholic Values Investment Trust Equity Fund
Aquinas Funds
Amana Funds
Carlisle Catholic Index Funds

Those mutual funds could be part of Hobby Lobby’s 401k with one phone call. But, like most companies, their 401k provides a limited number of options in order to keep costs down – and it can be expensive to add specific funds that will appeal to only a small number of employees.
Ah…it all comes down to money. Surprise, surprise.

The 4 objected to are abortifaciants, which were not covered by the insurance plan made illegal by the (un)Affordable Care Act. There was no reason to object to having to pay for them before the hostile mandate was enacted by Congress and this president with nary a single Republican vote of support. That should deal with the question of why these 4 were not objected to in 2012. And the Greens, unlike say the Cathoiic Church, do not have a religious objection to all forms of chemical sterilization of a woman, only some of them would compel them to violate their conscience and interfere with their right to exercise their religion according to their conscience and instead be forced into exercising religion in accordancd with the government's collective conscience.

Making ones self sterile has nothing at all to do with caring for health in the vast majority of instances. It is not a health care decision, it is a lifestyle one. Health insurance is intended to address health care requirements, not lifestyle ones. It is well known that using contraception actually increases the risk of suffering actual harm to the health of a woman. It increases her risk of cancers, it increases her risk of heart disease, it increases her risk of cervical infections when an IUD is implanted as it does her risk of a perforated uterus. The use of contraception may cause a health care issue, but in the majority of cases it has little, if anything, to do with treating one.