Sunday, August 05, 2012

The Amish People Would Not Exist Under President Obama

There Would Be No Amish, Quakers, Or Mormons
In The US

It is quite clear that had there been more Presidents like Obama and more US Congresses as dominated by an anti-religious Democratic Party in the past, there would not be any Amish, Quakers, Mormons or any other distinct religious people living in the USA. Amish or Quakers or Mormon people are but one proof of American Exceptionalism in this world.

It is also clear that the Obama Administration’s assault on religious liberty is only a culmination of decades of such assaults.

It is absolutely stunning if not horrifying that the current, so brilliant President Obama does not understand this.

Hercules Vs. ObamaCare

This monstrous law is symptomatic for its assault on religious freedom. Like he dumped his longtime racist pastor Jeremiah Whright, President Obama’s disrespect for Christian business owners is breathtaking.

One of the issues is the Obamacare provision that requires companies with more than 50 employees to provide insurance coverage that includes contraceptives, abortion-inducing drugs, and sterilization effective 1/8/2012. Non compliance results in a fine of $100 per employee per day.

Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-01123-JLK

One Christian family-owned company in Colorado sued the Administration. Two thumbs up for that! Defendants, the Obama  Administration, filed a 76 page motion to dismiss “the case in its entirety” (p. 19). In the following write-up I will add my own emphasis to quotes from this motion unless otherwise noted.

Condoms Are Necessary And Too Expensive
For Women’s Health

The language of this motion is often absurd. The first sentence of the Introduction reads “Plaintiffs ask this Court to preliminarily enjoin regulations that are intended to ensure that women have access to health coverage, without cost-sharing, for certain preventive services that medical experts have deemed necessary for women’s health and well-being.”. Later it states “Those women [working at Hercules] should not be denied the benefits of receiving a health plan that includes coverage of contraceptive services without cost-sharing.” (p. 73) As if the women who chose to work for Hercules needed “certain preventive services”. Since when are contraceptives necessary for a woman’s health that they have to be covered by health insurance? “Medical experts have deemed necessary”. Laughable! “Cost-sharing” is a euphemism for at no cost to the employee.

“Many women do not utilize contraceptive methods or sterilization procedures because they are not covered by their health plan or they require costly copayments, coinsurance, or deductibles. IOM REP. at 19, 109; Adam Sonfield, The Case for Insurance Coverage of Contraceptive Services and Supplies Without Cost-Sharing, 14 GUTTMACHER POL’Y REV. 10 (2011) … As discussed above, see supra pp. 6-9, 22-27, despite the general availability of contraceptive services, many women do not utilize such services because they are not covered by their health plan or require costly copayments, coinsurance, or deductibles. … As a result, in many cases, both women and developing fetuses suffer negative health consequences. See IOM REP. at 20, 102-04; 77 Fed. Reg. at 8728. And women are put at a competitive disadvantage in the workforce due to their lost productivity and the disproportionate financial burden they bear in regard to preventive health services.” (p. 23, 73-74). What are these federal attorneys talking about? How expensive are condoms? If other contraceptives are more expensive, why not lower the costs through more competition, market availability, and less medical prescription? So these clever attorneys found one study to confirm that contraceptives should be available to women at no direct costs and be paid for by the general public? Does the Obama Administration really believe this stuff?

A Religious, For Profit Corporation Cannot Be

“Plaintiffs’ challenge rests largely on the theory that a for-profit, secular corporation established to manufacture heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (“HVAC”) products can claim to exercise a religion and thereby avoid the reach of laws designed to regulate commercial activity. This cannot be.” (p. 16).
The phrase “for profit, secular corporation” is repeated all over the document. A company owned by a Christian family is not necessarily secular. A for-profit company can be run under Christian guidelines. The Obama Administration claims some kind of mutual exclusivity here? ObamaCare designed to “regulate commercial activity”? Laughable!

“Nor can the owners of a for-profit, secular company eliminate the legal separation provided by the corporate form to impose their personal religious beliefs on the corporate entity’s employees.” (p. 16). What a nonsense! A corporation is nothing but a convenient, organizational vehicle run by humans. Employees, who hire with Hercules know what to expect, it is most likely not imposed.

“Hercules Industries is a for-profit, secular employer, and a secular entity by definition does not practice religion. It is well established that a corporation and its owners are wholly separate entities, and the Court should not permit the Newlands to eliminate that legal separation to impose their personal religious beliefs on the corporate entity or its employees.” (p. 16/17). Later it reads “Hercules Industries, Inc., is not a religious employer; it is “an HVAC manufacturer. … The company’s pursuits and products are not religious. … Hercules Industries’s overriding purpose is to make moneyBy definition, a secular employer does not engage in any “exercise of religion”, …” (p. 30-31). This is the kicker! So it is ex definitione? This is a very convenient legalistic argument, but wrong. Behind every business are humans and some do practice religion as in this case. Is the Obama administration imposing something on Hercules or the Christian owners on their employees? So because Hercules produces such mundane, but useful products such as HVAC equipment, it cannot be a religious employer? Laughable! What if Hercules produced Bibles for sale?

Tremendous Harm To The Public

“It would also harm the public, given the large number of employees at Hercules Industries – as well as any covered spouses and other dependents – who could suffer the negative health consequences that the regulations are intended to prevent.” (p. 19). This is pathetic! Hercules has about 265 full-time employees (see p. 28).

Obama Administration Refused To Expand Religious Employer Exemption

“The amendment to the interim final regulations, issued on the same day, authorized HRSA to exempt group health plans established or maintained by certain religious employers (and associated group health insurance coverage) from any requirement to cover contraceptive services under HRSA’s guidelines. 76 Fed. Reg. 46,621 (Aug. 3, 2011); 45 C.F.R.
§ 147.130(a)(1)(iv)(A). To qualify for the exemption, an employer must meet all of the following criteria:
(1) The inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the organization.
(2) The organization primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the organization.
(3) The organization serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the organization.
(4) The organization is a nonprofit organization as described in section 6033(a)(1) and section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
The religious employer exemption …” (p. 24-25). Here we have it again the incredible bias against for profit enterprises. I would guess that Hercules probably meets the first three out of the four criteria of the religious employer exemption. By law, Hercules cannot directly meet the first criterion or it would be discrimination. The attorneys for the Obama administration have written a whole chapter about why their religious employer exemption is “neither arbitrary nor capricious” (see p. 64-66).

“In response to comments on the amended interim final regulations, defendants “carefully considered whether to eliminate the religious employer exemption or to adopt an alternative definition of religious employer, including whether the exemption should  be extended to a broader set of religiously-affiliated sponsors of group health plans and group insurance coverage.” 77 Fed. Reg. at 8727. Ultimately, defendants chose not to expand the exemption, as a broader exemption “would lead to more employees having to pay out of pocket for contraceptive services, thus making it less likely that they would use contraceptives, which would undermine the benefits described above. … And defendants [Obama Administration] have begun the amendment process by issuing an ANPRM, which expressly notes that defendants will consider whether “for-profit religious employers with [religious] objections” should be provided an accommodation.” (p. 65-66). So these narrow minded people in the Obama Administration began to realize that for profit is not synonymous with atheism? But look, they only want to provide an “accommodation”, how generous is that? So the Obama Administration could not expand the religious exemption, because they speculate women would have to pay for their contraceptives?

Religious Discrimination Stands In The Way Of A Christian Employer To Hire Or Fire People of Faith

“Nor does it allege that the company employs persons of a particular faith. .Hercules Industries could not, for example, fire an employee for religious reasons, even if its owners claimed that their own religious beliefs required the termination.” (p. 31-32). “The same is not true for Hercules Industries, which cannot discriminate based upon anyone’s religious beliefs when hiring, and therefore almost certainly employs many individuals who do not share the Newlands’ religious beliefs.” (p. 49). Nice contradiction! If they are not allowed to fire, how can Hercules be allowed to hire based on particular faith? So had Hercules claimed in their complaint they do hire persons of Christian belief, then the Feds would have been all over the place. And overall it is a highly speculative argument!

I think, the purpose of preventing religious discrimination in employment situations has been perverted by this Administration.

Obama Administration Dismisses A Non-Profit Charitable Corporation

“Instead, [Plaintiff] defines itself as a ‘non-profit charitable corporation,’ without any reference to its religious character or purpose.”).” The Obama Administration arrogantly dismisses this statement in plaintiffs’ complaint. I would bet we will hear more about it during the trial. Is Hercules perhaps saying that most of their profits are donated to charitable purposes? Unfortunately, the website of Hercules does not appear to express anything about their charitable work or religious affiliation.

Obama Administration Confuses Non-Public Small Corporations And Public Large Corporations

“The Newlands have voluntarily chosen to enter into commerce and elected to do so by establishing a for-profit corporation, which “is treated as a separate legal entity, unique from its officers, directors, and shareholders.” …  Those individuals thereby enjoy limited liability – “an inherent purpose of incorporation” – provided they respect the corporation’s separate existence and adhere to a standard of care.” (p. 35). No family owned small and non-public (I presume) corporation is separate from its owners. Such a business has more resemblance with a proprietorship than what these federal attorneys like to understand. This is a purely legalistic argument.

“In the company’s employment relationships, for example, Hercules Industries – not its officers or shareholders – “is the employing party.”” (p. 35). Humans hire humans. A corporation is only a legal structure to conduct business. Everybody knows that, but not the Obama Administration.

“The owners of Hercules Industries have no right to control the choices of their company’s employees, many of whom may not share the Newlands’ religious beliefs.” (p. 36) Highly speculative argument!

ObamaCare Is Analogous To Social Security And Medicare

“In concluding that the minimum coverage provision does not substantially burden the plaintiffs’ religious practice, the court reasoned, among other things, that “Plaintiffs routinely contribute to other forms of insurance, such as Medicare, Social Security, and unemployment taxes, which present the same conflict with their belief that God will provide for their medical and financial needs.”. Very nice! Here, the Obama Administration attorneys quote from another case in their support. Notice “contribute”. This is a euphemism for mandatory taxes. This argument is specious, because Social Security was established a long time ago (1936?).

A Bogus Claim Of Least Restrictive Means

“Even if there is a substantial burden, the preventive services coverage regulations serve compelling governmental interests and are the least restrictive means to achieve those interests” (p. 37). What a joke! Compelling means government coercion. How about paying yourself for contraceptives? That would be in my view the least restrictive means.

“As an initial matter, “the Government clearly has a compelling interest in safeguarding the public health by regulating the health care and insurance markets.”” (p. 38). I beg to differ. This is a very expansive interpretation as is typical for big governments. What are these paternalist big government busybodies safeguarding?

Obama Administration Denies Abortifacients

“In fact, the federal government has made it clear that these regulations “do not include abortifacient drugs.”” (p.68). So the Obama Administration denies that abortifacient drugs are included with those preventive services. I doubt that this is correct. I suspect that the attorneys are using a peculiar definition of these drugs to make such a claim.

These attorneys who wrote this motion to dismiss should be dismissed for knowingly writing such nonsense at tax payers’ expense.

What Will Christian Employers Do In The Future

If ObamaCare is not repealed or modified, then Christian employer may consider following options:
·         To have fewer than 50 employees
·         May not offer health insurance anymore
·         May go out of business
·         May never establish a business


No comments: