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 money … By
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
