Well, this is kind of old news now. However, my daughter has been reading a lot of liberal stuff on the Hobby Lobby decision and around the dinner table it has come up a number of times. My husband and I agree with the decision made and she and my son apparently do not. I feel we have explained it all already but on her birthday list she said she wants: A coherent and logically consistent legal argument explaining the Hobby Lobby decision (from the conservative viewpoint). I told her before I am not a lawyer and don't know all the legal ins and outs but apparently that's not good enough. So, I'm a little overwhelmed at the request. Anything here to help me out would be appreciated! Thanks!
__________________
Those who say it cannot be done should not interrupt the people doing it. ~Chinese Proverb
When I was young and clever, I wanted to change the world. Now that I am older and wiser, I strive to change myself. ~
Well, this is kind of old news now. However, my daughter has been reading a lot of liberal stuff on the Hobby Lobby decision and around the dinner table it has come up a number of times. My husband and I agree with the decision made and she and my son apparently do not. I feel we have explained it all already but on her birthday list she said she wants: A coherent and logically consistent legal argument explaining the Hobby Lobby decision (from the conservative viewpoint). I told her before I am not a lawyer and don't know all the legal ins and outs but apparently that's not good enough. So, I'm a little overwhelmed at the request. Anything here to help me out would be appreciated! Thanks!
Ya, we'll wait on Pressing-On to interpret the mumble-jumble, lol!
From what I can understand, Hobby Lobby will still be providing 19 forms of birth control for women, but they will not provide the birth control that includes the morning-after pill. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that has been my understanding so far...
Ya, we'll wait on Pressing-On to interpret the mumble-jumble, lol!
From what I can understand, Hobby Lobby will still be providing 19 forms of birth control for women, but they will not provide the birth control that includes the morning-after pill. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that has been my understanding so far...
You are right, it will provide all forms of birth control, but will not support abortifacients. Their belief is that after conception, it is considered murder. Normal birth control prevents conception. Abortifacients are used "after" conception.
In a nutshell, we are a nation founded on the history of fleeing religious oppression. It is our legacy. Our Founding Fathers placed "Freedom of Religion", under the Bill of Rights, as our FIRST protection BEFORE Freedom of Speech and BEFORE Freedom of the Press.
We must be able to worship God within the dictates of our conscience. We cannot allow that to be taken away. If that is taken away, anything can be taken away.
There is nothing else to add to the argument. It is cut and dried.
Well, this is kind of old news now. However, my daughter has been reading a lot of liberal stuff on the Hobby Lobby decision and around the dinner table it has come up a number of times. My husband and I agree with the decision made and she and my son apparently do not. I feel we have explained it all already but on her birthday list she said she wants: A coherent and logically consistent legal argument explaining the Hobby Lobby decision (from the conservative viewpoint). I told her before I am not a lawyer and don't know all the legal ins and outs but apparently that's not good enough. So, I'm a little overwhelmed at the request. Anything here to help me out would be appreciated! Thanks!
Okay, ILG. If she wants to be really legal. LOL!
Quote:
The real issue is not whether corporations of any type can ever claim protection under RFRA — sometimes they can. The issue is whether for-profit corporations can ever have enough of a religious purpose to claim that protection.
Hobby Lobby is a socially responsible corporation, judged by the deep religious beliefs of its owners. The court decisively rejects the notion that the sole purpose of a for-profit corporation is to make money for its shareholders. This fits perfectly with the expansive view of corporate purpose that liberal proponents of social responsibility usually advocate — except, apparently, when talking about this case.
HL does in fact provide coverage for birth control. They sought relief from the court to not be forced against their conscience to provide medical care that could/would cause the end of a life.
Here is the basis of the court finding.
1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. (RFRA)
The law was passed unanimous in the House of Reps. It passed the senate 97-3 and was signed by Bill Clinton into law.(2 dems 1 rep voted no)
The law seeks to clarify situations where Congress passes a law that while not intended to be a burden to the free exercise of religion, in fact becomes such.
The law establishes 2 basic principles that must be applied to see a law stand when there is a challenge.
First there must be a compelling interest for the government to proceed with the law.
Second the law must seek the “least restrictive” way to apply the rule.
The court found that the mandate was “not the least restrictive" method of implementing the government's interest.”
That really is the legal argument.
At the end of the day, the owners of HL have a deeply held and historically consistent belief system. Then that belief system was challenged, not by a federal law, but by a mandate handed down by the Department of Human Services.
In American politics and Juris prudence, no person has been compelled to provide an abortion when they have a religious aversion to it. Even our taxes have been held back from supporting abortions.
The case was not about contraception. HL provides 16 of the 20 FDA approved methods. It was about forcing these people to do something we historically do not do. And the court actually came down on the side of precedent.
The court stated quite clearly that the government did not provide a clear and compelling reason for the government to proceed with the mandate in the face of the RFRA.
The fact is, in the beginning the administration attempted to force this mandate even on religious institutions. But because of backlash, and a clear indication that they would lose a First Amendment challenge, they backed off and carved out an exception for religious institutions. Then they proceeded with force to compel private businesses to comply with a mandate (not a federal law but a regulation determined by the HUD secretary) they knew they would lose if it was done to an individual/ religious group.
What those on the left fail to recognize is this is not an attempt by the government to protect people or to continue to provide the kind of protections that have been in place, rather this is an attempt to change the course of American political precedent. THEY are the ones that must provide the compelling reason for the act.
This is brand new territory and they have not provided a cogent legal argument that stands against established law.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
Linear Mode
