OK Health Care Freedom Amendment, Sta...

OK Health Care Freedom Amendment, State Question 756

Created by CitizenTopix on Oct 11, 2010

1,604 votes

Click on an option to vote



Other (explain below)


Memphis, TN

#72402 Jul 3, 2014
This man is an unabashed fascist... No one with a modicum of intelligence should listen to anything he says...


If his lips move, he's lying!

Memphis, TN

#72403 Jul 3, 2014
First and foremost, Ted Cruz knows how stupid and easily manipulated his tea party audience is.

Memphis, TN

#72404 Jul 3, 2014
Right-Wingers are in love with this self-centered, fraud, and liar.

-- Ted Cruz hates government while working for the same government collecting his pay checks, BEST health care, retirements plan, and so many other benefits, his staff salaries and benefits, this is the easiest way for him to collect contributions from lobbyists and special interest groups.
-- Ted Cruz committed ethics violations in 2012 Senate campaign.
-- Ted Cruz lied during his 21-hour fake filibuster on the Senate floor about John Connelly the student cited by him as proof of Obama's failure, actually the student said on an interview that he was grateful for ACA (Obamacare).
-- Ted Cruz lied about his Budget Standoff and Government Shutdown, because later he admitted it was all about building Fundraising Lists.
-- Ted Cruz lied about caring for American people because he ONLY cares for Rafael Ted Cruz.
-- Ted Cruz broke the law by breaking through the barricades at the WWII Memorial, and disrespecting our President.

Memphis, TN

#72405 Jul 3, 2014
As near as I can tell Cruz's pants must be in a constant blaze.
Packing Heat

Memphis, TN

#72406 Jul 3, 2014
low info fox and fool viewers will be voting, in droves in nov, based on rethug lies like this. fox and fool viewers, and right wing rellgious nuts are imperious to facts
Dr Jones

Memphis, TN

#72407 Jul 3, 2014
Corporations race into Ginsburg’s ‘minefield’ to claim post-Hobby Lobby religious exemptions
By Travis Gettys
Thursday, July 3, 2014 13:40 EDT
Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on google_plusone_share
google plus iconShare on printShare on email
Ruth Bader Ginsberg via Wikipedia


Print Friendly and PDF
Email this page
The 5-4 majority in the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Hobby Lobby case claimed the decision was narrowly focused on closely held corporations that objected to the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate on religious grounds.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg warned in a scathing, 35-page dissent that her colleagues had “ventured into a minefield” with their ruling, arguing that the majority had invited “for-profit entities to seek religion-based exemptions from regulations they deem offensive to their faith.”

It took only one day to prove her predictions accurate.

The court on Tuesday, the day after its ruling, ordered three appeals courts to reconsider challenges by corporations that objected to providing insurance that covers any contraceptive services – not just the four contraception methods covered in the Hobby Lobby case.

The plaintiffs in all three of those cases are Catholic business owners, including the Michigan-based organic food company Eden Foods.

“I don’t care if the federal government is telling me to buy my employees Jack Daniel’s or birth control,” said Michael Potter, founder of Eden Foods.“What gives them the right to tell me that I have to do that?”

The appeals court that rejected Potter’s motion argued the business owner’s claims more closely resembled “a laissez-faire, anti-government screed” than a religious objection – although the Supreme Court has asked the lower court to reconsider his arguments.

The Supreme Court also declined to review a government petition to overturn lower court rulings that upheld religiously based challenges to all preventative services under the Obamacare mandate.

Should religious beliefs be subject to challenge?

The ruling takes claims of religious scruples for granted, wrote columnist Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times.

“But how are government agencies or the courts to know when claims of religious piety are just pretexts for some other viewpoint, such as libertarianism or misogyny?” Hiltzik continued.
Dr Jones

Memphis, TN

#72408 Jul 3, 2014
A federal judge in one of those cases reopened by the Supreme Court wrote in her opinion that the sincerity of the plaintiff’s religious beliefs were “unchallenged,” while the theology behind Catholic teachings on contraception were “unchallengeable.”

Hiltzik argued that those religious claims should, however, be subject to challenge.

“Shouldn’t the courts, at the very least, determine if a family-owned company follows its religious precepts consistently?” Hiltzik asked.“If this were the test, by the way, Hobby Lobby itself might fail: its 401(k) plan for employees has invested via its mutual funds in companies that manufacture and distribute precisely those drugs and devices that it objects to providing via its health insurance plan.”

That investment could violate teachings in a Catholic moral manual cited by Hobby Lobby’s own attorneys and noted by Justice Samuel Alito in his opinion to show the contraception mandate placed a “substantial burden” on their religious expression, and therefore violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Legal argument rebutted by moral theology

Alito cited Father Henry Davis’s 1935 Moral and Pastoral Theology to demonstrate “the circumstances under which it is wrong for a person to perform an act that is innocent in itself but that has the effect of enabling or facilitating the commission of an immoral act by another.”

The conservative Catholic justice concluded the court had no authority to determine whether that burden was substantial or not, and should instead defer to the moral judgment of Hobby Lobby’s owners.

“Yet interpreting statutory language like ‘substantial burden’ is precisely what the Court is supposed to do,” wrote Leslie C. Griffin, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine, and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

Ginsburg described the Hobby Lobby ruling as “a decision of startling breadth”— and that might be an understatement.

Already, the Becket Fund, a religious law firm that represented Hobby Lobby, lists 49 pending federal cases involving for-profit companies claiming religious objections to the ACA and another 51 that involve nonprofit organizations.

Critics have said the majority based its ruling on faulty science, arguing that IUDs and emergency contraceptives do not cause abortion – as Hobby Lobby’s owners claimed to justify their religious objection.

Alito ruled that courts had no authority to tell the craft store’s owners “their beliefs are flawed,” although he insisted the ruling offered no similar “shield” to other forms of discrimination.

However, a group of religious leaders on Wednesday asked the Obama administration to exempt them from an executive order barring federal contractors from discriminating against LGBT workers.

Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church in California, signed on to a letter sent by Catholic Charities and other faith-based groups seeking a religious exemption to the order.

“Without a robust religious exemption, like the provisions in the Senate-passed [Employment Non-Discrimination Act], this expansion of hiring rights will come at an unreasonable cost to the common good, national unity and religious freedom,” the faith-based group wrote.

Memphis, TN

#72409 Jul 3, 2014
What the hell is happening to our country?


It's called going to Hell in a handbasket.

Memphis, TN

#72410 Jul 3, 2014
Back in 1960 folks were all worried about electing a Catholic president because he might be influenced by the Pope. Turned out it wasn't a problem. But now we have replaced our Supreme Court with a college of cardinals and all the old fears are becoming a reality.

Memphis, TN

#72412 Jul 3, 2014
We now have the worst Congress in the United States history and the worst Supreme Court in United States history.

The nation is in a state of dysfunction. It is the right wing's push to ruin the nation that caused it.

This nation is well and truly screwed because it has been Blessed by the Christian God.

As Christopher Hitchens warned, Religion Poisons EVERYTHING.

Memphis, TN

#72413 Jul 3, 2014
Unemployment rate falls to near six-year low of 6.1 percent
Packing Heat

Memphis, TN

#72414 Jul 3, 2014
Obummer! That Kenyan, Marxist, Socialist, Muslim is awful at destroying the US economy! Something must be done! Oh, and Benghazi!

Memphis, TN

#72415 Jul 3, 2014
Benghazi Bengazi Bengazi!
Imperial President! Imperial President!
Dr Jones

Greenbrier, AR

#72416 Jul 3, 2014
How Hobby Lobby Undermined The Very Idea of a Corporation
Thu. July 3, 2014 2:50 PM PDT

Here's one more reason to worry about the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision, which allowed the arts and crafts chain to block insurance coverage of contraception for female employees because of the owners' religious objections: It could screw up corporate law.

This gets complicated, but bear with us. Basically, what you need to know is that if you and some friends start a company that makes a lot of money, you'll be rich, but if it incurs a lot of debt and fails, you won't be left to pay its bills. The Supreme Court affirmed this arrangement in a 2001 case, Cedric Kushner Promotions vs. Don King:

linguistically speaking, the employee and the corporation are different “persons,” even where the employee is the corporation’s sole owner. After all, incorporation’s basic purpose is to create a distinct legal entity, with legal rights, obligations, powers, and privileges different from those of the natural individuals who created it, who own it, or whom it employs.

That separation is what legal and business scholars call the "corporate veil," and it's fundamental to the entire operation. Now, thanks to the Hobby Lobby case, it's in question. By letting Hobby Lobby's owners assert their personal religious rights over an entire corporation, the Supreme Court has poked a major hole in the veil. In other words, if a company is not truly separate from its owners, the owners could be made responsible for its debts and other burdens.

"If religious shareholders can do it, why can’t creditors and government regulators pierce the corporate veil in the other direction?" Burt Neuborne, a law professor at New York University, asked in an email.

That's a question raised by 44 other law professors, who filed a friends-of-the-court brief that implored the Court to reject Hobby Lobby's argument and hold the veil in place. Here's what they argued:

Allowing a corporation, through either shareholder vote or board resolution, to take on and assert the religious beliefs of its shareholders in order to avoid having to comply with a generally-applicable law with a secular purpose is fundamentally at odds with the entire concept of incorporation. Creating such an unprecedented and idiosyncratic tear in the corporate veil would also carry with it unintended consequences, many of which are not easily foreseen.

In his opinion for Hobby Lobby, Justice Samuel Alito's insisted the decision should be narrowly applied to the peculiarities of the case. But as my colleague Pat Caldwell writes, the logic of the argument is likely to invite a tide of new lawsuits, all with their own unintended consequences.

Small wonder, then, that despite congressional Republicans defending the Hobby Lobby decision as a victory for American business against the nanny state, the US Chamber of Commerce—the country's main big business lobby—was quiet on the issue. Even more telling: Despite a record tide of friends-of-the-court briefs, not one Fortune 500 weighed in on the case. In fact, as David H. Gans at Slate pointed out in March, about the only sizeable business-friendly groups that did file briefs with the court were the US Women's Chamber of Commerce and the Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce. Both sided against Hobby Lobby.

Greenbrier, AR

#72417 Jul 3, 2014
if a company is not truly separate from its owners, the owners could be made responsible for its debts and other burdens.

Greenbrier, AR

#72418 Jul 3, 2014
Many law-educated critics of the Hobby Lobby case knew that "piercing the corporate veil" would be a likely outcome of imputing personal religious beliefs onto an artificial corporate entity, but did SCOTUS listen? No. They just thought they could slip in a "applies to present circumstances only" rider in there and that would be that. Uh-uh. That isn't how SCOTUS jurisprudence works, it never has been.

Greenbrier, AR

#72419 Jul 3, 2014
So when do the members of the Green family get arrested and charged with murder for all of the Chinese abortions, infanticide and forced sterilizations they're corporation (and therefore they personally, according to the "logic" of the Wahabi Lobby decision) funded by knowingly buying products made in China?

Greenbrier, AR

#72420 Jul 3, 2014
The recent SCOTUS decision has opened up that much dreaded law of unintended consequences and members of the corporate community are not celebrating HL's successful court challenge. At issue is the very sanctity of corporations as a shelter against personal liability and the recent SCOTUS decision opens up potential challenges to the "corporate veil."

Greenbrier, AR

#72421 Jul 3, 2014
They have opened up a whole new can of worms that you can bet are going to see a whole lot of BS being presented for protected status. If the right litigant is able to pierce the insulation against personal liability for stockholders, Hobby Lobby isn't't going to have many friends in the business community.

Greenbrier, AR

#72422 Jul 3, 2014
If Hobby Lobby really cared about abortion, then why do most of the items they sell in their stores come from China where forced abortion by the govt is routinely practiced?

If this case was really about abortion and religious rights, and not about money, then Hobby Lobby would be practicing what they preach and refuse to buy goods for resale in their stores from China.

They do not, of course, and again it shows the pure hypocrisy of this argument brought up by these fake religious baggers. Totally absurd. Folks, it is always about money and power and really has nothing to do with what they say it is, in this case religious freedom and abortion.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Citizen Sound-Off Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Election Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Georgia i... (Oct '10) 3 min General Robert E Lee 118,873
Election Who do you support for U.S. Senate in West Virg... (Oct '10) 3 min Bad Dog 103,486
Election Who do you support for U.S. House in Indiana (D... (Oct '10) 2 hr Bob 107
Election Who's got your vote for Congress in Arkansas's ... (Oct '14) 11 hr Jonduey Phillips-... 17
Election Who's got your vote in the Illinois Senate race? (Oct '14) Fri A Serial Killer 15
Election Who's got your vote for Congress in Illinois's ... (Dec '14) Fri My Azzhole 5
Election Who's got your vote for Congress in Oklahoma's ... (Oct '14) Thu jethro 22
More from around the web