Getting a lot of press is the Hobby Lobby case before the Supreme Court, seems the left is worried that this case is being framed as an abortion case and not one about an employer restricting access to healthcare from it’s employees.
The left, including President Obama, have been touting a $10.10 minimum wage, almost all of them leave out that Hobby Lobby pays its full-time employees a minimum wage of $14.00 and it’s part-time employees almost $2.00 more than the current minimum wage
They also leave out that Hobby Lobby is not opposed to birth control coverage for its employees, in fact they cover 16 different forms of birth control. Hobby Lobby is opposed, by a deeply held religious conviction, to providing a drug like Plan-B that can be dangerous and potentially terminates a life.
So yes, maybe this is an abortion case! Here is the interesting thing, the government says it does not fund abortion services…. so how is it that a Christan based business should be forced to provide such coverage?
From SCOTUS Blog:
Argument recap: One hearing, two dramas
The Supreme Court, in a one-hour, twenty-eight-minute session Tuesday, staged something like a two-act play on a revolving stage: first the liberals had their chance and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy gave them some help, and then the scene shifted entirely, and the conservatives had their chance — and, again, Kennedy provided them with some support.
So went the argument in the combined cases of Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius. The “contraceptive mandate” in the new federal health care law, challenged under federal law and the Constitution, fared well in the first scene, and badly in the second.
But the ultimate outcome, it seemed, will depend upon how Justice Kennedy makes up his mind. There was very little doubt where the other eight Justices would wind up: split four to four.
In the first drama, Kennedy worried over the plight of female workers, and he suggested that their interests could be protected with little cost to their employers. In the second he worried over the plight of corporations owned by families opposed to abortion and he implied that forcing them to pay for it would be wrong.
The hearing could not have been a pleasant experience for two experienced advocates — Washington attorney and former U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, and current Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., making a return engagement from their encounter two years ago when the Affordable Care Act first came up for review in the Court — when each won something.
In the end, what made trouble for each of them Tuesday was the slippery slope: if we ruled for you, what would that mean for other factual scenarios or other laws that might impinge on religious beliefs?
Clement was badgered throughout his time at the lectern, especially by Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, who suggested that if corporations gain an exemption from having to provide birth-control services for their female employees, then the next complaint would be about vaccinations, blood transfusions, and a whole host of other medical and non-medical services that a company or its owners might find religiously objectionable.