Hobby Lobby: Evangelical-Led Business Files Suit Against HHS Mandate

Via Christian Post:

Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., a privately held retail chain with 22,500 employees led by a Christian family, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, opposing the Health and Human Services "preventive services" mandate, the company announced Wednesday. The company becomes the largest and only non-Catholic-owned business to file a lawsuit against the government's contraception mandate.

The company's CEO and founder, David Green, said Wednesday that the mandate would force the Christian-owned-and-operated business to provide, without co-pay, the "morning after pill" and "week after pill" in their health insurance plan, or face crippling fines up to 1.3 million dollars per day.
"We simply cannot abandon our religious beliefs and comply with this mandate," Green said during a teleconference press meeting. "We know that we have been blessed by God's grace and believe it is because we have chosen to live our lives and to operate our business according to His Word and we are very grateful for that. But our faith is being challenged by the federal government."

Hobby Lobby's evangelical roots were first noticed by many during the Chick-fil-A fracas earlier this year. Many news organizations began highlighting other businesses which, like Chick-fil-A, operated on Biblical principles.

CEO David Green, at left

Forbes:

[CEO David] Green is a big contributor to evangelical education, having given to Jerry Falwell's Liberty University and Oral Roberts University. He has also acquired Christian artifacts (medieval manuscripts, Hebrew scrolls and Codex Climaci Rescriptus: a rare sixth century Bible written partly in Palestinian Aramaic) for the National Bible Museum. In August 2011, Green announced that he is donating a 170-acre ranch in San Juan Capistrano, Calif., to Saddleback Church. A preacher's son from a poor background, Green started Greco Products in 1970 with $600, which he spun into his first Hobby Lobby arts and crafts stores in Oklahoma City in 1972. The family-friendly chain now has 490 locations in 40 states. Green strives to grow the company according to biblical principles; stores are closed on Sundays. The company has also delivered 508 million copies of a gospel booklet to children in more than 100 countries.

Fox News:

Hobby Lobby, the Oklahoma City-based arts and crafts store chain, cites its commitment to “honoring the Lord” on its website and closes its 500-plus nationwide locations on Sundays, as does Chick-fil-A.
“We believe that it is by God's grace and provision that Hobby Lobby has endured,” its website reads. “He has been faithful in the past, we trust Him for our future.”

While there have been many lawsuits challenging the US government's mandate, Hobby Lobby appears to be the first Evangelical-led business to file.

There are now 27 separate lawsuits challenging the HHS mandate, which is a regulation under the Affordable Care Act (aka "Obamacare"). These HHS challenges were not affected by the Supreme Court's June 28th ruling on the constitutionality of the "individual mandate."

"These abortion causing drugs go against our faith and our family is now being forced to choose between following the laws of the land that we love or maintaining the religious beliefs that have made our business successful and have supported our family and thousands of employees and their families," said Green, whose company is being represented by the Becket Fund, a religious freedom law group.

"The nationwide litigation against this HHS mandate is a fight for religious freedom for all Americans," said Kyle Duncan, general counsel for the Becket Fund, during the teleconference. "Today, [Hobby Lobby and its owners] are asking the federal court to protect their right to run their business as they always have in harmony with their Christian faith."

Patterns In Data Realization: Maps Depicting Social Ills Look Eerily Familiar

Update (8/27/13): 
The website PornHub has just released a trove of data on America's porn habits. I couldn't help but notice that, once again, it's THAT MAP. I have added the map to the bottom of this previously-published post.

I'm fascinated by data realizations in map form. They say a picture's worth a thousand words.

I'm not going to make any statements about cause and effect, as we all know that correlation does not imply causation. But there certainly is much to be gleaned from correlation.

The below map has been making the rounds recently. It depicts the largest participating religious groups by county in the United States -- basically which religions are most represented in each county.

As fascinating as it is, it probably doesn't come as much of a surprise:

See that large swath of red across the South? That's the Bible Belt. It has a lot in common with many other maps (some of which have been discussed here before).

Here's a map depicting life expectancies for females, by county:

And here's the same for males:

Here we have a map of religiosity in America, with the darker green depicting the most religious areas:

Here we have a map depicting well-being in America. The lighter areas indicate those areas in which residents report a lower sense of well-being.

Here we have a map depicting poverty in the US. Darker portions of the map indicate higher rates of poverty.

In the below map, we can see the divorce rates for men by state (darker colors indicate the highest rates of divorce):

Here we have the same map for women:

The following colorful map depicts the state of same-sex marriage in America. The darker red states are those which are most hostile towards gay-marriage (see key).

And here we have teen birth rates:

Noticing a pattern here?

Here we have a map of active hate groups:

The following map shows the treatment of evolution in schools, by state:

How about the states accepting abstinence education funds (those in orange denied federal abstinence education funds)?

What about high school diplomas?

And here we have the 2008 presidential election red state/blue state map:

Here's a map showing which states spend the most time on PornHub, the third largest porn video site on the internet. Could it be that the most religious, most conservative, most anti-gay, most anti-evolution, most pro-abstinence education states are also the states spending the most time viewing hardcore pornography?

Again, there are many, many factors that play into each of these maps. There are certainly many complex correlations and causations (and some factors perpetuate others). For example, we know that areas of high poverty will likely (for obvious reasons) experience less well-being, lower rates of education, and lower life expectancies.

The religious and political correlations, however, are more curious.

Do lower levels of well-being and lower life expectancies cause higher rates of religiosity?

Are blue-leaning states more likely to deny evolution? Or are evolution-deniers more likely to vote conservative?

Does abstinence education lead to higher teen pregnancy rates? Or do high teen pregnancy rates lead to more abstinence education?

Are hate groups more likely to be comprised of religious conservatives?

Do lower rates of high school graduates play into higher rates of religious conservatism?

Would an increase in graduation levels decrease the number of religious conservatives, evolution denialists, and hate groups?

Is it offensive to ask these questions? If so, why?

Do you have the answers? Please share.

GOP Reproductive Ideology: Ridicule Is The Only Weapon

Between trans-vaginal ultrasound legislation and personhood initiatives, it is clear that the GOP is completely off the rails. One might think the train has stopped in the 18th century.

Thomas Jefferson once said, "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." It's nice to see that the spirit of Jefferson lives on in halls of legislation (even though many conservatives would like to forget about him).

Take Yasmin Neal of the Georgia House of Representatives. In response to the insane attacks on women's reproductive rights, she authored a bill that would ban vasectomies.

"Thousands of children are deprived of birth in this state every year because of the lack of state regulation over vasectomies," wrote Neal in a statement. "It is patently unfair that men can avoid unwanted fatherhood by presuming that their judgment over such maters is more valid than the judgment of the General Assembly, while women's ability to decide is constantly up for debate throughout the United States."

Beautiful.

Georgia House Minority Leader Stacey Abrams added, "What is more deplorable is the hypocrisy of HB 954's author. If we follow his logic, we believe it is the obligation of the General Assembly to assert an equally invasive state interest in the reproductive habits of men and substitute the will of the government over the will of men."

This came on the heels of another bit of legislation-as-ridicule, this time out of Oklahoma.

State Sen. Constance Johnson proposed an amendment to Oklahomas' personhood bill. The amendment was referred to as the "Every Sperm Is Sacred" Bill, after the brilliant Monty Python song from 'Monty Python's Meaning of Life.'

The amendment states, "[A]ny action in which a man ejaculates or otherwise deposits semen anywhere but in a woman’s vagina shall be interpreted and construed as an action against an unborn child."

It's a slippery slope.

Down With Erections: The Catholic Church Wants To Take Away America's Boners

The average man has 11 erections each day, and several more at night.

This may be shocking to many -- mostly to those who do not own a penis.

I heard this statistic yesterday. Perhaps it wasn't a coincidence that this statistic was circulating on twitter the same day that contraception regulations were being debated across the internet, and on every cable news show in existence.

If we must truly cater to the whims of the Catholic church, perhaps we need to tackle this problem of erections.

By Catholic standards, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil.

In other words, God created sex solely for the purpose of reproduction.

Which begs the question: Why did God create the erection? Certainly not for urinating, which is the only other Catholic-sanctioned use of the penis.

If we are to believe that God created sex solely for the purpose of procreation, we must also believe that the erection is intended solely for the purpose of sexual intercourse.

If the average man gets 11 erections each day (and several more at night), and if the human body, and all of its intricate functions, were designed by God, then certainly these erections have a special purpose.

If the average man gets a dozen or so erections a day, and he does not engage in the act of sex for the purpose of reproduction, then, each time, he is using his erection "contrary to its purpose," to borrow a phrase from the Catechism.

Perhaps Rick Santorum said it best when he said, "It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be."

If we are to accept the Catholic Church's logic, we must accept that an erection that is not being used for the purpose of procreation is nothing more than "a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be."

It's a matter of time, folks. Rick Santorum said same-sex marriage would lead to "man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be." By the same logic, we should assume that the Catholic church, and conservative theocrats like Rick Santorum, are not going to stop at contraception. They're coming after our boners.

America, we need to stand firm. Tell the Catholic Church to keep their hands off our erections.

Hi, I'm Rick Santorum, And I Have No Self-Awareness

Rick Santorum has been talking a lot about freedom since his trifecta on Tuesday.

Take a look at some of his official tweets following his big day:

"Freedom is at stake in this election. America needs a president who’ll listen to the voice of the people."

"Our freedoms are slowly being eroded by Obama Admn. I will fight to restore them."

A press release from yesterday announced Santorum was "the first and only candidate to sign the Presidential Pledge for Religious Freedom."

If you've been following Rick Santorum for any amount of time, you might be wondering if the man is completely devoid of any self-awareness.

Certainly Rick Santorum does not mean the freedom to wear a condom while having sex:

"One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country. It's not okay. It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be."

Certainly he can't mean the freedom to have consensual sex with another adult in the privacy of your own home:

And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution."

And he can't mean the freedom for a doctor to practice his or her profession:

“I believe that any doctor that performs an abortion, I would  advocate that any doctor that performs an abortion, should be criminally charged for doing so.”

Clearly, he doesn't mean the freedom to be brown in an airport:

"Obviously, Muslims would be someone you'd look at [in airport profiling]."

The freedom to stay married to the person you legally married? Nah.

When asked if he would make same-sex couples get divorced, Santorum responded, "Well their marriage would be invalid."

The freedom to not have religion shoved down your child's throat in public schools? Nope.

"It's very interesting that you have a situation where science will only allow things in the classroom that are consistent with a non-Creator idea of how we got here, as if somehow or another that's scientific. Well maybe the science points to the fact that maybe science doesn't explain all these things. And if it does point to that, then why don't you pursue that? But you can't, because it's not science, but if science is pointing you there how can you say it's not science? It's worth the debate."

The freedom to terminate a pregnancy under the care of a licensed doctor? Of course not. Santorum pines for the good ol' days of back alley abortions:

Look at what’s happened just in our tolerance for abortion. Fifty years ago…60 years ago, people who did abortions were in the shadows, people who were considered really bad doctors. Now, abortion is something to that is just accepted. [...] This is the erosion. And it happens in the medical profession. It happened very fast.

I'm really curious about the freedoms Rick Santorum believes he represents. It sure sounds like he wants nothing more than to establish a Christian Taliban.

Santorum Wants To Be The Dictator Of Your Sexual Realm

In light of Santorum's recent surge in the polls, and his near-tie with Romney in Iowa, it's worth revisiting his appearance on Piers Morgan's show.

In the below interview from August, Morgan asks Santorum whether or not homosexuality is a sin.

MORGAN: Well, let's clarify a few things. Do you think homosexuality is a sin?

SANTORUM: Well, that's a decision not for a politician. That's a decision for someone who is a cleric. I'm not in that line of work. There are a lot of things in society that are, quote, "sins" or moral wrongs that we don't make illegal. Just because something is immoral or something that is wrong doesn't mean that it should be illegal, and that the federal government or any level of government should involve themselves in.

He goes on to state that, if he were a state legislator in Texas at the time of Lawrence v. Texas he would have voted against it. "I don't think that's something the state should involve itself in," stated Santorum.

Piers then presses him further on the homosexuality issue. (You have to give Morgan credit here -- his 'entertainment' show on occasion demonstrates more journalistic doggedness than any of the major network or cable news shows.)

MORGAN: So, you must have a view about whether homosexuality is a sin. I think if American people want to vote for you either way as president, they are entitled to know an honest answer to a straightforward question. You did invite me to ask you any question I liked.

SANTORUM: Yes, I did. And, of course, the Catholic Church teaches that homosexuality is a sin. I'm Catholic and subscribe to the Catholic Church's teaching. But that's not relevant from the standpoint of how I view these issues from a public policy of view and that's (why) I answered the question the way I did. From a public policy point of view, there are a lot of things I find immoral -- morally wrong or as you would use the term "sinful" that don't necessarily rise to the level that government should be involved in regulating that activity. And so, I answered it correctly. I answered it, in fact, succinctly and directly, that while I think things are morally wrong, that doesn't rise to the level of government involvement in that activity.

So, the question seems to be: Which 'sins' merit government involvement in Santorum's world? Certainly consensual sex acts between two adults in private should not be on par with, say, rape or burglary.

In Santorum's blurred church-state view, these things apparently do rise to the level of government involvement.

Quite simply, Rick Santorum doesn't believe anyone should have sex unless it is a penis entering a vagina for the purpose of sexual reproduction. Recreational sex? Absolutely unacceptable.

“One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country,” the former Pennsylvania senator explained. “It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”

Counter to how things are supposed to be?

Who, exactly, decides how things are supposed to be? Apparently, it's Rick Santorum and the Catholic Church.

The 10 Worst States To Be a Woman

Over at Alternet, Amanda Marcotte has compiled a list of the 10 worst states to be a woman. the list is based on the nearly 1,000 laws introduced by Republican (and some Democrat) state legislators in 2011 limiting women's access to reproductive health.

The losers:
1. Mississippi
2. Texas
3. South Dakota
4. Indiana
5. Oklahoma
6. Kansas
7. Minnesota
8. Georgia
9. Arizona
10. Louisiana

Most of these states, unsurprisingly, have other notable things in common.

See Marcotte's full story to learn more about what's going on in these states.