Hobby Lobby Disinformation

Hobby Lobby does NOT ban contraceptives. Despite the hysteria you hear from progressives, the firm continues to cover birth control methods that are most commonly used, including: most birth control pills, condoms, sponges & sterilization. I bet you didn’t know that. Ask your self why. It is a deliberate campaign of lies and distortions to support the false “war on women” theme.

Hobby lobby doesn't want to fund methods that they believe are akin to abortion, including things like the morning after pill. A women taking the contraceptives provided by the plan would never need this. Presumably the hysterical but ostensibly responsible people now complaining have nothing to worry about and can stand down. Nothing to see here.

Posted by Christine & John at July 5, 2014 7:57 PM
Comments
Comment #380524

Nobody much cares about Hobby Lobby itself but rather the sweeping decision under the RFRA exempting it from the ACA contraceptive coverage requirements on the grounds that it substantially burdened its religious beliefs and the government had other less restrictive alternative to achieve its compelling interest.

The majority decision was clear that the ruling covered all contraceptive coverage requirements not just the specific “morning after” drugs categorized by the FDA as contraceptives. So, while Hobby Lobby may continue to cover most contraceptives, other similarly situated companies may not be so inclined. Also, while the majority might wish to limit its decision to contraceptives, what prevents subsequent litigants from pursuing the rationale of the decision on other more troubling matters? What’s so special about religious objections to contraceptives as opposed to other health or non-health matters? The Court doesn’t really say.

There is much more to be concerned about with this decision. The attribution of specific religious beliefs to a corporate “person” is mind boggling. The corporate entity is a legal creation designed to protect or “shield” the owners from personal liability in the conduct of profit making business. In order to do so, the corporation is legally defined as a distinct entity from the owners. Now, the Court says that this distinct artificial legal person can have religious beliefs the very same as its owners. Clearly, the Court was troubled by this piercing of the corporate veil when it went to great lengths to limit such corporate religious beliefs to undefined “closely held” corporations. But, why only “closely held” corporations? If a corporation can hold religious beliefs of a few owners, why not those of multiple owners if they are all in agreement?

What is also not clearly understood, is that this decision was not based upon the First Amendment clauses related to free exercise of religion. Indeed, the Supreme Court rejected the type of argument presented by Hobby Lobby decades ago. “One of the wrinkles in Hobby Lobby is the decision doesn’t really involve the First Amendment. The court has already spoken on how far it believes the Constitution protects religious beliefs and it was its 1990 decision in Employment Division vs. Smith, declining to protect believers against neutral laws of general applicability. (In that case, laws against the consumption of peyote that two workers fired for drug use said violated their Native American religious beliefs.)” http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2014/07/04/hobby-lobby-decision-begins-to-contort-under-its-own-logic/

Posted by: Rich at July 5, 2014 9:39 PM
Comment #380525

Rich

It is not very sweeping, is it? There is no denying contraceptives. It is just a few sorts. We can depend on human judgement sometimes to make proper decisions.

One of the problems with our modern society is we tend toward extremes, all or nothing. This is moderate.

Posted by: CJ at July 5, 2014 9:57 PM
Comment #380526
There is no denying contraceptives. It is just a few sorts.
The precedent applies to all contraception. Not just those that Hobby Lobby specifically objected to. While women working for Hobby Lobby may enjoy using their health benefit to purchase ordinary contraception, women working for another “closely held corporation” may not be so lucky.

Also, where do we draw the line here? If I my employer gets to choose how I choose to spend my health benefit compensation, will they also be able to dictate how I spend the rest of my non-monetary compensation as well? Perhaps I want to vacation in Israel, but my employer is a Muslim extremist who claims that such a trip offends his religion? Will he be able to withhold paying my PTO benefit while I am away?

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 5, 2014 10:10 PM
Comment #380527

Warren

The statute talks about an undue burden unless there is a compelling government interest. We would trust the judgement of the judges. The slippery slope argument is a potential, but not a winner. We need reasonable standards.

Posted by: CJ at July 5, 2014 10:24 PM
Comment #380528

BTW

ObamaCare will be changed. It must evolve. The birth control mandate was not enacted by congress. It was an administrative decision. What administrators do can be undone.

Posted by: CJ at July 5, 2014 10:45 PM
Comment #380529

CJ, the problem as I see it is the dumbing down of the SCOTUS. Instead of upholding law the conservatives on the SCOTUS chose to uphold conservative ideology. Conservatives chose to applaud this decision as it is a short term victory for them and their ideology.

Just as you defend the illogical decision of the SCOTUS with the usual conservative claims of lies and distortions you are at fault for allowing ideology uber alles to rule the day. All for short term victories at the cost of the future of the country.

To think the conservatives of the SCOTUS has decided that corporations are persons entitled to additional rights not legal entities and ruled in their favor shows us conservatism as practiced and fascism are one and the same.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 5, 2014 11:42 PM
Comment #380530


2014 comes,in order to thank everyone, characteristic, novel style,varieties, low price and good quality,and the low sale price.Thank everyone Welcome to ==== http://www.kkship4biz.net ==
Air Jordan (1-24) shoes $35
Jordan (1-22)&2014 shoes $45
Nike shox (R4, NZ, OZ, TL1, TL2, TL3) $35
Handbags ( Coach Lv fendi D&G) $30
T-shirts (polo, ed hardy, lacoste) $14
Jean (True Religion, ed hardy, coogi)$34
Sunglasses ( Oakey, coach, Gucci, Armaini)$15
New era cap $16
Biki ni (Ed hardy, polo) $18
FREE SHIPPING
http://www.kkship4biz.net

http://www.kkship4biz.net

http://www.kkship4biz.net

http://www.kkship4biz.net
http://www.kkship4biz.net

http://www.kkship4biz.net

http://www.kkship4biz.net

http://www.kkship4biz.net

===( http://www.kkship4biz.net )===

===( http://www.kkship4biz.net )===

===( http://www.kkship4biz.net )===

===( http://www.kkship4biz.net )===

===( http://www.kkship4biz.net )===

===( http://www.kkship4biz.net )===
This is a shopping paradise
We need your support and trust

Posted by: uyfioytui at July 6, 2014 1:47 AM
Comment #380533

j2t2 the Supreme Court DID uphold the law. Contraceptive benefit is not in the ACA and it was added by the Health Resources and Services Administration in August 2011.

Posted by: George in SC at July 6, 2014 8:38 AM
Comment #380534

Warren

“If I my employer gets to choose how I choose to spend my health benefit compensation,”

You continue to twist this. You can use what ever the plan provides. You don’t get to design your own benefits. The employer picks the plan, if you don’t like the plan you don’t have to work there.

Posted by: dbs at July 6, 2014 9:21 AM
Comment #380535

“The employer picks the plan” is the problem dbs. Something the ACA did nothing about and if fact made worse. With big changes come winners and losers and the 58% who were in the employer provided system are getting less and paying more.

Posted by: George in SC at July 6, 2014 9:34 AM
Comment #380536

So George and dbs seem to think the religious beliefs of the corporation, the legal entity, are more important than the religious beliefs of the person. This strange and illogical collectivism is what the SCOTUS has upheld despite the twisting and turnings of conservatives defending this decision. Once again the current bunch of conservatives on the court pick power and money over the individual. Under the guise of religious freedom it is the corporation that must be protected, according to the conservatives, not the individual.

Forcing one’s religious beliefs upon others is a dangerous precedent, are you guys sure you wan to defend this?

Posted by: j2t2 at July 6, 2014 9:36 AM
Comment #380537
if you don’t like the plan you don’t have to work there.


And if the plan fail’s to meet HHS’ minimum criteria, it shouldn’t get a tax subsidy.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 6, 2014 10:00 AM
Comment #380538

j2t2

“So George and dbs seem to think the religious beliefs of the corporation, the legal entity, are more important than the religious beliefs of the person.”

Corporations are run by people, people with beliefs and values, who can choose to run those businesses accordingly. The person can choose to work for, or not work for a company. Your religious beliefs are not being violated because an employer chooses not to provide contraceptives in their health plan.

“Forcing one’s religious beliefs upon others is a dangerous precedent, are you guys sure you wan to defend this?”

Is someone forcing you to worship against your will ? I must have missed that part.

Warren

“And if the plan fail’s to meet HHS’ minimum criteria, it shouldn’t get a tax subsidy.”

That’s fine with me I shouldn’t have to subsidize other peoples health insurance anyway.

Posted by: dbs at July 6, 2014 10:25 AM
Comment #380539

George

We’re all getting less and paying more. The ACA IMO is a Ponzi scheme to begin with, meant to force the gov’t to step in when it fails in order to implement a single payer system which is what the left has wanted all along. This law has to be scrapped. The exchanges as a place to compare rates is not a bad idea, its just when the gov’t mandates a one size fits all solution there’s not much to compare. This model WILL ultimately fail and the democrats will blame(one of their favorite demons)the private insurance industry. How convenient.

Posted by: dbs at July 6, 2014 10:41 AM
Comment #380540
That’s fine with me I shouldn’t have to subsidize other peoples health insurance anyway.

Then why do you support the SC decision where Hobby Lobby was allowed to qualify for the subsidy despite the fact that they clearly didn’t fulfill the requirement to offer comprehensive preventative care to all employees?

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 6, 2014 10:45 AM
Comment #380541

dbs,

You can chose to run your business in a number of different ways: as a sole proprietorship, a partnership, a limited liability company or as a corporation. The choice matters.

In this case, the Green family chose to incorporate the business as a corporation. The corporate model provides a major benefit over a sole proprietorship or partnership: protection from individual liability. It achieves this benefit by creating a legal entity distinct from the owner(s) to operate the business. Hobby Lobby, therefore, is not the Greens doing business as Hobby Lobby. It is an entirely separate entity.

So, how does Hobby Lobby, an artificial legal construct authorized by the state to conduct business for profit, acquire religious beliefs? Does it go to church, read the bible or the Koran?

It was not the Greens who were required to provide contraceptive coverage in their insurance package, it was Hobby Lobby, a separate entity.

If society can’t hold the Greens personally liable for the debts or other actions of Hobby Lobby, why should society and/or the employees of Hobby Lobby be subjected to their personal religious beliefs through the corporate structure of Hobby Lobby?

Posted by: Rich at July 6, 2014 12:18 PM
Comment #380542

Rich,
Well said. Carefully reasoned and articulate arguments.

CJ,
“Hobby Lobby Disinformation.” Well, that is certainly a good title for your short article, but probably not for the reasons you intended.

Since Rich has already noted some of the obvious problems with the particulars, I’ll just throw in a general observation about the politics of this decision. While the five old conservative males of the SCOTUS have handed conservatives wins in battles for corporate rights and the rights of the wealthy, they are losing the war, because they are waging a war against women with this sustained legislative & judicial assault against women’s issues, and this is tailor made for the 2014 election.

The Hobby Lobby decision also applies to the co-plaintiff, Conestoga, as well as 82 other companies with similar lawsuits to deny contraception for women. The decision ONLY applies to contraceptives for women. Conservative men applaud this as a way of enforcing the religious freedom of corporations at the expense of the rights of women to make decisions about their own health care.

Women and liberals see it as clearly and blatantly discriminatory.

“Nothing to see here”? Uh-huh. Have fun in the midterms.

Posted by: phx8 at July 6, 2014 1:13 PM
Comment #380543

Jack,

“Hobby lobby doesn’t want to fund methods that they believe are akin to abortion, including things like the morning after pill.”

And if that is what they believe then they are wrrong.

If the fertiized egg hasn’t attatched to the uterine wall within the week that it can take, a woman’s monthly cycle will do the same, as will an IUD.
Any one that believes birth control pills are a 100% sure thing is a fool.

Limbaugh has gone as far as to infer that women wouldn’t need birth control if they weren’t sluts.

Sureely this won’t end until we declare that life begins with foreplay.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 6, 2014 2:03 PM
Comment #380544

j2t2

The ruling makes nothing illegal. It does not ban birth control. It does not even allow hobby lobby not to pay for some forms of birth control It merely affirms the right of some people to be different and not subject to every the administrative detail of ObamaCare.

If allowing people more choice and weakening governmental control over them is fascism, perhaps we have been calling things by the wrong name.

Phx8

As above - the ruling bans nothing. It allows some people not to pay for some things and loses administrative control. It changes little for anybody, but allows a principle of freedom to be asserted. This is what scares progressives.

Re midterms - I think Republicans will do well. I understand that Democrats will try to lie to people and talk about this war on women BS. But if not paying for only 4 out of 20 types of contraceptives that might cost around $15 is a war, we might wonder what it was in 1941.

Rocky

My general belief is that any woman who cannot afford birth control should get it free, because I sure would prefer such a woman have no kids. But this ruling is about freedom of choice. I support that.

Posted by: CJ at July 6, 2014 2:46 PM
Comment #380545

CJ,
“It allows some people not to pay for some things…”

No. There are two things wrong with that phrase:

1) We are not talking about “people.” We are talking about corporations. About 90% of all corporations are closely held, and about 52% of all Americans work for these kinds of corporations.

2) The corporations are not paying for contraceptives. They pay people, including women, for their labor. Part of that compensation involves health insurance through a third party. Having already compensated employees with money or earned benefits, a corporation has no right to turn around and control how the money already paid to the employee gets spent, or how the employee makes use of legal, earned benefits. Once paid, that choice belongs to the earner.

A corporation has many choices:

The corporation may choose not to be incorporated. Flesh and blood owners may choose not to use contraceptives for themselves. They may also choose not to offer health benefits, which even after the Obamacare fee is still a far cheaper alternative than offering health care in the first place.

But corporations- and real flesh and blood people- do NOT have the right to deny choices to others in order to exercise their own religious freedom. They can choose for themselves. NOT for others. Making choices for others without their consent and against their will is the very antithesis of freedom.

Posted by: phx8 at July 6, 2014 3:22 PM
Comment #380548

phx8

The contraceptive mandate was decided by bureaucratic administrative procedure as part of ObamaCare. It was not something decided among the parties and obviously those who worked at Hobby Lobby before chose to take the job w/o that benefit included in the package. It is ObamaCare that created the changed circumstances, not Hobby Lobby or its employees.

Insurance plans vary. The insurance offered by my employer doesn’t include dental. Since my teeth are not good, it costs me a fortune for dental care. My father worked at a place that included dental care. So … the details of the plans clearly do not have to be the same everywhere, except to the extent that bureaucrats working on ObamaCare decided to mandate them, which the court found an overreach.

Remember that the employees at Hobby Lobby are not being denied something they had already. Hobby Lobby insurance never covered these four products.

BTW - Hobby Lobby starts its workers at around $15 an hour and gives them all Sundays off. Do you want to demand that they pay entry level wages similar to those offered by other firms and make people work on Sunday as others do?

I believe in diversity of opinion and action. Clearly, some firms and individuals will make different choices. This is good. It is the variety that gives us the ability to adapt and change.

I am surprised you want to deny corporations the right to make moral choices. Aren’t you among those who complain when corporations seem to make choices that violate your values?

Posted by: CJ at July 6, 2014 4:50 PM
Comment #380549
Is someone forcing you to worship against your will ? I must have missed that part.

That, dbs, is exactly what I thought when Hobby Lobby filed a lawsuit claiming the owners religious rights were being violated. That is also what I am still saying, is anybody forcing the business entity or the owner to worship anything or anyone? No. The issue is a business entity providing healthcare to employees. No one is forcing the owners or the business entity to take any birth control or any other pills.

If allowing people more choice and weakening governmental control over them is fascism, perhaps we have been calling things by the wrong name.

Taking away some of the birth control options available to the people working for the corporate entity “Hobby Lobby” isn’t allowing more choice C&J it allows for less choice. Telling us this decision allows more choice for corporations at the expense of the people working at the corporation implies you would prefer the rights of the business entity/owner(in the case of closely held companies) over the rights of individuals. Or stated another way capital over labor, The monied class over the middle class. Conservatives have tilted the law that way(capital over labor) since Reagan which is why the US has slide down hill for so many of our fellow Americans for so long.

The Hobby Lobby decision and the Harris decision are just more in a long line of SCOTUS decisions favoring the ruling class, the aristocracy, and corporations over the people of this country. Real Choice for Americans is being curtailed by these SCOTUS decisions, hence conservatism as practiced today…


Posted by: j2t2 at July 6, 2014 4:54 PM
Comment #380550

j2t2

Nobody took anything away. Employees of Hobby Lobby never had access to those particular four types of birth control though their insurance plans. That option was created by the bureaucrats who made administrative rules of ObamaCare, which the court found an overreach.

Employees who want these can do as they did before and buy them. I understand they cost around $15. If a woman wants to use the most common sorts of contraceptives, her Hobby Lobby policy will still pay for those, as it did before.

Posted by: CJ at July 6, 2014 5:39 PM
Comment #380551

CJ,
Do I want to deny corporations the right to make moral choices? If by “moral” you mean “religious” then yes. Absolutely. No question. A corporation is obligated to do what is legal and to obey the law. A corporation is obligated to its shareholders. There are a lot of choices about what is best, and whether it is better to act in the interest of the short term or the long.

Morality usually involves questions of right and wrong, and it is based upon reason. Religious beliefs and their exercise are not the same as making moral choices; in fact, faith sometimes demands acting contrary to what seems moral, in order to support a religious belief and demonstrate devotion to a ‘higher truth’. The Bible is full of such stories. So- religion appeals to the supernatural, faith, and belief, as opposed to reason. It appeals to miracle, mystery, and authority, unlike morality.

In the case of the Hobby Lobby decision, a corporation apparently believes life begins at the moment of fertilization, rather than pregnancy, and equates a potential fertilization with life, even if the fertilized egg meets none of the traditional criteria for a living being. Furthermore, it assumes any prevention of pregnancy is the same as abortion, regardless of whether there is any actual knowledge of fertilization.

This is a belief about some forms of contraception, such as the ‘morning after’ pill. It has nothing to do with morality. It has nothing to do with science or reason. And a corporation has no business delving into this realm of faith, never mind denying women the ability to make their own decisions about contraception.

Posted by: phx8 at July 6, 2014 5:48 PM
Comment #380552

phx8

Is being against abortion a moral or a religious choice? For most religious people, i.e. most Americans, their religious beliefs inform their moral choices and it would be hard to separate them.

How about this question. Is it moral to abort a baby if you find he/she has a serious handicap or something like Downs Syndrome? I am always a bit surprised that people who generally support abortion will wince at this logical extension.

I am not judging the morality and I don’t think either of us has that right. If we believe moral choices are allowed, we have to support those we don’t agree with too.

In any case, nobody is being deprived of anything they were getting before and those who wish to use contraceptives most commonly used will still have that option through their Hobby Lobby policies.

Posted by: CJ at July 6, 2014 6:01 PM
Comment #380553

As long as you confuse a baby with a fertilized egg, these questions will confuse you.

Posted by: phx8 at July 6, 2014 6:15 PM
Comment #380554

“Remember that the employees at Hobby Lobby are not being denied something they had already. Hobby Lobby insurance never covered these four products.”

CJ,

You have said the above in a number of posts. It is not true. Prior to the Obamacare requirement, Hobby Lobby provided coverage for the drugs under its employee health care plan. The Green family claims that they were unaware that Hobby Lobby was providing the coverage until the Obamacare requirement. “A Wall Street Journal story says they looked into their plan after being approached by an attorney from the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty about possible legal action over the federal government’s contraceptives requirement.”

Wow! They were so concerned about these drugs that they never even looked into what their employee health plan actually provided prior to being contacted by a lawyer from a right wing lobbying and litigation group.


Posted by: Rich at July 6, 2014 6:38 PM
Comment #380555

phx8

I make no judgements about that. My morality is different. I am just saying that I respect theirs too. It is not an undue burden not to give some people something they have no previously had and something they can easily obtain from other sources.

Rich

They still provide coverage for most contraceptives. It is not a big loss, if it is a loss at all. It is a small thing to lose for the principle of choice.

I am more and more convinced that “rights” are the wrong way to go. We should keep the rights limited to really important things and make the rest dependent on mutual cooperation. The women in question can obtain most forms of birth control. ObamaCare tried to create a right to specific forms. The courts saw this as an overreach.

Posted by: CJ at July 6, 2014 6:49 PM
Comment #380556
Nobody took anything away.

Yes they did C&J. The ACA called for 4 additional forms of birth control that now these individuals will not be able to get through their insurance plan. The CoC won this round and the individuals working for closely held corporations now have less choices available to them going forward.

Employees of Hobby Lobby never had access to those particular four types of birth control though their insurance plans.

Only because their employer, Hobby Lobby, decided to file suit so these individuals wouldn’t be able to have these options available to them. This is but one example of why the ACA was so badly needed. To think that medicine and medical options are not available to certain people based upon the “religious belief” of the business entity they work for. Talk about having control over people life and not having a choice! Not to mention the constant downgrading of insurance plans by corporations and the continued passing on of costs to the employee. (Hey this sounds just like the conservatives tax ideology, lower taxes on capital higher taxes on labor, breaking the back of the middle class with voodoo economics!)

To bad so many Americans wanted to keep their insurance as it was instead of ridding us of the employer as the main source of health insurance coverage. Perhaps now is the time…nahh less control of us working folk if they did that.

That option was created by the bureaucrats who made administrative rules of ObamaCare, which the court found an overreach

So they did have this option taken away by the ruling of the SCOTUS because Hobby Lobby decided to file suit. The option was in the law C&J as bureaucrats don’t make the law the legislative branch makes the law. The administrative branch of our government, with whom you seem to be taking exception with the snide bureaucrat remark, makes the rules and regulation based upon the law as passed by Congress. Just as our founding fathers wanted it.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 6, 2014 6:54 PM
Comment #380557

j2t2

The bureaucratic administrators gives and the Supreme Court takes away. In either case, we are talking about few people and little money and not a big deal.

We have a significant problem with administratively made law, the so-called rule by experts. These rules are always subject to judicial review. This is nothing new. It has been this way since John Marshall back in the Jefferson Administration.

Posted by: CJ at July 6, 2014 7:15 PM
Comment #380558

The oddest aspect of the Court’s ruling in Hobby Lobby is that it didn’t even inquire into the validity of Hobby Lobby’s claim about the drugs being abortifacients. The fact that the vast majority of the medical and scientific community do not consider the drugs to be such was irrelevant.

The Court said that what mattered is that Hobby Lobby thought they were abortifacients and offended their religious beliefs.

I would like to remind readers of what Antonia Scalia wrote in the majority opinion dismissing a Constitutional basis under the First Amendment for religious exemptions in Employment Division vs. Smith:

“To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself,”

“To make an individual’s obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law’s coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State’s interest is ‘compelling’ - permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, ‘to become a law unto himself,’ contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense.’ To adopt a true ‘compelling interest’ requirement for laws that affect religious practice would lead towards anarchy.”

So, the basic Constitutional analysis is pretty clear from the Supreme Court: there is no religious exemption under the First Amendment establishment clause for generally applicable laws.

But, Congress, in its infinite wisdom, sought to correct the Supreme Court through the RFRA. So, thus far at least, the Supreme Court has aid OK. If you want to provide a religious exemption through a strict scrutiny test to laws that you pass, you can do that but it is not a Constitutional requirement and will far exceed the Constitutional requirements of the First Amendment.

I would contend that the mischief predicted by Scalia has come to pass. This Court may wish to limit its ruling to “closely held” corporations and contraceptives but there is no logical reason that there be such a limitation under their analysis.


Posted by: Rich at July 6, 2014 7:23 PM
Comment #380559

It was not the court’s business to study the science.

This ruling affects little, but is important in that it helps declare a limit to the administrative state.

Posted by: CJ at July 6, 2014 7:32 PM
Comment #380560
In either case, we are talking about few people and little money and not a big deal.

Then you miss the bigger picture C&J. The current SCOTUS seems to be ridding us of years of legal rulings a bit at a time, don’t kid yourself with this not a big deal talk. A step at a time the conservative led SCOTUS is heading us, ever more, towards plutocracy, decayed capitalism and ruin.

As I said earlier in this thread “Just as you defend the illogical decision of the SCOTUS with the usual conservative claims of lies and distortions you are at fault for allowing ideology uber alles to rule the day. All for short term victories at the cost of the future of the country. “

Posted by: j2t2 at July 6, 2014 7:41 PM
Comment #380561

j2t2

I fear the growth of the administrative state. ObamaCare was a big step in that direction. I am glad it has set back.

I don’t dislike government. On the contrary, I love it. I love it so much that I want to restore its virtue. That cannot be done if we let it run on autopilot.

Posted by: CJ at July 6, 2014 7:51 PM
Comment #380563

“It was not the court’s business to study the science.”

CJ,

You have to be kidding. If Hobby Lobby was wrong about the drugs being abortifacients then what is the basis of its suit? What injury did it suffer? If there was no injury, the case should have been dismissed for lack of standing. If there was a factual dispute, then the case should have been remanded to a lower court for findings of fact.

In order to get around this inconvenient problem, the majority of the Court simply said that the religious beliefs of Hobby Lobby were burdened regardless of their factual basis.

Think about that. Belief trumps facts. We can carve out exceptions to generally applicable law on the simple assertion of a religiously based belief. Scalia was correct in the Smith case: “To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself”

People have all manner of wacky religious based beliefs. We should honor them without examination as to their factual basis? We should exempt persons and corporations from general law because some hold a religious belief?

If this case had involved immunizations, the absurdity of the reasoning and the burden it would place upon a company’s employees and society would be apparent. Particularly, if the sincere religious based belief of the owners was scientifically invalid.

Posted by: Rich at July 6, 2014 8:58 PM
Comment #380564

Rich

regardless of how they choose to legally encapsulate their business, it is still their business. They still have the right to run it as they see fit. Business owners make decisions on lots of things having to do with their companies. Some of them based on morality. How is this any different than a company choosing to make any other decision based on a matter of conscience ? No matter the legal constructs the human element will always exist.

Posted by: dbs at July 6, 2014 8:58 PM
Comment #380565

CJ,

If you don’t like the rule making authority granted by statutes, then the proper approach is to write the necessary rules and regulations into the legislation in the first place. It might take a couple of years to get a piece of legislation prepared and passed but, what the heck, it takes the rule making out of the hands of bureaucrats.

If you think that an administration has abused or exceeded its rule making authority, then challenge it in Court. As you are aware, provisions are currently available to pursue that route if desired.

If someone thinks that the Obama administration exceeded its authority in promulgating the prevention coverage regulations, including the contraceptive provisions, then go to court to challenge them.

Posted by: Rich at July 6, 2014 9:10 PM
Comment #380571

Rich

I don’t think that a decision by ObamaCare bureaucrats is sacrosanct. A couple guys in a room got together to make it. They may have played rock-paper-scissors to come up with it. In any case, reversing it cases me no great heartache and I am happy to see the administrative state so chastised. It is certainly not a rights issue.

Re writing into regulation - this is the other side of the debased coin. We should indeed allow administrative interpretation, subject to judicial review. In this case the system worked as it should and I am perfectly content with the outcome.

“If someone thinks that the Obama administration exceeded its authority in promulgating the prevention coverage regulations, including the contraceptive provisions, then go to court to challenge them.” They did and the court have decided in their favor. Again, the system worked. Graças a Deus and the wisdom of the Supreme Court.

Posted by: CJ at July 6, 2014 9:21 PM
Comment #380579

CJ,

They didn’t go to court to challenge the rule making authority under the ACA nor for that matter the regulation itself. The regulation stands with the force of law.

The case was about was an exception to the lawful generally applicable regulation. It was brought under the RFRA. There was no challenge to the law or the regulation itself. In fact, the Court assumed a compelling interest on the part of the government but excepted Hobby Lobby from compliance on religious grounds.

Posted by: Rich at July 6, 2014 10:07 PM
Comment #380583

Rich

Do we care? They won the case and defeated an administrative rule. In the process hurt nobody. The Court decided the government had not compelling interest. Good for limits of power.

Posted by: CJ at July 6, 2014 10:11 PM
Comment #380626

Jack,

“They won the case and defeated an administrative rule. In the process hurt nobody.”

They won the case based on bullshit and hyperbole.

That they chose to believe these are “abortion” drugs, and using the excuse that it is a “religious”, and “moral” choice is pure crap. In your unbridled glee at seeing the government taken down a notch you willfully ignore the big picture.
If Hobby Lobby were truly worried about their religious and moral beliefs they would offer no birth control drugs at all, and I would be fine with that.
That they were “morally” outraged enough to bring suit against the government for requiring these 4 drugs merely because someone attatched the word “abortion” to them is hypocritical at best.

Knowledge, logic, and factual information lost, and that you choose to ignore those facts is truly sad.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 7, 2014 5:55 AM
Comment #380629

You are not denied anything simply because someone else does not wish to provide it to you for nothing.

I am not denied toothpaste because my employer does not offer an insurance plan that covers it, I go to the freaking store and buy it myself.
If I think a business should offer toothpaste to their employees, I don’t use government to force them to offer it, I get off my lazy ass, start my own company and offer it to my employees.

You know a country has reached it’s end when the people start complaining about what government doesn’t give them, instead of what the government is taking from them.

Posted by: kctim at July 7, 2014 9:50 AM
Comment #380633

Rocky,

“If Hobby Lobby were truly worried about their religious and moral beliefs they would offer no birth control drugs at all, and I would be fine with that.”

Hobby Lobby would have faced a $100/day per employee excise tax had they done so. To bring the suit they had to prove injury and the Court said that $475m per year qualified.

Posted by: George in SC at July 7, 2014 10:35 AM
Comment #380635

“So George and dbs seem to think the religious beliefs of the corporation, the legal entity, are more important than the religious beliefs of the person.”

I’m not sure who the other person who you are referring to that was being injured by the ACA j2t2. Certainly Hobby Lobby was about to be injured by a $475m excise tax and according to U.S. Law (1 U.S.C. §1) Hobby Lobby is a person:

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise—the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals.

But who is the other person that is being injured by recognizing Hobby Lobby’s right to religious free exercise?

Posted by: George in SC at July 7, 2014 11:01 AM
Comment #380637

“Hobby Lobby would have faced a $100/day per employee excise tax had they done so. To bring the suit they had to prove injury and the Court said that $475m per year qualified.”

Well silly me. Here I was believing that Hobby Lobby was all about moral and religious principles, and it turns out it was all about the money.

What was I thinking? What has this world come to?

Rocky


Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 7, 2014 12:29 PM
Comment #380640

“But who is the other person that is being injured by recognizing Hobby Lobby’s right to religious free exercise?”

George in SC,

Well, how about the female employees. The religious beliefs of the shareholders trumps the religious or non-religious beliefs of the employees in this case.

But, the first question is whether Hobby Lobby was even injured by the prevention requirement for contraceptive drugs. It complained about four drugs that it believed were abortifacients. The overwhelming opinion of the medical and scientific community is that they are not abortifacients.

Posted by: Rich at July 7, 2014 2:04 PM
Comment #380641

Rich

How are the employees being harmed?

Posted by: dbs at July 7, 2014 4:10 PM
Comment #380642

Rich, none of the female employees have brought suit against Hobby Lobby. The case is being used by Democrats to turn women voters against Republicans and is being used by Republicans to throw stones at the ACA. None of that has anything to do with the case or the decision.

Posted by: George in SC at July 7, 2014 4:22 PM
Comment #380644

“How are the employees being harmed?”

dbs,

They are being denied access to contraceptives under the same cost saving provisions that are available to all other similarly situated employees due to the religious beliefs of the owners of their company.

Posted by: Rich at July 7, 2014 5:32 PM
Comment #380647

Rich

Nobody is being harmed very much. It is a small matter in practical term. It is big in spirit because it is a loss for the administrative state. This is what worries progressives.

I believe in diversity. It doesn’t bother me that similarly situated employees at different firms have different benefits. Hobby Lobby pays above minimum wage and gives everyone Sunday off. This is also due to the belief system of the owners. I guess that is why many of the ostensibly harmed employees don’t just move on.

Posted by: CJ at July 7, 2014 5:58 PM
Comment #380648

“Rich, none of the female employees have brought suit against Hobby Lobby.”

George in SC,

Agree. But, they didn’t have to. Action was brought by the federal government on their behalf when it issued fines against the employer for failing to comply with the ACA regulations. Those fines are now a moot issue with the ruling.

The Supreme Court was not unaware of the negative consequences for the female employees. It suggested that the federal government could meet its compelling interest in seeing that women have low cost options by directly paying for the drugs outside the Hobby Lobby plan. Good luck with that.

“The case is being used by Democrats to turn women voters against Republicans..”

They don’t have to work too hard. The conservative right consistently fails to appreciate the interest and opinion of women when it comes to issues like this. In a recent Kaiser Foundation poll, women were overwhelming in favor of the Obamacare contraceptive provisions for profit making corporations. Catholic women were supportive to the tune of 66%. That should tell you how out of touch male dominated institutions are with the majority female population.


Posted by: Rich at July 7, 2014 6:05 PM
Comment #380661

Rich

They have access just like anyone else. They just have to pay for them out of pocket. They have the option to work for someone else who will subsidize those drugs, if it is that critical that someone else pay for them.

Posted by: dbs at July 8, 2014 3:44 AM
Comment #380676

“It is big in spirit because it is a loss for the administrative state. This is what worries progressives.”

Not true, CJ.

What worries progressives is the weird attribution of religious beliefs to a corporation, a hitherto separate and distinct legal entity from its shareholders.

What worries progressives is the willingness to burden employees in deference to the religious beliefs of the corporate employer.

What worries progressives is the legal precedent of this ruling. While the majority spent a lot of verbiage trying to assure everybody that this was a very narrow ruling, i.e., only closely held corporations, only contraceptives, etc., that verbiage is simple dicta and not binding in any future case. What counts is the actual ruling. And, that is scary. There is nothing to limit the ruling to closely held corporations. Nothing to limit it to contraceptives. The rationale of the Court applies to any corporation and to any general applied law objected to on the basis of religious belief.

On the above point, in Justice Kennedy’s concurrence, he tried to assure everybody that the Court would be more practical on other issues. But as one blogger said “Kennedy thinks he can sand the rough edges off the conservatives’ rulings, but that lasts only as long as he’s the swing vote. History, and the law, will remember the victors. Not the guy who feels bad about helping them win.”

A final point is that conservatives are aghast that many think that this is further evidence of a conservative war on women. Well, if it isn’t, why did the Court wish to limit the ruling only to contraceptives, an issue of significant importance to women? Why was contraceptives singled out for exemption on religious grounds? There are plenty of other religious objections to all sorts of laws. Why attempt to limit it to a woman’s issue?

Posted by: Rich at July 8, 2014 5:21 PM
Comment #380679

Rich

I don’t see that as much of a burden. And I prefer to burden some people if that is the price of allowing more diversity in choices. I don’t like the idea of “one right way.” In an uncertain world, I think we need variety.

Re contraceptives - 16 out of 20 are available. Those 16 are the most common and popular. It is like you accusing me of a crime because I will not pay for a particular type of clothes you prefer.

Posted by: CJ at July 8, 2014 6:03 PM
Comment #380681

“Re contraceptives - 16 out of 20 are available.”

If you mean that the ruling only applied to the four drugs objected to by Hobby Lobby, you are wrong.

Only a day after the opinion, the Court clarified without any doubt that it applied to all contraceptives, not just those some believe are abortion inducing. “The Supreme Court on Tuesday confirmed that its decision a day earlier extending religious rights to closely held corporations applies broadly to the contraceptive coverage requirement in the new health care law, not just the handful of methods the justices considered in their ruling.

The justices did not comment in leaving in place lower court rulings in favor of businesses that object to covering all 20 methods of government-approved contraception.” http://news.yahoo.com/justices-act-other-health-law-mandate-cases-133633160—politics.html

Posted by: Rich at July 8, 2014 7:17 PM
Comment #380682

Rich - the Hobby Lobby is already covering those drugs.

Interesting from City Journal:

The ACA contraceptive mandate requires that the 20 covered birth-control methods be provided without “any cost sharing requirements.” This means they must be covered at 100 percent of expense, with no copay or deductible. Cancer drugs, on the other hand, are subject to copay and deductible requirements under Obamacare. This discrepancy epitomizes the deterioration of American liberalism from Hubert Humphrey to Sandra Fluke—from a focus on life-and-death struggles of ordinary working people to a preoccupation with sex. From the time Humphrey and Harry Truman first proposed some form of national health-care system, Democrats have spoken movingly, and with some justification, about the plight of those hit with the catastrophic costs of a serious illness or injury—middle-class Americans sitting up nights, worrying about how to pay their medical bills. But no one is worrying about how to pay for birth control pills—not when a month’s supply costs $9 at Walmart.

Posted by: CJ at July 8, 2014 9:16 PM
Comment #380683

Sure, CJ. Democrats are worried about 9$ a month.

Posted by: Rich at July 8, 2014 10:02 PM
Comment #380684

Rich

Evidently they are. It seems that they think it is the end of the world. Interesting even more is that cancer drugs have co-pays and there is no liberal screams.

Posted by: CJ at July 8, 2014 10:14 PM
Comment #380710

“Interesting even more is that cancer drugs have co-pays and there is no liberal screams.”

CJ,

I think it fair to say that most progressives would prefer a Canadian type system where there would be no co-pays for cancer drugs. Saying that liberals are silent about cancer out of pocket costs while raising hell about contraceptives is simply wrong.

The contraceptive flap had to do with an initiative of the ACA that is intended to encourage preventive medicine by eliminating out of pocket payments for major and chronic illness screenings, i.e., annual checkups, diabetes screening, high blood pressure, colon cancer, breast cancer, ovarian cancer, etc. The contraceptives were obviously included to encourage family planning and to avoid unanticipated pregnancies and the resulting medical/social costs.

Posted by: Rich at July 9, 2014 6:22 PM
Comment #380719

Rich

If Democrats had read the bill before the passed it, they might have anticipated some of these problems.

Anyway, $9 a month is not much to pay.

We have managed to produce the worst hybrid. We have American style prices and entitlements with European style efficiency. The health care bill will have to evolve and change. Maybe it does not need to cover so many types of contraceptives. Maybe it needs to mandate less. BTW, speaking of mandates, the employer mandate is going the way of the dinosaur right after mid-terms. Democrats will kill it. Even they know it is unworkable.

Posted by: CJ at July 9, 2014 9:04 PM
Comment #380723

“If Democrats had read the bill before the passed it, they might have anticipated some of these problems.”

The RFRA stands lurking in the shadows for all federal generally applicable legislation. It was declared unconstitutional as it applies to the states. If the Supreme had any guts, it would declare the RFRA unconstitutional, period. It seems to me that it violates the separation of Constitutional powers. The intent of the law was to override the Court’s interpretation of the 1st Amend. free exercise clause in the Smith case. If I am not mistaken, it is the Supreme Court that is granted the power to interpret the Constitution, not the legislature. It seems to me that to allow this would invite chaos. If the legislature doesn’t like a ruling, should it be able to simply instruct the Court by legislation to use a different standard of interpretation in the future? Strange days.

Posted by: Rich at July 9, 2014 10:44 PM
Comment #381045

oakley gascan s sunglasses
oakley polarized sunglasses
oakley mens sunglasses
christian louboutin evening shoes
coach outlet atlantic city
louis vuitton totally mm
coach hand bag
louboutin flats
coach premium outlet
men michael kors watch
michael kors online outlet handbags
oakley eyepatch
coach handbag
coach coach factory outlet
christian louboutin bergdorf
coach outlet vicksburg ms
oakley backpacks
classic oakley sunglasses
oakley holbrook cheap
oakley sunglasses outlet online
coach factory outlet coach
www.coach outlet
coach factory outlet stores
the coach factory outlet
christian louboutin shoes on sale online
coach products
coach factory coach.com
coach rain boots
army oakley sunglasses
straight jacket oakley
louis vuitton website
michael kors down coat
michael kors men watches on sale
coach outlet
coach factory online outlet
oakley shorts
red bottom shoes louboutin
oakley antix
michael kors wallet
louboutin for men
louis vuitton clutch purse
black heels red bottom
girls oakley sunglasses
michael kors mens
louis vuitton china
christian red bottom shoes
shoes with the red bottom
christian louboutin red bottom heels
oakley outlet 365
michael kors belt
coach purple purse
white louis vuitton
michael kors men watch
coach outlet online.com
red bottoms outlet
coach outlet leeds al
coach online outlet
michael kors 2014
michael kors usa
louis vuitton purses for cheap
oakley vault sunglasses
louis vuitton luggage bag
michael michael kors bags
loui vuitton wallets
the coach factory outlet
oakley thump pro
louis vuitton outlet bags
the coach outlet online store
louboutin bridal shoes
louis vuitton graffiti bag
coach bags outlet store
louis vuitton purses on sale authentic
oakley sunglasses gascan
coach discount handbags
red bottoms for women cheap
coach factory online store
christian louboutin white shoes
coachoutlet.com online
christian louboutin canada
michael kors discount handbags
mikael kors
discount michael kors bags
authentic louis vuitton handbags outlet
michael kors satchel
cheap sunglasses oakley
louis vuitton san antonio
discount michael kors handbags
christian louboutin boston
louis vuitton tote
louis vuitton watches
authentic louis vuitton handbags on sale
cheap michael kors handbags sale
louis vuitton purses prices
michael kors runway
michael kors python
coach outlet coupon
christian louboutin pumps
coach leatherware
coach store locations
shoes with red on bottom
oakley probation sunglasses
coach wallets
louis vuitton monogram
shop michael kors outlet online
michael kors outlet store sale
designer of red bottom shoes
monster dog oakley
coach factory store online
women shoes with red bottoms
cheap authentic louis vuitton bags
louis vuitton purses outlet online
kors by michael kors
coach coach factory outlet
coach sunglasses outlet
louis vuitton duffle
shoes louis vuitton
coach bags
michael kors purse
coach.com outlet online
michael kors bags outlet
lens for oakley sunglasses
oakley sunglasses outlet store
michael kors shoes sale
las vegas coach outlet
oakley dealers
louis vuitton factory online
oakley wire sunglasses
christian louboutin online sale
oakley sunglasses wiki
louis vuitton designer bags
the coach
red bottoms shoes women
official michael kors factory outlet online
coach factory outlet online 70 off
coach premium outlet
michael kors chronograph watch
louis vuitton outlet miami
coach outlet houston
coach outlet locations
michael kors outlet shoes
michael kors grayson monogram
michael kors charlton
louis vuitton factory store
louis vuitton damier
online coach outlet
michael kors watches for men
youth oakley sunglasses
coach outlet factory online
michael kors loafers
oakley sunglasses models
coach allen outlet
red bottom pumps for sale
oakley website
coach wristlets
coach online store
buy michael kors
coach outlet tannersville pa
cheap oakley frogskin sunglasses
cheap michael kors purses online
official louis vuitton outlet
louis vuitton galliera pm
louis vuitton cheap handbags
michael kors for men
louis vuitton watch
coach legacy
michael kors moxley
coach handbags outlet online
coach outlet online reviews
louis vuitton clutch purse
michael kors handbags on sale
louis vuitton purses handbags
cheap oakley oil rig sunglasses
louis vuitton black bag
discounted louis vuitton purses
louis and vuitton
coach makeup bag
authentic coach outlet
louis vuitton damier azur
louis vuitton uk sale
loui vuitton
michael kors factory outlet store online
michael kors retail
discount coach outlet
coachfactoryoutlet
michael kors 2014
michael kors sale handbags
louis vuitton handbags usa
coach outlet purse
michael kors erin bag
authentic louis vuitton outlet online
coach wrentham outlet
coach clearance bags
coach handbags purses
louis vuitton bags uk
michael kors watches men
coach warehouse
louis vuitton online shopping
discount oakley glasses
purple coach purse
bags louis vuitton
where can i buy christian louboutin shoes on sale
louboutin men red bottoms
coach poppy
juliet oakley sunglasses
louis vuitton shoulder bags
michael kors online
coach checkbook wallet
louis vuitton used purses
coach purses for cheap
michael kors clothing outlet
purses louis vuitton sale
louis vuitton purses for sale
oakley eyepatch sunglasses
www red bottom shoes outlet com
coachoutlet.com
louis vuitton boots
loui vuitton bags outlet
cheap red bottom
m frame oakley
louis vuitton neverfull pm
outlet louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton mens wallet
louis vuitton sale
where to buy oakleys
on sale oakley sunglasses
michael kors watches outlet
louis vuitton tambour
handbag coach outlet
louis vuitton online shop
black heels red bottoms
shoes louis vuitton
michael kors hamilton satchel
michael kors watch men
loui vuitton wallet
louis vuitton suitcase
louboutin spiked
louis vuitton cheap bags
michael kors hamilton quilted
christian louboutin very mix
michale kors
michael kors clothing
high heels christian louboutin
personal coach
michael kors watch for women
coach outlet sales
official coach factory outlet online sale
louis vuitton bags on sale online
oakley bags
michael kors wallet
red bottom heel shoes
purple coach purse
michael kors flats
louis vuitton store
coach outlet clearance online
michael kors luggage
purses louis vuitton sale
michael kors outlet handbags
red bottom sale
louis vuitton sale
black louis vuitton bag
michael kors outlet locations
coach outlet factory store online
louis vuitton bags purses
michael kors on sale online
oakley ski goggles
rent christian louboutin
oakley minute 1.0
red bottoms christian louboutin
coach outlet tannersville pa
red bottom heels for women for cheap
red bottom outlet
outlet for michael kors
oakley prescription glasses
louis vuitton stores
michael kors kids
coach discount outlet
cheap coach handbags
michael kors store outlet
christian louboutin red bottom
coach poppy purse
coach handbags purses
louboutin pigalle 100
shoes michael kors
michael kors charlton crossbody bag
oakley fire iridium
coach outlet wristlet
michael kors perfume
michael kors outlet miami
handbag louis vuitton
coach clearance outlet online
michael kors charlton
red bottom shoes.com
coach premium outlet
christian louboutin shoes outlet
shop louis vuitton handbags
louboutin discount shoes
oakley gascan s sunglasses
louboutin soles
louis vuitton purses outlet store
louis vuitton luggage outlet
louis vuitton small bag
michael kors coupons
coach clearance handbags
cheap michael kors handbags online
coach outlet store online free shipping
heels red bottom
red bottoms for men shoes
louboutins mens shoes
louis vuitton manhattan pm
louis vuitton bags outlet
oakley sun glasses
michael kors glasses
coach outlet coach
lens for oakley sunglasses
louis vuitton bags cheap
christian louboutin pigalles
oakley snowboard pants
spiked christian louboutin
cheap christian louboutin red bottoms
red bottoms heels price
louis vuitton handbags outlet store
pigalle louboutin
discounted louis vuitton bags
oakley rx
michael kors handbag outlet
michael kors camouflage handbag
louis vuitton speedy 30
oakley jury sunglasses
michael kors diaper bag
louis vuitton sarah wallet
coach totes on sale
red bottoms shoes for cheap
oakley frames
coach shoulder bag
pink louis vuitton
christian louboutin sale mens
coach outlet woodbury commons
new oakley sunglasses
kors
oakley prescription eyewear
designer heels with red bottoms
coach locations
discounted louis vuitton purses
louis vuitton online shop
coach factory outlet sale
red bottom for cheap
buy louis vuitton bag
on sale louis vuitton
louis vuitton outlet new york
michael kors handbags outlet locations
louis vuitton belt
red bottoms on sale for women
coach patchwork purse
loui vuitton
cheap louis vuitton bags for sale
oakley goggles
louis vuitton factory outlet online
coach handbags outlet store online
cheap louis vuitton outlet
factory outlet coach
red bottom shoes designer
louis vuitton history
oakley x squared
outlet coach
michael kors bags outlet online
outlet for michael kors
monster dog oakley sunglasses
christian louboutin red bottom heels on sale
men oakley sunglasses
who is michael kors
www.michaelkors.com
louis vuitton speedy handbag
clearance oakley sunglasses
louis vuitton material
what is christian louboutin
discounted coach handbags
michael kors black
coach jewelry
coach handbags on sale
buy oakley sunglasses online
cheapest red bottom heels
louis vuitton backpack
coach purses outlet stores
louboutin red bottoms
oakley sunglasses outlet
coach factory outlet miromar
coach purses outlets
coach outlet mall
michael kors handbags outlets
michael kors designs
cheap coach purses
handbags coach outlet
oakley aviators
michael kors sunglasses
oakley juliet
factory outlet coach
louis vuitton consignment
christian louboutin ambertina
red bottom shoes for women sale
michael kors outlet locations
coach factory outlet store
buy cheap oakley sunglasses sale
sport oakley sunglasses
coach jewelry
coach factory outlet online shopping
red bottoms replica
new oakley sunglasses
louis vuitton china
discounted coach handbags
michael michael kors jet set
cheap michael kors bags
coach online outlet factory
coach diaper bag outlet
louboutin red bottom shoes
michael kors backpack
michael kors fur vest
michael kors outlet cheap
michael kors coat
oakley returns
louis vuitton handbags official site
oakley titanium sunglasses
discount michael kors watches
red bottoms shoes cheap
wedding shoes louboutin
louis vuitton purses authentic
coach factory online outlet
oakley baseball glasses
official coach factory outlet
louis vuitton belt
authentic louis vuitton outlet store
cheap loui vuitton bags
michael kors clogs
michae kors
coach legacy
christian louboutin sale men
sale louis vuitton handbags
michael kors outlet store sale
michael for michael kors
cheap michael kors watches

Posted by: haokeai at July 21, 2014 2:05 AM
Comment #383453

【linlei】Southernerswerebornwithgunsintheirha (war), nds , (no) und das Leben in der Jagd verbracht hatte Sch��tzen ofthem alle gemacht . Von Pflanzer Michael Kors crossbody bag H?user und Sumpf -Kabinen, eine abwechslungsreiche
Michael Kors outlet clearance />actuallyheard , vielleicht hat er etwas bemerkt wholesales michael kors bags online , sp��rte ein wenig Aufregung in theWilkes michael kors crossbody bag Familie. Wenn ich ihn nur sehen, privat Michael Kors Handbags Black Friday Sale vor dem Abendessen , vielleicht werde ich Michael Kors handbags outlet online store herausfinden, die
Ehre zu akzeptieren. Die find cheap michael kors bag Truppe traf zweimal in der Woche in discount Michael Kors purses Jonesboro zu bohren und f��r den Krieg cheap Michael Kors watches zu beginnen, zu beten. Arrangementshad noch nicht Michael Kors outlet f��r den Erhalt der vollen Quote von Michael Kors crossbody bags Pferden
beigetragen hatte Geld, um die Truppe, Pferd und Mensch completelyoutfit owner michael kors black Friday . Das Fazit der Sache war , dass jeder Pflanzer vereinbart topay f��r die Ausstattung seiner eigenen S?hne und eine
bessere Manieren cheap Michael Kors handbags . Ain ’ MissBeetriss hat mich gelehrt Michael Kors watches , wie sie dieselbe Weise y’all unterrichtet? michael kors hamilton satchel ” ” Sie hat nicht einen sehr michael kors bags guten Job auf einem der drei von michael kors outlet online sale store uns tun “, sagte Stuart . ” michael kors bag
Calvert geschossen und Tony Fontaine hatte Michael Kors black purse shotBrent . Die Zwillinge hatten zu Hause cheap Michael Kors wallets gewesen , frisch von der Universit?t von Michael Kors bags Virginia vertrieben, an der Bef?rderungszeitlink Troop wurde michael kors tote

Posted by: Wolverine at September 18, 2014 12:53 AM
Post a comment