Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production

[sana8410]

The story is a bit old, but I haven't been following it very closely:

Mother Jones has discovered that Hobby Lobby which is seeking exemption from certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act on religious grounds surrounding contraception benefit requirements (a case it has won), actually invests (through their retirement fund) in companies that produces emergency contraceptives and abortion related products.

According to Mother Jones:

Documents filed with the Department of Labor and dated December 2012 (see above)—three months after the company’s owners filed their lawsuit—show that the Hobby Lobby 401(k) employee retirement plan held more than $73 million in mutual funds with investments in companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and drugs commonly used in abortions. Hobby Lobby makes large matching contributions to this company-sponsored 401(k).

These companies make up 3/4ths of Hobby Lobby's 401k assets.
Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...ous-objection/

[1715677908]

1715677908

[1715677908]

1715677908

[1715677908]

1715677908

[1715677908]

1715677908

[Wilikon]

The story is a bit old, but I haven't been following it very closely:

Mother Jones has discovered that Hobby Lobby which is seeking exemption from certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act on religious grounds surrounding contraception benefit requirements (a case it has won), actually invests (through their retirement fund) in companies that produces emergency contraceptives and abortion related products.

According to Mother Jones:

Documents filed with the Department of Labor and dated December 2012 (see above)—three months after the company’s owners filed their lawsuit—show that the Hobby Lobby 401(k) employee retirement plan held more than $73 million in mutual funds with investments in companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and drugs commonly used in abortions. Hobby Lobby makes large matching contributions to this company-sponsored 401(k).

These companies make up 3/4ths of Hobby Lobby's 401k assets.
Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...ous-objection/

Even more proofs they are not in a war against women. I am glad they won 

[pedrog]

it's all about the money, doesn't this undermine their religious claims?

[Ron~Popeil]

Most of these kinds of funds are invested in a basket of goods. My wife's retirement fund is the same way and she is a professor at a Catholic university.

[umair127]

This story has a lot of legs in the news. Unfortunately, like most of the reporting on the Hobby Lobby decision, it completely misses the point.

[sana8410]

This story has a lot of legs in the news. Unfortunately, like most of the reporting on the Hobby Lobby decision, it completely misses the point.

Not when the ruling, in part, hinged on the sincerity of their religious convictions which obviously weren't strong enough to cause them to utilize religious 401k placings in order to avoid having assets tied up in companies that make the things they are supposed to be against.

[zolace]

I actually wasted my time looking at this. I'm displeased. Can you tell me specifically on the form you provided as proof what exact companies that make drugs are part of Hobby Lobby groups direct investment?

Because the only thing I see is investment funds of various types, which is essentially the only type of investments typically allowed by government decree for this type of retirement plan vehicle.

Also, is this plan for the benefit of Hobby Lobby ownership, or employees? Because I have my doubts the owners are seeing any economic benefit from this at all.

Trying to twist something like this ranks up the extreme hypocrisy of Harry Reid saying women should be in positions of power while making sure every single senior staffer of his is male. Either he's gay, or he has no respect for women opinions, but is too cowardly to admit it.

[sana8410]

I actually wasted my time looking at this. I'm displeased. Can you tell me specifically on the form you provided as proof what exact companies that make drugs are part of Hobby Lobby groups direct investment?

Because the only thing I see is investment funds of various types, which is essentially the only type of investments typically allowed by government decree for this type of retirement plan vehicle.

Also, is this plan for the benefit of Hobby Lobby ownership, or employees? Because I have my doubts the owners are seeing any economic benefit from this at all.

Trying to twist something like this ranks up the extreme hypocrisy of Harry Reid saying women should be in positions of power while making sure every single senior staffer of his is male. Either he's gay, or he has no respect for women opinions, but is too cowardly to admit it.

All of your questions are literally answered in the Forbes article that I linked.

[Rigon]

The story is a bit old, but I haven't been following it very closely:

Mother Jones has discovered that Hobby Lobby which is seeking exemption from certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act on religious grounds surrounding contraception benefit requirements (a case it has won), actually invests (through their retirement fund) in companies that produces emergency contraceptives and abortion related products.

According to Mother Jones:

Documents filed with the Department of Labor and dated December 2012 (see above)—three months after the company’s owners filed their lawsuit—show that the Hobby Lobby 401(k) employee retirement plan held more than $73 million in mutual funds with investments in companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and drugs commonly used in abortions. Hobby Lobby makes large matching contributions to this company-sponsored 401(k).

These companies make up 3/4ths of Hobby Lobby's 401k assets.
Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...ous-objection/

Like the owners of Hobby Lobby examine everything that any company their fund makes an investment in does. But to people like you, it makes sense. Actually if he bothered to check on FACTS, not his political agenda, he would be even more pathetic.

[noviapriani]

1. There were several litigants. The ruling wouldn't have changed in any meaningful way. Hobby Lobby would have simply lost standing* or whatever. MotherJones would have then been crying about how Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation's owner's step-brother's uncle's cousin's Jewish nephew's dogsitter's sister's best friend once bought Plan B.

*I say they'd lose standing because there were other plaintiffs alongside Hobby Lobby, hence "Hobby Lobby, et al.," and since the court was still compelled to rule on Conestoga, it would likely include the other plaintiffs alongside Hobby Lobby while simply excluding Hobby Lobby. I believe one way to do this is to deny standing to Hobby Lobby.



2. As I understand it, it was a finding of fact that Hobby Lobby's owners were sincere in their convictions, which would mean that the onus would then be on HHS to challenge their sincerity, which they did not do (apart from challenging sincerity of Hobby Lobby's religious convictions on the grounds that for-profit corporations cannot hold religious beliefs, let alone sincere ones).

From the syllabus:

    It is not for the Court to say that the religious beliefs of the plaintiffs are mistaken or unreasonable. In fact, this Court considered and rejected a nearly identical argument in Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Security Div., 450 U. S. 707. The Court’s “narrow function . . . is to determine” whether the plaintiffs’ asserted religious belief reflects “an honest conviction,” id., at 716, and there is no dispute here that it does. Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U. S. 672, 689; and Board of Ed. of Central School Dist. No. 1 v. Allen, 392 U. S. 236, 248–249, distinguished. Pp. 35–38.

Held:

    The companies in the cases before us are closely held corporations, each owned and controlled by members of a single family, and no one has disputed the sincerity of their religious beliefs.



3. Denying a person their religious rights because of some perceived hypocrisy is ... probably not constitutional.

As noted in Ginsburg's dissenting opinion:

    I agree with the Court that the Green and Hahn families’ religious convictions regarding contraception are sincerely held. See Thomas, 450 U. S., at 715 (courts are not to question where an individual “dr[aws] the line” in defining which practices run afoul of her religious beliefs).

[umair127]

The story is a bit old, but I haven't been following it very closely:

Mother Jones has discovered that Hobby Lobby which is seeking exemption from certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act on religious grounds surrounding contraception benefit requirements (a case it has won), actually invests (through their retirement fund) in companies that produces emergency contraceptives and abortion related products.

According to Mother Jones:

Documents filed with the Department of Labor and dated December 2012 (see above)—three months after the company’s owners filed their lawsuit—show that the Hobby Lobby 401(k) employee retirement plan held more than $73 million in mutual funds with investments in companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and drugs commonly used in abortions. Hobby Lobby makes large matching contributions to this company-sponsored 401(k).

These companies make up 3/4ths of Hobby Lobby's 401k assets.
Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...ous-objection/

401k is the employees money, not the company's investments. Honestly this is evidence the company is reasonable and isnt trying to force the employees to follow the company's rules on investments.


Good luck picking a group of index funds/etfs without a pharmaceutical company ...

[zolace]

The story is a bit old, but I haven't been following it very closely:

Mother Jones has discovered that Hobby Lobby which is seeking exemption from certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act on religious grounds surrounding contraception benefit requirements (a case it has won), actually invests (through their retirement fund) in companies that produces emergency contraceptives and abortion related products.

According to Mother Jones:

Documents filed with the Department of Labor and dated December 2012 (see above)—three months after the company’s owners filed their lawsuit—show that the Hobby Lobby 401(k) employee retirement plan held more than $73 million in mutual funds with investments in companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and drugs commonly used in abortions. Hobby Lobby makes large matching contributions to this company-sponsored 401(k).

These companies make up 3/4ths of Hobby Lobby's 401k assets.
Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...ous-objection/

401k is the employees money, not the company's investments. Honestly this is evidence the company is reasonable and isnt trying to force the employees to follow the company's rules on investments.


Good luck picking a group of index funds/etfs without a pharmaceutical company ...

I'm sure you're not clever enough to realize how your reasoning parallels a compelling argument to be made against this ruling.

[sana8410]

The story is a bit old, but I haven't been following it very closely:

Mother Jones has discovered that Hobby Lobby which is seeking exemption from certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act on religious grounds surrounding contraception benefit requirements (a case it has won), actually invests (through their retirement fund) in companies that produces emergency contraceptives and abortion related products.

According to Mother Jones:

Documents filed with the Department of Labor and dated December 2012 (see above)—three months after the company’s owners filed their lawsuit—show that the Hobby Lobby 401(k) employee retirement plan held more than $73 million in mutual funds with investments in companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and drugs commonly used in abortions. Hobby Lobby makes large matching contributions to this company-sponsored 401(k).

These companies make up 3/4ths of Hobby Lobby's 401k assets.
Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...ous-objection/

401k is the employees money, not the company's investments. Honestly this is evidence the company is reasonable and isnt trying to force the employees to follow the company's rules on investments.


Good luck picking a group of index funds/etfs without a pharmaceutical company ...

1.) The Greens have their 401k's set up through their company as well.

2.) There are 401k plans specifically set up for religious groups in order to avoid holdings in companies that produce contraception, use stem cell research, etc.

3.) As management, they are the ones who give the marching orders on their 401k plans.

[umair127]

The Forbes article misses a key issue: the 401(k) plan is a separate legal entity from the employer. The plan has what is known as a plan fiduciary who is required by law to act in the best interests of the plan participants (the employees) not the plan sponsor (the employer).
It is true that there are mutual funds that screen out certain types of investments, but those funds often have higher expense ratios or loads and other fees. This means you would get a lower real return with the morality funds. So, a good fiduciary should not choose those funds.

[sana8410]

1. There were several litigants. The ruling wouldn't have changed in any meaningful way. Hobby Lobby would have simply lost standing* or whatever. MotherJones would have then been crying about how Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation's owner's step-brother's uncle's cousin's Jewish nephew's dogsitter's sister's best friend once bought Plan B.

*I say they'd lose standing because there were other plaintiffs alongside Hobby Lobby, hence "Hobby Lobby, et al.," and since the court was still compelled to rule on Conestoga, it would likely include the other plaintiffs alongside Hobby Lobby while simply excluding Hobby Lobby. I believe one way to do this is to deny standing to Hobby Lobby.



2. As I understand it, it was a finding of fact that Hobby Lobby's owners were sincere in their convictions, which would mean that the onus would then be on HHS to challenge their sincerity, which they did not do (apart from challenging sincerity of Hobby Lobby's religious convictions on the grounds that for-profit corporations cannot hold religious beliefs, let alone sincere ones).

From the syllabus:

    It is not for the Court to say that the religious beliefs of the plaintiffs are mistaken or unreasonable. In fact, this Court considered and rejected a nearly identical argument in Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Security Div., 450 U. S. 707. The Court’s “narrow function . . . is to determine” whether the plaintiffs’ asserted religious belief reflects “an honest conviction,” id., at 716, and there is no dispute here that it does. Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U. S. 672, 689; and Board of Ed. of Central School Dist. No. 1 v. Allen, 392 U. S. 236, 248–249, distinguished. Pp. 35–38.

Held:

    The companies in the cases before us are closely held corporations, each owned and controlled by members of a single family, and no one has disputed the sincerity of their religious beliefs.



3. Denying a person their religious rights because of some perceived hypocrisy is ... probably not constitutional.

As noted in Ginsburg's dissenting opinion:

    I agree with the Court that the Green and Hahn families’ religious convictions regarding contraception are sincerely held. See Thomas, 450 U. S., at 715 (courts are not to question where an individual “dr[aws] the line” in defining which practices run afoul of her religious beliefs).

Oh I'm not questioning the ruling from a legal perspective. I never have, nor do I even begin to posses the legal skills and knowledge to be able to do so. My argument has always been more personal based on economic well being and utility gains coupled with ideology, it has never been based around law.

[umair127]

Thank god this legal door was blown open then, as obviously the convictions here were so strong. Has anyone here read the Hobby Lobby decision? How would you characterize the holding?

[sana8410]

The Forbes article misses a key issue: the 401(k) plan is a separate legal entity from the employer. The plan has what is known as a plan fiduciary who is required by law to act in the best interests of the plan participants (the employees) not the plan sponsor (the employer).
It is true that there are mutual funds that screen out certain types of investments, but those funds often have higher expense ratios or loads and other fees. This means you would get a lower real return with the morality funds. So, a good fiduciary should not choose those funds.

The article addressed both of those points in its July update if you keep reading. The returns are also comparable.

[umair127]

The story is a bit old, but I haven't been following it very closely:

Mother Jones has discovered that Hobby Lobby which is seeking exemption from certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act on religious grounds surrounding contraception benefit requirements (a case it has won), actually invests (through their retirement fund) in companies that produces emergency contraceptives and abortion related products.

According to Mother Jones:

Documents filed with the Department of Labor and dated December 2012 (see above)—three months after the company’s owners filed their lawsuit—show that the Hobby Lobby 401(k) employee retirement plan held more than $73 million in mutual funds with investments in companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and drugs commonly used in abortions. Hobby Lobby makes large matching contributions to this company-sponsored 401(k).

These companies make up 3/4ths of Hobby Lobby's 401k assets.
Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...ous-objection/

401k is the employees money, not the company's investments. Honestly this is evidence the company is reasonable and isnt trying to force the employees to follow the company's rules on investments.


Good luck picking a group of index funds/etfs without a pharmaceutical company ...

1.) The Greens have their 401k's set up through their company as well.

2.) There are 401k plans specifically set up for religious groups in order to avoid holdings in companies that produce contraception, use stem cell research, etc.

3.) As management, they are the ones who give the marching orders on their 401k plans.

The Forbes author does not understand 401(k) plan laws or fiduciary duty. I was an ERISA lawyer for 5 years. Trust me, he is dead wrong.

[sana8410]

The story is a bit old, but I haven't been following it very closely:

Mother Jones has discovered that Hobby Lobby which is seeking exemption from certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act on religious grounds surrounding contraception benefit requirements (a case it has won), actually invests (through their retirement fund) in companies that produces emergency contraceptives and abortion related products.

According to Mother Jones:

Documents filed with the Department of Labor and dated December 2012 (see above)—three months after the company’s owners filed their lawsuit—show that the Hobby Lobby 401(k) employee retirement plan held more than $73 million in mutual funds with investments in companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and drugs commonly used in abortions. Hobby Lobby makes large matching contributions to this company-sponsored 401(k).

These companies make up 3/4ths of Hobby Lobby's 401k assets.
Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...ous-objection/

401k is the employees money, not the company's investments. Honestly this is evidence the company is reasonable and isnt trying to force the employees to follow the company's rules on investments.


Good luck picking a group of index funds/etfs without a pharmaceutical company ...

1.) The Greens have their 401k's set up through their company as well.

2.) There are 401k plans specifically set up for religious groups in order to avoid holdings in companies that produce contraception, use stem cell research, etc.

3.) As management, they are the ones who give the marching orders on their 401k plans.

The Forbes author does not understand 401(k) plan laws or fiduciary duty. I was an ERISA lawyer for 5 years. Trust me, he is dead wrong.

I'm perfectly open to that, but I find it odd that religious 401k options would exist if companies could never choose them. Do you have any supporting evidence for your claim?

[umair127]

1. There were several litigants. The ruling wouldn't have changed in any meaningful way. Hobby Lobby would have simply lost standing* or whatever. MotherJones would have then been crying about how Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation's owner's step-brother's uncle's cousin's Jewish nephew's dogsitter's sister's best friend once bought Plan B.

*I say they'd lose standing because there were other plaintiffs alongside Hobby Lobby, hence "Hobby Lobby, et al.," and since the court was still compelled to rule on Conestoga, it would likely include the other plaintiffs alongside Hobby Lobby while simply excluding Hobby Lobby. I believe one way to do this is to deny standing to Hobby Lobby.



2. As I understand it, it was a finding of fact that Hobby Lobby's owners were sincere in their convictions, which would mean that the onus would then be on HHS to challenge their sincerity, which they did not do (apart from challenging sincerity of Hobby Lobby's religious convictions on the grounds that for-profit corporations cannot hold religious beliefs, let alone sincere ones).

From the syllabus:

    It is not for the Court to say that the religious beliefs of the plaintiffs are mistaken or unreasonable. In fact, this Court considered and rejected a nearly identical argument in Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Security Div., 450 U. S. 707. The Court’s “narrow function . . . is to determine” whether the plaintiffs’ asserted religious belief reflects “an honest conviction,” id., at 716, and there is no dispute here that it does. Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U. S. 672, 689; and Board of Ed. of Central School Dist. No. 1 v. Allen, 392 U. S. 236, 248–249, distinguished. Pp. 35–38.

Held:

    The companies in the cases before us are closely held corporations, each owned and controlled by members of a single family, and no one has disputed the sincerity of their religious beliefs.



3. Denying a person their religious rights because of some perceived hypocrisy is ... probably not constitutional.

As noted in Ginsburg's dissenting opinion:

    I agree with the Court that the Green and Hahn families’ religious convictions regarding contraception are sincerely held. See Thomas, 450 U. S., at 715 (courts are not to question where an individual “dr[aws] the line” in defining which practices run afoul of her religious beliefs).

Oh I'm not questioning the ruling from a legal perspective. I never have, nor do I even begin to posses the legal skills and knowledge to be able to do so. My argument has always been more personal based on economic well being and utility gains coupled with ideology, it has never been based around law.

Even if it is, if the decision is right under the law, then why does it matter?

[Rigon]

Even if it is, if the decision is right under the law, then why does it matter?

Well, the decision is right under the law. It's the Supreme Court. They are The authority that determines what is right under the law.

But it matters because the law can be wrong.

[sana8410]

One is perfectly capable of debating the merits of actions outside of the letter of the law. In fact, the development of good and just lawsets depends on such public discourse and oversight.

[umair127]

One is perfectly capable of debating the merits of actions outside of the letter of the law. In fact, the development of good and just lawsets depends on such public discourse and oversight.

I don't agree with that. Positive law is only "good" or "just" when measured against natural law, not public discourse. Public discourse is often the enemy of the good and the just.

[Rigon]

I actually wasted my time looking at this. I'm displeased. Can you tell me specifically on the form you provided as proof what exact companies that make drugs are part of Hobby Lobby groups direct investment?

Because the only thing I see is investment funds of various types, which is essentially the only type of investments typically allowed by government decree for this type of retirement plan vehicle.

Also, is this plan for the benefit of Hobby Lobby ownership, or employees? Because I have my doubts the owners are seeing any economic benefit from this at all.

Trying to twist something like this ranks up the extreme hypocrisy of Harry Reid saying women should be in positions of power while making sure every single senior staffer of his is male. Either he's gay, or he has no respect for women opinions, but is too cowardly to admit it.

The government doesn't decree that companies offer 401k plans. Hobby Lobby could pay out higher wages instead, but I'm sure there are quite a number of alternate investments they could hold that actually align with what they claim to believe.

If they REALLY were so principled as to be appalled at the thought of this, then they shouldn't have these investments.

This does speak directly to the sincerity of the beliefs claimed by Hobby Lobby. Holding these investments while decrying insurers who cover them makes it seem like they are being entirely political and their problem was more about the politics of Obamacare than any sincere concerns about Plan B drugs.

[umair127]

First, some of the stuff in his article none of us can prove, and the Forbes author claiming this stuff is true makes him lose all credibility. Most prominently is his argument that the Greens are participants in the plan and hold the offending assets. While it may be true that the Greens are employees of the company, the 5500 form does not show you whether they actually participate and, if they do, what their holdings are. We simply do not know.

Second, he ignores IRS and DOL rulings saying that non-economic factors can only be considered if they are truly cost and return neutral. Pointedly, he does not propose an alternative, ESG screened investment menu that would satisfy the fiduciary duties.

[sana8410]

One is perfectly capable of debating the merits of actions outside of the letter of the law. In fact, the development of good and just lawsets depends on such public discourse and oversight.

I don't agree with that. Positive law is only "good" or "just" when measured against natural law, not public discourse. Public discourse is often the enemy of the good and the just.

Tell that to the inhabitants of the DRCongo who legally had to pay around 300% of their business revenues to the central government.

[umair127]

Even if it is, if the decision is right under the law, then why does it matter?

Well, the decision is right under the law. It's the Supreme Court. They are The authority that determines what is right under the law.

But it matters because the law can be wrong.

This case was decided in 1993 when the law at issue was passed by Clinton and a Democratic legislature.

[sana8410]

First, some of the stuff in his article none of us can prove, and the Forbes author claiming this stuff is true makes him lose all credibility. Most prominently is his argument that the Greens are participants in the plan and hold the offending assets. While it may be true that the Greens are employees of the company, the 5500 form does not show you whether they actually participate and, if they do, what their holdings are. We simply do not know.

Do you find it standard for management to opt out of their own company's 401k programs?You haven't provided any supporting evidence that they couldn't chose existing options designed to avoid such moral clashes.

[umair127]

One is perfectly capable of debating the merits of actions outside of the letter of the law. In fact, the development of good and just lawsets depends on such public discourse and oversight.

I don't agree with that. Positive law is only "good" or "just" when measured against natural law, not public discourse. Public discourse is often the enemy of the good and the just.

Tell that to the inhabitants of the DRCongo who legally had to pay around 300% of their business revenues to the central government.

What are you talking about? That would be an example of a positive law that violates natural law. No debate needed.

[sana8410]

One is perfectly capable of debating the merits of actions outside of the letter of the law. In fact, the development of good and just lawsets depends on such public discourse and oversight.

I don't agree with that. Positive law is only "good" or "just" when measured against natural law, not public discourse. Public discourse is often the enemy of the good and the just.

Tell that to the inhabitants of the DRCongo who legally had to pay around 300% of their business revenues to the central government.

What are you talking about? That would be an example of a positive law that violates natural law. No debate needed.

And what natural law are you going with here? It was a very Hobbesian method of legal structuring.

[Rigon]

Even if it is, if the decision is right under the law, then why does it matter?

Well, the decision is right under the law. It's the Supreme Court. They are The authority that determines what is right under the law.

But it matters because the law can be wrong.

This case was decided in 1993 when the law at issue was passed by Clinton and a Democratic legislature.

This case was decided on June 30, 2014.

[umair127]

First, some of the stuff in his article none of us can prove, and the Forbes author claiming this stuff is true makes him lose all credibility. Most prominently is his argument that the Greens are participants in the plan and hold the offending assets. While it may be true that the Greens are employees of the company, the 5500 form does not show you whether they actually participate and, if they do, what their holdings are. We simply do not know.

Do you find it standard for management to opt out of their own company's 401k programs?You haven't provided any supporting evidence that they couldn't chose existing options designed to avoid such moral clashes.

I would not say it is "standard," but it is not uncommon. Many officers and senior managers have top hat compensation plans or other separate plans. Sometimes owner-managers hold funds out so they can reinvest it in their business. Very often, they do not invest much or anything so that they can meet the non-discrimination test.

They could not hold any index funds.

[zolace]

I am excited that this ruling will allow Jehovah Witness owned businesses to exercise their right to not buy any insurance plans that cover blood transfusions. I am also relieved that it will allow Christian Scientist owned businesses to not even buy insurance for their employees, but will instead provide bibles as medicine for only faith in God can cure illness. And all those Scientologist owned businesses? They will now be allowed to forgo purchasing plans that cover psychiatric care. Yeah America! LET FREEDOM RING!!

[umair127]

Even if it is, if the decision is right under the law, then why does it matter?

Well, the decision is right under the law. It's the Supreme Court. They are The authority that determines what is right under the law.

But it matters because the law can be wrong.

This case was decided in 1993 when the law at issue was passed by Clinton and a Democratic legislature.

This case was decided on June 30, 2014.

I know that, and it is based on a law passed on 1993. That's not correct; it is based on the text of a 1993 law.

[Rigon]

As well as case law over the last twenty years.

[umair127]

I am excited that this ruling will allow Jehovah Witness owned businesses to exercise their right to not buy any insurance plans that cover blood transfusions. I am also relieved that it will allow Christian Scientist owned businesses to not even buy insurance for their employees, but will instead provide bibles as medicine for only faith in God can cure illness. And all those Scientologist owned businesses? They will now be allowed to forgo purchasing plans that cover psychiatric care. Yeah America! LET FREEDOM RING!!

That will not happen. Read the decision. How were they wrong? Explain to me why it is wrong.

[sana8410]

First, some of the stuff in his article none of us can prove, and the Forbes author claiming this stuff is true makes him lose all credibility. Most prominently is his argument that the Greens are participants in the plan and hold the offending assets. While it may be true that the Greens are employees of the company, the 5500 form does not show you whether they actually participate and, if they do, what their holdings are. We simply do not know.

Do you find it standard for management to opt out of their own company's 401k programs?You haven't provided any supporting evidence that they couldn't chose existing options designed to avoid such moral clashes.

I would not say it is "standard," but it is not uncommon. Many officers and senior managers have top hat compensation plans or other separate plans. Sometimes owner-managers hold funds out so they can reinvest it in their business. Very often, they do not invest much or anything so that they can meet the non-discrimination test.

They could not hold any index funds.

So in other words, this is an assumption as well and one that doesn't generally favor standard practices (by your own admission). I acknowledge that the author didn't source the 401k participation by the Greens (and the burden of proof would fall on him), so I am left with the decision to either investigate further myself which I don't really care to do since, as previously stated, I'm not very interested in the topic, or choose between a slight inclination towards either Forbes or you. i'm willing to listen, but you haven't yet explained to me why religious 401k options for businesses exist if businesses aren't allowed to ever choose them.

I also find the argument that it is harder to choose a religious minded 401k option to be an uncompelling defense seeing as how they were perfectly willing to threan closure and take the government all the way to the Supreme Court over small details of their health insurance. They don't seem to have any qualms with slight inconvenience on that front.

I also don't think that they maliciously or even knowingly put their assets in those companies. I find it much more likely that it represents a minor case of managerial negligence in terms of being informed. I just find it a rather ironic happenstance.

[zolace]

I am excited that this ruling will allow Jehovah Witness owned businesses to exercise their right to not buy any insurance plans that cover blood transfusions. I am also relieved that it will allow Christian Scientist owned businesses to not even buy insurance for their employees, but will instead provide bibles as medicine for only faith in God can cure illness. And all those Scientologist owned businesses? They will now be allowed to forgo purchasing plans that cover psychiatric care. Yeah America! LET FREEDOM RING!!

That will not happen. Read the decision. How were they wrong? Explain to me why it is wrong.

It doesn't matter, they were wrong. The decision was wrong. As in the opposite of right.

[sana8410]

I am excited that this ruling will allow Jehovah Witness owned businesses to exercise their right to not buy any insurance plans that cover blood transfusions. I am also relieved that it will allow Christian Scientist owned businesses to not even buy insurance for their employees, but will instead provide bibles as medicine for only faith in God can cure illness. And all those Scientologist owned businesses? They will now be allowed to forgo purchasing plans that cover psychiatric care. Yeah America! LET FREEDOM RING!!

That will not happen. Read the decision. How were they wrong? Explain to me why it is wrong.

Explain your understanding of natural law first so there is a base from which to work from?

[umair127]

I am excited that this ruling will allow Jehovah Witness owned businesses to exercise their right to not buy any insurance plans that cover blood transfusions. I am also relieved that it will allow Christian Scientist owned businesses to not even buy insurance for their employees, but will instead provide bibles as medicine for only faith in God can cure illness. And all those Scientologist owned businesses? They will now be allowed to forgo purchasing plans that cover psychiatric care. Yeah America! LET FREEDOM RING!!

That will not happen. Read the decision. How were they wrong? Explain to me why it is wrong.

Explain your understanding of natural law first so there is a base from which to work from?

This has nothing to do with natural law. It was an interpretation of a positive law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.

[sana8410]

I am excited that this ruling will allow Jehovah Witness owned businesses to exercise their right to not buy any insurance plans that cover blood transfusions. I am also relieved that it will allow Christian Scientist owned businesses to not even buy insurance for their employees, but will instead provide bibles as medicine for only faith in God can cure illness. And all those Scientologist owned businesses? They will now be allowed to forgo purchasing plans that cover psychiatric care. Yeah America! LET FREEDOM RING!!

That will not happen. Read the decision. How were they wrong? Explain to me why it is wrong.

Explain your understanding of natural law first so there is a base from which to work from?

This has nothing to do with natural law. It was an interpretation of a positive law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.

Which ultimately (to skip the long progression of positive legal precedence) has its roots in supposed natural law yes? So I reiterate the request.

[umair127]

First, some of the stuff in his article none of us can prove, and the Forbes author claiming this stuff is true makes him lose all credibility. Most prominently is his argument that the Greens are participants in the plan and hold the offending assets. While it may be true that the Greens are employees of the company, the 5500 form does not show you whether they actually participate and, if they do, what their holdings are. We simply do not know.

Do you find it standard for management to opt out of their own company's 401k programs?You haven't provided any supporting evidence that they couldn't chose existing options designed to avoid such moral clashes.

I would not say it is "standard," but it is not uncommon. Many officers and senior managers have top hat compensation plans or other separate plans. Sometimes owner-managers hold funds out so they can reinvest it in their business. Very often, they do not invest much or anything so that they can meet the non-discrimination test.

They could not hold any index funds.

So in other words, this is an assumption as well and one that doesn't generally favor standard practices (by your own admission). I acknowledge that the author didn't source the 401k participation by the Greens (and the burden of proof would fall on him), so I am left with the decision to either investigate further myself which I don't really care to do since, as previously stated, I'm not very interested in the topic, or choose between a slight inclination towards either Forbes or you. i'm willing to listen, but you haven't yet explained to me why religious 401k options for businesses exist if businesses aren't allowed to ever choose them.

I also find the argument that it is harder to choose a religious minded 401k option to be an uncompelling defense seeing as how they were perfectly willing to threan closure and take the government all the way to the Supreme Court over small details of their health insurance. They don't seem to have any qualms with slight inconvenience on that front.

I also don't think that they maliciously or even knowingly put their assets in those companies. I find it much more likely that it represents a minor case of managerial negligence in terms of being informed. I just find it a rather ironic happenstance.

You likely will not find anything on the Greens' investments. It's not in the 5500. Also, I did not say it was not standard. I would guess it is probably 50/50. For example, the company I work for has a very generous 401(k) plan, which includes a 10% employer contribution (not match, but outright contribution). Notwithstanding the generosity, none of the company's owners participate in the 401(k) for tax and liability reasons.

Businesses can choose the moral 401(k) plans, but it's only really an option for smaller companies. Let's say Hobby Lobby had picked a "moral" (by their definition, not mine) menu of investments. These investments are indisputably higher cost than standard index funds. Any of the 12,000 plan participants could have written a letter to the plan administrator and fiduciary at any time and said I think you are not acting in my best interests by not offering index funds, which are lower cost. What is the fiduciary's answer to that?

[Rigon]

Thank god this legal door was blown open then, as obviously the convictions here were so strong. Has anyone here read the Hobby Lobby decision? How would you characterize the holding?

It has no balls.


People calling it a "landmark case" are hyperbolic. There is nothing landmark about it. The court has already recognized the personhood of non-natural persons many times over, including under the RFRA. I don't find it to be very remarkable or surprising that a non-natural person who also happens to have a net income was also recognized as a person under RFRA. Anyone who didn't see that coming is a naive leftarded child.

As for the lack of balls, I'm referring to the fact that it provides no guidance for similar religious challenges. Yes, the blogosphere is squawking about how the decision may not be as narrow as the court would like. The blogosphere, however, is effectively wrong. Because the holding says that it's narrow in scope, any future claims hinging on broader scope will be challenged by citing the court's claim that it was narrow in scope. Ultimately, the court will have to clarify whether its decision is narrow or broad, effectively making it narrow since broader interpretations will just wind up back in the court anyway until the court effectively broadens the scope of its ruling. In short, blogosphere is wrong, decision is narrow in scope.


As noted by Ginsburg:

    Would the exemption the Court holds RFRA demands for employers with religiously grounded objections to the use of certain contraceptives extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations (Christian Scientists, among others)? 31 According to counsel for Hobby Lobby, “each one of these cases . . . would have to be evaluated on its own . . . apply[ing] the compelling interest-least restrictive alternative test.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 6. Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today’s decision.

    The Court, however, sees nothing to worry about. Today’s cases, the Court concludes, are “concerned solely with the contraceptive mandate. Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer’s religious beliefs. Other coverage requirements, such as immunizations, may be supported by different interests (for example, the need to combat the spread of infectious diseases) and may involve different arguments about the least restrictive means of providing them.” Ante, at 46. But the Court has assumed, for RFRA purposes, that the interest in women’s health and well being is compelling and has come up with no means adequate to serve that interest, the one motivating Congress to adopt the Women’s Health Amendment.

    There is an overriding interest, I believe, in keeping the courts “out of the business of evaluating the relative merits of differing religious claims,” Lee, 455 U. S., at 263, n. 2 (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment), or the sincerity with which an asserted religious belief is held. Indeed, approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be “perceived as favoring one religion over another,” the very “risk the Establishment Clause was designed to preclude.” Ibid. The Court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield, cf. Spencer v. World Vision, Inc., 633 F. 3d 723, 730 (CA9 2010) (O’Scannlain, J., concurring), by its immoderate reading of RFRA. I would confine religious exemptions under that Act to organizations formed “for a religious purpose,” “engage[d] primarily in carrying out that religious purpose,” and not “engaged . . . substantially in the exchange of goods or services for money beyond nominal amounts.” See id., at 748 (Kleinfeld, J., concurring).


In general, I agree with the decision, but I would have liked to have seen a broader scope decision that provides guidance to address these issues.

[umair127]

Thank god this legal door was blown open then, as obviously the convictions here were so strong. Has anyone here read the Hobby Lobby decision? How would you characterize the holding?

It has no balls.


People calling it a "landmark case" are hyperbolic. There is nothing landmark about it. The court has already recognized the personhood of non-natural persons many times over, including under the RFRA. I don't find it to be very remarkable or surprising that a non-natural person who also happens to have a net income was also recognized as a person under RFRA. Anyone who didn't see that coming is a naive leftarded child.

As for the lack of balls, I'm referring to the fact that it provides no guidance for similar religious challenges. Yes, the blogosphere is squawking about how the decision may not be as narrow as the court would like. The blogosphere, however, is effectively wrong. Because the holding says that it's narrow in scope, any future claims hinging on broader scope will be challenged by citing the court's claim that it was narrow in scope. Ultimately, the court will have to clarify whether its decision is narrow or broad, effectively making it narrow since broader interpretations will just wind up back in the court anyway until the court effectively broadens the scope of its ruling. In short, blogosphere is wrong, decision is narrow in scope.


As noted by Ginsburg:

    Would the exemption the Court holds RFRA demands for employers with religiously grounded objections to the use of certain contraceptives extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations (Christian Scientists, among others)? 31 According to counsel for Hobby Lobby, “each one of these cases . . . would have to be evaluated on its own . . . apply[ing] the compelling interest-least restrictive alternative test.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 6. Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today’s decision.

    The Court, however, sees nothing to worry about. Today’s cases, the Court concludes, are “concerned solely with the contraceptive mandate. Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer’s religious beliefs. Other coverage requirements, such as immunizations, may be supported by different interests (for example, the need to combat the spread of infectious diseases) and may involve different arguments about the least restrictive means of providing them.” Ante, at 46. But the Court has assumed, for RFRA purposes, that the interest in women’s health and well being is compelling and has come up with no means adequate to serve that interest, the one motivating Congress to adopt the Women’s Health Amendment.

    There is an overriding interest, I believe, in keeping the courts “out of the business of evaluating the relative merits of differing religious claims,” Lee, 455 U. S., at 263, n. 2 (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment), or the sincerity with which an asserted religious belief is held. Indeed, approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be “perceived as favoring one religion over another,” the very “risk the Establishment Clause was designed to preclude.” Ibid. The Court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield, cf. Spencer v. World Vision, Inc., 633 F. 3d 723, 730 (CA9 2010) (O’Scannlain, J., concurring), by its immoderate reading of RFRA. I would confine religious exemptions under that Act to organizations formed “for a religious purpose,” “engage[d] primarily in carrying out that religious purpose,” and not “engaged . . . substantially in the exchange of goods or services for money beyond nominal amounts.” See id., at 748 (Kleinfeld, J., concurring).


In general, I agree with the decision, but I would have liked to have seen a broader scope decision that provides guidance to address these issues.

I am a social liberal, and I agree with the decision as well. But I disagree that it could or should be broader. The Court can only decide the case before it and it exceeds its mandate if it decides anything broader.

[Rigon]

Thank god this legal door was blown open then, as obviously the convictions here were so strong. Has anyone here read the Hobby Lobby decision? How would you characterize the holding?

It has no balls.


People calling it a "landmark case" are hyperbolic. There is nothing landmark about it. The court has already recognized the personhood of non-natural persons many times over, including under the RFRA. I don't find it to be very remarkable or surprising that a non-natural person who also happens to have a net income was also recognized as a person under RFRA. Anyone who didn't see that coming is a naive leftarded child.

As for the lack of balls, I'm referring to the fact that it provides no guidance for similar religious challenges. Yes, the blogosphere is squawking about how the decision may not be as narrow as the court would like. The blogosphere, however, is effectively wrong. Because the holding says that it's narrow in scope, any future claims hinging on broader scope will be challenged by citing the court's claim that it was narrow in scope. Ultimately, the court will have to clarify whether its decision is narrow or broad, effectively making it narrow since broader interpretations will just wind up back in the court anyway until the court effectively broadens the scope of its ruling. In short, blogosphere is wrong, decision is narrow in scope.


As noted by Ginsburg:

    Would the exemption the Court holds RFRA demands for employers with religiously grounded objections to the use of certain contraceptives extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations (Christian Scientists, among others)? 31 According to counsel for Hobby Lobby, “each one of these cases . . . would have to be evaluated on its own . . . apply[ing] the compelling interest-least restrictive alternative test.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 6. Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today’s decision.

    The Court, however, sees nothing to worry about. Today’s cases, the Court concludes, are “concerned solely with the contraceptive mandate. Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer’s religious beliefs. Other coverage requirements, such as immunizations, may be supported by different interests (for example, the need to combat the spread of infectious diseases) and may involve different arguments about the least restrictive means of providing them.” Ante, at 46. But the Court has assumed, for RFRA purposes, that the interest in women’s health and well being is compelling and has come up with no means adequate to serve that interest, the one motivating Congress to adopt the Women’s Health Amendment.

    There is an overriding interest, I believe, in keeping the courts “out of the business of evaluating the relative merits of differing religious claims,” Lee, 455 U. S., at 263, n. 2 (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment), or the sincerity with which an asserted religious belief is held. Indeed, approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be “perceived as favoring one religion over another,” the very “risk the Establishment Clause was designed to preclude.” Ibid. The Court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield, cf. Spencer v. World Vision, Inc., 633 F. 3d 723, 730 (CA9 2010) (O’Scannlain, J., concurring), by its immoderate reading of RFRA. I would confine religious exemptions under that Act to organizations formed “for a religious purpose,” “engage[d] primarily in carrying out that religious purpose,” and not “engaged . . . substantially in the exchange of goods or services for money beyond nominal amounts.” See id., at 748 (Kleinfeld, J., concurring).


In general, I agree with the decision, but I would have liked to have seen a broader scope decision that provides guidance to address these issues.

I am a social liberal, and I agree with the decision as well. But I disagree that it could or should be broader. The Court can only decide the case before it and it exceeds its mandate if it decides anything broader.

No decision by the Supreme Court is ever based on the text of a single law. They always cite multiple cases, and they always bring up constitutional concerns and weigh them against various interests. This case is no exception.

[umair127]

You are simply wrong. They may cite other cases, but this was a statutory interpretation case, not a precedent-based or constitutional case.

[Rigon]

I am a social liberal

Most lawyers seem to be social libertarians/liberals.

, and I agree with the decision as well. But I disagree that it could or should be broader. The Court can only decide the case before it and it exceeds its mandate if it decides anything broader.

It can have a chilling effect, however. Look at how many court challenges there are to same-sex marriage right now, for example. So many people whose rights are being violated. That's a case where the court could have very easily broadened the scope of its ruling. But it chose not to ... which is typical of this court because it has no balls. #YesAllWomen

[noviapriani]

The story is a bit old, but I haven't been following it very closely:

Mother Jones has discovered that Hobby Lobby which is seeking exemption from certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act on religious grounds surrounding contraception benefit requirements (a case it has won), actually invests (through their retirement fund) in companies that produces emergency contraceptives and abortion related products.

According to Mother Jones:

Documents filed with the Department of Labor and dated December 2012 (see above)—three months after the company’s owners filed their lawsuit—show that the Hobby Lobby 401(k) employee retirement plan held more than $73 million in mutual funds with investments in companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and drugs commonly used in abortions. Hobby Lobby makes large matching contributions to this company-sponsored 401(k).

These companies make up 3/4ths of Hobby Lobby's 401k assets.
Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...ous-objection/

401k is the employees money, not the company's investments. Honestly this is evidence the company is reasonable and isnt trying to force the employees to follow the company's rules on investments.


Good luck picking a group of index funds/etfs without a pharmaceutical company ...

1.) The Greens have their 401k's set up through their company as well.

2.) There are 401k plans specifically set up for religious groups in order to avoid holdings in companies that produce contraception, use stem cell research, etc.

3.) As management, they are the ones who give the marching orders on their 401k plans.

The Forbes author does not understand 401(k) plan laws or fiduciary duty. I was an ERISA lawyer for 5 years. Trust me, he is dead wrong.

I'm perfectly open to that, but I find it odd that religious 401k options would exist if companies could never choose them. Do you have any supporting evidence for your claim?

Special Etf/index funds exist, but that doesn't mean a 401k would have them.

[umair127]

The story is a bit old, but I haven't been following it very closely:

Mother Jones has discovered that Hobby Lobby which is seeking exemption from certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act on religious grounds surrounding contraception benefit requirements (a case it has won), actually invests (through their retirement fund) in companies that produces emergency contraceptives and abortion related products.

According to Mother Jones:

Documents filed with the Department of Labor and dated December 2012 (see above)—three months after the company’s owners filed their lawsuit—show that the Hobby Lobby 401(k) employee retirement plan held more than $73 million in mutual funds with investments in companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and drugs commonly used in abortions. Hobby Lobby makes large matching contributions to this company-sponsored 401(k).

These companies make up 3/4ths of Hobby Lobby's 401k assets.
Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...ous-objection/

401k is the employees money, not the company's investments. Honestly this is evidence the company is reasonable and isnt trying to force the employees to follow the company's rules on investments.


Good luck picking a group of index funds/etfs without a pharmaceutical company ...

1.) The Greens have their 401k's set up through their company as well.

2.) There are 401k plans specifically set up for religious groups in order to avoid holdings in companies that produce contraception, use stem cell research, etc.

3.) As management, they are the ones who give the marching orders on their 401k plans.

The Forbes author does not understand 401(k) plan laws or fiduciary duty. I was an ERISA lawyer for 5 years. Trust me, he is dead wrong.

I'm perfectly open to that, but I find it odd that religious 401k options would exist if companies could never choose them. Do you have any supporting evidence for your claim?

Special Etf/index funds exist, but that doesn't mean a 401k would have them.

His point is that the plan administrator could include those funds and only those funds, but did not. My point is that that this would not be consistent with the fiduciary duty to plan participants.

[umair127]

I am a social liberal

Most lawyers seem to be social libertarians/liberals.

, and I agree with the decision as well. But I disagree that it could or should be broader. The Court can only decide the case before it and it exceeds its mandate if it decides anything broader.

It can have a chilling effect, however. Look at how many court challenges there are to same-sex marriage right now, for example. So many people whose rights are being violated. That's a case where the court could have very easily broadened the scope of its ruling. But it chose not to ... which is typical of this court because it has no balls. #YesAllWomen

I don't think that judicial restraint and only deciding cases and controversies before you (the constitutional requirement, by the way) means that they have no balls. I think it means that you are seeing a retrenchment from an activist judicial philosophy that dominated the federal courts for years.

[sana8410]

The story is a bit old, but I haven't been following it very closely:

Mother Jones has discovered that Hobby Lobby which is seeking exemption from certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act on religious grounds surrounding contraception benefit requirements (a case it has won), actually invests (through their retirement fund) in companies that produces emergency contraceptives and abortion related products.

According to Mother Jones:

Documents filed with the Department of Labor and dated December 2012 (see above)—three months after the company’s owners filed their lawsuit—show that the Hobby Lobby 401(k) employee retirement plan held more than $73 million in mutual funds with investments in companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and drugs commonly used in abortions. Hobby Lobby makes large matching contributions to this company-sponsored 401(k).

These companies make up 3/4ths of Hobby Lobby's 401k assets.
Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...ous-objection/

401k is the employees money, not the company's investments. Honestly this is evidence the company is reasonable and isnt trying to force the employees to follow the company's rules on investments.


Good luck picking a group of index funds/etfs without a pharmaceutical company ...

1.) The Greens have their 401k's set up through their company as well.

2.) There are 401k plans specifically set up for religious groups in order to avoid holdings in companies that produce contraception, use stem cell research, etc.

3.) As management, they are the ones who give the marching orders on their 401k plans.

The Forbes author does not understand 401(k) plan laws or fiduciary duty. I was an ERISA lawyer for 5 years. Trust me, he is dead wrong.

I'm perfectly open to that, but I find it odd that religious 401k options would exist if companies could never choose them. Do you have any supporting evidence for your claim?

Special Etf/index funds exist, but that doesn't mean a 401k would have them.

His point is that the plan administrator could include those funds and only those funds, but did not. My point is that that this would not be consistent with the fiduciary duty to plan participants.

Only assuming non-comparable earnings correct?

[umair127]

Earnings AND costs. The expense ratio of a typical screened fund is going to be over 1%. The expense ratio of an index fund can be as low as 0.05%.

[sana8410]

Earnings AND costs. The expense ratio of a typical screened fund is going to be over 1%. The expense ratio of an index fund can be as low as 0.05%.

Exactly. So it is absolutely possible if they have a high earning portfolio, I haven't taken a look at the current numbers myself so I can't compare all of the options that would have been available to them, but the Forbes article seemed to think that they were comparable in their expense ratio. Not the most solid of sourcing's, but once again, the only real thing to go off of that has thus far been presented.

[umair127]

Earnings AND costs. The expense ratio of a typical screened fund is going to be over 1%. The expense ratio of an index fund can be as low as 0.05%.

Exactly. So it is absolutely possible if they have a high earning portfolio, I haven't taken a look at the current numbers myself so I can't compare all of the options that would have been available to them, but the Forbes article seemed to think that they were comparable in their expense ratio. Not the most solid of sourcing's, but once again, the only real thing to go off of that has thus far been presented.

You are drawing the wrong conclusion. Returns are very hard to predict and control. About the only thing you can control are expenses. The trend in 401(k) fiduciary duty is toward minimizing expenses, not maximizing returns. This is especially true in large 401(k) plans because of the strong pattern of regression to the mean.

[noviapriani]

You are simply wrong. They may cite other cases, but this was a statutory interpretation case, not a precedent-based or constitutional case.

This would be true if the decision in a typical SCOTUS case was a simple "YOU WIN!" or "YOU LOSE!" But well, that's not how it works. Laws do not exist in vacuums, nor do interpretations and decisions based on them. In this case, the court very deliberately responds to the question of personhood for a for-profit organization, which is not defined in RFRA, for example. Regardless of what sort of silly semantic acrobatics you want to start playing here, it is a matter of fact that at least part of the court's decision was based on something other than a 1993 law. Ergo, you are simply wrong. QED.

I don't think that judicial restraint and only deciding cases and controversies before you (the constitutional requirement, by the way) means that they have no balls. I think it means that you are seeing a retrenchment from an activist judicial philosophy that dominated the federal courts for years.

There exists nonbinding precedence for various dicta for this very reason. Judges are in fact given the latitude to express their views in a variety of contexts. There are noncontroversial (cf. "judicial activism") avenues that can be used to provide guidance to lower courts without establishing binding precedence.

[Rigon]

Interesting article: http://m.kiplinger.com/article/inves...investing.html
Very few options available and those are the major choices that tend to be anti tobacco, alcohol, weapons, and gambling. Vs anti abortion which includes basically every pharmaceutical/medical company.Plus remember you'd have to find a 401k fund operator that even offers a fund that would fit the requirement.

[umair127]

You are simply wrong. They may cite other cases, but this was a statutory interpretation case, not a precedent-based or constitutional case.

This would be true if the decision in a typical SCOTUS case was a simple "YOU WIN!" or "YOU LOSE!" But well, that's not how it works. Laws do not exist in vacuums, nor do interpretations and decisions based on them. In this case, the court very deliberately responds to the question of personhood for a for-profit organization, which is not defined in RFRA, for example. Regardless of what sort of silly semantic acrobatics you want to start playing here, it is a matter of fact that at least part of the court's decision was based on something other than a 1993 law. Ergo, you are simply wrong. QED.

I don't think that judicial restraint and only deciding cases and controversies before you (the constitutional requirement, by the way) means that they have no balls. I think it means that you are seeing a retrenchment from an activist judicial philosophy that dominated the federal courts for years.

There exists nonbinding precedence for various dicta for this very reason. Judges are in fact given the latitude to express their views in a variety of contexts. There are noncontroversial (cf. "judicial activism") avenues that can be used to provide guidance to lower courts without establishing binding precedence.

Read the decision. It is based entirely on statutory interpretation. In fact, look at the opening line: "We must decide in these cases whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 107 Stat. 1488, 42 U. S. C. §2000bb et seq., permits the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to demand that three closely held corporations provide health-insurance coverage for methods of contraception that violate the sincerely held religious beliefs of the companies’ owners."

The so-called corporate personhood issue is also a statutory question which is resolved by reference to The Dictionary Act.

[sana8410]

Interesting article: http://m.kiplinger.com/article/inves...investing.html
Very few options available and those are the major choices that tend to be anti tobacco, alcohol, weapons, and gambling. Vs anti abortion which includes basically every pharmaceutical/medical company.Plus remember you'd have to find a 401k fund operator that even offers a fund that would fit the requirement.

Very interesting link, thanks for posting it.

The first example in the link though is one that takes into account religious considerations (Islamic), and the Forbes article did list specific religiously conscious plans to choose from. I understand that they may not always be available, but I find it rather likely (just going off assumptions) that they would be more readily available in this case than the examples provided in your article (simply owing to the relative demand of a Christian conscious choice in the US over say an Islamic choice).

And once again, I think this entire argument rather misses the drama with which Hobby Lobby approached this. They threatened closure of their business over being forced to being linked to immoral practices (however tenuous). If it is really THAT much of a concern for them they could either locate only where they could take advantage of religiously conscious 401k plans or they could do what they originally said they would have to in the face of such a moral outrage: close shop. Either way their 401k is still ironic given their PR campaign during this legal process.

[zolace]

Interesting article: http://m.kiplinger.com/article/inves...investing.html
Very few options available and those are the major choices that tend to be anti tobacco, alcohol, weapons, and gambling. Vs anti abortion which includes basically every pharmaceutical/medical company.Plus remember you'd have to find a 401k fund operator that even offers a fund that would fit the requirement.

Very interesting link, thanks for posting it.

The first example in the link though is one that takes into account religious considerations (Islamic), and the Forbes article did list specific religiously conscious plans to choose from. I understand that they may not always be available, but I find it rather likely (just going off assumptions) that they would be more readily available in this case than the examples provided in your article (simply owing to the relative demand of a Christian conscious choice in the US over say an Islamic choice).

And once again, I think this entire argument rather misses the drama with which Hobby Lobby approached this. They threatened closure of their business over being forced to being linked to immoral practices (however tenuous). If it is really THAT much of a concern for them they could either locate only where they could take advantage of religiously conscious 401k plans or they could do what they originally said they would have to in the face of such a moral outrage: close shop. Either way their 401k is still ironic given their PR campaign during this legal process.

Just give up- you are wrong and even you know it. Now we are laughing at the lengths you will go to try and show you are not .It isn't their money. It's their employees money.

[Rigon]

Interesting article: http://m.kiplinger.com/article/inves...investing.html
Very few options available and those are the major choices that tend to be anti tobacco, alcohol, weapons, and gambling. Vs anti abortion which includes basically every pharmaceutical/medical company.Plus remember you'd have to find a 401k fund operator that even offers a fund that would fit the requirement.

Very interesting link, thanks for posting it.

The first example in the link though is one that takes into account religious considerations (Islamic), and the Forbes article did list specific religiously conscious plans to choose from. I understand that they may not always be available, but I find it rather likely (just going off assumptions) that they would be more readily available in this case than the examples provided in your article (simply owing to the relative demand of a Christian conscious choice in the US over say an Islamic choice).

And once again, I think this entire argument rather misses the drama with which Hobby Lobby approached this. They threatened closure of their business over being forced to being linked to immoral practices (however tenuous). If it is really THAT much of a concern for them they could either locate only where they could take advantage of religiously conscious 401k plans or they could do what they originally said they would have to in the face of such a moral outrage: close shop. Either way their 401k is still ironic given their PR campaign during this legal process.

just give up- you are wrong and even you know it. Now we are laughing at the lengths you will go to try and show you are not .

The kid's dreams are more intelligent than a council of five of yourself deliberating for a month with Steven Hawking as your guide.

[noviapriani]

I actually wasted my time looking at this. I'm displeased. Can you tell me specifically on the form you provided as proof what exact companies that make drugs are part of Hobby Lobby groups direct investment?

Because the only thing I see is investment funds of various types, which is essentially the only type of investments typically allowed by government decree for this type of retirement plan vehicle.

Also, is this plan for the benefit of Hobby Lobby ownership, or employees? Because I have my doubts the owners are seeing any economic benefit from this at all.

Trying to twist something like this ranks up the extreme hypocrisy of Harry Reid saying women should be in positions of power while making sure every single senior staffer of his is male. Either he's gay, or he has no respect for women opinions, but is too cowardly to admit it.

The government doesn't decree that companies offer 401k plans. Hobby Lobby could pay out higher wages instead, but I'm sure there are quite a number of alternate investments they could hold that actually align with what they claim to believe.

If they REALLY were so principled as to be appalled at the thought of this, then they shouldn't have these investments.

This does speak directly to the sincerity of the beliefs claimed by Hobby Lobby. Holding these investments while decrying insurers who cover them makes it seem like they are being entirely political and their problem was more about the politics of Obamacare than any sincere concerns about Plan B drugs.

Not to be rude, but this logic is ridiculous. It isn't their plan. It's the employees plan. What the employees do with it isn't really their business. What they buy is their business.

[sana8410]

Interesting article: http://m.kiplinger.com/article/inves...investing.html
Very few options available and those are the major choices that tend to be anti tobacco, alcohol, weapons, and gambling. Vs anti abortion which includes basically every pharmaceutical/medical company.Plus remember you'd have to find a 401k fund operator that even offers a fund that would fit the requirement.

Very interesting link, thanks for posting it.

The first example in the link though is one that takes into account religious considerations (Islamic), and the Forbes article did list specific religiously conscious plans to choose from. I understand that they may not always be available, but I find it rather likely (just going off assumptions) that they would be more readily available in this case than the examples provided in your article (simply owing to the relative demand of a Christian conscious choice in the US over say an Islamic choice).

And once again, I think this entire argument rather misses the drama with which Hobby Lobby approached this. They threatened closure of their business over being forced to being linked to immoral practices (however tenuous). If it is really THAT much of a concern for them they could either locate only where they could take advantage of religiously conscious 401k plans or they could do what they originally said they would have to in the face of such a moral outrage: close shop. Either way their 401k is still ironic given their PR campaign during this legal process.

Just give up- you are wrong and even you know it. Now we are laughing at the lengths you will go to try and show you are not .It isn't their money. It's their employees money.

1.) They may very well have 401ks through their company in which they are employed as well which would make it their money as well.

2.) They are the ones who get to set up the system for their business or at least give the marching orders which still makes amusing that they wouldn't make the effort if it was really that important to them.

3.) If the company matches some level of contributions then the company is still funneling money into assets held by these companies even if that money now belongs to the employee.

4.) It is still ironic.

[Rigon]

Interesting article: http://m.kiplinger.com/article/inves...investing.html
Very few options available and those are the major choices that tend to be anti tobacco, alcohol, weapons, and gambling. Vs anti abortion which includes basically every pharmaceutical/medical company.Plus remember you'd have to find a 401k fund operator that even offers a fund that would fit the requirement.

Very interesting link, thanks for posting it.

The first example in the link though is one that takes into account religious considerations (Islamic), and the Forbes article did list specific religiously conscious plans to choose from. I understand that they may not always be available, but I find it rather likely (just going off assumptions) that they would be more readily available in this case than the examples provided in your article (simply owing to the relative demand of a Christian conscious choice in the US over say an Islamic choice).

And once again, I think this entire argument rather misses the drama with which Hobby Lobby approached this. They threatened closure of their business over being forced to being linked to immoral practices (however tenuous). If it is really THAT much of a concern for them they could either locate only where they could take advantage of religiously conscious 401k plans or they could do what they originally said they would have to in the face of such a moral outrage: close shop. Either way their 401k is still ironic given their PR campaign during this legal process.

Just give up- you are wrong and even you know it. Now we are laughing at the lengths you will go to try and show you are not .It isn't their money. It's their employees money.

There's a pretty big difference between directly paying for something and not restricting your employees' 401(k) options. So basically profiting from abortions is better morals than having to copay abortions.