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/

[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?