From the office of Congressman Andy Harris:
In Speech on House Floor, Rep. Harris Urges Government to Protect the Religious Beliefs of Every Individual
Washington, D.C.— As the son of immigrants from Eastern Europe who saw government attacks on the right of religious freedom, Congressman Andy Harris, M.D., has serious concerns about the state of religious freedom in the United States, a freedom which is at the center of cases being argued at the Supreme Court today.
Congressman Harris released the following statement on the Supreme Court arguments today: “Today, as the Supreme Court begins to hear oral arguments in two related cases, let us hope that business owners do not have to choose between following their faith and following the law—it’s ironic that as Russians spread religious persecution in Crimea and Ukraine, the United States is having a debate on whether religious liberty will remain a foundational principle here at home.”
Yesterday, Congressman Andy Harris spoke on the House floor in support of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties, two companies whose religious freedoms are being threatened by a Department of Health and Human Services directive that attacks their religious freedom. Hobby Lobby has a location in Congressman Harris’ district.
“If the government has its way with these two employers, [it] will attempt to persecute them for their religious beliefs and attempt to destroy them,” Congressman Harris said in his three-minute speech. During the speech, Congressman Harris highlighted the story of his whose own mother, a Ukrainian-Greek Catholic, who fled Communist Ukraine after World War II for a better life in the United States, where she could enjoy the freedom of religion. To watch the speech in its entirety, please click here:
Cdev says
When did a company become an individual? bTW if they win….LLC will mean nothing!
noble says
Actually, the Supreme Court decided that in the Citizens United case.
And I’m glad you brought that up, because this is truly the interesting part of the Hobby Lobby case.
Is the Court going to stand by their earlier determination in Citizens that companies have a right to expression (a RIGHT to spend money on political candidates and influence elections, and that to deny that right would be denying their freedom of expression), or do they not have the same rights as individuals, ie, the right to religious freedom?
Or are they going to have their cake and eat it too by deciding some rights apply to companies and some don’t?
Are rights inalienable or not?
No matter what you think about either case, it will be interesting to see what happens.
Personally, I am not happy that my tax money goes to fund all sorts of things I don’t support (of varying degrees of morality or sensibility), but I accept that it’s my duty to pay taxes to a secular government to provide for the good of all, whether they agree with me or not.
But I think that does not apply to a private company, who should have the authority to manage it’s own funds and business in a reasonable way that does not infringe significantly on other rights.
Also please note that Hobby Lobby does not want to restrict all forms of contraception or women’s health options, only specific ones that directly contradict their religious belief.
Also note that nobody’s “right” to these options is being taken away, only the option to have it provided by the employer sponsored healthcare program.
All that said, Harris is an idealogue who couldn’t make a reasonable argument for anything if his election depended on it. He’s never met an issue that he didn’t want to turn into a spin quote file for his party line.
Cdev says
Also note that Hobby Lobby covered two of the forms of contreception they claim are bad until recently. They only found GOD after the ACA!!!
Second the LLC is actually owned by a TRUST. Not a person. Hobby Lobby went to great lengths to seperate the person from the buisness. So when it comes to liability they want to be different. Same should apply for their personal beliefs. The difference between Citizens United is this is that Money was Used as Speech. How can Money be religion?
noble says
On the first two points, I won’t comment because I don’t know about those and I’m not all that interested in defending Hobby Lobby’s case, but they are certainly good points.
On the final point (the one I think is the fundamental argument in these cases), I would argue that if money can be used as speech, then can’t money be used to infringe on another right? Of course it can. So if that is true, then can’t the money of the company be used in a way that infringes on their religious freedom?
I think yes. We’ll see what the court thinks this summer.
W.T.F.? says
Andy Harris is such a “wad”! To compare requiring insurance companies to provide “life destroying drugs” (basic birth control!), to the Russian government burning churches is just ludicrous! In fact, in his speech, he said it was even “more serious” than church burning. What an idiotic statement, from a right-wing, tea-bag sucking jerk! Hey Andy….if the religious beliefs that were being trampled on were those of some Muslim owned company, would you still be supporting them so adamantly? (I dont’ think so!)
And the Republican “War on Women” continues…..(and they don’t see it?)
noble says
Harris is an idiot and you’ve highlighted some of the reasons. I happen to have his view of this issue, but he certainly does not provide a competent argument.
well... says
Oh, please… no one here or anywhere else has the balls to insult much less trample anything Muslim. Don’t you know Islam is a religion of peace and if you disagree I’ll cut your head off you infidel dog… or at the very best, if I’m truly moderate, I’ll look the other way while someone else does. All religion aside, unless a woman has a demonstrable medical condition requiring birth control, why in the hell should I be paying for her worry free good time? Pay for your own good time. I’d like to take a Caribbean cruise… would all the ladies getting their good time paid for like to pitch in so I can go? If employers will have to cover the pill, shouldn’t they have to supply me condoms?
Realist says
So should we assume you feel the same way about erectile dysfunction drugs or fertility drugs?
John says
…republican war on women? You could not use a more propagandistic, knee-jerk and essentially meaningless reference, especially in this context.
Because says
Really? As a male do you happen to believe you have a say in what a woman does with her uterus? It’s a war. There is a line drawn and it seems to have more 50+ year old white men concerned, picketing outside schools than females.
HYDESMANN says
If Obama and his Democrat lackeys weren’t in such a hurry to pass AHC this could have been worked out. Now we’re stuck with it. I did hear that Obama is going to extend the deadline for participation until 2060 so everyone can figure out what’s in the bill.
Realist says
The idea that a corporation has religious beliefs is as crazy as Citizens United claiming corporations are people. No company should have the authority to restrict health benefits to only things they approve of. What happens when the next company is against blood transfusions or believes prayer is the only healer? You can’t cherry pick what you like and don’t like when offering insurance to employees.
William Munny says
Why not? What is wrong with a corporation or a person using the power of the purse to voice their opinion?
Cdev says
Can a corporation say I believe in murder as a punishment for murder? This is about standards. Don’t like the standard….change the law!
This is all aside from the fact that the arguement being made by these corporations about these drugs is not even sound science. Both drugs simply prevent ovulation. That is how they work. No actual fertalization takes place. Furthermore one of the companies actually covered these drugs before the ACA. They only decided after the ACA they had a religious problem.
Arturro Nasney says
Cdev you insist in making a complete ass of yourself. “Can a corporation say I believe in murder as a punishment for murder? This is about standards.” A corporation can say it believes in murder. It can say it believes any damn thing it want to. What these corporations are saying is “we don’t want to pay for an employees sexual escapades. If a corporation believes that the death penalty is wrong, they can move toa state where the death penalty is no longer used, but their beliefs have nothing to do with htis case. Incidentally, in the eyes of the law, a corporation is a person. The corporation has all of the same constitutional rights as the rest of us.
Cdev says
So who determines the religious beliefs of the corporation?
Because says
The same idea applies to you – it’s none of your damn business what two consenting adults do behind closed doors.
Stop pretending you have a stranglehold on morality. You just violated my sense of right and wrong which does not necessarily derive from religion or a belief in God, but from a sense of empathy and the belief you should treat others the way you would want to be treated. Any child understands this. Why don’t you?
B says
Because is so empathetic that he finishes his post as usual with an insult to those who are beneath him for daring to have an opposing thought.
W.T.F.? says
AMEN Brother Realist!
noble says
Why not? Employees have a choice of where they work, right? Don’t like the health plan that’s offered, get a different one, or take another job. That doesn’t seem fair?
Because says
noble… I get this all the time at work. And this doesn’t sound like you. If you don’t like something the door is over there. Change in the workplace is difficult because people in control want to maintain control and often have little interest in embracing anything that whittles away their control. That’s why quality systems in a top down hierarchy often fail.