Okay… no, I don’t wish for Democrats to do what you describe.
Thanks.
I still find it amusingly ironic that it was pointed out that HL invested in the same companies that manufacture the contraceptives that give them such conniptions if covered by the insurance.
Yeah, I know. Couldn’t possibly be expected to micromanage their investments with that level of scrutiny…:dubious:
We’ve been discussing the concept of how far removed you are from the objectionable conduct:
With that in mind, can you explain specifically how Hobby Lobby “invested” in these companies?
Sure thing, Bricker, although I’m shocked you are not already aware of it. The 401(K) investment funds HL offered totheir employees were heavily invested in pharm that produce the same products they can’t have covered in the medical insurance they offer their employees. HL matchs investments by their employees, as do most employers.
Did you really not know this? And yes, there are niche funds available that avoid investing in ‘morally objectionable’ companies which HL could have offered instead…
I can’t. I don’t think they did invest in any meaningful way. Just like living in a city that collects taxes to provide infrastructure that assists the store that sells mined diamonds.
My apologies – although I did quote you, I did so only to illustrate the prior discussion, and thought your examples did an excellent job of illustrating the principle of attentuation between the prohibited end and the conduct that supposedly entangles it.
I meant to say, in other words, “Look, Truman – see what we’ve been discussing, as Bone’s comment shows. Can you, Truman, explain the nature of the investment?”
I don’t see anything in that article that supports the “heavily” invested.
I do see the following claim, which is carefully phrased to suggest a heavy investment:
Is that what made you think their investments were “heavy” in those companies?
So let’s say each fund has a 1% investment in the allegedly objectionable companies, and they collectively make up 75% of HL’s 401(k) assets. So, indirectly, HL is 7.5% invested.
I don’t know if that counts as “heavily”, but I’d be content with calling it “significant” or at least “not insignificant”… if HL being hypocritical mattered long after their stupidity was already established.
And the importance of “heavily” would be what, exactly? Would it be useful in determining whether or not religious objections were “sincere”? Seems rather simple and to the point, that if someone has “sincere” religious objections to the use of contraceptives then they should have equally “sincere” objections to their manufacture, or to profiting by such manufacture, or investing in such manufacture.
Would Hobby Lobby withdraw its objections to its employees using such forms of contraception so long as they did not use them “heavily”?
HL has not objected to its employees using such forms of contraception.
They regard such methods as immoral, they refuse to pay for insurance that covers them. For my purposes, the word “objects” will do nicely. If you have another you would like to substitute for it, I am open to the suggestion.
I am of the opinion that Brickeresque semantic pettifoggery is beneath you, I will keep that opinion unless you insist otherwise.
I haven’t actually debunked these claims with numbers, before.
But let’s take some examples.
The Forbes articles, which in turn draws heavily on the Mother Jones article, is written carefully. By that I mean it makes no untrue statements, but conveys a very misleading impression:
And then:
So… Hobby Lobby has $73 million in their 401(k) fund, and three-quarters of it are in these companies!
Certainly that’s what people have taken away from these articles.
And I believe the articles were deliberately written to suggest that conclusion.
But it’s not true. Yes, Hobby Lobby has $73 million in their 401(k) fund.
That 401(k) fund consists of the following mutual funds:
Now, let’s look at the American Balanced Fund, which is itself less than 20% of the total 401K balance. They do indeed invest in Pfzier (PDF at link), but only 73% of the fund is in stocks at all.
So even if the entire fund were in Pfzier, it would only be 20% of the 401K balance, and 73% of that.
But of course the fund doesn’t only invest in Pfzier. In fact, it also invests in Wells Fargo & Co. – 2.70% of the fund is in Wells Fargo stock. 2.08% is in American Express Co.; 1.63% in Berkshire Hathaway Inc., Class A1 stock; 1.05 in Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.; and so on. Fully 14% of this mutual fund is in financial companies, not drug companies.
What else? Almost 12% is in “consumer discretionary” companies like Amazon.com (3.19%) and Home Depot (2.97%) as examples.
Over 11% of the fund is in “industrials” – Boeing (2.7%), Lockheed Martin (1.34%) and Union Pacific (1.37%) are the examples I’ll pick to show here.
8.6% of the fund is invested in Information Tech: Microsoft (2.77%) and Texas Instruments (1.77%) being the examples of this category.
7% of the fund is in “consumer staples” companies like Costco and Nestle. Nearly 6% is in energy, invested in many companies like Chevron and Royal Dutch Shell.
So how much of this fund is even devoted to companies that do health care?
7.62% of the fund is invested in “health.”
This includes companies like Johnson and Johnson, and Gilead Sciences.
And, yes – Pfzier, which makes Cytotec and Prostin E2, which are abortion-inducing drugs.
But what percentage of Hobby Lobby’s $73 million is in Pfzier?
Pfzier is one of hundreds of companies whose shares are bought by the American Balanced Fund, and less than one percent of the holdings of the American Balanced Fund, which is itself less than 20% of the total 401K balance. And that’s the biggest single fund in the 401K portfolio.
Is that the same impression you got from reading the Forbes article?
Talk about splitting hairs. If they have religious objections to use of these products, why were they investing in them (quibbling over the precise percentages is very besides the point), when they had readily available alternatives that did not invest in pharma at all? It wasn’t important to them to offer those investment options.
And do you concede the point that HL was, in fact, *investing in these companies *?
Yes: “heavily” would be of value in questioning their sincerity. And of course, that avenue is now closed; the trial court found that Hobby Lobby was sincere. That can’t be relitigated.
But it’s not so simple and to the point.
Eddie Thomas could explain this to you. Eddie quit his job at Blaw-Knox Foundry & Machinery Co. after the company it transferred all of its operations to weapons manufacturing – he was tasked with making tank turrets.
He had first asked for a transfer to something not related to weapons, but the company refused. He asked them to lay him off so he could get unemployment benefits, but they refused. So he quit, and then applied for unemployment benefits anyway, saying that he was being forced to work in violation of his religious convictions. He was a Jehovah’s Witness.
When the unemployment board interviewed him, they asked him if he’d be willing to work at a raw material supplier or of a roll foundry, even though those materials would be then used to make tank turrets. He said that he had no problem making the raw materials, even knowing they’d be used for weapons. He just couldn’t directly make the weapons without violating his religious beliefs.
The lower courts found against him – they decided that his personal line made no sense; if he were willing to make and roll steel that would be used for tanks, they reasoned, he couldn’t claim to be upset by actually making tanks.
But the Supreme Court disagreed, by an 8-1 margin. They held:
That’s the rule.
It applies to Eddie Thomas. And it applies here.
Certainly not heavily, and certainly not directly. They invested in a 401K management company. That company bought funds. Those fund included hundreds of companies, and a few of those hundreds of companies make (among the hundreds of products they make) certain products that Hobby Lobby finds sinful.
So, yes: they “invest” in those companies. But at such a tiny level, and more importantly at such a remove from any kind of a directed decision, that it’s not the kind of “investment” that triggers concern.
Oh, goody! Not only will the courts have to decide whether or not a religious objection qualifies as “sincere”, they will have to quantify precisely what level of hypocrisy is permissible to retain that all important “sincere” qualification!
Transfusions? Vaccinations? Psychiatric medicines? Ms. Ginsberg’s dire warnings still look silly to you now?
But they say its “baby-killing”. How much “baby-killing” is permissible to retain one’s religious sincerity?
I never said those predictions were silly.
I said, and still say, that the plain text of the law requires the accommodation Hobby Lobby got, and acknowledge a future plaintiff might get a more expansive accommodation, including things like psychiatric medicines. Sure.
I wouldn’t work for an abortion doctor.
But I’d belong to an electrical co-op that the doctor also belonged to.
So if your question is intended to suggest that no person can sincerely oppose the “baby killing” aspect of abortion without becoming a hermit, obviously I disagree.
The answer Hobby Lobby draws seems very reasonable to me. They don’t invest in the companies. They hire a 401K manager. That manager doesn’t invest in the companies – he buys a selection of mutual funds. Those funds are managed by people Hobby Lobby has no control over. And they buy hundreds of companies’ shares for their fund.
That level of dilution seems very reasonable, especially since good old Thomas got his unemployment benefits even though he stated he was willing to work in the roll foundry but not the tank manufacturing factory.
I have conceded that Hobby Lobby so invested.
Do you concede that their investment is not fairly called “heavy?”