Dobson files lawsuit challenging Affordable Care Act contraception rule

28

Doctor James Dobson, broadcaster and founder of Focus on the Family, has filed a lawsuit challenging a mandate in the Affordable Care Act that would require his company Family Talk to provide health coverage that would offer birth control such as the morning after pill.

In a 51-page complaint filed on Tuesday Dobson and his attorney's from the group Alliance Defending Freedom argued that being required to offer insurance including contraceptives to 60 employees and dependants is a violation of their religious beliefs which are opposed to abortion. If Family Talk, a Colorado Springs based business that offers religiously based radio broadcasts and other material, would decline to offer their employees the insurance they would face thousands of dollars in fines.

"The government shouldn't be able to punish Americans for exercising fundamental freedoms," stated Matthew Bowman, an attorney for Alliance Defending Freedom. "Any government willing to force a family-run, Christian ministry to participate in immoral acts under the threat of crippling fines is a government everyone should fear."

Churches are exempt from the mandate, but Dobson's Family Talk doesn't fit the exemption requirements which his attorney's stated are "extraordinarily narrow." Arguments in the suit state that Family Talk should be considered an exempt religious organization because it is faith based, spreads a religious and pro-life message and all employees are said to be anti-abortion.

Written By: Tony Spehar
continue to source article at koaa.com

28 COMMENTS

  1. It seems as though Dr. Dobson hasn’t thought this through. If Family Talk is truly staffed with like-minded men and women who also oppose contraception and abortion, Dobson shouldn’t have the slightest worry about paying for any. However, by publicly proclaiming that he doesn’t want to cover these expenses for his flock, he has tacitly admitted that the Bible thumpers at FT lead lives of utter hypocrisy.

    Of course, for people like Dobson, hypocrisy is a tertiary concern. Leveraging religion to save a buck in the name of Jeebus seems to be his main goal. Intruding on his employees’ sex lives is probably just a nice bonus.

    • In reply to #1 by Matthew Lehman:

      It seems as though Dr. Dobson hasn’t thought this through. If Family Talk is truly staffed with like-minded men and women who also oppose contraception and abortion, Dobson shouldn’t have the slightest worry about paying for any. However, by publicly proclaiming that he doesn’t want to cover these e…

      Its all about control

  2. If Family Talk, a Colorado Springs based business that offers religiously based radio broadcasts and other material, would decline to offer their employees the insurance they would face thousands of dollars in fines.

    That seems like a good way to bring stone-age fumble brains into the 21st century!

    the group Alliance Defending Freedom argued that being required to offer insurance including contraceptives to 60 employees and dependants is a violation of their religious beliefs which are opposed to abortion.

    It is the right of the employees AND their FAMILIES to choose the services from those available. Denying people their choice, is only “freedom” in the minds of the bigoted brain-addled!

    • “Any government willing to force a family-run, Christian ministry to participate in immoral acts under the threat of crippling fines is a government everyone should fear.”*

    What I fear is men like Dobson telling people how they should run their lives.This is the same man who thinks one should inflict pain on children to make them obey.Yes, don’t take the morning after pill,that is immoral.Just bring em into the world and discipline them harshly. Hateful creature!

    • Saw a bumper sticker once which said ‘Focus on your own damned family’.At first I found this amusing until I reflected on the fact that he probably did focus on them – intensely- and that made me shudder.In reply to #7 by bluebird:

      Fuckus on the Family

      Can’t remember who said that, but I like it, yes I do.

      Dr. James Dobson, your ice floe is ready.

  3. As usual, special pleading from a Christian.

    To me God sacrificing Jesus was an “immoral act“. As was flooding the world to kill most people. Yet this narrow minded “family man” Christian would hate anyone to have a bit of sexual pleasure before, (and probably during), marriage. Of course he gets his “morality” from the Bible.

    • In reply to #11 by Steven007:

      Quite simply, if indeed “all employees are said to be anti-abortion”, what’s the issue? No one will ever use this coverage. Problem solved. Occam’s Razor and all that…

      Exactly what I was about to say.

      • He’s protesting that he can’t rightfully enforce his own religious views on his employees.

      • According to him, his employees already hold the same religious views as him.

      In order for him to have any case, one or more of those sentences must be wrong.

    • In reply to #11 by Steven007:

      Quite simply, if indeed “all employees are said to be anti-abortion”, what’s the issue? No one will ever use this coverage. Problem solved. Occam’s Razor and all that…I think that what he will say is that he does not like paying for a program that makes that benefit available. In his mind, it’s not a question of who will or will not use it. It’s a question of him personally providing something that he does not support. Small difference, I guess. But that will be his fall-back position.

  4. His most famous book is “The Strong-Willed Child.” Click HERE and check out some Amazon customer reviews. It apparently makes “To Train Up A Child” look like something written by Dr. Spock by comparison.

  5. How about considering the possibility that abortions, even when considered without a religious setting and ethos, are immoral? People do not necessarily have to be Bible thumpers to have a moral system. They are forced to defend themselves from a faith perspective because of the special treatment that faiths are given, however morality is not faith based, and advocating an immoral act in act way is immoral. These chaps defend themselves on faith grounds due to the way regulations work, but they are fighting this fight for morality- Faith is essentially being leant on for legal reasons, but their motives are purely moral. You could also consider it from a free-market perspective, if people don’t like it, they can go somewhere else.

    • In reply to #17 by Nabaus:

      These chaps defend themselves on faith grounds due to the way regulations work, but they are fighting this fight for morality-

      No they aren’t! They are fighting it as bigoted ignorance. Abortions are regulated with medical codes of ethics in places where dogmatic “faith” does not dominate. Most of them don’t know the first thing about embryology. They just parrot rubbish about ensoulment at conception that they have been told by ignorant preachers.

      • In reply to #24 by Alan4discussion:

        In reply to #17 by Nabaus:

        These chaps defend themselves on faith grounds due to the way regulations work, but they are fighting this fight for morality-

        No they aren’t! They are fighting it as bigoted ignorance. Abortions are regulated with medical codes of ethics in places where dogmatic “fait…

        Your likely correct about ignorant preachers and dogmatic practitioners, it is true that unfortunately religion often forgets that morality is about reason- following orders is not the same as being good. Being good by habit or by instruction is not moral, good in these cases is an exhibited behaviour without any actual moral content. However, if you were to ask them, is there a moral case for abortion, they would be hard pressed to find one. These people do consider it to be a moral issue, whether you agree or not.
        Further to the dogmatism your expressing, I am an Atheist with a belief that abortion is wrong. Not sure how bigoted the belief can be when all I have ever done to reach a moral conclusions is to apply reason to them.

  6. I’m not sure I understand why Christians need any sort of health coverage. Didn’t their god, according to their scriptures, send his son to die so that “by his stripes [they] are healed”? Isn’t even going to the doctor a bit illogical then? I mean, either god wants them sick in which case going to a doctor would be going against god’s will (as would praying for healing actually), or god wants them to be well/healed, in which case going to a doctor would be pointless? Where is their faith?

  7. I have not read a single logical argument yet. Dobson is arguing for choice of types of coverage because of religious belief. He is running a company not a church. His business should be conducted under certain rules so as not to burden the rest of the public and to even the playing field between his company and his competitors. The latter point is clear. The first is clear if you consider that not providing contraception and that not providing productive health coverage can bring a heavy burden to society.

    If Dobson wants to run a church, then he should do so and then he could get exemptions. That said, churches are businesses and their lack of tax burden and rules dodging should end.

    • In reply to #19 by jbcrabbe:

      I have not read a single logical argument yet. Dobson is arguing for choice of types of coverage because of religious belief. He is running a company not a church. His business should be conducted under certain rules so as not to burden the rest of the public and to even the playing field between…

      Dobson wishes to be moral, and the law should reflect morality. Dobson does not want to run a church, he wants to run a business and be moral doing so.

  8. In Dr. Dobson’s mind abortion may be an immoral act. But, as a country, we do not agree with him. So, in a sense, his problem is similar to that of the conscienscious (sp.) objectors during the Vietnam war. They had to make a choice. Move to Canada. Go to jail. Or, join the military and live in agony. In a sense, it’s a choice that we all have to make from time to time living in a very large and complex society. I think that it would be interesting to present this problem to Dr. Dobson in this manner. Would love to hear his response!

  9. Dobson has individual religious rights. The Constitution says that everybody has individual religious rights. How does forming a corporation or business multiply someone’s religious rights to the point that they can take away other people’s individual religious rights?

Leave a Reply