Hobby Lobby invests in contraceptive, abortion drug manufacturers

20% off hypocritical blowhards, just bring this coupon

It’s peculiar how a group of individuals who are so devoted to their religious beliefs that they demand the very laws of the nation be rewritten to accommodate them can be so lax about those same religious beliefs if ignoring them will net them a little dough.

Documents filed with the Department of Labor and dated December 2012—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).

Several of the mutual funds in Hobby Lobby’s retirement plan have holdings in companies that manufacture the specific drugs and devices that the Green family, which owns Hobby Lobby, is fighting to keep out of Hobby Lobby’s health care policies: the emergency contraceptive pills Plan B and Ella, and copper and hormonal intrauterine devices.

So the company demands it not have to pay for any employee insurance that might purchase such things, but investing in their manufacture? Not a problem.

Oh, but it gets worse. The assertion from Sharia Lobby is that whether or not those contraceptives actually cause abortions, the company owners have a religious belief that they do, so the law must not only be rewritten to eliminate the possibility of the company spending money on abortifacients but rewritten to allow the company to deny insurance for anything that the company feels is an abortifacient. What’s still all right, at least from the investor side of things, is actual abortions.

The companies Hobby Lobby invests in include Teva [...], as well as Pfizer, the maker of the abortion-inducing drugs Cytotec and Prostin E2. Hobby Lobby’s mutual funds also invest in two health insurance companies that cover surgical abortions, abortion drugs, and emergency contraception in their health care policies.

So providing workers with health insurance that might provide certain contraceptives is right out, but making a little dough from companies that make actual abortion drugs does not run afoul of those self-same Deeply Held Religious Beliefs, nor investing in the very insurance companies whose original naughtiness was the thing Hobby Horse could not put up with.

I think we all understand each other here. Businesses must be able to lodge religious objections to the medical decisions of their employees, but don’t be surprised if that happens to be the one and only Deeply Held Religious Belief a given company might have. And we won’t even get into the Made In China part.

Daily Kos

Hobby Lobby invests in contraceptive, abortion drug manufacturers

Hobby Lobby invests in contraceptive, abortion drug manufacturers

20% off hypocritical blowhards, just bring this coupon

It’s peculiar how a group of individuals who are so devoted to their religious beliefs that they demand the very laws of the nation be rewritten to accommodate them can be so lax about those same religious beliefs if ignoring them will net them a little dough.

Documents filed with the Department of Labor and dated December 2012—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).

Several of the mutual funds in Hobby Lobby’s retirement plan have holdings in companies that manufacture the specific drugs and devices that the Green family, which owns Hobby Lobby, is fighting to keep out of Hobby Lobby’s health care policies: the emergency contraceptive pills Plan B and Ella, and copper and hormonal intrauterine devices.

So the company demands it not have to pay for any employee insurance that might purchase such things, but investing in their manufacture? Not a problem.

Oh, but it gets worse. The assertion from Sharia Lobby is that whether or not those contraceptives actually cause abortions, the company owners have a religious belief that they do, so the law must not only be rewritten to eliminate the possibility of the company spending money on abortifacients but rewritten to allow the company to deny insurance for anything that the company feels is an abortifacient. What’s still all right, at least from the investor side of things, is actual abortions.

The companies Hobby Lobby invests in include Teva [...], as well as Pfizer, the maker of the abortion-inducing drugs Cytotec and Prostin E2. Hobby Lobby’s mutual funds also invest in two health insurance companies that cover surgical abortions, abortion drugs, and emergency contraception in their health care policies.

So providing workers with health insurance that might provide certain contraceptives is right out, but making a little dough from companies that make actual abortion drugs does not run afoul of those self-same Deeply Held Religious Beliefs, nor investing in the very insurance companies whose original naughtiness was the thing Hobby Horse could not put up with.

I think we all understand each other here. Businesses must be able to lodge religious objections to the medical decisions of their employees, but don’t be surprised if that happens to be the one and only Deeply Held Religious Belief a given company might have. And we won’t even get into the Made In China part.

Daily Kos

Hobby Lobby invests in contraceptive, abortion drug manufacturers

Are GMO-free Cheerios, Grape-Nuts a ploy by Grocery Manufacturers Association to kill mandatory GMO labeling?

Pin It

(NaturalNews) Two of the largest breakfast cereal companies in the nation, General Mills and Post, recently announced that they will soon be removing all genetically modified organisms (GMOs) from two of their most popular cereal brands, Cheerios (General Mills) and Grape-Nuts (Post). But this sudden move toward transparency in food labeling may be nothing more than a ploy by the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), of which both General Mills and Post are members, to shift the public conversation away from mandatory GMO labeling.

As you may recall, the GMA is the same group that fought tooth and nail to defeat Proposition 37 in California and Initiative 522 in Washington, both of which would have required GMO labeling on foods sold at the retail level in their respective states. The GMA was also caught operating an illegal money laundering scheme that involved funneling large amounts of cash from big food manufacturers to the No on I-522 campaign.

More recently, the GMA was exposed for filing a petition with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) urging the agency to declare all GMOs as “natural” so that they can continue to be added to food products sold at high-end grocers like Whole Foods Market and Sprouts. The GMA is also busy working toward the passage of legislation that would actually bar individual states from ever passing their own GMO labeling laws, as we recently reported.

The nefarious activities of the GMA with regard to the issues of GMO labeling and transparency have been so devious in recent days that some media sources have actually started using the word evil to describe the organization, likening it to the agribusiness giant Monsanto. And yet two prominent GMA members that also vehemently oppose mandatory GMO labeling are suddenly and voluntarily embracing a transgenic-free approach, at least for some of their products. So what gives?

The truth of the matter, as we recently pointed out, is that both Cheerios and Grape-Nuts have been largely GMO-free all along. The former is made primarily from oats, for which there are currently no GM commercial varieties, and the latter is made mostly from wheat, which is also non-GM. With the exception of having to change a few extraneous additives like corn starch to non-GM varieties, in other words, it was really not that hard for either General Mills or Post to make these two cereals GMO-free.

Since both companies have also indicated their intention to keep adding GMOs to all their other cereal formulas, it appears as though the whole charade is more of a publicity stunt than a major shift of opinion about the continued use of unlabeled GMOs in the food supply. One popular health blogger believes that the GMA will use this voluntary labeling initiative, as trite as it is, to argue against the need for mandatory GMO labeling.

“[I]t’s more likely that come next GMO-labeling initiative, one of the tools in the GMA’s ‘no’ campaign will be to point at Cheerios and Grape-Nuts and whatever other cereal brands declare their non-GMO status,” writes Jill Ettinger for Eat Drink Better. “Their argument will sound a little something like: ‘Why push a mandatory label law forward when brands are voluntarily doing the work already? This is cheaper, dear taxpayers.’”

Voluntary GMO labeling, no matter what the true agenda behind its adoption by major food corporations, is still a positive step forward in raising awareness about the existence of GMOs. It is also indicative of shifting public perception and increased demand for cleaner foods produced on farms rather than in labs. But it is important to remain vigilant about the sinister tactics of an industry that we know is inherently dishonest and hellbent against having to be transparent with consumers.

Sources for this article include:

http://eatdrinkbetter.com

http://www.naturalnews.com

http://www.naturalnews.com

http://science.naturalnews.com

Articles Related to This Article: • Non-GMO Project responds to OCA over GMOs, coexistence and effective activism • Whole Foods caught in GMO marketing deception, false advertising – here’s the proof • Consumer alert: Most common vitamins, including children’s vitamins, found to contain GMOs • Analysis: Rand Paul’s response to GMO labeling and the proper role of limited government • Wikileaks cable reveals U.S. conspired to retaliate against European nations if they resisted GMOs • Non-GMO Project announces October as ‘Non-GMO Month’ – How will you and your family celebrate?

Related video from NaturalNews.TV Your NaturalNews.TV video could be here. Upload your own videos at NaturalNews.TV (FREE)

Have comments on this article? Post them here:

comments powered by

Related Articles: • Non-GMO Project responds to OCA over GMOs, coexistence and effective activism • Whole Foods caught in GMO marketing deception, false advertising – here’s the proof • Consumer alert: Most common vitamins, including children’s vitamins, found to contain GMOs • Analysis: Rand Paul’s response to GMO labeling and the proper role of limited government • Wikileaks cable reveals U.S. conspired to retaliate against European nations if they resisted GMOs • Non-GMO Project announces October as ‘Non-GMO Month’ – How will you and your family celebrate?

Take Action: Support NaturalNews.com Email this article to a friend Permalink to this article: http://www.naturalnews.com/043791_GMO_labeling_Grocery_Manufacturers_Association_GMO-free_Cheerios.html Reprinting this article: Non-commercial use OK, cite NaturalNews.com with clickable link. Embed article link: (copy HTML code below): Are GMO-free Cheerios, Grape-Nuts a ploy by Grocery Manufacturers Association to kill mandatory GMO labeling?

NaturalNews.com

Are GMO-free Cheerios, Grape-Nuts a ploy by Grocery Manufacturers Association to kill mandatory GMO labeling?

Equipment manufacturers sue NH over auto dealer bailout

By Grant Bosse | New Hampshire Watchdog

CONCORD, N.H. — A group of equipment manufacturers has filed a lawsuit against a new law giving local franchises special treatment, and is asking the court to block the law’s requirements.

The companies claim the provisions of SB 126, known as the “Auto Dealers Bill of Rights”, impair the ability of manufacturers to enter into contracts with local franchises, and are unconstitutional under state and federal law.

John Deere, AgCo and Case New Holland have brought the new suit in the Northern District of Hillsborough County Superior Court.

Like all states, New Hampshire has long prohibited automobile manufacturers from selling cars directly to the public, which greatly increases the value of local car dealer franchises.

New Hampshire’s “Auto Dealers Bill of Rights” also places limits on what the factory can require of local dealers. This year, dealers fought for and won broad extensions of those provisions, including limits on how often car companies can require local dealers to remodel their showrooms.

Broad bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate also expanded the law to cover farm and other equipment dealers not previously covered under the motor vehicle statute. Gov. Maggie Hassan signed SB 126 into law in June.

Read the complete story at New Hampshire Watchdog

Please, feel free to “steal our stuff”! Just remember to credit Watchdog.org. Find out more

Watchdog.org

Equipment manufacturers sue NH over auto dealer bailout