You are viewing this article in the AnnArbor.com archives. For the latest breaking news and updates in Ann Arbor and the surrounding area, see MLive.com/ann-arbor
Posted on Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 5:56 a.m.

Eden Foods president says decision to sue Obama administration driven by small government ideology

By Ben Freed

Natural food company Eden Foods will appear in U.S. District court on May 10 to challenge the the Obama administration over the Affordable Care Act’s mandate that companies provide contraceptive medications as part of their standard health care plans.

In the lawsuit, the company cited first amendment rights and president and co-founder Michael Potter's Roman Catholic beliefs to explain its objection to the new health care mandate.

Eden, founded in Ann Arbor in the late 1960s, failed to obtain an immediate temporary restraining order in its lawsuit that was filed near the end of March. The suit has led to a strong social media backlash in comment boards of news websites and on the company's Facebook page.

eden_Foods_milk.JPG

According to its website, Eden Foods is the oldest natural and organic food company in North America.

Ben Freed | AnnArbor.com

Potter said he personally spent nearly three weeks discussing the decision to file the case with his board of directors, department managers, and individual employees. In the end, he cast the tie-breaking vote in a directors meeting to proceed with the lawsuit.

Potter spoke with AnnArbor.com to explain why he decided this lawsuit was the right course of action for Eden Foods and how customers have responded.

AnnArbor.com: What was the feedback you received from employees while you were determining whether to proceed with the lawsuit?

Michael Potter: I heard strong reactions to it back and forth throughout the time I was talking with people. It’s not the type of issue that leaves people sitting on the fence.

AnnArbor.com: What have you heard since the suit was filed?

Potter: I’ve heard a lot from the staff about the feedback and reaction from the general public once they heard about it. That happened pretty quickly.

AnnArbor.com: Have the comments from the public been more positive or negative?

Potter: We’ve heard a lot of both, supportive and against us. The majority of the feedback has been against us but I think that component of the population is a little more aggressive in responding. We’ve had thoughtful comments, hateful comments, intelligent comments, and ludicrous comments.

The threads out there on social media have been particularly bad… It’s been a lightning rod for a lot of vitriol and a lot of unpleasantness and I must say I’m disappointed in it.

AnnArbor.com: Are you concerned about what the economic impact might be to the company from the public reaction?

Potter: I certainly am concerned about that. There have been a lot of threats and declarations of boycotts on the Internet so that’s certainly alarming. The negativity surrounding us doing this… we all come to work to project Eden Foods in a good light and to have ended up precipitating this negative thing is disheartening.

At the same time, the economic impact remains to be seen. We’ve had some people saying they’ll buy more and a lot of people saying they won’t buy anything. It remains to be seen how it all plays out. For every negative feedback there could be 110 more people thinking negative thoughts, for every positive there could be 200 thinking positively or just 10. We really have no insight yet at this point, it’s too early to tell.

I can say that I am concerned about the impact it will have.

AnnArbor.com: Did you consider the potential economic blowback as part of your decision making process in filing the suit?

We did consider it, but we felt that most importantly we had to do the right thing. It was suggested to me that we be careful about offending part of our customer base and my reaction to that was and continues to be that once you start abandoning your principles it can be a pretty slippery slope from there.

AnnArbor.com: And why was this the right thing to do?

Potter: We had to object to the blatant government overreach that we saw happening. The government is just walking on the rights of companies and individuals who are trying to exercise their lives consistent with their conscience.

The affront to the exercise of religious practices is quite obvious, there’s obviously some conflict there. We felt that the safe thing to do would have been to be an ostrich and stick our head in the sand, but we decided not to do that.

… An obvious question that this overreach of government gives rise to is what’s next? OK, now birth control, then the counseling that encourages abortion and sterilization, and contraceptives, I have to pay for this? What’s next? I have to buy your raincoat? Your spare tires? Your weed killers?

AnnArbor.com: So for you is this more a question of religion or small-government ideology?

Potter: It’s hard to separate the two, but it’s more of the principal. Is this a right action or wrong action? It seems quite clear on the face of it that it’s wrong action by government. If they say something is necessary and they provide the funding, that’s one thing, but if they say you have to do this and you have to pay for it that’s something that’s completely different and that’s in violation of the law.

…We are not trying to get contraceptives out of Rite Aid for goodness sake. This is about trying to stop government overreach and telling them that they cannot tell people how to act.

…We provide our employees with good quality Blue Cross Blue Shield insurance with dental care and vision, and a 50 percent match on 401k. These are good benefits. I’ve been accused of being greedy. We’re not greedy, and we try to manage our employee benefits in a manner that is sustainable over the long term.

Ben Freed covers business for AnnArbor.com. You can sign up here to receive Business Review updates every week. Reach out to Ben at 734-623-2528 or email him at benfreed@annarbor.com. Follow him on twitter @BFreedinA2

Comments

Ron

Tue, May 21, 2013 : 9:01 p.m.

In response to Mr Potters recent lawsuit limiting the healthcare choices of his employees, I would like to state:I had been a long time buyer and proponent of Eden Foods. I will certainly stop on both counts if Mr Potter persists. While Mr Potter can make these personal choices about healthcare for himself, it is arrogant, and paternalistic to impose those on his employees. Shame on him. This is no impingement of his morals or values, by imposing his personal choices on others he is proving to be a reprehensible person. What if an employer doesn't believe in Psychiatry, or medicine, or doesn't want to cover prenatal or birth, health care for children of single women because they're living in sin/have sinned, or any healthcare costs of meat eaters, or any other unending list of situations? People have basic human rights and dignity, and should not be forced to live their personal lives according to the whims of the company owner. It's the height or arrogance for an employer to impose their personal morality on their employees. We should be better than that. There is a role for government and the law. I will stop buying Eden products, and urge my friends and family to do likewise. Healthcare choices should be made between a Dr. and his patient. Do we really want our bosses making decisions on treatment, procedures, and medications? An employer can't simply do anything and everything he wants to with his employees, especially in personal matters. I will contact stores carrying Eden products and urge them to stop because of the regressive policies of the business owner.

Phillip Pessar

Mon, Apr 29, 2013 : 3:56 p.m.

Count me among the tens of thousands who will no longer purchase your product.

Madeline Loder

Sat, Apr 27, 2013 : 12:55 a.m.

Is Mr. Potter opposed to the use of harmful ingredients in birth control? If so, there are healthier methods. Does he oppose x-rays, pharmaceuticals etc., etc.? I rejected Eden Foods when I heard about his stand on health care for employees.

dgr

Fri, Apr 26, 2013 : 4:54 a.m.

Mr. Potter is a man of courage and integrity, a rare thing indeed today. I hope others will follow his example and continue the fight against Big Brother. "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act" George Orwell

Logicista

Tue, Apr 23, 2013 : 6:33 p.m.

Yes, how dare a natural/organic food company refuse to pay for powerful, synthetic hormones that have been classified as a Class 1carcinogen by the World Health Organization(WHO)!!! Who the hell does this guy think he is-a citizen of the US with first amendment rights or something? Sheesh...some people have all the nerve....

BhavanaJagat

Tue, Apr 23, 2013 : 5:44 p.m.

Whole Dude - Whole Control: I use the term whole to describe the dude or the person as complete in all aspects. When we carefully examine the whole human organism, there is not even a cell that the dude can directly control, rule, or govern. Each living cell is independent and at the same time it works for the benefit of the whole organism. Before making choices for intended actions and behavior, it would be useful to learn the art of self-control, and self-restraint. The dude has to learn the art of applying brakes on lifetime activities. I would be happy if my employer and others give the benefit of paying the costs of brake inspection, maintenance, and repair so that I can apply brakes on my car and use it safely without hurting myself and without causing injury to others. It would be more useful than paying money towards the cost of contraception.

Laurie Barrett

Tue, Apr 23, 2013 : 4:29 p.m.

A business owner doesn't own his or her employees. The BO can't subject them to his or her personal idea of the law. They have human rights. Some people believe it's wrong to pay taxes. There are many variations on, "I have the right to rewrite the laws to fit my beliefs." Many libertarians think laws generally should be illegal (sorry for the oxymoron). He isn't above the law. I wish Mr. Freed had presented some discussion or critique during his interview. This is a fluff piece for Eden and its questions are just there to help Eden make its case. It doesn't seem like journalism per se. It lacks substance. I wish I could, like Eden, change the laws or attempt to. I'd do different things than Eden is doing, but I have visions of change for the better. Our system moves at glacial speed.

broncoslover

Tue, Apr 23, 2013 : 10:32 p.m.

I think you miss my point. People were imposing laws on King he thought were wrong. The owner of Eden sees a government law imposed on him he feels is wrong. In this way they are very similar. As for the health care law we really don't know if it is going to be a success or a failure, it hasn't been fully implemented. History shows a mixed record on the efficacy of sweeping legislation. The other point you are missing is that this is Eden's money. Employees are free to spend their money on any contraception they choose. I am pointing out the principle. If the government can coerce you to purchase things you disapprove of that is a slippery slope. This same government for example could then demand you purchase a semi automatic rifle to uphold the 2nd amendment. If you like such weapons no problem...but what if you didn't want to buy one on moral grounds? Be careful what you wish for.

Laurie Barrett

Tue, Apr 23, 2013 : 7:41 p.m.

Well I think a better example of someone standing up to prevailing trends to instill a greater ethic for the culture would be Obama and his push for universal comprehensive health care. The owner of Eden is no Martin Luther King. Eden wants to impose personal bias on the human rights of others; King gave us human rights for all. They are opposites. Even if King had wanted to outlaw health insurance, he would outclass Eden by such a degree of sophistication that it's ridiculous to use their names in the same sentence.

broncoslover

Tue, Apr 23, 2013 : 5:09 p.m.

No laws are being rewritten. Eden is simply asking the court to clarify if someone can be forced to by something that violates their religious conscience. I am certain you would agree Martin Luther King was correct to challenge the laws the majority accepted in the 50's and 60's?

snoopdog

Tue, Apr 23, 2013 : 1:26 p.m.

Mr. Potter, God Bless you for being a man of integrity and honor. It amazes me how a generous person such as yourself gets blasted for your beliefs. On a side note/personal note, I want to thank you for providing a job to my daughters boyfriend. He started with Eden foods yesterday at your Clinton plant in an entry level position. He came home last night wearing an Eden Foods hoodie and proceeded to tell me that he had a great first day and he loves his job. He told me that he will get excellent benefits including 401K match. He said that he never expected an employer to give a guy with just a G.E.D. excellent benefits like this. My daughter just had a baby with him and now Chuck and his little newborn baby are going to have healthcare benefits because of your generosity. Thank you very much. Good Day

Merkle

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 7:23 p.m.

Here's one for everyone to ponder. Should an OBGYN be required under law to provide a full range of healthcare services, which would include abortion?

Erich Merkle

Sat, Apr 27, 2013 : 11:44 a.m.

Precisely... so why should an employer have to provide insurance for a service they are morally opposed to?

Sue

Tue, Apr 23, 2013 : 4:15 p.m.

NO they should not be required to provide any service they are morally opposed to.

Jay Thomas

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 6:10 p.m.

Boycott! Vote with your Wallet!! If the company won't provide its employees with all the birth control anyone could ever use... then lets put them out of business! That'll REALLY help the employees. But you guys care deeply about THEM, right.

Sue

Tue, Apr 23, 2013 : 4:14 p.m.

Sorry Jay, I accidentally voted down, but I agree with your post completely.

BhavanaJagat

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 5:58 p.m.

Try other Options: Many readers have suggested that they may try other options and may avoid the purchase of products that are locally made in Michigan. I would indeed like to invite them to try other options; there are several options other than the use of oral or other kinds of contraceptive medications. These pills have to be prescribed and involve office visits and that is a drain on health care spending. Now, most companies are asking employees to pay an additional amount towards their health insurance premium costs if they use tobacco products. It is reasonable to institute additional premium if people choose to depend upon prescribed contraception.

Terry Reilly

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 5:38 p.m.

i will make every effort to choose competitors products whenever possible. Too bad, I like supporting local quality companies like Eden, but no more. Potter will likely be successful, witness similar efforts by Tom Monaghan. But as the Republican Conservative base likes to remind us, let the people decide. Me? I will shop for other products other than Eden. I hope business is so significantly adversely affected so as to give him pause to reconsider.

broncoslover

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 4:53 p.m.

I find it interesting how many posts here assume that Eden foods is a public institution. That their money should be available for the public to spend as they see fit. These are dangerous ideas. What if the government promulgated a law that private companies have to use their funds to purchase semi automatic weapons for all employees? Have we become a nation where the government can dictate that private citizens purchase whatever the government deems appropriate?

broncoslover

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 11:54 p.m.

I thnk we are arriving closer to a consensus, I would point out that his employees were already not covered before for years. I haven't seen any evidence the Eden employees were particularly concerned about the lack of coverage. I suspect those that were did what Americans do everywhere...seek employment somewhere else based on better pay and benefits. In a way employeres who already covered contraception and attracted better empolyees are hurt by the mandate since they lose their competitive edge.

snark12

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 10:25 p.m.

It's perfectly apt and legal for them to test the case in the courts and I don't have a problem with it. I also don't have a problem with people boycotting them based on that. And I can't speak for others but I would boycott them (if I actually used their products) not because the CEO had those religious beliefs but because he tried to limit his employees' options according to them. I've been in business for many years, and have had many employees, and it would never occur to me that my personal views should somehow impact them.

broncoslover

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 10:16 p.m.

Well you used a word I never used to claim my argument was a straw man. I didn't use the word tyranny since I don't believe we live in one. I do think it is dangerous, it could lead to such a tyranny. If the government can violate freedom of speech, religion, or any other freedom through the use of taxes and a simple majority vote that is a bad thing that should concern liberals or conservatives. More to the point this corporation is using their Constitutional rights to ask the courts to clarify how far the government mandate on health care goes...something the Supreme Court avoided last year. The straw man arguments seem to be from those with such strong invective for a business simply standing by what they view is right. Now if the court rules against Eden and they defy the law, the angry posters here will have much more valid points.

snark12

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 10:07 p.m.

BTW, broncoslover, you did use the word tyranny: "The government you describe doesn't exist in the US, but you perfectly described a tyranny of the majority, which is precisely what our founders feared."

snark12

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 10 p.m.

Merkle, there is no abortion involved in this conversation. The ACA does NOT mandate a health plan cover abortion. Furthermore, none of the exchange plans that will come in the years ahead that would used by people using government subsidies for health care are allowed to cover abortion. Again: no one is being forced to offer a plan covering abortion, and no plans with such features will receive government dollars. That is not what is at stake in the Eden case.

snark12

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 9:57 p.m.

I already said in my point #1 in my first answer that it's perfectly fine for Eden to drop the health care benefits. No, it's not discrimination. No, they don't even have to pay their employees more to make up the difference (but I agree they should, especially if they want to retain them). The CEO does not have to spend a penny for an insurance plan that cover birth control if he doesn't want to. How far can the public coerce a private person to spend their money? I doubt think anyone can answer that question exactly but the government has the power to raise taxes and then spend it, so it's pretty wide open. Your input on how that money is spent happens on Election Day. The Supreme Court ruled last year that the government can mandate that someone procure health insurance for themselves, if that's what you mean. And government has for decades stipulated that businesses (not people) make certain expenditures if they want to participate in interstate commerce. Eden Foods has to have fire extinguishers in their offices, for instance.

Erich Merkle

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 9:57 p.m.

That is why many, including myself, believe that the government is overstepping by forcing the individual to pay for products and procedures that go against their beliefs. Many do not agree with the government infringing on individual rights. Lets face it. The piece that is very upsetting for many is abortion. I am a liberatarian by nature and would be very much opossed to governement legislating or restricting abortion, but as an inidividual I am very much opposed to the procedure and don't want to contribute to it. I have that right and yes... Mr. Potter has a case, as I suspect many will when it comes to this ill conceived healthcare initiative.

broncoslover

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 9:45 p.m.

Well Snark, you believe I have a funny way of saying tyranny because I never used the word, that straw man is your own creation. Your point seems to be that someone owning property is discriminating against someone else. That to me is a straw man. Eden corporation is a non governmental entity. My original point holds. If you or anyone else can dictate to Eden how they can spend their money that is dangerous. What if Eden simply chose to pay their employees higher wages and drop the healthcare benefit so they could purchase their own plans? Is that discrimination? What if Eden chose to use their funds to provide free college education for their employees instead of health care? I would request you consider my central point. How far can the public go to spend the money of private individuals against their Constitutionally protected rights?

snark12

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 9:42 p.m.

I'm not saying he's treating his employees differently from each other, I'm saying he's treating his employees differently than if he did not have an objection to birth control usage. The government has said everyone has a right to a plan that includes an option for female birth control and he's saying he doesn't want to offer it because it violates his religious beliefs. Therefore he would be limiting their rights (i.e. that birth control option) because of his beliefs.

Merkle

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 9:11 p.m.

I fail to see how the employer is treating anyone differently. He isn't asking the question on an application or as part of an interview. Not using birth control isn't a prerequisit for a promotion. He is not discrimiating against anyone. He certainly can't tell by looking at you whether or not you have used birth control.

snark12

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 8:23 p.m.

broncoslover, you're also a lover of the straw man, too, I see. I said nothing of the such. I said government makes us all do things we don't want to do. I didn't say government can make us do anything it wants, i.e. it can't make us do all things we don't want to do. I understand full well that the point of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. You just have a weird way of describing tyranny. Not all things are considered tyrannical. You do not have the right to avoid paying taxes, for instance. You do not have the right to take another person's life. So it's clear that just because the government coerces or prevents some behavior of yours, that doesn't immediately mean you're living in the dictatorship you describe. In this case, the Eden CEO is free to exercise his religious feelings about birth control. But one of the well-established tenets of our society is that employers do not have the right to treat other people differently simply based on the employer's personal views. An employer can't discriminate against minorities, for instance, simply because he feels that minority is inferior. By your argument that's infringing on that employer's personal beliefs, which may well be true, but our society long ago decided that the rights of the employee trumped the rights of the employer in that case. In a society you will always have a chance for two people's rights to be in conflict. When those two people have an employer/employee relationship, our legal system has for decades favored the employee because he could be harmed or damaged otherwise. So there's nothing new about this case. And the Eden CEO can easily avoid paying for the birth control if he really wants to.

broncoslover

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 6:46 p.m.

Snark, you do realize you are saying in a Democracy the majority can basically demand people do anything including violating their conscience? I would point out that we have a Constitution which protects the minority in some cases from the will of the majority. The government you describe doesn't exist in the US, but you perfectly described a tyranny of the majority, which is precisely what our founders feared.

Merkle

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 6:12 p.m.

Broncoslover.... precisely. I don't think many would feel the same if the law being forced was one that they disagree with.

snark12

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 5:27 p.m.

1) Eden Foods doesn't have to spend a dime on birth control if they don't want. They could either just ask their employees to cover 100% of their health insurance or they could not provide health insurance at all. I'm sure the employees wouldn't like it, but it's an option. 2) The "government telling citizens what to do" is sort of part of the definition of government. And this government is elected by the citizens in democratic elections. Each of us is somehow offended by one part or the other of what the government does. Just because you don't agree with something promulgated by that government it doesn't mean you're living in tyranny. Really, get over yourself!

Mick52

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 3:54 p.m.

The Affordable Health Care Act has been a disaster from the beginning. Poorly planned and enacted, it is the exact opposite of its title. The free contraceptive regulation is both a travesty to people's beliefs but also a slap in the face to people who are seriously ill and have costly prescriptions. Some women need contraceptives for health reasons, I have no issue with that, but pregnancy is not an illness and here all along I thought he AHA was supposed to make HC more affordable for people for illness/injury issues. Free birth control for healthy people, the cost spread out to the rest of us. Why hasn't AHA focused on prescriptions for the ill? It has nothing to do with HC, its all about politics and trying to get support for an idiotic law.

snark12

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 5:34 p.m.

There is no free birth control involved in this whole discussion. That meme has to stop. The law is that health plans have to provide birth control as part of the plans, with no co-pay, but the employees are almost certainly paying for all, most, or a portion of that insurance, usually to the order of $3,000 to $7,000 per year. It's not free. The ACA provides extensive coverage for a wide range of prescriptions and for people who wouldn't otherwise be able to afford coverage for their illnesses. Also, national health care costs have already slowed their growth rate dramatically over the last several years as the industry makes adjustments in preparation for the new law. So it looks like you got what you want. Congratulations!

Usual Suspect

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 3:28 p.m.

"The majority of the feedback has been against us but I think that component of the population is a little more aggressive in responding." Well, yeah, it's from American liberals, the least tolerant people on the planet. Don't disagree with them, or they'll do everything they can to silence you.

Jack

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 2:10 p.m.

I'm disappointed to see Mr. Potter bring his personal religion and politics into his company's relationship with the consumers of his products. Since their presence in Ann Arbor in the late 1970's, under the Jacobson's parking structure, I have enjoyed and trusted their products. I am sad to say that I will no longer purchase the products of a company which has so little concern for their employees' health and welfare. Nothing you offer is irreplaceable, and the Eden Foods name is no longer on my list of trusted sources.

Sue

Tue, Apr 23, 2013 : 3:55 p.m.

Everyone brings their personal beliefs and political views into everything they do, including the way they run their businesses, it's ridiculous to assume otherwise. How this "involves the relationship with the consumers of his products" is beyond me. Do customers know the religious beliefs and political views of every company they purchase from, and how those beliefs/views impact the way they run their businesses? I can assure you they do not.

Nicholas Urfe

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 1:53 p.m.

"Eden Foods president says decision to sue ... driven by small government ideology" I think it is driven by a small *something* ideology, but that something is not government.

boobox

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 1:35 p.m.

I would bet this guy is just using religion to back his stance, while really he's just against it so he doesn't have to pay the increase costs to cover the new insurance. I'm guessing a large percent of his customers are against this move. This line especially makes me laugh. "The majority of the feedback has been against us but I think that component of the population is a little more aggressive in responding." If he thinks the loss of customers will cost him less than the increase in insurance cost, then it's his prerogative.

Alan Benard

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 12:15 p.m.

Michael Turner, owner and CEO of Eden Foods, has undermined his own case which he filed against the Obama Administration demanding the right for his religious prejudices to override healthcare needs of his female employees. He submitted a sworn affidavit which states: "[a]s a practicing Catholic, I steadfastly make efforts to avoid practices that subvert the teaching of the Catholic Church." But interviews with Salon.com's reporter Irin Carmon, Turner says the only motivation for the suit is his dislike of "government overreach." One cannot file suit for that latter basis if one is claiming a religious objection. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/04/19/1891331/why-an-anti-birth-control-ceos-big-mouth-may-force-his-lawyers-to-toss-him-under-the-bus/

Alan Benard

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 12:31 p.m.

Should be Potter, above.

Sue

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 5:44 a.m.

Even though I don't personally agree with Mr. Potter's moral position on birth control, I believe it's his Constitutional right to decide whether to include it as a paid coverage under the insurance plan he provides for his employees. Nobody should be able to tell him how to run his private business, especially not our overbearing government. They certainly don't have the constitutional right to force their personal moral (or immoral) agenda on all Americans/business owners. I stand behind this mans decision and hope he wins.

Sue

Tue, Apr 23, 2013 : 3:26 p.m.

snark12, it's also been well established that people cannot be forced to purchase things against their will, and he is the one paying for his employees health insurance plan. If there were an option for them to pay the extra cost of including birth control on their plans, then I would support him allowing that option. But as long as it's coming out of his pocket, he gets to decide what it includes. I'm sure birth control isn't the only thing not covered in his policy. It's possible dental coverage, hearing aides and eye glasses are not included either, so why single out this one thing and declare it an attack on women? Is it an attack on people with poor hearing, vision or teeth if he doesn't include coverage for all those things as well? And with your logic, if he doesn't have the right to limit coverage that he offers his employees because it might impact their rights, then abortion will also be included eventually since that is also considered a right. You told Merkle that abortion is not included as mandatory coverage at the moment, but you can bet it will be if this is allowed. People can chose to purchase their own birth control if they want it, he is not telling them they have to undergo tests to make sure they are not using any artificial means to prevent pregnancy. That is their right if they chose to use it. However, his decision to pay or not pay for their choice is not their right...that is his choice and his right.

snark12

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 8:31 p.m.

BTW, there is no abortion in this conversation. There are no requirements for health plans to cover abortion. Nice of you to try to slip that in there, though.

snark12

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 8:30 p.m.

The point is that he would be diminishing benefits for his employees (in particular, female employees or female family members of male employees) solely based on his religious beliefs (i.e. that people shouldn't use birth control so he isn't going to offer a health plan that includes it). That is how it's analogous to the race example. An employer can hold any belief he wants, but he is not allowed to limit his employees' rights based on that belief. It's pretty simple concept.

Merkle

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 7:14 p.m.

You're argument doesn't hold water. He isn't asking anyone on their application if they practice birth control or if they have had an abortion. He isn't terminating anyone on these grounds. You are asking him to pay for products and procedures that he doesn't agree with. This has nothing to do with race.

snark12

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 1:41 p.m.

It's been well-established that the ability to impact other people's rights is not, in itself, a protected right. For instance, he can't decide he doesn't want to hire black people even though he may feel black people are naturally inferior people. It's perfectly legal for him to have that point of view, and the government can't "force its moral agenda" on him to change it. But it's not okay (or legal) for him to use that as a basis for decision affecting his employees. Same as in this case.

BhavanaJagat

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 4:22 a.m.

Health Care - A LEAKING BUCKET: Most of the readers would have no problem to realize the simple truth about the loss of millions of health care dollars. We have come to a stage where we have to carefully count the pennies and eliminate coverage for services that are not in reality health issues. Too many services have been added and the healthcare industry is exploiting the situation for its own vested interest. Hospitals have increased their revenues performing tests, procedures that have no practical value. I was reading about a cardiologist who earned millions by simply investigating every patient for chest pain and had falsely diagnosed angina which is a symptom of coronary insufficiency. Companies have to resist this and have to take a stand to only pay for a service that represent a real value in terms of its cost and its purpose.

Rebecca

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 3:15 a.m.

"What's next? I have to buy your raincoat? Your spare tires? Your weed killers?" Seriously?? What do raincoats, spare tires and weed killers have to do with healthcare? Human overpopulation is the #1 source of all the troubles we have in this world today, and I thought Mr. Potter would have been cognizant of that fact. There are many women - and men - who would like to have control over their reproductive lives but who cannot afford birth control. Would you really rather pay the social and environmental costs of having unwanted children than to pay for birth control?

broncoslover

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 4:58 p.m.

We pay farmers not to grow food because their is too much food, or not enough people to eat it. You might want to rethink that idea that it is the #1 problem in the world. Even if it were why should businesses be forced to subsidize it? Even more this subsidy does nothing to force employees to use so many will choose to have children anyway. Not a very effective measure...

Usual Suspect

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 3:31 p.m.

Nothing he is doing restricts anybody from having or using birth control. You can still use birth control. I pay for my own Ibuprofen. You can pay for your own birth control.

Greg

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 1:37 a.m.

I wonder if he also believes in a minimum wage. Perhaps his next move will be to sue for government overreach in requiring him to pay workers in money.

Erich Merkle

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 12:54 a.m.

The government is really overstepping on this one. People aren't going to buy the product... because of this? Give me a break. What if this man were having a law forced on him by the government that you didn't agree with? I am pro-choice and his choice his being taken away. In a free society people are allowed choice. If it is so important to have an employer pay for contraception (condoms, birth control, abortion, etc.) then go work for an employer that pays for these items. What is the employer were required to pay for one hand gun for all of its employees, so that they could protect their family in a crisis situation? The employer refused to pay for it on the grounds of religious conviction. I would be just as opposed to such over reach on the part of our government.

moodyone

Tue, Apr 23, 2013 : 12:31 a.m.

No. The employer's beliefs are irrelevant to the medical needs of his employers. My agreement is also irrelevant.

Merkle

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 12:56 p.m.

Correct... moodyone! The employee can make any birth control choice that they choose, but one cannot force the individual to pay for someones choice that they might not agree with. You just happen to agree on this issue. What if the employer were being forced to pay for a choice that you didn't agree with? Choice is the right of the individual. Nobody should be required to pay for someone's choice.

moodyone

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 8:30 a.m.

Pro-choice does not mean that you believe your employer should have a say in what birth control you use.

NoSUVforMe

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 12:46 a.m.

Small government? How about small minded executive. The government is so much better than Eden Foods and their management is - quite frankly - disgusting. It is government that provides their roads. Government educates their employees children. Government keeps them safe. If Potter wants small government, he can take his company and go to a 3rd world country and live a life without civilization. Good riddance.

a2citizen

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 12:17 a.m.

Ben, Why don't you interview some of the Eden employees and see how they feel? According to the last paragraph Eden sounds like they were taking care of their workers benefits wise.

Usual Suspect

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 3:34 p.m.

" I doubt they would speak freely on the record for concern over jeopardizing their job." You're assuming they disagree with it.

kris

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 11:54 a.m.

I would be interested in hearing what the employees have to say as well. However, I doubt they would speak freely on the record for concern over jeopardizing their job.

RUKiddingMe

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 11:47 p.m.

Can one of you people explain to me how a person not wanting their business to pay for a specific kind of service in the health care industry is forcing a religious belief on the employee? Please explain that. See, when I've worked at companies that don't offer coverage for something, I can still do it, the company's health plan just doesn't pay for it. Please tell me you will also boycott a company that does not offer coverage for sexual reassignment surgery. Also tell me that a company that chooses a health plan that does not cover inoculations/immunizations is forcing beliefs as well. There are probably 2300 procedures your employer's health plan does not cover; please boycott them. A company not using a health care plan that pays for particular services is not forcing anything on anyone. The only forcing here is the government trying to force this company to cover things. You all need to stop acting like there's any other forcing going on. Seriously. I see a lot of hypocrisy, shortsightedness, intolerance, inconsistency, and small mindedness here. And it ain't from Eden.

snark12

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 3:56 p.m.

We spent trillions of dollars and thousands of lives on some wars that I don't approve of. Now some people may get some help taking a pill that you don't approve of to make their lives better. We'll both live. Yes, freedom is wonderful!

Usual Suspect

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 3:36 p.m.

"Under the ACA there will be no approved health plans that do not provide coverage for female contraception" Isn't freedom wonderful?

RUKiddingMe

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 3:15 p.m.

Yeah, I get what a straw man is. And I saw several comments and got a general impression that people DO actually see this as this guy forcing his beliefs on other people. Those are the comments I was addressing. And in this instance, that IS a straw man argument, because it's a false premise not actually representing the issue. I used examples of other "random medical procedures" because the analogy is sound. If people want to boycott because they disagree with this guy's beliefs or moral basis or whatever, great. But he's not forcing his beliefs on anyone. Again, he's trying to not have beliefs forced on him. I get your point about how this was argued already and determined constitutional. Just like we have laws; every law could be conceived as the government forcing its beliefs on us, but in general it's a (more or less) universally accepted social contract agreed on by everyone. Since covering contraception is now one of these, you are right. It's the vitriol and UNARGUABLE accusations I have a problem with. Think he's unfairly bucking the system? Fine, boycott. But don't assault the guy's character with irrational claims about Inquisition-level attacks on people's rights or health or whatever. It doesn't make sense.

snark12

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 2 p.m.

A straw man is a flawed method of debate, which is what you are using: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man This discussion has nothing to do with boycotting the government (whatever that means), and no one is talking about boycotting Eden based its employees' views (and Eden's not a non-profit, by the way), and no one is talking about random other medical procedures. You're just making stuff up to get away from the central point. You asked for someone to show you how the CEO's actions are impacting his employees based on his own religious beliefs and I clearly demonstrated it. No one said the boss was "forcing his beliefs" on his employees, We said his employees were being impacted by them. No one CARES what the CEOs beliefs are...he's perfectly entitled to them. He's NOT entitled to reduce his employees' benefits because of them. Look, the people's elected officials, after years of debate, decided it was in the best interest of us all to pass a law that mandates certain types of health coverage. It did this to improve the quality of life of all us, particularly the less fortunate, and to slow the growth of health care costs. As part of that law, it was decided that certain types of coverage must be in any health care insurance plan, and female contraception is one of those things. Sexual reassignment surgery and your other examples are NOT in that list (neither, by the way, is abortion). This law was well argued and it was deemed constitutional last year. So, that's pretty much it. Time to move on. Now Eden Foods doesn't want to give its employees a plan that includes contraceptive coverage. In the lawsuit the CEO made the argument that it's an affront to his personal religious beliefs to provide that benefit. Others are making the same argument and we'll see what comes of it. Many of us do not think that's a valid objection because it would allow him to use his personal beliefs to reduce the benefits for his employees. That's pretty much it.

RUKiddingMe

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 1:40 p.m.

And there it is again. See, the straw man is that this guy is forcing his beliefs on people. He's actually just trying to avoid having beliefs forced on himself.

snark12

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 3:24 a.m.

That's a nice strawman you're building there. It's a shame he's bursting into flames.

RUKiddingMe

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 2:59 a.m.

It's not at all moot. There are still a great number of services that will not be covered. As an example, again, sexual reassignment. Shall we boycott the government for not making everyone cover that? How dare the evil republican right government force their gender-resignation views on all of us, right? And if your second post is correct, then will everyone boycott Eden if their employees DO share the same belief? Or will we boycott them and sue them for hiring people with the same belief? Will there be ANY plans under the ACA that have any differences in coverage from other plans? Because if so, you need to boycott all the comapnies that choose a plan that has any less or different options than the others. Because they're forcing their beliefs on you.

snark12

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 2:38 a.m.

I should have been more careful: all health plans will have female contraception except for plans designed for religious non-profits that can claim a religious exemption if their employees share the same religious beliefs.

snark12

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 2:15 a.m.

Under the ACA there will be no approved health plans that do not provide coverage for female contraception, so your analogy of the 2,300 uncovered procedures is moot. All the plans that an employer can choose from WILL provide this benefit. So clearly an employee of an employer trying avoid using one of these plans will have diminished benefits due to the religious believes of his boss.

Jon Saalberg

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 10:21 p.m.

Mr. Potter: Do you approve male employee's needs for Viagra? So, it's OK for men to obtain sexual dysfunction aids, but women should be barred from obtaining contraceptives? Why is it almost always males who make these decisions that oppress women?

Usual Suspect

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 3:38 p.m.

"but women should be barred from obtaining contraceptives" Typical, foul liberal lie. This does not bar women from doing anything. They can pay for it themselves, just like I paid for the baseball helmet I bought at Dunhams yesterday.

Chase Ingersoll

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 12:38 p.m.

He said nothing of the sort. Your response is willful slander in that you are attributing to him, any number of things that he did not say. Please re-read the article.

asterish

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 2:48 a.m.

Exactly! Men are delightful and versatile creatures, but they simple do not and never will have the "skin in the game" that a woman does when it comes to reproduction. Why should they have far more power than women to control laws about procreation?

Sparty

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 8:06 p.m.

Do they provide coverage for Viagra for men ? I bet they do.

Max Peters

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 12:42 p.m.

Viagra helps something that doesn't work to work. The pill takes something that works and makes it not work.

Erich Merkle

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 1:02 a.m.

If I were Mr. Potter, I would cut out Viagra too. Get rid of that debate.

a2citizen

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 12:18 a.m.

What does that matter? Do you need it?

Sara

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 6:52 p.m.

Mr Potter and his wife are free to not use contraception. However, he does not have the right to dictate what reproductive health choices his employees make just because his company provides health insurance. To do so infringes not only on their privacy rights, but also their first amendment rights to practice or not practice any and all religions. Forcing your employees to adhere to Catholic teaching is a violation of their constitutional rights.

moodyone

Tue, Apr 23, 2013 : 7:32 a.m.

He's not outright preventing women from choosing hormonal contraceptives, but he's making it a lot less viable a choice for many of them. Even $30/month is a big expense for many who perform jobs similar to those many of Eden's employees doubtless perform (though I don't know how well that company specifically pays). It must also be noted that the daily pill most commenters are probably thinking of is not the only form of hormonal birth control, nor the only form of birth control considered to violate Catholic religious doctrine: some of these other forms are substantially more expensive.

Newmarket

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 9:41 p.m.

There are other religions that don't condone the use of birth control, such as Muslims. It's funny you put the word "privacy" in the same paragraph as birth control. Why is the government and your employer responsible for your sex life?

Usual Suspect

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 3:40 p.m.

Sara, he is not preventing anybody from doing anything. He's just not paying for it. He is not stopping a woman from go9ing down to CVS and getting whatever she wants.

Chase Ingersoll

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 12:37 p.m.

It's not funny how people like you can interpret this as Potter forcing someone to do something, when it is your government that is attempting to force him to do something that he believes is outside the law and he is petitioning the court to stop such force. Your position is irrational and irrational people do dangerous things.

Nicholas Urfe

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 6:50 p.m.

Many are critical of Islamists who want their idea of "sharia law" instead of the law of the nation. Is this any different? He wants some variety of his religious law. I see it as just another form of religious extremism. Since when are corporations religious? This is no longer a sole proprietorship.

Jay Thomas

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 6:03 p.m.

You can still get contraception without having a body part lopped off. Weak argument. It is both the Islamists and liberals that want to FORCE people to do things. Not this guy from Eden Foods.

Erich Merkle

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 1:06 a.m.

Their religion is showing with the enforcement of Obamacare. Company benefits are not universal and do differ from employer to employer.

j hampton

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 6:22 p.m.

vote with your wallet

Bogie

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 6:21 p.m.

I stand by Mr. Potter. I did a quick search of birth control cost, and the general consensus is the cost is about a dollar a day. Do we really have to trample a company owner's Catholic beliefs, over a buck a day? Are women that helpless to save a dollar a day? Clearly unconstitutional. Obamacare supporters talk of the phony war on women, but I bet they will rethink the government intervention of healthcare when it comes to the decisions all those bureaucrats will make at the end of their lives. What treatments you qualify for? Their decision if you have quality of life? Property seizure? fools.

moodyone

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 8:29 a.m.

And it would be constitutional if bc cost $99999 per day? That's now how constitutional law happens to work. And stop invoking the tired, debunked death-panel paranoia: you're the last passenger on that broken down old bus.

Sara

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 6:58 p.m.

No one is trampling his religious beliefs. He is free not to use contraception in his marriage. However, he does not have the right to deny insurance coverage for those who do wish to use contraception because of his personal beliefs. If Mr. Potter was a Christian Scientist who did not believe in modern medicine or a Jehovah's Witness who did not believe in blood transfusions, would it be okay for him to refuse coverage for chemotherapy or a transfusion if those violated his religious conscience?

Dog Guy

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 6:14 p.m.

These comments confirm that many Ann Arbor guys are fixated, chained, and caged by the sexual revolution's freedom. Whether the discussion is of human rights or soy milk, some are constrained to raise their beloved abortion and birth control. Parrots make dull conversation.

Tesla

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 6:07 p.m.

Sorry. You lost me at "OK, now birth control, then the counseling that encourages abortion and sterilization, and contraceptives, I have to pay for this? What's next? I have to buy your raincoat? Your spare tires? Your weed killers?" Good luck with your cause and your bottom line.

Erich Merkle

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 1:11 a.m.

Precisely... While I hate the thought of abortion and don't understand how any decent human being couldn't, I strongly believe in the individuals right to choose and that the government can't legislate abortion.

BhavanaJagat

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 5:32 p.m.

Whole Dude - Whole Rights: Thanks for sharing this conversation. Much of the negative reaction is generated as the case is based upon the religious views of the CEO. The issue of contraception arises in the context of interpersonal relationships and it involves the consequences arising from the action and behavior of at least two individuals. The Company need not bear the responsibility for the costs contributed by the actions and behavior of individuals who may not participate in the activities of the Company. Pregnancy is not a work-related event and preventing or terminating pregnancy is not the concern of the employer. Government, Companies, and Society have to work together to shape human interactions to generate peace, harmony, and tranquility. It demands formulating human relationships based upon trust, respect, and commitment. If there is a hole in the bucket, it is reasonable to plug it before using it to draw water from the well.

moodyone

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 8:27 a.m.

I give you some credit for making the most bizarre argument on this topic I've ever heard, but it's still not a sound one.

Umlud

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 1:38 a.m.

"If there is a hole in the bucket, it is reasonable to plug it before using it to draw water from the well." Not really... because your course of action doesn't result in a sustained system of no-hole buckets. Instead, if there is a hole in the bucket, one must BOTH plug the hole AND determine how the hole got there, and fix the system that puts holes into buckets. In this analogy, Potter - and business owners like Potter - are the ones who are screaming about plugging the hole before using it to draw water from the well. Insurance companies are the ones who create the manufacturing process that results in health-care "buckets" with holes in them that then need to be fixed. In short, your analogy is imperfect and it also doesn't support the position that you appear to espouse.

jondhall

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 5:20 p.m.

Is there one good conservative "left" in this liberal town or have the Professors brainwashed them all?

A2M3

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 6:26 p.m.

If "by" not "you", sorry for typo

A2M3

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 6:16 p.m.

If you "good conservative", you mean person who pushes their religious beliefs on others, I think they are few and far between.

djacks24

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 5:18 p.m.

The amazing thing is all of these hypocrites boycotting Eden will still have no problem shopping at Walmart.

Rebecca

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 3:06 a.m.

Nope. Still boycotting Walmart, too.

djacks24

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 2:34 a.m.

Yup, then they'll deny shopping at Walmart too...

Umlud

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 1:33 a.m.

I don't buy Eden and I don't shop at Walmart. I guess that doesn't make me one of "all of these hypocrites", then. (And where are you pulling this connection from?)

A2M3

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 6:14 p.m.

wrong for this boycotter

Bob Anderson

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 4:57 p.m.

I like brand coverage like this. It's a convenient way to discover what brands I should avoid.

snark12

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 4:47 p.m.

"What's next? I have to buy your raincoat?" If we had a 60-year national debate about raincoats because tens of millions of people lived without them; if being without raincoats contributed to a reduced quality of life, personal bankruptcies, and death; if raincoat costs were escalating exponentially and threatening our economy; and if we had elections that resulted in the guy who promised a national raincoat policy won, then, Yes, you might have to make available an option to your employees so they could buy raincoats at manageable prices. Even if you personally like getting rained on.

Citywatch

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 4:26 p.m.

Me. Potter is acting like big government. Let his employees choose what part of the healthcare option they use. He does not have to use it himself but others that work for him might. Freedom of choice and freedom of religion. This is an over reach by Mr. Potter. This will affect my shopping list.

A2Dave

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 4:19 p.m.

I think he's right (not really!) but I do think, by his own rationale, that church's, church property and church income should be taxable, since religious folk want to endorse and support political activity. And this movement is political activity inspired by, supported by, and encouraged by, the Catholic (capital "C" since it certainly is not "catholic", meaning single and universal ) Church and other religious institutions acting as political entities. Besides which, why should churches of any stripe be tax exempt anyway?

cook1888

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 4:09 p.m.

I am always reminded of a John Wayne quote in these situations. "I`ve known Jane Fonda since she was a little girl. I`ve never agreed with a word she`s said, but would give my life defending her right to say it." I believe Mr. Potter has every right to challenge and fight for his beliefs and I have every right to stop buying his products. We need universal health care and free birth control.

mpope

Tue, Apr 23, 2013 : 9:25 p.m.

If you follow his logic, Christian Science believing entrepreneurs' companies would have the right to deny all health care to their employees, including contributing payroll taxes for medicaid and medicare. not all health care. health care COVERAGE. -- i most certainly would support that. if i thought that un-coverage was not beneficial to me, i would LOOK FOR ANOTHER JOB. i know. crazy radical idea, right? freedom to choose a different job/ employer? who's kooky idea is THAT?

Jack Gladney

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 4:30 p.m.

Free birth control? Problem solved. Um.... When did the pharma companies start making that stuff for free? This is great news! Call Mike Potter! Let's call off the boycott! It's a new day in America. Free drugs. Thank the Lord.

A2Dave

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 4:22 p.m.

Except that his way of expressing his opinion is to attempt to deny benefits (and their cost) to his employees. If you follow his logic, Christian Science believing entrepreneurs' companies would have the right to deny all health care to their employees, including contributing payroll taxes for medicaid and medicare.

Lynn Liston

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 3:31 p.m.

Whether you agree with his claim of a moral stance, or his claim of a small business owner stance, I think the real issue here is whether a business owner or an individual can pick and choose which laws of the land they will and won't live by. I'm not happy with the idea of war- does that mean that my little business can withhold taxes that might be spent on war? Amish eschew a mechanized mode of travel- does that mean that they can withhold taxes that might be spent giving incentives to an auto manufacturer? You don't agree that the legal drinking age should be 21- does that mean you can ignore it? Ignore speed limits because you don't think the government should limit your as an individual? The last I heard, your moral objections to how your taxes are spent or to obeying the laws of the land did not earn you an exemption. The protections offered in the Constitution apply to the individual's right to not have an act or a belief imposed on them personally that might violate their conscience. They don't apply to exempting you from obeying laws that make those acts or beliefs legal for others. The real answer is a single-payer health care system that takes the employer, their insurer and their personal beliefs out of the equation. Everyone should have access to the same health care options whether they choose to use them or not. All these lawsuits and objections simply strengthen the case for moving toward a national health care system.

BDP

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 3:12 p.m.

loos like I boycott eden foods

mpope

Tue, Apr 23, 2013 : 9:21 p.m.

looks like i quadruple my food co-op order of EDEN foods.

jayjay

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 2:47 p.m.

He will get what he deserves, and that is hopefully a full response by members that believe in health care for all and that needed care is a person's own decision and not that of the church or the employer. Eden Foods can take its stance straight to Chapter 11! Of further, for that matter!

E Claire

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 7:52 p.m.

What choice is he making for anyone? Who has he denied birth control to? Keep pushing the lie, it won't make a difference. Like it or not, most people are more middle of the road and really don't care what far left liberals in AA think.

Peter

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 2:40 p.m.

Good job not asking a single poignant question, aa.com. You shouldn't let him dance around this - this has nothing to do with 'small business ideology' - this is all about disapproving of women having agency over their own bodies.

mpope

Tue, Apr 23, 2013 : 9:20 p.m.

"this is all about disapproving of women having agency over their own bodies." i'm a woman. i have agency over my own body. i would be mortified if my 'agency' forced my employer to participate in something to which s/he is opposed. why would a successful, hard-working, intelligent woman want ANYONE to go against his/ her beliefs to provide something for her-- especially something which she can provide herself? any woman with even the least semblance of self-respect would insist on being financially responsible for her own self agency.

craigjjs

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 2:01 p.m.

I think they did a good job in this case. They gave Potter an opportunity to put out his views so we could understand them (you know, giving him enough rope...). It was not writer's job to argue the merits of the case. That is being done quite handily in the Comments, which are, appropriately enough, commentary.

JuliaAnnArb

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 2:28 p.m.

Ave Maria's squad of lawyers must be tied in knots. The lawsuit they filed was based on purely religious grounds. They claimed that it is a violation of a business owner's First Amendment rights to provide insurance for things they find morally objectionable. However, Mr. Potter has foolishly gone on record to AnnArbor.com and Salon.com as objecting to contraception on political, not religious, grounds. His lawsuit is trashed now. One does not get to simply refuse to follow the law out of spite. It is also curious that the political/moral/financial objections consistently focus on women's health issues. Maybe they should just file a lawsuit saying they have a Constitutional right to be misogynists. At least then they'd be honest.

E Claire

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 7:49 p.m.

So it's Mr. Potters fault that only women get pregnant? You need to take that one up with someone else, God or whatever you believe in. Mr. Potter has every right to not PAY for something that goes against his religious beliefs. You don't like it, start your own company and you can buy all the pill you want. When I was younger, I paid for my own pills or had condoms. There's a CVS on every corner...

craigjjs

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 1:58 p.m.

It sounds like the lawyers and the client are not singing from the same hymnal.

JuliaAnnArb

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 6:42 p.m.

I stand by my use of the word misogynist. Mr. Potter responded to AnnArbor.com that he felt that the ACA is "government overreach" and that he is trying to protect his employees' benefits in a sustainable way. Yet he didn't sue to deny all prescription coverage or mandated health insurance, just contraception. Women are the sole consumers of hormonal birth control pills, intra-uterine devices, contraceptive rings, injections, and implants. Only a women can have an abortion, a D&C, or give birth. His lawsuit and "beliefs" have a direct effect on women, not men. He is choosing to express his religious and political beliefs by endangering the health of women. If that's not misogyny, I don't know what is.

Jack Gladney

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 6:05 p.m.

Hey annarbor.com. Why is it OK to call a conservative a misogynist, but you can't call a liberal one? I can't find that rule in your guidelines. Or maybe it's just depends on whether or not you agree with the comment.

Comment

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 2:25 p.m.

They should change the name. What is with religion thses days? Divisive thoughts.

clownfish

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 2:22 p.m.

Which federal food regulations does Eden oppose? Did they object to those that require "nutritional" information be on the labels of the food they sell? As a Libertarian, does Mr Potter think that consumers should be responsible for testing their own food for contaminates?

aataxpayer

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 2:12 p.m.

When the health care debate was going on I was hopeful that we would end up with a system that was either single payer or direct purchase with tax credit. In either case employers would no long have to manage and deal with health care insurance. Sadly, health care reform has left employers with more regulation and paperwork, higher fee and taxes, confusion regarding compliance, and distraction from tending to the generating revenue. When we revisit health care policies, let's decouple employment and health insurance.

craigjjs

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 1:57 p.m.

What could you possibly be thinking? There will never be single payerhealthcare in the US because it violates the prime directive of healthcare. "No one can provide healthcare of any kind to anyone unless an insurance company somehow makes money from it."

snark12

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 2:37 p.m.

Sorry, "if many employers..." I wish we could edit on AA.com. And I wish my brain worked better.

snark12

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 2:37 p.m.

I agree. Under the ACA employers can opt to not provide health care and instead pay a fee to the government and their employees can join exchanges, which will be subsidized for the "poor" by those fees. If mainly employers chose this option we'll be half way there. Many anti-ACA employers make a threat of doing this but I don't consider it a negative outcome.

Kronoberger

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 2:09 p.m.

Health care should be a universal right we provide for one another as it is in Canada. Corporations should not have the right to determine fertility decisions of anyone.

E Claire

Fri, Apr 26, 2013 : 3:08 p.m.

No, it isn't Peter. My family lives in Canada so my opinion comes from real Canadians who have to deal with this. People die waiting for bypass surgery on a regular basis.

Peter

Tue, Apr 23, 2013 : 2:39 p.m.

Medical tourism from Canada to the US is extremely rare E Claire. The Canadian health care system is better by every conceivable metric than our system.

E Claire

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 7:42 p.m.

"as it is in Canada". You mean like where the Canadians who have money come here for procedures while those who rely on govt healthcare die on a waiting list? Where will we go, Mexico?

Chase Ingersoll

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 2:01 p.m.

What's not being mentioned in any of the comments is that GOVERNMENT IS A FORM OF RELIGION - religion being rules, regulations, etc that govern the behavior of persons and between persons.. The bigger one form of government gets, the less that is left for individuals to govern themselves.

moodyone

Tue, Apr 23, 2013 : 12:27 a.m.

It also isn't being mentioned in the comments that potato salad is a form of Santa Claus.

leaguebus

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 7:27 a.m.

Unfortunately, when we get rid of government regulations we end up with the worst depression in 80 years. We all agree that more freedom individual freedom, the better, but then along come the Mr Potters who use their power to abridge others personal freedoms.

jayjay

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 2:52 p.m.

The larger our population gets, the more each person's freedoms threaten those of the others, thus unfortunately, the need for more government. Maybe if we could control reproduction a bit better and stop the need for ever increasing gov't services to an ever increasing population. I find it interesting how people that argue for small government defend their own freedoms but fight against those freedoms of others. Gone are the days when my actions, right or wrong, did not impinge on the freedoms of someone.

Brad

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 2:19 p.m.

re·li·gion /ri?lij?n/ Noun 1.The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods. 2.Details of belief as taught or discussed. So where's the superhuman aspect? That Obama is the Antichrist?

YouSaidWhat?

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 2 p.m.

Mr. Potter you have earned a new customer. Thank you for standing up to the tyranny of the Obama administration. Who is John Galt?

dsponini

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 1:22 p.m.

"tyranny of the Obama administration" Are you serious? Tyranny?? SMH at you "less government in my life" fools

johnnya2

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 3:25 p.m.

John Galt is a MADE UP character by a hack writer. Who is Dorthy Gale? We can play this all day.

snark12

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 2:34 p.m.

John Galt is a fictional character that used to appeal mainly to teenagers experiencing their first taste of intellectualism, before they had to do deal with the real world.

clownfish

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 2:27 p.m.

When the Bush administration rounded up 5000 Muslims, did you oppose that as "tyranny"? Did you oppose Reagans forcing the drinking age to 21 as "tyranny of the Reagan administration"? Or, is trying to keep our health care cost down actually what many wold consider good governance, as no one is FORCED to take birth control, but we will be forced to pay for the higher premiums incurred when more people have children and (according to basic economics) drive up the costs?

clownfish

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 1:59 p.m.

Where was Eden Foods lawsuit when the US government opposed the Pope and started the Iraq War? Did they go to court to keep from paying federal taxes that would go toward paying for the moral failure of that military action? Are they continuing to withhold those taxes as we pay down the trillion dollar debt incurred with an immoral war? John Paul insisted that war is a "defeat for humanity" and that a preventive strike against Iraq is neither legally nor morally justified. What was it that Jesus said about contraception? Does Mr Potter require his employees to marry their brother-in-laws when widowed? If not, he is violating the Old Testaments discussion of spilled seed. Are his employees REQUIRED to go forth and multiply? If not he is violating the basic tenets he claims to support.

LA

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 2:18 p.m.

i want to 'like' this 500 times...

Chase Ingersoll

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 1:55 p.m.

It's one thing for AA.com to have a policy that allows whistle blowers with facts to remain anonymous. But for people who want to clutter up discussion sections with nastiness to which they will not credit their real name - the anonymity policy is only fostering their less than circumspect comments. Ben: your interview is a nice piece, as agree with Potter or not, it makes it clear who he is and why he is doing this. I wish the cause of limited government and Life had more public representatives like Potter. What I would like to see now is a counter interview from someone who supports the mandate and specifically addresses each of the issues that Potter raises, all the way down to - should we be responsible to buy someone a rain coat...?.

moodyone

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 8:24 a.m.

Most of the nasty comments seem to be coming from people with real-sounding names like yours. On what basis should we compel private citizens to open up their personal identity to all the trolls and criminals of the internet in order to participate in public debate? The anonymity policy fosters a feeling of safety from the threats of rape and murder that frequently accompany these discussions.

leaguebus

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 7:08 a.m.

So limited government means that people that can afford health care should live longer lives than those that can't afford care? I know a person that has an irregular heartbeat like I do. I am being treated for this, and because my friend can't afford health care, he is not being treated and has a much bigger chance of having a blood clot/stroke than I do. I see this as a lack of compassion and empathy from the smaller government types. Why can most of the developed countries in the world have universal health care, and we, the greatest of them all, can't?

dancinginmysoul

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 2:48 p.m.

What nastiness, specifically, is "cluttering up discussion section" of this articles comments? This is the interwebs. We don't have to use our real names. That's part of the deal, the draw, the excitement. We're all experts, we're all right, and we're eloquent essayists'. I don't have to use my real name. That doesn't make me a coward. And it doesn't mean I'm hiding. It means I made a choice, of which I have every right to do. You don't have to like it and you don't have to respect it, but you don't get to call people names because of that. Besides, how do you know my name isn't Dan C. Inginmy-Soul

Brad

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 2:01 p.m.

My comment that was improperly deleted referred to Potter's slippery-slope example of "What's next? I have to buy your raincoat? Your spare tires? Your weed killers?" and its inherent silliness. My comment was both appropriate and entirely in compliance with the "guidelines". And the raincoat thing hasn't lost any of its silliness. Not at all.

mhirzel

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 1:48 p.m.

Good for Mr. Potter. Why is it so difficult for most Americans to grasp the concept of the importance of refusing to comply with those things which violate conscience? The conversation about insurance and birth control/abortion is extremely distorted by the erroneous perception that if insurance doesn't cover some desired product or service, it is unavailable. This is simply not true. The fact is, health insurance is NOT insurance anymore; it is a plan for prepaid medical products and services that one may never use, may not approve of on numerous levels, or would refuse when offered. It's become an extortion racket and, worse, you doctor no longer works for YOU. In the late 60s, before the pill was "covered" by insurance, it was available and perfectly affordable to me when my gross income was $110./week. I'd like to see more discussion of the impact of the morphing of insurance coverage from the original idea of being to protect against catastrophic hospitalization expense, not for every day, routine costs. That gradual change has played an enormous role in the rise in healthcare costs, but no one talks about that. What do you think your auto insurance would cost, if it covered every oil change and tire rotation? I am 100% for a woman's choice in all aspects of addressing her health, but I do think it's important that no one be forced by me, or anyone else, to participate in her decisions by contributing resources to choices they feel are morally wrong. I am pro-choice all the way, especially because I feel the "morality" of the issue is unknowable, and must be sorted out by each of us, according to our own conscience. But, I also object to being forced to financially support putting synthetic birth control chemicals into women, based on health concerns. There are other reliable and less dangerous options, but we push the pills for the profit they provide.

Umlud

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 1:25 a.m.

[comment got cut off] "Sticking to your principles" alone is INSUFFICIENT for determining action, although it can be a good starting place.

Umlud

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 1:22 a.m.

"Why is it so difficult for most Americans to grasp the concept of the importance of refusing to comply with those things which violate conscience?" ... because we live in this shared experience called "civilization". I mean, if you condoned this position for EVERYONE, then you would have to support both the woman who is beaten and the man who points to Biblical scripture as his principled motivation for beating his wife. You would have to support both the right of a child to be given life-saving medical treatment and his/her parents who would deny it due to their principled motivation stemming from their belief in the healing power of prayer. You would have to support both the white supremacist business owner who wishes to charge more to customers he/she believes isn't white enough as well as those who think that he/she shouldn't be allowed to do that. You would have to support the principle of profit maximization of an automotive company to choose to install safety equipment in cars only as an "optional addition" as well as those people who have lost loved ones to automobile fatalities, because that person failed to be cautious (or wealthy) enough when making an automobile purchase. Etc. Etc. Part of this little thing that we call a "civilization" is meant to allow us as a society to say, "We approve of this action and disapprove of that action." Therefore, we DON'T hold your position of "sticking to principles" when a uses the Bible to justify beating his wife; it's why we get angry when children die from simple infection, because parents want to pray the infection away; it's why we DON'T let race intersect with commerce; it's why we REQUIRE car companies to sacrifice some profit maximization when it comes to automobile safety. (It's also why many weren't happy with Michigan's anti-bullying legislation that allowed bullying that was religiously justified.) "Sticking to your principles" alone is INS

jayjay

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 2:56 p.m.

The issue is not one of following one's conscience -- it is a question of imposing his conscience on others who are in a lesser position to fight back, to follow their own conscience. Denying someone access to birth control or reproductive rights because Potter doesn't approve of them is an act of repression based on fact. How would he feel if a firm imposed birth control on its employees and didn't let them choose to follow their conscience? It is time for the grownups in our society to get out of the 1950's and quit trying to control others.

dancinginmysoul

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 2:05 p.m.

That's all well and good, but why is he focusing specifically on birth control? Would you feel the same if he was Christ Science and didn't want to cover any medications (or offer health insurance for that matter) because he believed God would heal them?

Chase Ingersoll

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 1:57 p.m.

Thank you.

Steve

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 1:48 p.m.

Gee, the last I read, 98% of American Catholic women use birth control. My guess is that this guy is a bit out of the loop!

Max Peters

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 12:39 p.m.

98% of American Catholyc women. As Garison Keeler (not a Catholic) has said, "If you don't want to go to Minneapolis, what are you doing on the train?"

popcornmom

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 4:33 p.m.

Citing this percentage has nothing to do whether or not Mr. Potter should have to pay for his for contraceptives for his female employees. Whatever percentage of American Catholic women use contraceptives, they should have to pay for them out of their own pocket (and many of them do) not their employer's.

jayjay

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 2:58 p.m.

Yes, but he has money and influence and controls people lives through being a business owner -- he evidently thinks that gives him the right to impose his religious beliefs as well. As I said in an earlier comment, I hope he is boycotted all the way to Chapter 11 or beyond!

dancinginmysoul

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 1:48 p.m.

One more thing: blood pressure medicines, cholesterol lowering medications, diabetes, Alzheimer, antibiotics and antivirals. These are all recommended and necessary medications, that aren't "funded," so why don't you have a problem with them? Where's the slippery slope? *cough-hypocrite-cough*

dancinginmysoul

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 3:46 p.m.

we're in agreement jayjay.

jayjay

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 3:04 p.m.

Let me clarify my response as I may have misunderstood the initial comment above. Healthcare should make all medicines, whether for prevention, cure or whatever, available to all citizens at an equitable and reachable cost. If I choose not to like a medicine, I still have option to not use it, whatever my reasons may be. Mr. Potter is removing that option from his employees. And I simply cannot understand how. I, too, have taken Eden Foods off my list. They are now in the past tense as far as I am concerned.

jayjay

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 3 p.m.

Hate to tell you, but my meds are covered, so what's your point? And, oh by the way, those that aren't fully covered are certainly a lot more economically available than they would otherwise be. I love when people check their facts!

Brad

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 1:45 p.m.

I think it's more driven by a 2000 year old ideology.

craigjjs

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 1:46 p.m.

That's right Sue, the government had not right to take away the rights of business owners to refuse to provide services to black people in order to accomplish what it felt was best.

Max Peters

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 12:37 p.m.

Or a 4000 yr old ideology. Look up the Sin of Onan.

Sue

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 5:20 a.m.

it doesn't matter what his reasons are, it's up to him what to provide to his employees whether anyone likes it or not. The government does not have the right to take away the rights of American citizens in order to accomplish what they might feel is best. Who is the government to say they are right and the individual who owns the business and pays for his employees health care is wrong? The government is pushing their own moral values and personal agenda on everyone, and that's not even Constitutional.

Rick Stevens

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 1:41 p.m.

'This is about trying to stop government overreach and telling them that they cannot tell people how to act.' Pretty funny coming from a company owner who feels he can tell his employees what they can and can't have in a health plan according to his faith. I'd say that's 'owner overreach' and that he shouldn't be allowed to dictate what his employees should or should not have access to. But I do appreciate knowing that about Eden so we can avoid supporting this 'owner overreach'.

Arborcomment

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 2:16 p.m.

Rick, just to add fuller content to your comment (): "Pretty funny coming from a company owner who feels he can tell his employees what they can and can't have in a health plan (that his company pays for) according to his faith" Oops.

dancinginmysoul

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 1:30 p.m.

"once you start abandoning your principals it can be a pretty slippery slope from there." You mean like the argument if we allow gay marriage the next step will be people marrying their animals? That kind of slippery slope? I think that's the ridiculous side of the slippery slope hill. What about the principles of the people who work for you? I'm disgusted by your words Mr. Potter, and your decision to move forward with this. I will never purchase or support Eden again. This is my choice. My not abandoning my principles.

A2Dave

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 4:33 p.m.

By your logic, Mr. Potter (can't believe that's actually your name--as in the Scrooge in "It's a Wonderful Life"), by your logic if you were Christian Scientist, you would have the right to deny all healthcare benefits to your employees, including contributing payroll taxes to Medicare and Medicaid. Allowing people to choose not to comply with laws they object to on "moral"--when you really mean strictly religious-- grounds is the "slippery slope" you refer to. BTW, if the government sided with you, its action would be in violation of the 1st Amendment.

Participant

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 1:29 p.m.

"Exclusion of contraceptives from an otherwise comprehensive health plan targets women unfairly because only women are directly affected by pregnancy. The [Michigan Civil Rights Commission] formally recognizes this exclusion as an unlawful employment practice." – MCRC, in its Declaratory Ruling on Contraceptive Equity Like it or not, the government CAN prohibit you from discriminating against women. Sorry.

Umlud

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 1:01 a.m.

@Carole: "We" used to do a LOT of things in the "olden days." Some of those things are now illegal. Sometimes it was made illegal because it was specifically detrimental to a portion of society (think civil rights). Sometimes it was made illegal because it proved to be hazardous to public health (think seat belts and air bags). While you might be perfectly happy to let your children ride around in a car that lacked air bags, seat belts, a crumple steering column, or safety glass in the windshield, I'm personally happy that the government mandated that these things become required in all vehicles. Sorry, but "We used to do it in the olden days" is never a valid reason to continue doing something.

Carole

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 3:34 p.m.

Actually, it takes two to produce a pregnancy. No where in this article is there any mention about the man's responsibility of wearing a condom. If you can purchase condoms anywhere paid by the user, why can't a woman purchase birth control for her own use. We used to in the olden days.

Nicholas Urfe

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 1:28 p.m.

A claim to follow some religion should not confer special rights, nor should it allow you to ignore laws that apply to everyone else. Eden is a publicly traded corporation. What is to stop other corporations from claiming religious exemptions in order to boost profits or gain other competitive advantages?

snark12

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 1:47 p.m.

Not that it really matters from the standpoint of the lawsuit, but if it was publicly traded I'm sure the company would have shareholder lawsuit on its hands instantly because the CEO is destroying shareholder value. His interviews made it pretty clear his decision to sue the government is hurting his business severely.

snark12

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 1:45 p.m.

Eden Foods is not a publicly traded company. It's privately owned.

snark12

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 1:20 p.m.

Potter gave some interviews to Salon.com this week where he made it clear this really has nothing to do with his religious beliefs but more his Libertarian beliefs that the government can't tell him what to do. Two telling quotes: "I've got more interest in good quality long underwear than I do in birth control pills" and " I don't care if the federal government is telling me to buy my employees Jack Daniel's or birth control. What gives them the right to tell me that I have to do that?" http://tinyurl.com/cy6xxsx This may well derail his case. You can sue the government to stop them from making you do something against your religious beliefs, but you can't sue them just because you don't like the fact that they can make you do anything. Otherwise people would ignore ALL laws. http://tinyurl.com/cbzany4 This guy is worse than Monaghan in my mind because he's trying act like a concerned Catholic when really he just doesn't want to follow a law.

moodyone

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 8:21 a.m.

The libertarian argument is nonsensical, though. If it isn't about his religious beliefs, why focus on the birth control and not the fact that he has to provide any coverage at all?

Arborcomment

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 8:26 p.m.

Old saying: determine each case on its merits. His chances? Probably slim. But this is NOT established case law (only the supreme court decision on the individual mandate has reached that level). With a "law" of over 2,000 pages and with regulations now associated with said "law" at 21,000 pages and growing, there will be portions ruled out or changed. This will happen because an individual, or group brings the issue to light and to court.

snark12

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 7:45 p.m.

Well, of course you can sue them. I meant you can't sue them successfully. And a case that says something as simple as "I don't want the government telling me what to do" may not even get picked up by the court. That's why Thomas More makes a case about religious freedom.

Arborcomment

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 6:12 p.m.

Bad connection snark. You sure can sue the government for "making you do anything". 'tis why there are constitutional lawyers - heck we even elected one President (the same one that said ACA wasn't a tax until the supreme court said otherwise). We also have a full stable of gainfully employed tax attorneys. Folks might not like his position, but he has a right to contest in court - unless you'd prefer the alternative - doing everything because the "government said so".

Billy

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 1:53 p.m.

LOLOL...did you not read those salon articles in their entirety or something? Those articles take the angle that he's using the "RAWR BIG GOVERNMENT" argument so that he doesn't look like someone trying to impose their religious view's on others. Those articles pretty much elude to him doing this based on RELIGIOUS VIEWS...but then trying to say it's not so he doesn't look like "that guy." The funny thing is....EITHER angle is a fail...he loses either way.

Billy

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 1:11 p.m.

WOWOWOWOW....I didn't realize Eden brand was owned by a religious zealot... Haven't bought much of their products recently...I now I'll never buy one of their products again. Religious "freedoms" do not trump science, common sense, and compassion....that last one is the kicker ain't it?

mpope

Tue, Apr 23, 2013 : 9:05 p.m.

waiter, i'll have whatever billy and a2 are NOT having-- a big heaping bowl of compassionate religious freedom (billy, you want to legislate compassion? really? your version? or mine? ) PLUS i'll have a hefty side of high-quality, organic Eden Foods rice and beans. oh. but i want my employer to be forced to pay for it. right-ee-o?

A2M3

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 5:46 p.m.

Agreed, I'll choose my own religious beliefs and stock my kitchen elsewhere, thanks.

Are you serious?

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 12:58 p.m.

"If they say something is necessary and they provide the funding, that's one thing, but if they say you have to do this and you have to pay for it that's something that's completely different and that's in violation of the law." This is the strangest comment of all. I wonder where Potter thinks government "funding" comes from? It comes from all of us who chose to live in this society and pay taxes to a government for the things government provides from infrastructure to the defense department. I dare say everyone disagrees with the government's priorities in some way. To pick and choose which you disagree with is not possible. I wonder if Potter is willing to give up all the tax advantages of running a business. Oh, and finally just what law is Potter referring to when he says "that's in violation of the law?" Trying to impose one's morals on one's employees is strange. I wonder if he would like to restrict Viagra (as mentioned by a commentator). I wonder if he is aware that something like 90%(?) or more of Catholics use birth control? No more Eden Foods purchases for me.

Sue

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 5:37 a.m.

It's not right for government to impose it's morals on private business owners either. Mr. Potter is not trying to restrict birth control, he's just unwilling to provide coverage for it, just as he is unwilling to provide coverage for viagra. You people are such big government loving, Obama adoring, blind sheeples, and outright hypocrites. Why don't you try looking at things objectively once in a while and thinking for yourselves. Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot sheeples can't think, they can only follow their leader.

Jack Gladney

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 12:52 p.m.

I've never purchased an Eden product. I always buy my vanilla soy milk at TJs. Thanks to this article, I see that Eden has vanilla soy. I will now look for it and give it a try. If it tastes better than Trader's, I'll probably switch brands. People I associate with or do business with don't have to agree with everything I believe. My parents raised me to think for myself. Hopefully yours did as well, which means we may not agree on everything. I can't imagine going through life with such a narrow world view. Sad.

moodyone

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 8:19 a.m.

People I do business with have to refrain from going to court in order to impose their religious or other personal beliefs on their employees.

snark12

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 2:05 p.m.

I like to it, Billy, because it's what he said earlier in the week before he was instructed to stop saying it. He's clearly on a PR campaign to stop the damage to his company. He said it wasn't a religious issue but a belief that he shouldn't be told what to do by the government. He made that quite clear. Then in later interviews backed off on that and tried to make it about religion in the beginning of the interview but slipped back into small government rhetoric. It's clear what's really driving this.

Billy

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 1:49 p.m.

Stop it snark....this IS because of his religious views.... "In the lawsuit, the company sited first amendment rights and president and co-founder Michael Potter's Roman Catholic beliefs to explain its objection to the new health care mandate." Did you miss the last part of that sentence? Also...that salon article you link...it takes the angle that his claims of "personal freedom violations" are being used an excuse so he doesn't look like someone trying to impose their religious views on others....so not sure why you keep linking it...

Michigan Reader

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 1:31 p.m.

There's a place for a narrow world view. For example, I believe it's wrong to kill the fetus at any stage of gestation. It's right for Eden Foods to challenge the HHS mandate. Same with all the other teachings of the Catholic Church.

snark12

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 1:30 p.m.

I have no need for his products so I can't really boycott them, but it's important to me that he is NOT doing this for religious reasons, but simply because he doesn't want to follow a law. The lawsuit is wrapping itself if religious clothing because there is no basis for simply just ignoring an otherwise valid statute. He makes it clear in some interviews with Salon.com this week. http://tinyurl.com/cbzany4

Michigan Man

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 12:42 p.m.

Mr. Potter is a fine Ann Arbor leader - right in the tradition of past business leaders who have made Ann Arbor what it is today. Will have to make a run to Eden Foods to stock up on stuff. Continue to stand tall for your convictions.

A2M3

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 5:44 p.m.

How did this "fine leader" find his way to prison?

Brad

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 12:32 p.m.

Here's his marvelous slippery-slope example: "What's next? I have to buy your raincoat? Your spare tires? Your weed killers?" And he probably thinks that actually made sense.

cmdvimes

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 12:31 p.m.

I wasn't aware of Eden Food's stance and from now on will purchase another brand of soy/almond milk.

E Claire

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 7:27 p.m.

Keep pushing the lie craig. Does your employer go to Kroger and buy your groceries each week? Mine doesn't but I still manage to get food and to eat.

craigjjs

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 12:13 p.m.

Keep cutting and pasting maallen.

maallen

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 1:54 p.m.

For about 40 years they never have covered contraceptives, and now all of a sudden it's an issue for you? While you are looking at other soy/almond milk brands make sure to use your same logic and apply all of your for and against values to each company. I am sure you will find that you won't be able to purchase anything!

Carole

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 12:27 p.m.

I will continue to purchase Eden Foods. A company should have the right to chose what insurance policies they will offer to employees. In my opinion, birth control is a personal choice and each individual should take responsibility for their actions.

E Claire

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 7:25 p.m.

So Julie, how is he deciding that for them? they can take all they want, he just won't PAY for them. Would you starve if your employer didn't pay for your food? You get a paycheck, you use it as you choose...for food, for condoms, whatever. How do expect to even have a real debate when you keep pushing a lie?

Carole

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 3:29 p.m.

America was founded on freedoms, thus he is free to decide what type of insurance he chooses to select -- if it is not the right insurance for any individual to work there, then go some place else -- life is about choices.

JuliaAnnArb

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 2:20 p.m.

The ACA doesn't force anyone to use contraceptives. Mr. Potter is completely free to abstain from taking birth control pills. Under current law he is not free to decide that for his employees.

clownfish

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 1:50 p.m.

and they will. Each individual employee will make their own reproductive choices, free from pressure from the holder of their indentured service, oops, I mean employer.

sh1

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 12:19 p.m.

The "slippery slope" argument is common among those who can't really defend their position. There is absolutely no link between use of contraceptives and forced sterilization!

Technojunkie

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 12:18 p.m.

This shouldn't even be an issue. Individuals should be able to buy health insurance with the same tax advantages as corporations. Companies should be able to pay their workers cash instead of benefits without the workers' paychecks getting mugged by Big Brother. We shouldn't even have an income tax, or payroll taxes, but that's a whole 'nother issue. Instead we're arguing about how much of a control freak Big Brother is allowed to be on a side issue. Our overlords must be feeling very clever.

A2comments

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 12:15 p.m.

Cited, not sited. Principle or principles, not principal or principals. Unfortunately, I can't boycott them because they don't sell products I purchase, but I would boycott them if I could and I'd like to see others boycott them. A company owner should not impose his/her religious beliefs on employees, regardless what those beliefs are.

E Claire

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 7:20 p.m.

craigjjs, repeatedly stating that what Mr. Potter is doing is taking away the ability for a women to take birth control or that he is harming women's health over and over again does not make it true. Pregnancy is not a disease. He owns the business and if he does not want to cover birth control, that's his decision to make. There's a CVS on every corner...you may have to go into the "ladies" aisle but you'll find what you need right there, in many varieties. btw, boycott all you want...most people outside of AA agree with him

craigjjs

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 12:10 p.m.

Maallen - repeatedly posting the same argument does not make it persuasive. It is not. For 40 years people did not know what Potter's health insurance covered and had no reason to care. When it was decided that ACA should cover birth control, the 'I hate government' and 'I hate Obama' folks declared holy war and now Potter has enlisted. Potter has every right to believe as he wishes, he has every right to blow his company's money on a vanity lawsuit (even though half his Board disagreed and, apparently, so did a fair number of his employees); but I have every right to avoid his products and share my reasons with those I chose. Of course, I need not post them repeatedly because I am not an employee, apologist or paid hack for Potter.

maallen

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 1:51 p.m.

A2comments, So what exactly changed? For the past 40 years they haven't covered birth control. No one complained then.

SusanR

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 12:12 p.m.

Its time to sell birth control pills over the counter. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists supports this move. It would get people like Michael Potter out of the business of managing his female employee's health care decisions. I'd also like to ask Mr. Potter if he knows of any medically necessary reason why a single man should need a prescription for Viagra. He appears to be okay with financially supporting that lifestyle decision.

Max Peters

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 12:35 p.m.

The pill prevents a normally healthy body function from functioning. Viagra helps a non-functioning body function to function.

johnnya2

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 3:18 p.m.

@ maalen, Because for 40 years the LAW was different. Actually for 40 years he was never required to purchase ANY insurance for his employees. The AFCA changed that (which is a good thing). I know this might be hard for yout o understand, but just because a law was in place forty years ago, does not mean when the new one is passed, you dont have to follow it because you find it morallly objectionable. There are those who could say forcing me to hire people from inter racial marriages morally wrong. Are you willing to allow him to do that still, even though it was allowed may years ago?

maallen

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 1:50 p.m.

SusanR, Viagra isn't covered under the policy. What's your next argument? You do realize that for 40 years now contraceptives wasn't covered under their policy, don't you? Has Mr. Potter told his employees that they can't go to Planned Parenthood or to the pharmacy to get birth control? No So how is it he is managing his female employee's decisions?

Carole

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 12:31 p.m.

In my opinion, I believe that both male and female should be responsible for purchasing their meds for birth control and for meds that could possible produce a "birth". It's their choice.

Max Peters

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 12:08 p.m.

Let's see. Someone starts a company to produce organic and natural foods. But... they're expected to pay to put unnatural levels of hormones into their employees and their daughters and wives? Can't imagine why there'd be a conflict.

Chimay

Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 2:05 a.m.

He's Catholic, so I'm guessing he pays for unnatural hormones in the form of fertility treatments. Bad argument Max.

johnnya2

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 3:14 p.m.

@Max Peters, NO, they are required to allow their employees and daughters to have the CHOICE on what they put in their body. Nobody has said they are REQUIRED to take birth control. would you be ok if he started firing employees who ate cow milk as opposed to his soy milk? HE is the one trying to require his employees not be allowed to take birth conrtrol birth control is COVERED under AFCA). It would be like him saying he can decide how since HE as an employer paid for SS for his employee that when they collect it, they can not use that money for things he finds morally objectionable.

JuliaAnnArb

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 2:18 p.m.

All medicine is "unnatural". Yet Potter is only objecting to contraceptives and hormone regulators that women may need for other medical reasons. Since he's not the patient or the doctor, he doesn't get to choose. He has absolutely no basis to accept covering some drugs and not others.

clownfish

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 1:47 p.m.

Blue Cross would cover all sorts of hormone treatments, are there certain ones the owner objects to other than those that prevent unwanted pregnancies? If the owner objects to unmarried parenthood can he refuse to offer insurance to unmarried women and their children?

David Paris

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 1:46 p.m.

I know, it's really confusing, isn't it. If they had just gone ahead and put the contraceptives in the food to begin with, nobody'd say a thing... go figure!

Sooze

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : noon

It is really too bad that a beloved natural food company with all the right motives has to be shipwrecked on the rocks of the owner's personal religious beliefs. He is welcome to them, but why impose them on his employees? He does not want to pay for medical procedures he does not want to use, but maybe they'll blow their paychecks on illegal drugs or steaks and what will he do then? Tell them they can only buy food he likes? His own board is divided against itself and it can't last...

maallen

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 1:46 p.m.

Sooze, You do realize that for about 40 years now the company hasn't covered contraceptives? The owner isn't telling anyone not to use contraceptives. Employees can go to Planned Parenthood, any pharmacy, etc and get them. He's not stopping them.

David Paris

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 1:43 p.m.

You're right, Sooze. We wouldn't be having this conversation at all though, had the Conservatives just let Washington govern, instead of being the Party-of-No, and trying desperately to make Obama a one-term president. So now what we have is a country where everybody thinks they have to micromanage everybody else, and it's become quite ridiculous, me thinks.

Jack Gladney

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 12:36 p.m.

What beliefs are Mike Potter imposing on his employees? Why do you criticize him for making decisions based on personal beliefs? Isn't all belief personal? Where have you heard of Michael Potter telling his employees how to spend their money?I think the story here is about the government telling him how to spend his. As far a illegal drugs are concerned, most companies I know of have a stated anti-drug policy backed by a random (sometimes not random) testing provision. Lastly, on what do you base your assertion that the Eden BOD is divided against itself? Perhaps you will share your inside info. Sounds to me like potter took the question to his board and the vote was 50/50, and he cast the deciding vote. Sounds very democratic to me. We use a similar system in say, the US Senate. So perhaps you wish to recast your argument if you wish to make a case against Eden foods.

pseudo

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 11:49 a.m.

oh baloney...small government that invades the healthcare of women is not all that small. and....checking...yep, Eden is still no longer a brand we allow in this house.

pseudo

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 9:40 p.m.

djacks, sorry to disappoint, I am a CSA member, CO-OP shopping, local first kind of shopper. And Walmart? I haven't set foot in a Walmart in ...decades.

djacks24

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 5:14 p.m.

Yet you probably shop at Walmart all the time knowing how they treat their employees and shuttered nearly all manufacturing in this country. It's one thing aligning your beliefs, but being a hypocrite is another.

snark12

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 2:01 p.m.

PR management is right. I think the financial implications of the CEO's decision are worse than expected. I bet they reverse their position soon.

pseudo

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 1:49 p.m.

At first we bought them...when we found out about their policies, we stopped buying them. I think the article above is actually a contrived bit of crissis management PR on their part. Its all fine - they can say and do as they wish. They just won't get my support at the grocier.

a2citizen

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 12:02 p.m.

For the first forty years of its existence Eden Foods didn't cover contraceptives for its female employees. How come you supported Eden then?

Alan Goldsmith

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 11:46 a.m.

Not a word about Potter's time in jail? Since we're talking issues with government authority?

Alan Goldsmith

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 11:44 a.m.

Did you ask about small government, the courts, driving impaired and the level of justice in America you get if you are wealthy enough to hire a good attorney? And why Mr. Potter chose a right wing law firm to bash the rights of women?

Mick52

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 3:42 p.m.

"Bash the rights of women." It's easy to say that but it does not apply here at all. This has nothing to do with women's rights, it has to do with an employer having to provide, and pay for, something he finds offensive. I would add, it has nothing to do with illness or injury, what health care is based on. Women can exercise their "right" to contraceptives all they want, the question here is does someone else have to pay for it.

Long Time Resident

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 11:04 a.m.

Bravo for standing up for your beliefs. Too many people are afraid of "popular" opinion .

Catasetumkid

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 4:16 p.m.

Bravo to Mr. Eden Foods - he'll be down at the bottom of sales along with Domino's since he is offending over half the population with this business decision. And if I may be excused for using some demographics, most of his customers are women, who are those he is most likely to offend. The rule for a good business person is to stay neutral when political issues arise. Otherwise, people might boycott your products, which would be against good business policy. The idea is to gain MORE customers, not reduce them. It's his funeral - I hear the piper playing now.

gerald brennan

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 10:56 a.m.

"As long as he is convinced that his is the correct course of action, he needn't be concerned about the consequences." Yes, Chip. It would be a much better world if people did what they feel is right rather than pander. Most comments on AA.com pages disagree strongly with Potter, and have expressed themselves with intolerant rudeness, but the man is acting in his own sense of integrity, so instead of ragging on him, these people should let him be and shop elsewhere.

gerald brennan

Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 11:16 a.m.

johnnya2, To clarify: Yes. I believe that one should take the course of action that one believes is right. Your absurd examples notwithstanding, as they are mostly immoral actions because they hurt people. If you believe that one should NOT take the course of action that one believes is right, then what sort of person does that make you? GB

johnnya2

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 3:08 p.m.

So if you believe you are taking the correct course of action it is ok> SO if i believe i have the right based on my religion to hit my wife whenever i want, i am taking the correct course of action? If I MORALLY believe that spending TAXPAYER money on a war is immoral, I can sure the government to stop the war? if I believe it is morally fine to sell food that is not checked for salmonella poisoning because the "market" will weed out the bad apples you are ok with that? this is no moral argument, this is a purely political motivation by the libertarion wing nuts.

Chip Reed

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 10:15 a.m.

It would be delightful to live in as simple a world as Mr. Potter lives in. As long as he is convinced that his is the correct course of action, he needn't be concerned about the consequences.

Chimay

Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 2:02 a.m.

If this has nothing to do with religion or morals, then why is the Thomas More Law Center representing them? Read their mission statement.

Sparty

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 8:13 p.m.

@DennisP, What if Mr. Potter didn't approve of the morality of chemotherapy treatments for Cancer and decided he didn't want to pay for them. Should he have the ability to "opt out" of paying for them within his employee's medical coverage? What about HIV treatments? STD treatments? What if he felt that any medical treatment for anyone older than 65 just was not morally appropriate - should he be able to make a decision to disallow that? WHERE DOES IT END ?

cook1888

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 4:12 p.m.

Mr. Peters - most medications end up in our water supply through one channel or another. Would you expect us all to give up medications?

snark12

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 1:56 p.m.

"Slippery slope" That's the #1 sign that an argument is no real content. The government already can tell him all kinds of things about how his products are made and sold. They tell him what he CAN'T put in them (no red dye #2), that he has to label them a certain way, that he has to truthfully declare their contents, that he can't advertise benefits they don't really have, etc. As a society we have decided this proper to correct previous problems. Governments that don't do this, such as China, ship us dog food with poisons in them. In this case the government is simply saying he can't discriminate against a certain class of employees, namely women. He could simply decide not to give his employees any health care benefits. The government wouldn't have a problem with that. Under the ACA, if his company is large enough he would have to pay a "tax" to the feds so they could provide his employees alternate coverage, but he could go that route if he really was concerned about the morality of birth control. But it's clear he's not: http://tinyurl.com/cbzany4

snark12

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 1:22 p.m.

He's made it clear in other interviews it has nothing to do with a moral choice. He just doesn't like the government telling him what to do, period. http://tinyurl.com/cbzany4

DennisP

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 12:38 p.m.

It's actually quite the converse. Mr. Potter is only saying that the world has a lot of opinions and choices out there. He and the other owners of the company / directors wish to be free to choose a path that they believe to be morally appropriate for themselves. They are not trying to force their choices on others. In contrast, the Affordable Care Act is doing just that and doing so under the auspices of the awesome power of government. It is saying to Eden Foods that it must provide a service it morally opposes despite the apparent protections of the First Amendment. You cannot make any free choice, you must provide the means for an act that you view to be immoral. The only choices it gives is to stop providing coverage and pay a penalty or to provide mandated coverage including paying for abortions. Mr. Potter isn't saying he wants to end all such coverage for everyone. He's just saying it violates his beliefs to own a company that will provide such coverage. He should be free to do so under the 1st Amendment. Some argue that a corporation cannot enjoy first amendment rights. I agree with that. A corporation is a legal fiction. But, it is owned by persons who do have such rights. It's no different than if the government told you that you needed to convert a portion of your house or some other property you owned into an abortion clinic--at your own expense and regardless of how you felt about it. What would you say if the feds required Mr. Potter to start adding artificial sweeteners and dyes to his products? Simply because it decided that it was better economically for the industry if all products were uniform in flavor, appearance and quality? Mr. Potter's company was built on his principles and he wants it run that way. You are free to not purchase his products--you probably don't in any case. I don't but for not because of this. I admire his stance and I hope he can succeed. Else, the world is on a very slippery slope.

Max Peters

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 12:09 p.m.

Seems consistent to me. If you don't want artificial levels of hormones in your food, why would you want to take them in a pill?