Hillary Clinton "mostly false" statement on Hobby Lobby

[JRP1994]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jul/03/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-says-hobby-lobby-salesclerk-not-go/

"Clinton said that "a salesclerk at Hobby Lobby who needs contraception … is not going to get that service through her employer’s health care plan because her employer doesn’t think she should be using contraception."

There’s reason to believe that future court decisions could allow companies to forgo payment for all types of birth control, but Clinton’s claim refers specifically to Hobby Lobby’s policies toward its employees. And in that context, her claim is greatly exaggerated.

Hobby Lobby doesn’t shun contraception entirely for its employees; it pays for access to 16 out of the FDA’s 20 approved methods. Where Clinton has a partial point is that an employee would be barred from having the company pay for four other types, even if one of those may be the best medical option for the employee’s needs. On balance, we rate the claim Mostly False."

[NHLiberal]

Likely R

[bedstuy]

Is Hillary Clinton supposed to know the details of Hobby Lobby's insurance plan?  She was clearly talking about the greater legal principle, not the specific ramifications for a company that hardly anyone has heard of.

[Never]

Is Hillary Clinton supposed to know the details of Hobby Lobby's insurance plan?  She was clearly talking about the greater legal principle, not the specific ramifications for a company that hardly anyone has heard of.

If Hillary didn't know the details on Hobby Lobby's insurance policy regarding contraception, she shouldn't have formulated her statement in the manner she did. She could have left her comments more general.

Also, Hobby Lobby is fairly prevalent in the South. I wouldn't consider it an obscure company or anything like that.

[bedstuy]

Is Hillary Clinton supposed to know the details of Hobby Lobby's insurance plan?  She was clearly talking about the greater legal principle, not the specific ramifications for a company that hardly anyone has heard of.

If Hillary didn't know the details on Hobby Lobby's insurance policy regarding contraception, she shouldn't have formulated her statement in the manner she did. She could have left her comments more general.

Also, Hobby Lobby is fairly prevalent in the South. I wouldn't consider it an obscure company or anything like that.

You're missing the context.  The issue is not one specific insurance plan for one company.  The issue is the legal precedent in the future.  That's what Hillary Clinton was talking about.  It's just ticky-tack gotcha nonsense to fixate on something that's technically wrong, but true in its context.

[Mister Mets]

Hillary Clinton is currently a semi-retired private citizen who holds no elected or appointed office.

It would be her obligation to be certain of the facts before issuing statements on public controversies, to ensure that those who care about her opinions are well-informed, and to prevent those who disagree with her politically from using her mistakes to diminish the arguments of people she agrees with politically.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

Is Hillary Clinton supposed to know the details of Hobby Lobby's insurance plan?  She was clearly talking about the greater legal principle, not the specific ramifications for a company that hardly anyone has heard of.

If Hillary didn't know the details on Hobby Lobby's insurance policy regarding contraception, she shouldn't have formulated her statement in the manner she did. She could have left her comments more general.

Also, Hobby Lobby is fairly prevalent in the South. I wouldn't consider it an obscure company or anything like that.

More general? How much more general could she have gotten?

[Lief 🗽]

These desperate attacks on Clinton are hilarious. The right-wingers are absolutely terrified of her.

[Never]

Is Hillary Clinton supposed to know the details of Hobby Lobby's insurance plan?  She was clearly talking about the greater legal principle, not the specific ramifications for a company that hardly anyone has heard of.

If Hillary didn't know the details on Hobby Lobby's insurance policy regarding contraception, she shouldn't have formulated her statement in the manner she did. She could have left her comments more general.

Also, Hobby Lobby is fairly prevalent in the South. I wouldn't consider it an obscure company or anything like that.

You're missing the context.  The issue is not one specific insurance plan for one company.  The issue is the legal precedent in the future.  That's what Hillary Clinton was talking about.  It's just ticky-tack gotcha nonsense to fixate on something that's technically wrong, but true in its context.

Clinton wasn't talking about the legal precedent of the Supreme Court ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby in the abstract sense, she was specifically criticizing the company's policy on contraceptives.

Is Hillary Clinton supposed to know the details of Hobby Lobby's insurance plan?  She was clearly talking about the greater legal principle, not the specific ramifications for a company that hardly anyone has heard of.

If Hillary didn't know the details on Hobby Lobby's insurance policy regarding contraception, she shouldn't have formulated her statement in the manner she did. She could have left her comments more general.

Also, Hobby Lobby is fairly prevalent in the South. I wouldn't consider it an obscure company or anything like that.

More general? How much more general could she have gotten?

Okay, here is what Hillary Clinton said:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

First off, Clinton was wrong about salesclerks at Hobby Lobby not being able to access contraception through their employer. In fact, Hobby Lobby's website indicates that the Greens (the family who owns Hobby Lobby) provide coverage for 16 different types of contraception (well, for females, only a maximum of 14 of these contraception methods would be useful - the other two are male condoms and vasectomies). While a Hobby Lobby saleslady won't be able to obtain IUDs through her employer's health care plan, she still has other options.

Clinton could have said that she thought this decision set a troubling precedent (as you feel she actually did). Unfortunately for her, she went too far and ended up lying about Hobby Lobby's policies.

[bedstuy]

Is Hillary Clinton supposed to know the details of Hobby Lobby's insurance plan?  She was clearly talking about the greater legal principle, not the specific ramifications for a company that hardly anyone has heard of.

If Hillary didn't know the details on Hobby Lobby's insurance policy regarding contraception, she shouldn't have formulated her statement in the manner she did. She could have left her comments more general.

Also, Hobby Lobby is fairly prevalent in the South. I wouldn't consider it an obscure company or anything like that.

You're missing the context.  The issue is not one specific insurance plan for one company.  The issue is the legal precedent in the future.  That's what Hillary Clinton was talking about.  It's just ticky-tack gotcha nonsense to fixate on something that's technically wrong, but true in its context.

Clinton wasn't talking about the legal precedent of the Supreme Court ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby in the abstract sense, she was specifically criticizing the company's policy on contraceptives.

Is Hillary Clinton supposed to know the details of Hobby Lobby's insurance plan?  She was clearly talking about the greater legal principle, not the specific ramifications for a company that hardly anyone has heard of.

If Hillary didn't know the details on Hobby Lobby's insurance policy regarding contraception, she shouldn't have formulated her statement in the manner she did. She could have left her comments more general.

Also, Hobby Lobby is fairly prevalent in the South. I wouldn't consider it an obscure company or anything like that.

More general? How much more general could she have gotten?

Okay, here is what Hillary Clinton said:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

First off, Clinton was wrong about salesclerks at Hobby Lobby not being able to access contraception through their employer. In fact, Hobby Lobby's website indicates that the Greens (the family who owns Hobby Lobby) provide coverage for 16 different types of contraception (well, for females, only a maximum of 14 of these contraception methods would be useful - the other two are male condoms and vasectomies). While a Hobby Lobby saleslady won't be able to obtain IUDs through her employer's health care plan, she still has other options.

Clinton could have said that she thought this decision set a troubling precedent (as you feel she actually did). Unfortunately for her, she went too far and ended up lying about Hobby Lobby's policies.

Are you being serious?  I actually looked at the video in question here.  Did you? 

The question is about the Supreme Court decision.  Hillary Clinton is not talking about the company Hobby Lobby, she's not a stock analyst on CNBC.  She was talking about the legal precedent and it's place in her overall views on women's rights.  If you think she was detailing the specific Hobby Lobby employee benefits policy and that was the content of her answer, you're delusional.  And, it is in fact true that an employee at that store could be denied a certain type of contraceptive that she needed.  What if a woman needs emergency contraception?  A lot of birth control does not work very well after sexual intercourse... 

I understand that you hate Hillary Clinton or whatever, but this is bush league.

[Never]

Is Hillary Clinton supposed to know the details of Hobby Lobby's insurance plan?  She was clearly talking about the greater legal principle, not the specific ramifications for a company that hardly anyone has heard of.

If Hillary didn't know the details on Hobby Lobby's insurance policy regarding contraception, she shouldn't have formulated her statement in the manner she did. She could have left her comments more general.

Also, Hobby Lobby is fairly prevalent in the South. I wouldn't consider it an obscure company or anything like that.

You're missing the context.  The issue is not one specific insurance plan for one company.  The issue is the legal precedent in the future.  That's what Hillary Clinton was talking about.  It's just ticky-tack gotcha nonsense to fixate on something that's technically wrong, but true in its context.

Clinton wasn't talking about the legal precedent of the Supreme Court ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby in the abstract sense, she was specifically criticizing the company's policy on contraceptives.

Is Hillary Clinton supposed to know the details of Hobby Lobby's insurance plan?  She was clearly talking about the greater legal principle, not the specific ramifications for a company that hardly anyone has heard of.

If Hillary didn't know the details on Hobby Lobby's insurance policy regarding contraception, she shouldn't have formulated her statement in the manner she did. She could have left her comments more general.

Also, Hobby Lobby is fairly prevalent in the South. I wouldn't consider it an obscure company or anything like that.

More general? How much more general could she have gotten?

Okay, here is what Hillary Clinton said:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

First off, Clinton was wrong about salesclerks at Hobby Lobby not being able to access contraception through their employer. In fact, Hobby Lobby's website indicates that the Greens (the family who owns Hobby Lobby) provide coverage for 16 different types of contraception (well, for females, only a maximum of 14 of these contraception methods would be useful - the other two are male condoms and vasectomies). While a Hobby Lobby saleslady won't be able to obtain IUDs through her employer's health care plan, she still has other options.

Clinton could have said that she thought this decision set a troubling precedent (as you feel she actually did). Unfortunately for her, she went too far and ended up lying about Hobby Lobby's policies.

Are you being serious?  I actually looked at the video in question here.  Did you? 

The question is about the Supreme Court decision.  Hillary Clinton is not talking about the company Hobby Lobby, she's not a stock analyst on CNBC.  She was talking about the legal precedent and it's place in her overall views on women's rights.  If you think she was detailing the specific Hobby Lobby employee benefits policy and that was the content of her answer, you're delusional.  And, it is in fact true that an employee at that store could be denied a certain type of contraceptive that she needed.  What if a woman needs emergency contraception?  A lot of birth control does not work very well after sexual intercourse... 

I understand that you hate Hillary Clinton or whatever, but this is bush league.

Yes, I watched a five minute clip of Clinton's comments from the Aspen Ideas Festival. It's not like I'm pressed for time on a Fourth of July weekend

Hillary did discuss the Supreme Court decision at large, and I do not consider it my place to criticize her for airing her views in support of abortion, especially when she has just as much of a Constitutional right as anyone in America to speak out on her views. I'm not delusional on this. Still, she wasn't telling the truth when she specifically mentioned Hobby Lobby's contraception policies in that segment of her commentary. A false statement is false regardless of its context. If I'm delusional by saying that she didn't tell the whole truth on Hobby Lobby, I suppose the Tampa Bay-Times is as well.

Also, I do not hate Hillary Clinton by any means. Just because I'm willing to criticize an individual doesn't mean that I hate them. I'm probably one of the few Republicans who has enjoyed her books. That doesn't stop me from disagreeing with her on most issues and pointing out when she isn't telling the truth. Every political figure tells lies during their career, and this is one of those instances for Clinton. 

[bedstuy]

We're supposed to care about misstatements when they're material and wilful.  In this case, Hillary almost certainly didn't lie, she just didn't know the exact features of Hobby Lobby's benefits program.  Lying would be if she knew exactly what contraceptives Hobby Lobby covered and which it did not.  That's a technical detail in this one case about one company, so it obviously wasn't a wilful misstatement.  This debate concerns a law that applies to many, many corporations so it's ridiculous to focus on one plaintiff as if Hobby Lobby is the biggest employer in America or something.

The other element to actually mattering is whether the misstatement was material.  Lying in service of making your argument is material.  Lying about the key evidence of your argument is material.  But, getting some obscure fact wrong doesn't matter when it wouldn't hinder her argument whether she was right or wrong.  It's like saying that a GMC car that malfunctioned was green when the car was actually red.  Hobby Lobby could offer total contraceptive and abortion coverage tomorrow, it wouldn't solve the problem in the law that Hillary pointed out. 

Let's all get a grip on reality.  Even smart people don't have every single detail of the news in their head at all times and people say things that are somewhat inaccurate.  That's not a big deal at all.  Misstating war intelligence?  That matters.  Misstating whether a random company covers Yaz.  That's trivial.