Our God is an awesome God! He created this vast universe and He created each and everyone of us. Scripture tells us that He knew us before we were created in our mother's womb. Each life is significant in His eyes. I believe that we are missing the main point... it is not about "our" rights but rather when does life begin. Life created in the womb is as valuable and sacred as life out of the womb. I believe that every woman and man has a right to their own healthcare but do they have the right to destroy innocent life that God has created? Our Constitution, our moral compass and our living God requires us to defend all life. The Greens of Hobby Lobby are taking that stand and will ultimately answer to the highest authority. They are taking a stand no different than others that have proceeded them such as Abraham Lincoln, Wilberforce and Martin Luther Jr. I pray that God would give them the strength to stick to their convictions.

Mary, you object to the "melodrama" of my post, yet you were sent here by another site that criticized it using rather vulgar masturbation metaphors. I would say that is merely melodrama of a different stripe. I trust you registered your objections to the "melodrama" there as well.

Karen, Yes, you are right that I disagree with your conclusions in your post. But you have the perfect right to explore these issues as a writer. What I object to is the melodrama that I see in your post and also with conservative Christians in general. You want to make everything into a holy war. Quite frankly I think more people would be more likely to listen to conservative points of view if they would simply present their views in a calm and reasonable manner. However, I do realize that in the media, that is not how you get ratings.

Wow, Mary Rogers. You seem so certain about so many things about me--although you haven't said much about the actual line of reasoning in my actual post which, I assume, you disagree with.

We need single payer. Those of us who are not evangelical Christians and Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc., have no problem with birth control, abortion, morning after pills, blood transfusions, vaccinations. Lack of single payer means we are at the mercy of our employer's religious beliefs. In this case, Hobby Lobby is clearly more worried about the moral consequences of offering the pill to its employees than it is about the moral consequences of selling endless quantities of Chinese sweatshop knockoffs. A martyr they are not. Their workers, now, would qualify. Single payer. No one needs this.

I am pasting my response to a comment you made on the slacktivist website that was critical of your article: The reason why people object to your line of "reasoning" is because you and a subset of Christians want to frame every disagreement as an attempt to destroy your religion. In other words, you don't play fair. Elevating a legal disagreement to the level of martyrdom is patently ridiculous. I don't see the government feeding Christians to the lions! Christians in this country have unprecedented freedoms compared to most other countries. The problem is not that we don't have religious freedom. We have plenty of that. The problem is that people like you want to DENY others religious freedoms by ramming your ideology down other people's throats. Of course you feel justifed because you are SO CERTAIN that you are right about everything. If you want to make a point you can do it without the melodramatics. You can respect other points of view. Basically people like you really don't believe in religious freedom at all. You believe in the freedom of everyone to believe what you do. If people don't agree with you then that automatically means that they are evil and out to destroy Christianity. You can have a Christian country or a free country, but you can't have both.

We all seem to get caught up in the 'why' for different policies and laws and use them selectively. This is wrong but let's do this with HL. HL is a corporation that is a non-human entity. HL is not an extension or appendage of the Greens precisely because (unlike the 'ol Baily Savings and Loan) the Greens are legally separated and protected from much personal liability through the incorporation which makes HL a separate entity. If the convictions are true, then IF the choice comes between obeying the law or God in the minds of the Greens, they can reorganize HL in a way that truly makes the business intertwined with them personally. Difficult? Absolutely! But, at that point, the case for "the owner's personal beliefs" is far better made.

TOTALLY agree with SB. It's clear to see just how far removed we as "Christians" are and how numb and complacent we have become to the sinful laws and practices of this land. HL as an employer DOES NOT expect to have a say in how an employee spends the salary given them. Their expectation to have a say in what their money is DIRECTLY funding is merely an indication of their knowledge of their own accountability as Christians for the blessings provided them. As for the legal aspect= the pc-ness of this nation and the defense of ones "rights" has fast tracked us down the road of IMMORAL RUINATION. Comparing the funding of pornography to MURDER pales in comparison. Christians are DEFINITELY NOT understanding the larger implications of this. As one day we will all stand before our Maker and account for every single dollar God blessed to our possession. Whether the FORCED allocation of that dollar was mandated by a sinful government or not-we will answer. GOD SAVE US!!

Basic logical reasoning requires analogies to have a fact pattern equivalent to the original. Requiring Hobby Lobby to provide health insurance that covers contraceptives (even if you believe some of them are also abortifacient) is NOT AT ALL like "forcing anti-pornography legal scholar Catharine MacKinnon to buy pornography for her law students." Rather, it's like requiring Prof. MacKinnon to subsidize her law students' internet connection, through which, among many other perfectly good and helpful things, pornography could be obtained should the student seek it out. And, actually, since it's only a hypothetical possibility, as recent studies have shown, that contraceptives covered by the mandate might ever be abortifacient, even my analogy is overstated. The mandate is more like requiring Prof. MacKinnon to subsidize her law students' subscription to the Book-of-the-Month Club on the off chance they might offer something that a tiny minority might think is pornographic.

At worst, Hobby Lobby has a six-degrees-of separation problem with where some of its employee compensation $$ end up. Though CT says HL is required "to purchase goods that violate [HL's] demonstrably long-held religious convictions," CT also identifies the "required goods" as "health insurance services." So, unless HL's objection is to buying insurance services, which it clearly isn't, then HL wouldn't be directly purchasing anything that violates its beliefs. HL "self-funds" its insurance. This usually involves an account COMBINING $$ from employees AND $$ from the employer for their respective parts of the insurance costs. HL would contract with a separate entity to administer the account. Employees (w/ their docs) choose goods/services and ONLY THEN would the administrator review claims and pay the doc/pharmacy from the fund. Since HL gets to treat BOTH salary $$ and insurance $$ as "compensation" for tax purposes (a business expense), HL should accept its lack of control over both.

g johnson. I am thankful that there are rules in the books about protecting the life of a two year olds (not hypothetical) but I believe the same rule should be applied to a two week old. As a Christian, it doesn't matter what I think but what God reveals through scripture. God's word is very clear about protecting innocent life that he created - life in the womb. He is grieved over the 4000 killed in Iraq, the one million Iraqi's and the 55,000,000 killed in the womb since Roe v. Wade. Until one views an abortion as the killing of an innocent life instead of a choice, there can be no conviction about right and wrong. Hence your comment about an abortion choice being no different than choosing to smoke drink etc. My example of the two year old sacrifice was to illustrate that we do have rules and would never tolerate it so why do we tolerate someones decision to kill an innocent two month old?

s b, there are already rules on the book about sacrificing two year olds, so we do not have to consider this hypothetical question. It is true that many decisions are made for us by branches of the government. But as Christians, we are free not to use birth control and not to have an abortion, not to drink, not to smoke, and not to be materialistic. Nobody has forced us to do otherwise. What you are arguing is that we should not have to indirectly pay for others who choose to practice what we think is sinful, but is legal in this country. I have been adamantly against the Iraqi War since 2003. Every year, when my taxes are due, I know that a portion of my taxes will go to fund a violent and pointless war that killed over 4000 Americans and far over 100,000 Iraqis. (Some believe the number is closer to one million.)Our previous president and congress decided on this, and I had no choice but to pay.

g johnson. You are right in that our form of religion is not the only one out there but you come to the wrong conclusion when you assume that the owner of a company does not have the right to make a moral decision in regards to health care benefits he/she provides. Moral decisions are made on our behalf every day. Our misguided supreme court judges decided that it is morally "right" to kill babies in the womb and now they take our tax dollars to assist men and women in doing that. We are not talking about blood transfusions or faith healing ... we are talking about taking a human life. For example, if a certain new religious sect in the U.S. decided that it was OK to sacrifice 2 year olds to their God would you take the same position that we have no right to impose our morality on them. Of course not! But that is what the government is doing when they demand Hobby Lobby provide for abortafacients.

I don't think Christians are understanding the larger implications of this cause. Hobby Lobby is saying they refuse to pay based on their "long held religious beliefs." But are you willing to agree that our form of religion is not the only one out there? As others have mentioned, Jehovah's Witnesses truly believe that blood transfusions are a sin. They would rather die than have one. Is it their 'religious right' to refuse to cover insurance for their employees blood transfusions? (My twins had to go through multiple blood transfusions after they were born and our co-pay was $3000.) Do you agree that if a company is owned by Christian Scientists, they have the right to refuse to cover any medical intervention for employees since their 'long held religious belief' is that prayer is the only way to heal the sick and dying? Hobby Lobby needs to think and pray hard about the larger repercussions of their myopic view on imposing their own morality onto their employees.

Kathleen. Is it wrong to "impose moral decisions on employees"? The government and society impose moral decisions on citizens everyday. We are not allowed to steal, murder or rape because we have decided that it is morally wrong. As a Christian business owner, the Greens and I think it is morally reprehensible to kill a baby in the womb. Just because we have a law in the land, does it mean it is morally right in God's eyes? In the Dred Scott decision the Supreme Court ruled that a black person was not a whole person and therefore had no rights under the Constitution. Was that morally correct? NO. Once again the high court has botched it and decided that we have to pay for women to be allowed to kill their babies (56 million so far). It doesn't make it right and I can understand why the Greens would do everything in their power to stop it.

Martyrs? Hardly. The millionaire owners of Hobby Lobby have decided that above all, they must protect the potential, hypothetical American embryo. (PHAE) If they are unable to pay the steep daily fines, their business will fold, hundreds in this country will lose their jobs in an already bad economy, not to mention the hundreds of poor families in China and India who will no longer be getting a pay check. I am confident that those families in third world countries will completely understand that their jobs, their families, their future and their next meal are not nearly as important as the potential, hypothetical American embryo. And how will the owners of this Chochky-laden store be after they have made their point? They'll still be financially well-padded. No skin off their back. Far, far away from martyrdom.

Employee healthcare no more belongs to the employer than employee salaries. Are Christian businesses going to lobby to prevent their employees from purchasing pornography or condoms or whatever with the salaries that they pay them? Get real.

@Christine (aka Stan Guthrie): You can click "log out" in the box at the upper left of the page; if you want to create a new account for yourself, go for it! But Stan's name is showing up because you're logged into the website as him.

Ms. Guthrie, the whole reason group insurance works, is affordable, is that we all share costs, which means we pay for services that we may not personally use. I go to the doctor now and take meds for chronic illnesses, but for decades I had no ongoing medical expenses but still paid into my employer-based group health plans. What I got in return was insurance that if I needed health services, which thank God I didn't, I could get treatment. So if someone in the same program as I am in decides to use birth control etc, that's her right as a part of the plan. Other members can't opt out of paying for her services anymore than she can opt out of paying for someone else's high blood pressure meds because she thinks they should just eat and live more healthfully. That's how it works.

So, your boss should have the right to determine what medical care you can or can't get, right? Or does Hermeneutics just favor this policy when it's Christians imposing their morality on employees, i.e. would the Christians like to have their healthcare coverage and choices determined by those who don't bellieve in blood transfusions or who believe in faith healing over modern medicine? I'm continually surprised at how ignorant some Christians are about the implications of laws.

Doreen, Is the preventative care and birth control no cost or is it part of my compensation? If it's part of my compensation, I might prefer to only pay for the preventative care that I can actually use. I don't need birth control and have no reason to visit the doctor every year for a physical. Maybe I'd like a plan that covers only that which I feel is necessary. Or perhaps something with a lower cost and higher deductible. Instead the increased requirements are driving up both employer and employee costs and causing employers to cover things which go against their conscience.

I just want the editors to be aware that my comments are suddenly appearing under my husband's name. He never reads this site. He certainly never comments on it. Also, people's last names are appearing now. I don't know if that's what you wanted - at least it would be fair to warn them first. Some people have said very revealing things on this site. I don't know if they wanted their last names used.

Stop it. I have relatives who are Jehovah's Witness. One died rather than get a blood transfusion. Are you telling me that I should die if my employer is JW and believes blood transfusions are sins? You don't have a right to make health care, family or religious decisions for others. If you own a business and have employees, you have employees, not slaves. You don't own them, their families or have rule over their natural bodies. You hire them to do a job; the rest of their life is THEIRS. Stop acting like you're the Lord's despised few because the court ruled you can't control another human being.

Come on Eileen. Another day, same lies. We covered this above when I posted a link to a study showing that increased access to free contraception dramatically reduced abortions. Your continual lies seem contrary to your so-called belief.

Come on Eileen. We've been through this one. See above where I gave you links to studies showing increased access to free contraception dramatically decreased abortion rates. You have no evidence that contraception leads to abortion, and you keep repeating lies. Are you sure your God would approve of all these lies you keep propagating?

You are so tiresome. I posted a link to a study earlier that shows free birth control leads to reduced abortion (by more than 10%). Post less, and stop lying. If you love Jesus so much, try following his commandments.

Here is the same study as reported by Fox News. If Fox reported it, it must be true. http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/10/05/study-free-birth-control-leads-to-fewer-abortions/

Right. Women are supposed to believe that contraceptives reduce abortions. No counting the unknown number of chemical abortions, the U.S. has had 1.2 million surgical abortions per year over the last few years, 55 million since the Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade made it legally accessible. The nation is flooded with barrier contraceptives and hormonal "contraceptive" steroids, not to mention the number of people who have been sterilized. But contraceptives have reduced the number of abortions? Come on. It's so easy for government, industry and the mass media to propagandize people. If people can be propagandized to abort their own children and to believe that it's acceptable for a man to marry a man, then they can be made to believe or do absolutely anything. I heard a social scientist speak on a news program about a year ago. He said he had made a great deal of money in marketing. His research demonstrated that the easiest group of people to propagandize is the most well educated. They are the easiest to propagandize, he said, because they don't believe they can be propagandized. And we're supposed to believe the Washington Post is an unbiased news source when it comes to the oversexed left's agenda?

Free is important to the discussion (even if the method of payment were taxes, which it is not) because women tend to use free contraception. This study published this past fall shows a significant decrease in abortions and unintended pregnancies when a group of women were given free contraception access. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/10/05/free-contraceptives-reduce-abortions-unintended-pregnancies-full-stop/ It is hard to have a serious discussion, but if people want to reduce abortion, reduce spending on government, medical costs, the way to do that is sometimes to give away something for free.

"Use of the term "police" is a bit melodramatic." Fine. If you're going to "criticize" my choices and ask that I justify all the risks I take every day, I ask that you allow me to do the same. Some women would rather have the risks of birth control than the risks of pregnancy. That's their choice, and I rather think that since (as I said above) birth control costs less than childbirth, ensuring that these women have the preventive care they need (along with cancer screening just in case) is of benefit to society.

"I don't agree with the idea that birth control is so vital to a woman's health that it must always be offered "free of charge." (really, paid for by others) Why not other even more vital things like vaccinations or cancer meds?" First of all, if I am paying for or otherwise earning my insurance, then I am paying for it. No one else. Secondly, because it's preventive care. A lot of preventive care is being required under the ACA because ensuring that everyone has access to preventive care, even if the government has to pay for it for those who can't afford insurance, saves money overall. This is because it costs less ($10-$50/month) to provide birth control than it does to pay for a pregnancy and childbirth ($1000s) and other childhood care for women who can't afford it. And I can't emphasize this enough: if you can't afford condoms, you can't afford a baby. It also costs less for cancer screening that catches a tumor in the early stages than it costs to treat advanced cancer. All of society benefits when we agree that everyone deserves no-cost preventive care. Incidentally, no-cost vaccinations ARE included in the ACA. Check it out along with a list of all the other preventive care requirements here: http://www.healthcare.gov/prevention/index.html

Use of the term "police" is a bit melodramatic. I doubt police officers have shown up at your door. Childbirth has been a leading cause of death for women largely because 1) Doctors did not wash their hands before labor and delivery until they recognized germ theory in the 1870s; and 2) Antibiotics were not available until 1932.

"I don't agree with the idea that birth control is so vital to a woman's health that it must always be offered "free of charge." (really, paid for by others) Why not other even more vital things like vaccinations or cancer meds?" First of all, if I am paying for or otherwise earning my insurance, then I am paying for it. No one else. Secondly, because it's preventive care. A lot of preventive care is being required under the ACA because ensuring that everyone has access to preventive care, even if the government has to pay for it for those who can't afford insurance, saves money overall. This is because it costs less ($10-$50/month) to provide birth control than it does to pay for a pregnancy and childbirth ($1000s) and other childhood care for women who can't afford it. And I can't emphasize this enough: if you can't afford condoms, you can't afford a baby. It also costs less for cancer screening that catches a tumor in the early stages than it costs to treat advanced cancer. All of society benefits when we agree that everyone deserves no-cost preventive care. Incidentally, no-cost vaccinations ARE included in the ACA. Check it out along with a list of all the other preventive care requirements here: http://www.healthcare.gov/prevention/index.html

"I don't agree with the idea that birth control is so vital to a woman's health that it must always be offered "free of charge." (really, paid for by others) Why not other even more vital things like vaccinations or cancer meds?" First of all, if I am paying for or otherwise earning my insurance, then I am paying for it. No one else. Secondly, because it's preventive care. A lot of preventive care is being required under the ACA because ensuring that everyone has access to preventive care, even if the government has to pay for it for those who can't afford insurance, saves money overall. This is because it costs less ($10-$50/month) to provide birth control than it does to pay for a pregnancy and childbirth ($1000s) and other childhood care for women who can't afford it. And I can't emphasize this enough: if you can't afford condoms, you can't afford a baby. Incidentally, no-cost vaccinations ARE included in the ACA. Check it out along with a list of all the other preventive care requirements here: http://www.healthcare.gov/prevention/index.html

Lunch Meat - Nobody is policing your choice. Nobody is denying you - or anyone else in the US - birth control. I don't agree with the idea that birth control is so vital to a woman's health that it must always be offered "free of charge." (really, paid for by others) Why not other even more vital things like vaccinations or cancer meds?

"Is the birth control pill really that important - so important that you're willing to risk a treatment-resistant, aggressive form of breast cancer?" If you want me to answer that question, I will first want a list of all the medications, food and other lifestyle choices you've ever taken, eaten, or made throughout your life, so that I can look them up and determine all of the potential things you might be risking. If you don't want me to police your choices, don't police my choices. By the way, pregnancy has been one of the highest causes of death for women throughout history.

Here is a 2nd study strongly linking use of the pill with the deadly triple negative breast cancer. It's by Ma and his associates in 2010 and published in the journal Cancer Research. They reported, "a 2.9-fold increased risk for triple negative (ER-/PR-/HER2-) tumors among older women ages (45-64 years) who started OC (oral contraceptives - the birth control pill) use before age 18." http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/70/2/575.long Is the birth control pill really that important - so important that you're willing to risk a treatment-resistant, aggressive form of breast cancer?

a) No one is using your name. The author of posts is listed below the post, not above. I said that already. Try not to be so paranoid. b) My other points about the study still stand: It's just one study about one of the rarest forms of breast cancer, and the study's authors noted that more study is needed and these are preliminary results.

Sorry, but someone else is using my name. (What aren't some people willing to do to make hormonal "contraceptive" steroids look like a good thing for women?) Go back to table 4 in this study: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/download/Abortion_Breast_Cancer_Epid_Bio_Prev_2009.pdf Then look for Age at first Use, <18. Find the column that says odds ration (O.R.) under the heading "triple-negative breast cancer." There you will see there is a 6.4-fold risk elevation of triple-negative breast cancer for those who started using the pill before age 18. Next to the O.R. of 6.4-fold, you will see in parentheses these statistics (2.6-15.6). That means THE FINDINGS ARE STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT. Since the numbers in parentheses did not cross the line of unity - 1.0 - the findings are considered and reported as statistically significant.)

I havent read all the comments made. But I do know that if Jesus was the focal point in everyone lives even in the whitehouse there would be no arguing about this or any other matter. Can I get an Amen! Jesus is and will always be mine and everyone's only source of hope!

Sorry--when they started birth control before age 18.

They had 897 cases total, 187 for the triple-negative type, and only 35 cases of triple negative when they started birth control? I hardly think that's going to be statistically significant.

Read the study by Jessica Dolle and her colleagues in 2009 here. Look at table 4, Age at first use, <18. Then look for the O.R. (odds ratio) under triple-negative breast cancer. It says there is a 6.4-fold risk increase for women who use the pill before age 18. http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/download/Abortion_Breast_Cancer_Epid_Bio_Prev_2009.pdf Yes, after discontinuing use for 10 years, the risk diminishes. I cannot say whether that is true for the tripe-negative breast cancer risk though. The above study says African Americans and young women under age 50 are most at risk for developing triple-negative breast cancer. If you are an African American and under age 50, you may want to think hard before you use the pill. You can also read the Mayo Clinic Proceedings study at this website: http://www.polycarp.org/ Yes, some idiot at Mayo Clinic posted an article saying healthy teenagers should use the carcinogenic birth control pill to treat a relatively harmless condition - acne. Most people are capable of recognizing it's stupid to prescribe a carcinogen to a healthy teen for a benign condition.

So more ignoring of the refutations I've already posted in favor of introducing another line of argument entirely? And as a bonus, calling your opponents "oversexed" and "perverse" (I have no problem with the fact that I probably have more and better sex than you do)? Nice.

Karen, I have to disagree with you that Hobby Lobby's selling of Chinese goods is relevant to the discussion. It might be if they were buying from the Chinese government, but private businesses in China are not responsible for the odious one-child policy nor are the workers in the factories. (And I never understood the idea that the best way to help the poor in other countries was to put them out of work) Our own government does much more to support this policy - with our huge interest payments to China - than Hobby Lobby could do.

The sheer stupidity of flooding our beautiful nation with steroidal hormones is evident in our poisoned rivers, lakes, streams, and groundwater. Scientists have been documenting it for over a decade. Here's a passage from the medical journal, Ethics and Medics in 2009: "EE2 (the most common form of estrogenic drug) has been recognized for over a decade as showing up in wastewater, streams and groundwater downstream of major metropolitan areas worldwide. There is a large body of peer-reviewed literature documenting this contamination, along with documentation of the disruption of reproductive function and the feminization in fish and other wildlife. In parallel, the professional literature reveals a worldwide effort to find ways to remove EE2 and other estrogenic contaminants from wastewater. Chemically, the artificial inactivation of EE2 is a simple matter - that is to say, the same sorts of techniques used to purify drinking water, such as ultraviolet light treatment and ozonation, will do the trick - but to treat sewage that way is grossly impractical. "Not surprisingly, all this research has been mostly conducted under the proverbial radar, as it conflicts sharply with the population control ideology so prevalent in the media and the body politic. Even the World Health Organization's acknowledgment of the carcinogenicity of contraceptive steroids is hardly household knowledge. When this subject does surface, it is typically diluted with counterclaims that these drugs lower the risk of ovarian and uterine cancer. While this is technically true, there is no comparison between the number of women affected by those relatively rare cancers and the much larger number affected by breast cancer.... "In men, however, the trend is more subtle and more elusive, but recent evidence is troubling. For more than a decade, many studies have documented lower sperm counts and poorer sperm quality in men whose blood contains higher levels of certain pesticide residues and industrial contaminants. However, to my knowledge, no studies of blood levels of EE2 or other estrogenic pharmaceuticals have been published. Even more troubling is the documented fall in male testosterone levels in recent decades, a finding documented in at least one very large, very high profile in the Boston area. The reason for this decline has yet to be determined, but with the disruption of reproductive function and the feminization of fish and other wildlife that has occurred with very low levels of EE2 in the water, and with EE2 found to persist in groundwater, contraceptive steroids are likely culprits." (Consuming Secondhand Steroids, Ethics and Medics, May 2009) Therefore, pharmaceutical companies and Planned Parenthood are polluters. Given the confirmed evidence that use of hormonal "contraceptive" steroids is a health hazard to both users AND non-users, and given the costs to society resulting from polluting the environment and the surging number of breast cancer cases, it's clear that those who support Obama's folly (i.e. the HHS mandate requiring employers to purchase insurance that provides "free" hormonal "contraceptive" steroids) is contrary to the common good. Why is it that advancing the sexual revolution through the expansion of hormonal "contraceptive" steroids in our nation so vitally important to some on this forum that they're willing to force other Americans to give up their valued civil rights, pollute our waterways, and sicken themselves and their neighbors? Our founding fathers would be dumbfounded and appalled! I find it remarkable that some American citizens think it's acceptable for the federal government to demand that entrepreneurs check their religious beliefs at the door once they open their businesses. Since when is that a practice in this nation founded on religious freedom? It illustrates the totalitarian nature of the oversexed left and its perverse worldview.

Eileen, just to be clear, we can all see that you're repeating lies. You may not be doing it intentionally, so I would check to see who is lying to you. And perhaps try to determine why.

"Moreover, a study from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in 2009 led by Jessica Dolle (and co-authored by National Cancer Institute branch chief Dr. Louise Brinton) reported a 6.4-fold risk elevation for the deadly triple-negative breast cancer among women who started using the pill before age 18." Funny, I found a summary of the study on the FHCRC's own website, and it says 4.2, not 6.4-fold risk. I'm sure that was just a typo. Yes, that's a significant amount, but that's also one of the rarest forms of breast cancer. Balancing that out with all the other breast cancers yields, guess what? A slightly higher risk. They also noted the results are preliminary and further research is needed. http://www.fhcrc.org/en/news/center-news/2009/05/birth-control-rare-breast-cancer.html As for the Mayo Clinic, you picked out just one study, but they make the point that taking all of the research together, the link is a lot more unclear: "The effect of birth control pills on breast cancer risk isn't quite clear. However, some studies do show a link between pill use and breast cancer. Key factors seem to be how many years you take the pill and how recently you last used the pill. In one study, use of birth control pills led to a higher risk of premenopausal breast cancer in women who took the pill for four or more years before having a baby. Other evidence suggests that 10 or more years after you stop taking the pill, your breast cancer risk returns to the same level as if you had never taken birth control pills." (Besides, I thought the Mayo Clinic was biased and evil and therefore couldn't be trusted?)

Eileen, the author of each post is listed at the bottom, not the top. I posted the link to WHO, not Reynard. It's right here: http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/88/4/10-077446/en/ I'll even quote it again: "Unfortunately, the already substantial misinformation that women have about pregnancy risk and emergency contraceptive pills (along with other contraceptive methods) is being compounded by recent media coverage. “Besides side effects, like nausea, heavy bleeding and cramps, regular use of emergency contraception may cause infertility and in some instances increase the risk of cancer,” declared one BBC story on emergency contraceptive pills in Kenya.6 “EC [emergency contraceptives] come with an increased risk for things like blood clots and hormone-related cancers, like many traditional forms of birth control,” stated a mainstream newspaper in the USA.7 These statements are factually incorrect but unfortunately are widespread. Such negative and sometimes inflammatory media coverage only alarms women and may keep some from using the method when they most need it." Clearly, WHO does not think these risks are anything to worry about and thinks women would be better off if these factually incorrect statements were not shared and if there was less stigmatization of birth control spread by the likes of you. Let's look up some other facts from WHO: "Levonorgestrel-alone emergency contraception pills are very safe and do not cause abortion or harm future fertility. Side-effects are uncommon and generally mild." "frequent use of emergency contraception can result in side-effects such as menstrual irregularities, although their repeated use poses no known health risks." "There are no medical contraindications to the use of levonorgestrel emergency contraception pills." " An estimated 222 million women in developing countries would like to delay or stop childbearing but are not using any method of contraception. Reasons for this include: limited choice of methods; limited access to contraception, particularly among young people, poorer segments of populations, or unmarried people; fear or experience of side-effects; cultural or religious opposition; poor quality of available services; gender-based barriers. The unmet need for contraception remains too high." Again, classification as a "Group 1 carcinogen" does not say anything about at what dosage it occurs or the frequency. Your attempt to twist facts by noting only the worst things from Group 1 did not go unnoticed, believe me. Know what else is in group 1? Alcohol--which is nevertheless consumed by many people, has other health benefits, and although it's campaigned against by others, it's not because of it's carcinogenic status. Aluminum, iron, and rubber production and house painting--which are still performed because society needs them. Engine exhaust--which is everywhere. Solar radiation--are you campaigning against beaches as much as against birth control? Chemotherapy and X-rays--which insurance covers, by the way, and no one is campaigning for insurance to stop covering them. "If you check the nation's cancer statistics, you will find that thousands more women die every year of the cancers the pill causes than the cancers it prevents." Again with the twisting of facts! The fact that the cancers the pill causes a slightly higher risk of are more common than the cancers the pill causes a lower risk of DOES NOT MEAN the pill causes more cancers than it prevents. To find that out, you have to look at exact numbers. "That would include some idiots at the Mayo Clinic to advise teenagers to use it to treat a benign condition, acne (during the most cancer-susceptible time of their lives)." It's used for moderate-to-severe acne, which leaves scars. It's also used for severely painful periods (mine used to leave me incapacitated), heavy or irregular periods, which causes loss of iron, and more serious problems like cysts and blood disorders. I ...

Reynard61: I forgot to add that in 2006 Mayo Clinic Proceedings published a scientific meta-analysis of the studies dating from the 1980s. They concluded that women who used the birth control pill before age 18 raise their risk of developing breast cancer before menopause by a statistically significant 44%. (Compare that to the 26% risk elevation for women who use combined hormone replacement therapy.) Moreover, a study from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in 2009 led by Jessica Dolle (and co-authored by National Cancer Institute branch chief Dr. Louise Brinton) reported a 6.4-fold risk elevation for the deadly triple-negative breast cancer among women who started using the pill before age 18. A 6.4-fold risk elevation is not what you would call a "slightly increased risk." Does it trouble you in the least that you were not informed of this fact? That's the kind of bias women are facing when it comes to the risks of using hormonal "contraceptive" steroids and induced abortion. The study by Dr. Dolle and her colleagues in 2009 is one of 2 studies reporting a strong association between use of the pill and the treatment-resistant triple negative breast cancer.

Reynard61: I didn't see a link to the World Health Organization that you posted. Do you want to know what a "slightly higher" risk elevation means? Combined hormone replacement therapy, which women often use after menopause, is also on the WHO's list of Group 1 carcinogens (cancer-causing agents). Combined HRT and combined oral contraceptives - the birth control pill - both contain the same type of drugs - estrogen and progestin, but the pill has a higher dose AND (unlike combined HRT) women use the pill between the onset of menstruation and first full term pregnancy, which scientists call the "susceptibility window" when nearly all of the woman's breast lobules are cancer-susceptible Type 1 and 2 lobules. Combined HRT raises risk by 26%. In 2002, after national news organizations told women that the Women's Health Initiative had to be stopped mid-way because women were dying of heart attacks, strokes and more breast cancers, then thousands of women nationwide went off menopausal therapy containing both estrogen and progestin. Scientists reported that within one year's time there were 14,000 fewer cases of breast cancer, and they attributed it to news reports informing women about the breast cancer risk. A 26% risk elevation does not tell you want the absolute numbers of predicted breast cancer cases will be. Currently, the lifetime risk of breast cancer for the average American woman is quite high at 1 in 8, but for the sake of doing simple mental math, let's round that off to 1 in 10 (a lower lifetime risk). If you raise a woman's risk slightly by just 26%, then you've raised her risk from 1 in 10 or 10% to 12.6%. Since breast cancer is highly prevalent in the U.S. with 290,170 cases expected last year, that means thousands more cases of breast cancer. As I said in an earlier post, the World Health Organization says that estrogen-progestagen oral contraceptives (the pill) raises risk for three cancers (breast, liver, cervix), but it reduces risk for two cancers (endometrium and ovaries). If you check the nation's cancer statistics, you will find that thousands more women die every year of the cancers the pill causes than the cancers it prevents. Nevertheless, some experts still tell women to take the pill to prevent cancer! That would include some idiots at the Mayo Clinic to advise teenagers to use it to treat a benign condition, acne (during the most cancer-susceptible time of their lives). Bias is not a one-way street. It is a two way street. The bias that exists among experts in favor of hormonal "contraceptive" steroids and induced abortion (despite the risks) is not at all unlike the tobacco-lung cancer cover-up.

Someone may have already said this... but if not, I wonder if Hobby Lobby could turn itself into a non-profit to avoid having to pay for the abortion-inducing drugs. No matter what, I definitely plan to keep shopping there as much as possible to show support. Terrible situation.

"Martyr"? "On the rack"? Hyperbole has its uses, but it ought to have its limits, too. Here's a parable: A great rabbi was approached by a group of men seeking to entrap him in his words. They said to him, "You teach the way of God in accordance with truth. Is it right to pay taxes to Obama, who may use the taxes to kill the unborn or to prevent them from being unborn in the first place? Should we pay or shouldn't we?" The rabbi knew their hypocrisy. "Why are you trying to trap me?" he asked. "Taxes are used all the time for things we oppose: war, drone strikes, torture, capital punishment, oil subsidies, PBS, whatever." He asked them to bring him a $1 trillion platinum coin, and asked whose image was on it. "Obama's," they said. "Give to Obama what is Obama's and to God what is God's." The men were amazed at the rabbi's wisdom, but decided to refuse the HHS mandate anyway, which made them yea verily martyrs in the eyes of some. But the rabbi knew better.

Some commenters will find this interesting: my parents just returned from a trip out of town where they stopped at a Hobby Lobby. (There are none near where we live and they have not followed this issue at all.) Not knowing about this controversy, my father's first observation about the store was this: "They must keep a lot of Chinese factories open." This part of the debate is certainly a valid one that gives me some pause.

How exactly is this martyrdom? Hobby Lobby refuses to pay for something claiming it is against their "long held religious beliefs." Their company folds, thousands of American employees are laid off, not to mention thousands of third world families who indirectly work for this company will no longer be getting a pay check. Do you really think the millionaire owners of Hobby Lobby will be hurt in ANY way by this? I'm sure that those poor laid off families in China and India will completely understand that potential embryos in the US are much more valuable than their jobs, their lives, and their next meal.

"The World Health Organization has different classifications for agents that have been linked to cancer. Group 1 carcinogens (cancer-causing agents) are labeled "carcinogenic to humans," as opposed to other classifications, like 2A or 2B which are labeled "possibly carcinogenic to humans," or Group 4 which are "probably not carcinogenic to humans." Group 1 carcinogens include estrogen-progestagen oral contraceptives (the birth control pill) on the same page with asbestos, tobacco, benzene and cadmium. That should tell you something about how dangerous the birth control pill is. And it's linked with heart attacks, strokes, and blood clots." Then why does the WHO recommend that women use contraceptives, in the link that I posted? A simple list has no context--no link to the studies that determined it. It may be "definitely" carcinogenic, but there's no notation of what doses, how often it happens. Here's the truth: the risk of breast cancer among contraceptive-using women is *slightly* higher than among those who don't. However, ten years after going off contraceptives, the risk goes back down and it's as if the woman had never touched birth control. In addition, birth control protects against other cancers. CDC, WHO, and cancer.org agree with this. If you don't want to be accused of lying, quit lying. "The Obama administration is forcing insurers to provide "free" contraceptives, abortion inducing drugs and sterilizations. (Later next year, the law will include surgical abortions.)" No, abortion-inducing drugs are not included. No, surgical abortions will not be included. You're lying and paranoid, apparently.

"Hobby Lobby: The First Martyr Under Obamacare?" Sorry, no. Hobby Lobby is a *BUSINESS*. Hobby Lobby is a *CORPORATION*. (Notwithstanding the SCOTUS definition.) Until Hobby Lobby is somehow shot through with a quiver of arrows (to use CT's imagery) or is somehow hung from an upside-down cross or somehow broken on a wheel, Hobby Lobby *cannot* make any legitimate claim to anything even *approaching* martyrdom. The owners of Hobby Lobby can stew in their delusions of righteous "persecution" all they want, but; unless they restructure and re-register as either a non-profit charity or an actual church (I'd *LOVE* to see 'em try!); they are still answerable to U.S. corporate law -- including the relevant portions of the ACA. (a.k.a "Obamacare".) If their refusal to follow the law results, as Ms. Prior seems to think it would, in the "death" of the company; well, the Free Market seems to abhor a vacuum and no doubt some other corporation(s) with fewer qualms about obeying the law will step in and offer over-priced sweatshop-made craft materials and knicks-knacks. (And no-one worth their copy of "Atlas Shrugged" is going to argue with the Wisdom of The Free Market, are they?) So, no. Hobby Lobby is not a "martyr". They don't have my sympathy no matter how noisily they drag out their fainting couch and clutch their pearls and whine about how they're being "persecuted". Hobby Lobby is a business that must obey the law or face the consequences of not doing so. If they go bankrupt because of the fines that they have to pay, tough. They may think that they're God's Precious Little Snowflake, but; eventually; the Seasons change and snowflakes melt. If Hobby Lobby can't take the legal heat, then it'll melt too -- as it deserves to.

Sigh... Hobby Lobby is standing up for what they believe to be right and true. Good for them for doing so, even if we don't totally agree with them. What saddens me is that there is so much talk about companies forced to pay for birth control, but very little talk about providing infertility insurance. My husband and I have been trying for a year to get pregnant. Our first doctor's appointment is tomorrow. I can get birth control and an abortion paid for, but any infertility treatments will have to come 100% out of our pockets. My husband could get Viagra covered if he needed it, but we'll have to pay for a semen analysis to see if he has low sperm count. Something is wrong with that picture. Why aren't we hearing about this? To me, this is equally shameful.

HM, it's your body and your choice. You can use all the steroids you want.

Also, Eileen, your statements have no bearing on the discussion of the legality/HL's claims.

HM: People of good faith can have different opinions. I tried my best to help you. I am finished with your accusations that I am lying to you. Now you are on your own.

HM: People of good faith can have different opinions. I tried my best to help you. I am finished with your accusations that I am lying to you. Now you are on your own.

Oh Eileen. Get caught lying about whether contraception causes increased rates of abortion, and you start talking about health. Those links are shown to claim the pill decreases risk of some cancers, and you post this link from a biased source. She talks about blood clots, but nobody talks about the fact that blood clot risk is much higher as a result of pregnancy than contraception. Dr. Angela Lanfranchi is a pro-life professor of surgery with an agenda. That doesn't necessarily make her wrong, but it does make it suspect when she announces as fact something that the Mayo Clinic says is, at best, a theory. Wake up ladies! Eileen will give you links that don't say what she thinks they say.

HM: "How the Pill Kills" By Angela Lanfranchi, MD, FACS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1f3qTt1YDk

The Obama administration is forcing insurers to provide "free" contraceptives, abortion inducing drugs and sterilizations. (Later next year, the law will include surgical abortions.) Of course, no insurer will provide free drugs or sterilizations. They will jack up your insurance premiums and you will have to pay for it whether you use that coverage or not. The World Health Organization has different classifications for agents that have been linked to cancer. Group 1 carcinogens (cancer-causing agents) are labeled "carcinogenic to humans," as opposed to other classifications, like 2A or 2B which are labeled "possibly carcinogenic to humans," or Group 4 which are "probably not carcinogenic to humans." Group 1 carcinogens include estrogen-progestagen oral contraceptives (the birth control pill) on the same page with asbestos, tobacco, benzene and cadmium. That should tell you something about how dangerous the birth control pill is. And it's linked with heart attacks, strokes, and blood clots. Watch Dr. Angela Lanfranchi's lecture on YouTube. She's clinical associate professor of surgery at the Robert Wood Johnson Medical Center and president of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1f3qTt1YDk Wake up, ladies!

How does paying for someone else's birth control force them to take it? If the church needs the power of the state to keep its people in line, then the church is in deep trouble!

How does paying for birth control force someone to use it? If the church needs the power of the state to keep its people from sinning, then the church is in deep trouble.

Lunch Meat is right -- this is a tax only if you don't pay for your own insurance. Don't want to pay for my contraceptives? Get some health insurance. Labeling this as a "tax" doesn't mean that the taxpayers are funding it. That reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of what a tax means for Constitutional purposes.

Other things on this list of cancer-causing agents: coffee cocount oil coke production coal Electric fields Engine exhaust, diesel or gasoline Menopause therapies Being a firefighter Frying Wood dust Making furniture HPV (I'm sure HL doesn't want to pay for the vaccine) leather dust, goods Saccharin Salted fish Stress Now, I'm not denying these things may cause cancer. My point is: this is not your strongest argument. Now I feel stressed because I ate salted fish tonight. Combined with my fried eggs this morning, I'm done for already.

You will only pay a "tax" under Obamacare if you choose not to obtain health insurance. If you are paying that tax, then your money will go into a pool into which everyone who does not have health insurance will have paid equally. You would not be paying for someone else's health care anymore than someone who currently has insurance is paying for the health care of anyone else covered by that same insurance company. That's how insurance works. And if you don't want to be implicated that small amount, then go find a health insurance company that doesn't offer contraceptives to anyone and get insurance through them. Really, this is not that difficult.

Eileen, I appreciate your sincere concern, but that wasn't my statement. Nor do I take oral contraceptives. I also think this is a silly argument when the meat is whether the author has any validity in claiming HL has martyrdom status. HL certainly doesn't oppose the mandate b/c of concerns for my risks of breast cancer. But I'll go ahead and point out that the link you gave also says that oral contraceptives also confer a protective effect against cancer of the endometrium and ovaries.

"Uh, yeah! After all, that's why some 43 businesses and religious organizations are suing the Obama administration. That's what Obama wants them to do. You may be paying for your contraceptives through taxes, but Obama wants me to do so also." I don't think you get this. Let's make it really, really, painfully simple: I work 40 hours a week and get paid once a month. As part of my company's contract with ABC Insurance Company, $50 is automatically deducted from my monthly paycheck and sent to ABC Insurance Company. Then, ABC Insurance Company sends XYZ Pharmacy $10 for my birth control. Where on earth do you or the taxpayers enter into this process??

The Yoder case you cite to is not really analogous. First is that terminating their education in 8th grade was part of a fundamental and established tenant of the Amish lifestyle. The individual parents could not actually engage in their religious practice if forced to keep their children in school past then. The owners of HL aren't actually having their personal religious practices interfered with. Second is that the Court found that the education of Amish children didn't stop simply because they stopped attending public school. Rather, they began vocational training, which was a type of education akin to private education or homeschooling (which was protected as an extension of the right of privacy/substantive due process). This means that there was no compelling state interest in this case. Without the compelling state interest, the standard of review means the religion outweighs. Finally, the Court found laws on compulsory education had to do with preventing child labor, not actual educational needs. Since the State argued educational needs as the compelling state interest, the Court didn't think it worked. In other words, again, the state interest is lower, so the reg. doesn't survive the standard of review. Again, that's not the case here. The gov. interest is literally the entire application of the ACA as regards employers (see Lunch Meat's comment). Given that it doesn't actually burden HL's ability to practice Christianity, the standard of review will be lowered, and thus, the compelling state interest will win. Even if HL wins that a heightened standard of review should be applied, the mandate will still likely survive because a compelling state interest trumps a heightened standard of review provided that the rule is narrowly tailored to effectuate the ends of the state interest. Given the type of challenge being made, the answer will most likely be: the gov. wins.

HM: "So, when the insurance that my employer has arranged, but I work full-time for and pay all the premiums for, pays for my physical, are you really honestly suggesting that the taxpayers are actually paying for it? " Answer: Uh, yeah! After all, that's why some 43 businesses and religious organizations are suing the Obama administration. That's what Obama wants them to do. You may be paying for your contraceptives through taxes, but Obama wants me to do so also. And the woman earning $90,000 a year would get free contraceptives and abortion inducing drugs and sterilizations, and the Catholic married school teacher and mother of five children who earns $35,000 a year and who teaches her children and students that use of contraceptives is wrong - Obama expects that Catholic teacher to pay for the contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs for the woman earning $90,000 a year.

HM: You are talking about emergency contraception. The morning after pill is progestin only. A scientist I know tells me there are no long term studies on the breast cancer risk, so essentially women who use it are guinea pigs. It will take perhaps 20 years before these women show up on the nation's breast cancer statistics. It theoretically raises breast cancer risk, he says, because estrogen in the presence of progesterone is known to raise risk (i.e. combined hormone replacement therapy and combined oral contraceptives - the pill - which contain estrogen and progestin). He says women's ovaries which produce estrogen mean that women who use progestin only mini-pill or the morning after pill are using progestin and estrogen together. The World Health Organization's list of Group 1 carcinogens is available below. It shows that estrogen-progestagen oral contraceptives are on that list. http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/index.php I am not trying to lie to you. I am trying to help you preserve your health.

"Users of contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs do not have a right to demand that taxpayers pay for their follies." So, when the insurance that my employer has arranged, but I work full-time for and pay all the premiums for, pays for my physical, are you really honestly suggesting that the taxpayers are actually paying for it? This is ludicrous. How is it being demanding or entitled to request that the health insurance I've earned cover my health needs? I have not heard one single good explanation of precisely how Hobby Lobby is responsible for what its employees' health insurance covers, nor have I heard one good consistent moral principle that would justify Hobby Lobby's exemption and not, for instance, an exemption for a vegan employer who doesn't want her employees' insurance to cover drugs made from or tested on animals.

HM: Oh, my! How did Fox News ever enter this discussion? I'm a political science teacher. Religious freedom is so embedded in the origins of our nation and the beliefs of our founding fathers that it is the first of our first amendment rights. It is the primary reason why our forefathers came here so they could escape religious persecution and wars in Europe. The state of Virginia passed a religious freedom law in the 18th century, thereby ending the preference given to the Anglican faith in which citizens were required to support the Anglican vicar. The Amish, who educate their children to grade 8, won a Supreme Court case in the early 1960s in which the state of Wisconsin was attempting to force parents to educate their children to the minimum age of 16. Religious freedom is so highly valued that the Supreme Court decided in favor of American Indians in the Southwest who smoked peyote as a part of their religious rites. Users of contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs do not have a right to demand that taxpayers pay for their follies.

(cont from previous) And what both of these citations ignore is that an estimated half of all pregnancies spontaneously abort for no reason that we can tell in the first trimester of pregnancy, resulting in the killing of "unborn babies." Women who use contraceptives consistently don't ovulate, therefore don't produce embryos which therefore don't spontaneously abort. Contraceptives save the lives of embryos. You say that most of Planned Parenthood's revenue comes from abortion. I don't know how you would know that since they don't publicize their figures, but their 2011-2012 annual report shows that 45% of their revenue comes from government reimbursement sources and only 26% comes from nongovernmental health services revenue. Since the federal government and most states can't pay for abortions, that means that at most 26% comes from abortion--and that's assuming NONE of the women who pay out of pocket are getting ANY other services than abortion. (http://issuu.com/actionfund/docs/ppfa_ar_2012_121812_vf/1) Finally, we come to your outright lie: you say the World Health Organization has concerns about the health risks of birth control. Here's what it actually says: "Unfortunately, the already substantial misinformation that women have about pregnancy risk and emergency contraceptive pills (along with other contraceptive methods) is being compounded by recent media coverage. “Besides side effects, like nausea, heavy bleeding and cramps, regular use of emergency contraception may cause infertility and in some instances increase the risk of cancer,” declared one BBC story on emergency contraceptive pills in Kenya.6 “EC [emergency contraceptives] come with an increased risk for things like blood clots and hormone-related cancers, like many traditional forms of birth control,” stated a mainstream newspaper in the USA.7 These statements are factually incorrect but unfortunately are widespread. Such negative and sometimes inflammatory media coverage only alarms women and may keep some from using the method when they most need it." (http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/88/4/10-077446/en/) Please, try to find some lies that can't be so easily debunked next time.

Anonymous, you should know better than to lie about or twist facts from your sources when the people you're talking to have access to Google. You say that contraceptive use results in more abortions. Here's what the study you cited says: "During the study period, 1997 to 2007, the overall use of contraceptive methods increased from 49.1% to 79.9%. The most commonly used method was the condom (an increase from 21% to 38.8%), followed by the pill (an increase from 14.2% to 20.3%). Female sterilization and IUDs decreased slightly and were used by less than 5% of women in 2007. The elective abortion rate increased from 5.52 to 11.49 per 1000 women." So use of unreliable contraceptive methods increased, and use of reliable methods decreased. Unsurprisingly, more unintended pregnancies resulted. That obviously does not mean that women on birth control had sex more often; that wasn't even studied. (http://www.contraceptionjournal.org/article/S0010-7824(10)00327-6/abstract) You say the Guttmacher Institute reports half of women who have abortions were on contraceptives. Here's what it says: "Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use." That's an extremely high number of inconsistent usage. Clearly, consistent usage definitely is correlated with a lower abortion rate. Also, this figure doesn't tell us what percentage of women who don't have abortions are on birth control, nor does it tell us what percentage of women who are on birth control have abortions. Another interesting stat from GI: "Forty-six percent of women who have abortions had not used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Of these women, 33% had perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy, 32% had had concerns about contraceptive methods, 26% had had unexpected sex and 1% had been forced to have sex." Sounds to me like 65% of those women could have benefited from better education and less stigmatization of birth control. As for the other 27%, the ACA won't stop unexpected sex or rape, but if women have easy access to forms of birth control like the IUD that they don't have to think about--if being on birth control was the default--then some of those abortions could have been prevented. (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html)

I think you were addressing me. You're right - it's an executive order. However, that doesn't change my analysis. The Constitution doesn't make this as easy a slam dunk as you think it does. Otherwise, pacifists wouldn't have to pay taxes that go to fund the military, for example. See my analysis above, or better yet, go read a book on Constitutional Law written by a scholar, not a Fox News contributor.

Ken, my apologies for failure to say "the freedom of religion clause" (as it's colloquially called) does not mean you get to opt out of any statutory requirement you don't like. I didn't realize that leaving out that one word would be so detrimental to your understanding. I get that first amendment law is complicated. But seriously, you have to be deluded to think HL is going to win. Given the standard of review for a tax -- whether an exemption would impair a gov. interest -- it is unlikely that the Court would say such an exemption should be made here, because the result is that corps. would just declare that healthcare in general violates a central tenant of their religion. Failure to do so would probably violate shareholders rights.

Anonymous: You don't get it. The HHS mandate is NOT statutory law. It's an administrative mandate originating from the executive branch of the government. Even if it were statutory law, it wouldn't make a difference. The government DOESN'T have the right to pass laws requiring an individual, a business or a church to violate its religious beliefs. The U.S. Constitution takes precedence. I hope you read what I wrote about the health risks associated with use of hormonal steroids and barrier methods.

Nice try. The conclusion to the link you gave was: more studies needed, not contraception --> abortion. But even beyond that, the studies were looking at two different things. The study you cite was CONDOMS as the most-used form of contraception. The study I cited was when contraception in the form of IUDs (including non-hormonal) were provided free of charge. Note that in your study, IUD use decreased. But like I stated earlier, the question about whether contraceptives are abortifacents, lead to reduced or increased rates of abortion, etc., is largely irrelevant. KSP is wrong on the law. The Freedom of Religion doesn't allow secular corporations to opt out of statutory requirements, and Hobby Lobby isn't anywhere close to a martyr.

HM: Men and especially women (who don't want a baby) are more inclined to have sex more often when they believe their contraceptives or abortion inducing drugs will take care of the "problem" of pregnancy. Check out this study: Contraception Use Up, Abortions Double, reported by Jill Stanek. http://www.jillstanek.com/2011/01/study-spain-contraception-use-up-abortions-double-researchers-cant-figure-out-why/ This study from the abortion industry's Guttmacher Institute reports that half of all women getting abortions were using contraceptives. www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html Planned Parenthood doesn't sell (and advocate for) contraceptives so they can sell FEWER abortions. They sell contraceptives so they can sell MORE abortions. Most of their revenue comes from abortion sales. Barry: I am not an evangelical. Furthermore, I don't care whether the deterioration of our rights comes from a Republican or a Democratic administration. What really shocks me is how lacadaisical Americans are about their civil rights. (Perhaps it's our dumbed down public school education system.) Civil rights must be guarded vigilantly in order for citizens in a democratic republic to keep them. Finally, I really wish women would wake up. Ask yourselves who profits from the HHS mandate requiring employers to purchase insurance that would provide women with "free" contraceptives, sterilizations, and abortion-inducing drugs. Answer: Big Pharma and Planned Parenthood! Ask yourselves why the Obama administration is so anxious for women to take drugs that cause cancers, urinary tract infections, heart attacks, strokes, blood clots, increased susceptibility to HIV/AIDS and bone mineral loss. Hormonal "contraceptive" steroids are dangerous to women's health. Oral contraceptives (the birth control pill) containing estrogen and progestin are on the World Health Organization's list of Group 1 carcinogens (the highest level of carcinogenicity). Estrogen and progestin can be delivered to women orally or via the skin patch, injection, IUD, vaginal ring. The World Health Organization said these drugs put women at risk for 3 cancers (breast, liver, cervix), but reduces risk for 2 cancers (endometrium and ovaries). More American women die every year from the cancers the pill causes than the cancers it prevents. The birth control pill is strongly linked with an increased risk of the deadly, aggressive triple-negative breast cancer, according to two studies. Depo Provera has been shown in 5 studies to raise breast cancer risk by 2.2-fold. It puts women at risk for HIV/AIDS and bone mineral density loss. Even barrier methods of contraception have a health risk - a 17-fold risk elevation for urinary tract infections. Women have been propagandized to believe that use of hormonal steroids is as necessary to their health as breathing air and drinking water.

"Second, it is a myth that more contraceptives will decrease the number of abortions. Studies show the opposite effect occurs. More contraceptive use results in more induced abortions. Why? Because all contraceptives fail, and after 5 years of use, your statistical chances of experiencing a contraceptive failure are unacceptably high. Women with an anti-baby mentality choose to abort." First, citation needed. Second, I'm on birth control, have been for two and a half years, but I would not even consider aborting if it failed. A lot of my friends who are my age and in the same economic stage and social circle feel the same way. Believe it or not, a lot of women who are on birth control actually want babies very much, but are responsible enough to know they can't afford it. Your generalizations and refusal to assume good faith on the part of those who've made different life choices are not very helpful.

Oh, I should also clarify. Access to contraception is a fundamental right. That was decided in Griswold v. Connecticut, the idea being that sexual relations were within a zone of privacy, and controlling that zone of privacy is a fundamental right. Your question was whether having it paid by others was a fundamental right, and the answer to that is, probably not. However, it should be noted, HL doesn't really pay for the birth control. The employees still use part of their wages to contribute to a larger pool. It's more about collective bargaining for healthcare and all that.

Christine, it's not that it's a fundamental right. It's that birth control is part of the mandate. Thus, it is a statutory requirement. Hobby Lobby is trying to wiggle out of it by claiming that birth control is "maybe" an abortifacient. So, that means there are many ways to consider their claim. (1) is it an abortifacient, and if not, does Hobby Lobby have a real religious qualm, or do they just want to keep the highest profits for their shareholders? (no - and studies show it reduces abortion rates); (2) is this a question of religious practice?; (3) is the access to comprehensive health coverage a compelling governmental interest?; (4) would an exemption like Hobby Lobby seeks fundamentally gut the mandate by letting companies claim religious qualms with obeying the entirety of it?; (5) does anyone on this board actually understand that the freedom of religion doesn't necessarily mean that you get to opt out of statutory requirements? (If it doesn't actually impede the right to practice religion, its' probably ok); (6) would this pass the standard of review for a tax? (most likely). These are just a few questions, of course.

Oh, I should also clarify. Access to contraception is a fundamental right. That was decided in Griswold v. Connecticut, the idea being that sexual relations were within a zone of privacy, and controlling that zone of privacy is a fundamental right. Your question was whether having it paid by others was a fundamental right, and the answer to that is, probably not. However, it should be noted, HL doesn't really pay for the birth control. The employees still use part of their wages to contribute to a larger pool. It's more about collective bargaining for healthcare and all that.

Christine, it's not that it's a fundamental right. It's that birth control is part of the mandate. Thus, it is a statutory requirement. Hobby Lobby is trying to wiggle out of it by claiming that birth control is "maybe" an abortifacient. So, that means there are many ways to consider their claim. (1) is it an abortifacient, and if not, does Hobby Lobby have a real religious qualm, or do they just want to keep the highest profits for their shareholders? (no - and studies show it reduces abortion rates); (2) is this a question of religious practice?; (3) is the access to comprehensive health coverage a compelling governmental interest?; (4) would an exemption like Hobby Lobby seeks fundamentally gut the mandate by letting companies claim religious qualms with obeying the entirety of it?; (5) does anyone on this board actually understand that the freedom of religion doesn't necessarily mean that you get to opt out of statutory requirements? (If it doesn't actually impede the right to practice religion, its' probably ok); (6) would this pass the standard of review for a tax? (most likely). These are just a few questions, of course.

A lot of commenters seem to be forgetting the important point that nobody is denying anyone birth control in this context. They are simply refusing to pay for it. In some countries, employers provide meals and housing to their workers as a matter of course. The fact that my employer does not, doesn't mean he is denying me these things. And I'm quite glad to buy my own meals and housing because it means I get to choose for myself as well as the fact that I don't automatically lose them if I change my job. I just want to know when birth control (paid for by others) became a fundamental right.

And in case you choose not to read, the results were astonishing. Abortion rates were a 10% less where abortion was accessible and free. The reason: most women will choose the implant devices when given the choice (and implants are usually the most expensive). Because they have incredibly low failure rates, abortion rates decrease.

Eileen, better check your stats: http://www.christianpost.com/news/free-birth-control-lowers-teen-pregnancy-abortion-rates-study-claims-82809/

Eileen: "Third, American citizens had better wake up to the progressive loss of their civil rights in this country. The loss of religious freedom is only one of those rights that is being eroded." Tell me, where were you evangelicals in the Bush administration? Oh, that's right - supporting Bush.

First of all, the government does not have the right to define what violates the religious beliefs of individual citizens and organizations. The citizen does that, not the government! (Some people need to study American history and the U.S. Constitution.) Second, it is a myth that more contraceptives will decrease the number of abortions. Studies show the opposite effect occurs. More contraceptive use results in more induced abortions. Why? Because all contraceptives fail, and after 5 years of use, your statistical chances of experiencing a contraceptive failure are unacceptably high. Women with an anti-baby mentality choose to abort. In virtually every country where contraceptives have been introduced, abortion ultimately follows. Third, American citizens had better wake up to the progressive loss of their civil rights in this country. The loss of religious freedom is only one of those rights that is being eroded. Fourth, anyone who buys the Obama administration's phony argument that it has "accommodated" organizations like Hobby Lobby by requiring insurers (not Hobby Lobby or the Catholic Church) to provide "free" contraceptives, sterilizations, and abortion-inducing drugs is exceedingly naive. It is Hobby Lobby that is being forced to purchase that insurance coverage for its employees.

"BTW - Abortion = Murder Anytime you purposely stop a human heart from beating, it's murder." So abortion during the first 6 weeks is just fine, and so is emergency contraception. But self-defense, war, and capital punishment are all murder--and so are punishments from God in the Bible wherein God strikes people down for disobeying. Got it. Thanks for clearing that up.

The problem with that attitude to women, Soldaten, is that it means you end up letting women die pregnant because it would be "murder" to save her life by performing an abortion. So you end up arguing that it's better to let two die than to save the one who can be saved... and calling that "prolife". Women have been let die in Catholic hospitals and in prolife countries on precisely those grounds: it doesn't even matter that there's no way she can survive to bring the foetus to term and give birth. It's just argued that in a situation where the doctors could perform an abortion and thus save a woman's life, the "moral" thing to do is to stand aside and let her die, and the foetus die with her.

I had no idea that satan and all the evil spirits, roam throughout the blogosphere seeking the ruin of souls. Some of you think rather highly of yourselves. BTW - Abortion = Murder Anytime you purposely stop a human heart from beating, it's murder.

The title language here is entirely too strong. Let's please reserve martyrs for men and women who truly lose their lives over their faith in God. This is a muddled political issue, where I, even as a fervent Christian and pro-life advocate, am still confused. Mincing words as potent as "martyr" draws fighting lines, where there shouldn't be. It incites the idea that one side is right, and one side is evil. A terrible correlation to make-- particularly when the "holy side" is a corporation that needs, at the end of the day, to make a profit.

A very concise summary of Hobby Lobby's stance. I do wonder, though, if any private company could chose not follow a law out of "conscience." I understand abortion is a moral issue, but in this insane world, "moral issues" are translated into keeping stands of trees and endangered rodents alive. I'm afraid Hobby Lobby might lose on this one

"The Constitution doesn't guarantee any such freedom FROM religion." Janni, freedom of religion must necessarily include freedom from religion. Because if the government is allowed to confer preferential status upon those who have religion as opposed to those who don't, then included in that must be some kind of determination as to which religions count and which don't. And once you get into evaluating which religions are religious enough, then you are giving preferential treatment to those religions that seem more religious-ish--thus violating freedom of religion. Example: The government of Hypothetica requires that all citizens must claim some religious faith. Citizen A writes "Jedi" on her census card. If the Hypothetica Department of Religion refuses to evaluate whether or not Jedi is a real religion, then the religious requirement is meaningless and everyone effectively has freedom FROM religion. If the HDOR tells Citizen A that she must choose another religion, then the government is discriminating against the Jedi faith and freedom of religion is violated.

@Janni. The U.S. Constitution by not establishing a government-sponsored religion does INDEED provide freedom FROM religion. If you look at the writings of our founding fathers, they were deists. Check it out. @Citizen2. Calling me a moron (namecalling) is the last refuge of the incompetent who have no counterargument. Guess my comments about the christian-based wars hit home, eh?

Hobby Lobby is not providing contraception. Hobby Lobby is compensating employees for their services -- this is called a paycheck. Part of this paycheck is going into purchasing a service for the employee's use. The employer is in no way involved in this transaction beyond enabling such services to be purchased in bulk, lowering the overall price for the individual. And if Hobby Lobby wants to debate this, perhaps they should stop dealing with China in the interim. You know, because abortion is a big thing in China. What, Hobby Lobby can profit from people who exercise abortion frequently, but they're not about to spend money on preventing an abortion? Talk about some skewed priorities.

Citizen, you are a moron, end of story.

The greatest moral tenet is NOT tolerance. Sorry. Missed the mark by far on that one. In fact, the christian faith is NOT one of tolerance, everything and anything goes, there are no absolutes .... Those things are distinctly not christian, though seem to be the glamorized ideal of the secular world. The Constitution doesn't guarantee any such freedom FROM religion.

@Lunch meat. I understand what you're saying. Where does religious doctrine stop and the secular duty to one's country begin? Ultimately, we can only be responsible for our individual acts. If you don't believe in abortion--don't have one. If you don't believe in contraception, don't use it. If you don't believe in blood transfusions, don't get one, or refuse it and die. Individual actions equal individual accountability. Christians waged many holy wars and murdered many innocent people trying to force christian beliefs on others. So much for believing life is sacred and thou shalt not murder! The Spanish Inquisition is a prime example as are the Crusades. Murder in the name of God and christianity. How very noble and in keeping with the faith! Sure makes me want to believe in the Green's whining about having to pay insurance for birth control! Puh-leeze....

Oh, and one more thing: "Hiring someone else to commit a murder...is STILL murder...so purchasing insurance that covers abortion drugs makes one complicit in the murder of a child if the insurance is used for that purpose!" IF the morning- or week-after pill does happen to prevent an embryo from implanting (and I can't emphasize enough that this has never been shown to happen and that it's only included on the packaging because doctors used to theorize that was how it worked, and this was based on an early study whose results have never been duplicated) then that is what's known as a side effect. Are you really suggesting that employers can be held responsible for the side effects of medications their employees use? If a covered medicine gives me nausea, has my employer hired my doctor to give me nausea? Can my employer refuse to offer insurance for anything that lists "death" as the potential side effects? Is that miniscule, almost unobservable particle of responsibility for an extremely rare event enough for them to effectively deny me health care if I can't pay for it out of pocket? This is ludicrous.

To Cheryl: hear! hear! And thank you.

"Hiring someone else to commit a murder...is STILL murder...so purchasing insurance that covers abortion drugs makes one complicit in the murder of a child if the insurance is used for that purpose!" So if my doctor makes a mistake during surgery covered under my health plan, can I sue my employer for malpractice, since by arranging or paying for part of my insurance they're apparently complicit in everything that my insurance pays for? Or as I said many comments ago and everyone is choosing to ignore: "Can an institution whose owners are Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to offer insurance that covers blood transfusions? Can an institution whose owners are vegan refuse to offer insurance that covers procedures or medications created from or tested on animals? Can an institution whose owners believe in faith healing refuse to offer insurance that covers any medical procedures? Can an institution whose owners are Jewish refuse to offer insurance covering procedures performed on Saturday? Can an institution whose owners are Jainist refuse to offer insurance covering chemotherapy or antibacterials (since they believe that all kinds of life are sacred)? What's the difference?" Or look at it this way, if my employer pays for part of my gym membership, can they tell me what exercises I'm allowed to do or what classes I'm allowed to take while I'm there--for instance, if they think yoga is of the devil, or they're pacifists and don't want me to take martial arts? Can they tell the gym they are not allowed to offer me certain classes?

@standtall: Your NAIVETE (the correct spelling) over this issue reflected in this comment:-- "If anyone thinks for one nanosecond that the HHS Mandate will not evolve to cover surgical abortions, they are totally naive. To pick apart technicalities of contraception, and the variety of abortifacient medication required by the mandate, and when human life begins either by a fertilized egg or by a fertilized egg that has implanted itself in the uterine wall, is totally pointless and irrelevant. What Hobby Lobby (hypocritical in their Christianity or not) and others are trying to nip in the bud is our FREEDOM......PERIOD. Once our religious freedom is compromised ALL OF OUR FREEDOMS ARE COMPROMISED. It never ceases to amaze me, the naivety and lack of foresight by a significant portion of Americans."--amazes me. Basically freedom of religion only belongs to you and your beliefs. No freedom FROM religion or your beliefs for anyone else. Right? Just remember that as you preach YOUR belief's morality and force that onto others, you violate the tenets of your faith. Think about that before you post again....The greatest moral tenet is TOLERANCE. I see none of that in the Greens or HL, or the posters of the religious right here.

@Jean (above). "If they adhere to a religion that forbids murder or teaches that contraception is wrong and/or that both are deadly sins for which they will go to hell, then the government has NO BUSINESS forcing them to participate in this murder or forcing them to purchase these products." Get a grip, Jean, NO ONE IS FORCING ANY CHRISTIAN to buy these products or participate in "murder." Your words. All that HL and the Greens are being asked to do is provide insurance coverage. And I will repeat what I said before, that is a far cry from having a contraceptive patch slapped on your arm or pills forced down your throat. The use of the insurance coverage is an INDIVIDUAL decision. If you as an employer do not abide by the law and allow your religious beliefs to slop over onto others who are secular, you are VIOLATING the religious or NONreligious rights of others. But, I guess forcing everyone into your belief system is okay. Right? As long as it's your supposed "christian" belief system. You so-called "christians" make me want to flee from christianity as fast as I can!!!

Why are people so dumb??? This is simple stuff. The HHS mandate forces individuals who own companies to purchase a product that includes contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs, thus violating their consciences if they believe contraception is a grave sin or abortion is murder. If they adhere to a religion that forbids murder or teaches that contraception is wrong and/or that both are deadly sins for which they will go to hell, then the government has NO BUSINESS forcing them to participate in this murder or forcing them to purchase these products. Hiring someone else to commit a murder...is STILL murder...so purchasing insurance that covers abortion drugs makes one complicit in the murder of a child if the insurance is used for that purpose! The Constitution expressly forbids the government from making a law (or regulation) which impedes the free exercise of one's religion. Therefore, the HHS mandate violates the Constitution and WILL BE overturned by the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, these companies deserve exemptions until the high court settles this matter once and for all. The vast majority of comments I have read on this issue in favor of the mandate or supportive of the Obama Administration position are written by people who are already strongly pro-choice, often reveal anti-Christian or anti-Catholic sentiments, or who demonstrate that they are terribly uniformed about this issue and the Constitution or terribly naive about the ramifications to our freedoms.

To all the "Christian" posters here: remember there is freedom FROM religion as well as freedom OF religion. My freedom FROM religion is totally being usurped by the christian right. You are trampling on my right to NOT believe--to be secular. That is a slippery slope. Remember the U.S. Constitution prohibits the establishment of a "government" religion. Think about it--that is exactly what you people arguing for the Greens are trying to do.....

I work for a religious employer and I would like my birth control to be covered, please. And I don't think non-religious employers, like Hobby Lobby, should get a pass because of their owners' beliefs. What if the owners suddenly decide that chemotherapy is a drug of Satan? The medical treatment in question should be up to the conscience of the individual, not the conscience of the corporation.

Katelyn, is it past time to post a blog about how Christians can have a discussion without being hateful, hurtful, bitter and demeaning to each other? I'm saddened to see how this post has brought out disunity among believers. In John 17:20-23, Jesus said: “I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.” Have the messages passed in this blog answered Jesus’s prayer? Very few. Have they brought God glory, or have they delighted Satan as we ripped and tore at one another, all in the name of defending our faith? Why should the world believe in the God we have displayed in this blog? I hope that we can all (myself included) learn to weigh our words more carefully to foster unity among believers rather than create breeding grounds for disunity.

i just read some of the comments. i got this off spiritdaily.com. ummmm..... this website is christianity today? What kind of christians are on this website and commenting. You people need to quit trying to justify your rights in complicated words and rules. You were made by God. No one else. Your body is a temple of God. Not a temple to yourself. It is plain and simple. He spoke the words to Moses. YOU SHALL NOT KILL!!!!!!!!!. Please dont turn his words around to fit your lifestyle. He is the same, from the beginning of the past. The present and the future. God has never changed. He will not adapt to our times of doing what feels right and good to us. He meant it before and he means it still presently. YOU SHALL NOT KILL!!!!!!!

An unjust law IS NOT a law. Slavery was once legal too. While it may be a stretch to refer to the death of a corporation as "martyrdom", I find a great similarity in the legal killing of of so many children in today's society, and the killing of the baby boys at the command of Herod.

An unjust law IS NOT a law. Slavery was once legal too. While it may be a stretch to refer to the death of a corporation as "martyrdom", I find a great similarity in the legal killing of of so many children in today's society, and the killing of the baby boys at the command of Herod.

Religious belief, everyone seems to be talking about what Hobby Lobby's Owners have the right to believe the way they do and can the law over ride those beliefs. Can the goverment make you do things you believe will send you to hell? Our Constitution says it does not have that right. If HL's owners don't have the right to thier beliefs then none of us do. In China they don't have that right and as americans we are shocked and dimayed. Yet so many of us are fighting to take away others rights for our beliefs. If we succeed we will rejoice to our own doom.

I think that even though this is a christian site, there are certainly a number of non-christians who have been drawn into this discussion here. It confuses the discussion. The discussion isn't whether or not abortion is LEGAL, it's whether it is moral. The question isn't whether or not all birth control pills cause abortions -- but whether a private company should have to pay for birth control methods that could cause abortions (not just the standard birth control) which SHOULD violate christian conscience. If the government can mandate that a private company HAS TO pay for services that it's owners find morally reprehensible -- then I believe that it is a breech of our freedom of religion.

The U.S. constitution states that we have freedom of religion in this country. The Greens as Christians believe that killing unborn children is murder and they do not want to pay for potential murders. You do not have to agree with their religious beliefs as I have a right not to agree with yours. If I am forced to commit what I believe is sin by my country, than the U.S. has become like other countries that commit religious persecution. I am shocked by the meanness of the comments I have read here and the nonsupport for the Greens. Is this "love" for a fellow believer or are these comments showing an uncomprehension of what it means to put one's beliefs into action? If God Himself spoke to you and told you abortion is wrong, would you reject abortion advocacy or Him?

If anyone thinks for one nanosecond that the HHS Mandate will not evolve to cover surgical abortions, they are totally naive. To pick apart technicalities of contraception, and the variety of abortifacient medication required by the mandate, and when human life begins either by a fertilized egg or by a fertilized egg that has implanted itself in the uterine wall, is totally pointless and irrelevant. What Hobby Lobby (hypocritical in their Christianity or not) and others are trying to nip in the bud is our FREEDOM......PERIOD. Once our religious freedom is compromised ALL OF OUR FREEDOMS ARE COMPROMISED. It never ceases to amaze me, the naivety and lack of foresight by a significant portion of Americans.

To HL and the "religious" posters above: please note that the drugs being referred to as contraception and "morning after" are all legal in the U.S. As is abortion. LEGAL.

I was unaware that a business could become a martyr. I'm appalled at the obvious lack of understanding of basic human physiology. I find your comparison of a business expecting the First Amendment to be a "get out of jail free card" to the fate of St. Stephen to be repugnant. Apparently, providing care for "lady parts" is Bad, Evil, and Sinful. Doing business with a country that forces women to have abortions, and practices infanticide is just fine and dandy, and makes the Baby Jesus smile. The phrase "whited sepulchres" comes to mind.

Tim, yours is a reasoned and informed argument. Thank you for that! Interestingly, we come to the same conclusion. I say, " If government regulations for running a business are such that Christians cannot own and operate a business without violating their religious beliefs, then Christians will be put out of business in this nation." And you agree, saying, " the owners of Hobby Lobby could choose to fold up their business and get jobs as janitors where they don't have to provide health insurance to anyone." We just disagree on which outcome--this or the health care requirement--is preferable. Thanks for showing that reasonable people can disagree--reasonably.

J THomas: I am formally educated in Biology and can attest to the fact that these abortifacients do cause abortions Does "attest" in this instance mean "lie", or by "cause abortions" do you mean "prevent conception"? Just wondering. The formation of a genetically unique individual human has already taken place Oh, you mean that you think each sperm is a "genetically unique individual human" and that if the woman is so unkind as to take contraceptive pills to prevent herself from ovulating, that means the spem can't "develop"? Shucks. and would develop otherwise relatively undisturbed if not for the chemical interruption that occurs that results in the death of the growing human due to the ingestion of the catalysts in the pill. Aside from the fact that your "formal education in Biology" has somehow missed the fact that the pill contains hormones, not catalysts: that the "interruption" that takes place prevents the follicles from ripening - it's a biological, not a chemical, "interruption" in a woman's cycle: that a sperm has to be enclosed by an egg before any fertilisation takes place and if there is no egg there is no fertilisation and if there is no fertilisation there is no conceptus and therefore no embryo and therefore no "developing human".... aside from all of those terribly basic errors that your "education in Biology" left you sublimely ignorant of... it's a fact that at least 50% of the time even when sperm meets egg and fertilisation takes place, a spontaneous abortion/death of the embryo ensures that no, most of the time this "genetically unique individual human" will not "develop otherwise relatively undisturbed" Your ignorance is gruesome, J Thomas. This is what "formal education in Biology" in evangelical Christian schooling produces?

I support a broader exemption that would cover institutions like Liberty and Wheaton which are clearly religious institutions. However, Hobby Lobby is a secular business. It really stretches credulity to say that the corporation of Hobby Lobby is, as an organization, religious. People of many faiths work for them, people of many faiths work with them and contract with them (as suppliers, distributers, etc.), they do business with and invest globally in all kinds of companies and organizations led by all kinds of people, and people of many faiths purchase from them. Yes, the owners are Christians. But you can't have it both ways. You can't employ people of many faiths, not set up any kind of religious test for employment (like Wheaton or Liberty do) and then deny your employees healthcare options because YOUR faith, not your employee's faith, objects to it. Religious liberty has to include the employees of other faiths who work for Hobby Lobby. And don't say that such employees could just choose not to work there if they want the full contraceptive coverage. Yep, that's true. And the owners of Hobby Lobby could choose to fold up their business and get jobs as janitors where they don't have to provide health insurance to anyone.

I am formally educated in Biology and can attest to the fact that these abortifacients do cause abortions. It's dishonest to suggest otherwise. The formation of a genetically unique individual human has already taken place and would develop otherwise relatively undisturbed if not for the chemical interruption that occurs that results in the death of the growing human due to the ingestion of the catalysts in the pill. Just because it is not as gruesome as partial birth abortion does not mean that you are not killing a person. It's abortion.

I wish my company was not forced to employee "ethnic" people. As I believe that their "ethnicity" is a weakness and I am forced to come to work prepared to make up for their sloppy work I feel I am unjustly punished by this government mandate. While I do not agree with Hobby Lobby (as they employee "minorities" and women) I am glad someone is standing up to big government.

Right, Ken, or if the government were forcing pacifists to fund wars they find immoral or if the government forced atheists to subsidize religion by making churches tax-exempt. Oh wait... (and yes, this is comparable, since the Supreme Court found the mandate to be equivalent to a tax, and Hobby Lobby can always choose to stop offering insurance and pay a tax penalty instead, making them exactly as culpable in the morning after pill as pacifists are for the war in Iraq.)

jon, the whole point of the Affordable Care Act is to make basic health care affordable to everyone, because no one deserves to die or be continually disabled because of easily preventable or treatable conditions. If Hobby Lobby can refuse to cover such a basic health care need as contraception, then we might as well not bother with insurance at all. After all, you can go out and buy a physical with your own paycheck, can't you? You can go out and buy surgery, right? Besides, my employer does not pay for any of my health care. They purchase insurance for me as part of my compensation. Employees earn their health insurance, and in some cases actually pay for part of it. You're the one redefining words, by claiming that the employer would actually be directly paying for the morning after pill. On a side note, I find it frankly ridiculous that you're quoting verses about the killing of newborn babies and insisting it's most applicable it to something that happens before babies are even conceived.

Oy!!! Seriously!?!?! Let's all take a minute and BREATHE. An argument over whether you can or cannot force someone to pay for items they consider immoral has turned into an argument over whether or not a company can (or should) import items from China?!?!? *sigh* See, this is what happens when liberals get into a debate. They can't stick to facts so they immediately jump to a "feel good" cause and muddy the issue. To remind you: The question is not whether items made in America are more ethical than items made in China. The question is: Can the government force a private entity to pay for items they consider immoral? And do you WANT the government to force them to? Because if they can force the Greens (and other private citizens) to pay for immoral practices, they can force YOU to pay for things to which you object. And, at the risk of offending anyone, am I the only one who missed all the women who were unable to afford birth control? Cause, as a public health employee, I never heard anyone complain. Women could choose their birth control method and obtain a 12 month supply for no more than $120.00 and we weren't allowed to turn anyone away due to their inability to pay. We had ladies who came in who had never paid their bill & we kept supplying them. No questions asked. And, yes, we offered Plan B. If the Obama Administration is really concerned about affordable healthcare, maybe they should work on reducing the cost of diabetic supplies. That's where we see the greatest need.

I find it strange these people quoting Jesus's "Render unto caesar" quote while ignoring the verses more applicable concerning abortion pills-especially to those who believe abortion is murder, regardless of the trimester: "15 The king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, whose names were Shiphrah and Puah, 16 "When you help the Hebrew women in childbirth and observe them on the delivery stool, if it is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, let her live." 17 The midwives, however, feared God and did not do what the king of Egypt had told them to do; they let the boys live. 18 Then the king of Egypt summoned the midwives and asked them, "Why have you done this? Why have you let the boys live?" 19 The midwives answered Pharaoh, "Hebrew women are not like Egyptian women; they are vigorous and give birth before the midwives arrive." 20 So God was kind to the midwives and the people increased and became even more numerous. 21 And because the midwives feared God, he gave them families of their own. Exodus 1:15-21 New International translation

Someone pointed out the other day that If Hobby Lobby as a corporation does not have religious freedom rights under the First Amendment , then neither do the ABC, CBS, or NBC corporations have free speech rights under the First Amendment. Its the Same First Amendment-Free speech and Freedom of Religion. What really bothers me is the way these "Progressives", and I include the "Christian Progressives", are trying to redefine words such as "deny" to mean that if person X (or corporation x) does not wish to pay for Person Y's morning after pill, somehow they are "denying" them those pills....as if those employees cannot somehow take their own paycheck and go buy those pills on their own time. Its basic dishonesty the way the "progressives" are redefining words.

Oooohhh, maybe Hobby Lobby will been canonized in time to have one of my (hypothetical future) grandchildren named after hir.

In reference to the "martyrdom" comments, under U. S. law, while the unborn are not "persons," corporations are.

Ignorance is my excuse, Edinburgh, ignorance.

In fact, Melissa, the whole point is over the distinction being made by Hobby Lobby between abortion and contraception, which is consistent with my argument elsewhere against throwing the word "rape" carelessly around.

KSP, if Hobby Lobby claimed to believe the Earth was flat, would you "defend their stance" because they believe something that isn't so? Contraceptive pills don't cause abortions: using contraception prevents abortion. Anyone who claims to believe that preventing unwanted conceptions "MAY cause abortion" must do so by deliberately ignoring all the evidence that proves contraceptive pills don't cause abortions and regular use of contraception prevents abortions. Basically, you're defending Hobby Lobby for being totally ignorant and justifying their total ignorance as a reason why they should be allowed to deny their employees healthcare. Hobby Lobby is presumably doing this hoping to drum up trade among those ignoramuses who believe this nonsense. What's your excuse?

In fact, Melissa, the whole point is over the distinction being made by Hobby Lobby between abortion and contraception, which is consistent with my argument elsewhere against throwing the word "rape" carelessly around.

Melissa, I am not calling contraception abortion and neither is Hobby Lobby. Their cause, the one I am defending, is their stance against drugs that they (and many others) believe MAY cause abortion in their use as contraceptives. I referred you to that Atlantic article; I didn't say you were referring to it. If you had referred to it, I would not have referred you to it ....

Kelly, You are right - an employer should not determine what kind of healthcare and employee gets. But actually the employer does not determine this anyway. The employer only determines (or used to determine) what kind of healthcare they would pay for. I don't agree with employment based health insurance at all (or a single payer system). But even so, neither the government or my employer can determine my health care. For now at least, I can choose my doctor, decide if and when I will go to a specialist and decide (as I often do) NOT to go to the doctor for things like yearly physicals and "free" annual mammograms.

You should also realize (through careful reading of my comment) that I wasn't referring to your Atlantic argument about the contraception itself (I get that that article was talking about the differences in opinion and the need for more discussion). I referenced your rape article simply because by linking Hobby Lobby (whose position is contraception possibly = abortion), you diminish the word abortion in the same way that "verbal rape" diminishes true rape.

KSP, the point of your post, though, is that Hobby Lobby may be a "martyr" for the cause. That indicates some agreement with the possibility. I read your articles carefully, and if that's not what you meant, maybe you should consider that it's not that people don't read clearly, but rather that you aren't being entirely clear about what you mean.

Melissa, if you read the post carefully, you will see that I am NOT equating abortion and contraception (a point I further flesh out over at The Atlantic and linked to in this post.) I could explain what I say, but I'd just be repeating what is in the post: Hobby Lobby objects to the possibility that a pill that is supposed to act as a contraceptive may in fact cause early abortion instead. How is that calling contraception abortion? I'm not sure I agree with that conclusion about the Pill myself, but that's not the point of the post.

This must be the first time in history that paying a fine created a martyr. Don't martyrs usually have to die for their faith? Or is that so last week?

The use of the word martyr in this case is a complete slap in the face to those who have truly suffered for their faith. I am really disgusted that this is being compared to those who have been actually exiled, tortured, or killed for their faith.

I worry that articles like this tend to reduce the horror of abortion. I think it was you, KSP, who argued over on the Atlantic that we can't refer to everything as rape, or else it desensitizes us to rape. I think it's the same thing here. I know we differ on the science (I don't think the science suggests that contraception is an abortifacient), but medically speaking, an abortion doesn’t occur prior to implantation. And, even to the extent that contraceptives make the womb more hostile, that’s a tertiary role. If taken properly (at the same time every day), contraception prevents ovulation. Thus, they aren’t abortifacients; that is certainly not their primary purpose, and it is unlikely they actually cause abortions. What you’re doing with this article is putting use of that contraception, which might, in very rare occasions, prevent implantation (which the medical community denies as an abortion), on the same level as abortion. I think it diminishes what abortion is, and honestly, seems silly to do so. If contraception is abortion, then I might as well get a third trimester abortion, because it’s no different, right? Also, abortion isn’t messy at all – it’s just like taking the pill. Doesn’t seem like such a big deal anymore. Don’t trivialize what it is or why women get them. This only sets back your cause because it seems radical. It also sets it back because it desensitizes us to what the word abortion means. I would hope you were better than this. I would hope you were better than to spread misinformation as science.

I worry that articles like this tend to reduce the horror of abortion. I think it was you, KSP, who argued over on the Atlantic that we can't refer to everything as rape, or else it desensitizes us to rape. I think it's the same thing here. I know we differ on the science (I don't think the science suggests that contraception is an abortifacient), but medically speaking, an abortion doesn’t occur prior to implantation. And, even to the extent that contraceptives make the womb more hostile, that’s a tertiary role. If taken properly (at the same time every day), contraception prevents ovulation. Thus, they aren’t abortifacients; that is certainly not their primary purpose, and it is unlikely they actually cause abortions. What you’re doing with this article is putting use of that contraception, which might, in very rare occasions, prevent implantation (which the medical community denies as an abortion), on the same level as abortion. I think it diminishes what abortion is, and honestly, seems silly to do so. If contraception is abortion, then I might as well get a third trimester abortion, because it’s no different, right? Also, abortion isn’t messy at all – it’s just like taking the pill. Doesn’t seem like such a big deal anymore. Don’t trivialize what it is or why women get them. This only sets back your cause because it seems radical. It also sets it back because it desensitizes us to what the word abortion means. I would hope you were better than this. I would hope you were better than to spread misinformation as science.

I'm having a real hard time feeling sorry for Hobby Lobby. The Greens have created a huge secular corporation. Now, they want to claim a "Christian" imprimatur. Sorry, you can't slice the bread both ways. They want to make money as any secular corporation would. At the same time, they want to be a religious based corporation. So, which world do they want to exist in? Are they martyrs? No, They are politically motivated hacks..

Talk about disrespecting your religion's heroes. A court not allowing a company (a non-being with no faith of it's own) to discriminate against it's workers because the company's owners choose to believe something that's not true is in no way comparable to being killed for one's faith. And that's exactly the situation here. Hobby Lobby's lawyer said as much. Neither Plan B nor birth control cause abortion. That's a solidly proven fact. If you choose to believe otherwise, that's fine for you. But you don't get to force that willful ignorance on others. Also of note: HL covered contraception until the mandate. Then they stopped so they could scream persecution. And they aren't the only group to do this. How do ya'll think this looks to outsiders? Do you honestly feel that situations like this draw people to your religion? And isn't that supposedly the thing that matters most?

I understand that Hobby Lobby did pay for contraceptives until HHS mandated such coverage for women, at which point they discontinued the coverage so they could cry "Martyr." Now, how do you spell hypocrisy?

It appears that Hobby Lobby may go to the rack on this one. The company opposes a provision in the health care legislation that requires them to pay for birth control methods that may result in abortion No, you have that exactly backwards. What Hobby Lobby objects to is that their employees would better able to get birth control via their health insurance, and so their employees would have fewer abortions. Use of contraception results in fewer unwanted conceptions results in fewer abortions. Anyone opposing contraceptive access, as apparently Hobby Lobby is, is campaigning for more abortions. "The company will continue to provide health insurance to all qualified employees. To remain true to their faith, it is not their intention, as a company, to pay for abortion-inducing drugs." So while they want their employees to have more abortions, they want them to be surgical abortions rather than medical abortions? What business is it of Hobby Lobby's? Isn't that between a woman and her doctor? And why are you advocating martyr status for Hobby Lobby because they want their employees to have more abortions? From the rest of your rather muddled post, it doesn't sound like you think abortions are such a good thing, so why are you supporting Hobby Lobby in their campaign to ensure their employees have more of them?

Obamacare's first martyr? Really? What an insult to believers across the globe who have given their lives for the faith. This overheated headline feeds the "and then they came for me" persecution conceit some evangelicals have. I expect better from CT.

They won't give you an answer, Kelley. They will just petulantly stamp their feet and exclaim "this is exactly why we don't want Obamacare!" despite the fact that it is now a law. As I stated above, this is just a run-around on a law they don't like (and if the corporations are being honest, it has nothing to do with lifestyle and all to do with the almighty dollar). And they want to claim anyone opposed to Hobby Lobby's claim is intellectually dishonest.

@Janni, do you realize that the US is the only developed country in the world that doesn't require employers to give paid vacations. So yes, it is possible that there would become a requirement at some point in time. But, then again, the US also is one of the few developed nations that doesn't have universal health care as well.

I am wondering this.... what if a corporation is privately held (as is Hobby Lobby ) by followers of a religion that prohibits blood transfusion? Can the employer decide that employees cannot have a transfusion? What if the corporation's owners believe ALL babies should be delivered by midwives? To what extent should the employer's beliefs govern what medical care is available to employees? This is one of the knife-cuts-both-ways dilemmas.

Catcat says, "So...a corporation can have faith? You'd better watch your step, Catcat! Didn't you read the title of this post? Hobby Lobby is a martyr, and you know what that means, don't you? They qualify to apply for sainthood. St. HobbyLobby. I wonder what St. HobbyLobby's saint day will be? Black Friday, maybe? Rahab

The last time I checked, the Bible said "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" not "prevent abortions at all costs (even if those costs aren't scientifically sound)."

Regarding the comment : Hobby Lobby sells mostly items made in third world countries with workers being paid slave wages .. I amvery familiar with a number of factories producing items for HL in several countries .. I have been in the factories .. I know the owners of some of them .. Wages being paid are the prevailing wages .. Employees gladly work to put food on their family tables .. If HL pulled out there would not be jobs and much misery would be the result .. I personally have been in factories where thousands of workers worked in clean surroundings .Man and women ..no children .. my company designed and developed many products using native raw material and native talent to make an affordable product desired by American consumers .. I everybody refused to shop in HL stores many third world country families would suffer severe hardship .

The last time I checked, if a person wanted birth control they were free to buy it!!!

@HGS The actual first line is, "First they came for the Communists..." The Socialists were second on the list.

If Hobby Lobby is a martyr, just when did it actually die?

This is exactly why I OPPOSE government mandated heath-care be offered by employers. This contradicts free enterprise in a SUBSTANTIAL way. I believe that the only people who should have to possibly foot the bill for their employees is the state/federal/local government. Private employers should get to do what they'd like and offer what benefits they choose. Next thing, they'll be requiring private employers to offer 3 weeks paid vacation and a set number of holiday/sick days for their employees.

Can an institution whose owners are Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to offer insurance that covers blood transfusions? Can an institution whose owners are vegan refuse to offer insurance that covers procedures or medications created from or tested on animals? Can an institution whose owners believe in faith healing refuse to offer insurance that covers any medical procedures? Can an institution whose owners are Jewish refuse to offer insurance covering procedures performed on Saturday? Can an institution whose owners are Jainist refuse to offer insurance covering chemotherapy or antibacterials (since they believe that all kinds of life are sacred)? What's the difference?

"There are few, if any, governmental activities to which some person or group might not object on religious grounds." --Autenwirth v. Cullen And that's why you don't just get to say "I don't want to subsidize a lifestyle I disagree with." In any properly functioning society, that just isn't how it works; rather, it's about the greater good. Besides, the First Amendment requires we don't keep individuals from practicing their religious beliefs. Requiring a corporation (which is not religious, unless now you believe the Almighty can save the soul of a non-living, legal fiction) to abide by the laws of the land is not abridging any individual's ability to worship as he or she chooses. Finally, it is not a scientific truth that contraception leads to abortion. Therefore, there's some insincerity to the claims that Hobby Lobby wouldn't have a problem if they weren't abortifacients. If it's just not about wanting to enable slutty women to be sluts, then again, how far do you take this? Does the employer get to say "no cancer treatment for adenocarcinoma," since it's often caused by smoking and smoking destroys the temple of God, and thus isn't a lifestyle they want to support? Maybe not a perfect analogy, but the point remains.

I am always amazed at the total lack of intellectual honesty I find perpetrated in the name of liberalism. The Hobby Lobby issue is not about a woman's reproductive rights or about access to medical care. It is about the issue of who will pay for it! In my personal opinion, is immoral and wrong to demand that a company like Hobby Lobby foot the bill for funding a lifestyle that they fundamentally disagree with! If you choose to live that way that is your choice. JUST DON'T ASK ME TO SUBSIDISE IT!!!!!

Interesting you say that, Janni, since studies tend to show that access to contraception reduces abortion rates. Of course, this bit of propaganda suggests that contraception is equivalent to abortion, but that requires the most radical understanding of when life begins. It also seems to ignore that, when used as prescribed, birth control prevents ovulation, meaning that any effects that make the womb more hostile to implantation are never felt.

Abortion is evil. Any allowances that make abortion more available and more of an option for women are evil. We simply don't need to kill people (babies) because we find it inconvenient to allow them to live. That's evil.

Kathi, why so aggressive? Fetus is the proper scientific term. You know nothing concerning misinformation's love for a future child or her plans to put it up for adoption. Her only point was: if it was an abortifacient, the morning after pill would have prevented her pregnancy. It didn't, because all it really does, with any effectiveness, is prevent ovulation.

The author’s analogies are shockingly bad. The mandate is nothing like requiring an anti-porn scholar purchase porn for her students. For that to be the case, the mandate would have to require anti-contraceptive activists to purchase the pill. This is more indirect. The mandate requires the company to provide a health insurance plan that covers the pill (which, incidentally, would cost less than a plan that doesn’t b/c health care companies would rather not have to deal with maternity). And then, the employee would have to go get a prescription for and fill an order for contraception. The problem with your analogy is that it assumes the employer is having to purchase the contraception, when it isn’t. Based on your analogy, it seems that you would have a problem with single employees of Hobby Lobby spending their income on condoms because it violates the employer’s sense of morality. That is absurd. Let the individual be responsible for his or her own morality, and let Hobby Lobby render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s (as the old saying goes), especially since the ACA has been determined to be a tax. Your analogy concerning the tax that provided for the Vicar’s salary is also faulty, unless of course, the funds from the tax are going to the Church of Contraception. Finally, let’s not be fooled by what this challenge really is. It’s about businesses wanting to find a way around the ACA. If the Supreme Court were to rule in Hobby Lobby’s favor, then every CEO would convert to Scientology or Christian Scientists or Jehovah’s Witnesses, because then any requirement to provide healthcare would be a violation of their religious freedom. This is sheer greed and capitalism cloaked in supposed piety. It’s a shame that well-meaning Christians are so easily duped.

misinformation: if you don't want your "fetus", there are many, many, many couples who would love to take that "baby" off your hands. i'm not sorry your morning after pill didn't work for you - perhaps this baby will do incredible things, inspite of the woman who carries it (i won't call you it's mother, mothering comes after the birth and lasts for years). i just hope this child doesn't suffer your frustration for your plans being thwarted. if only americans cared as much about the health and safety of children as they do about dogs and cats, which should also be treated well, but will not grow up to vote and have legal rights to purchase a weapon...

I took the Morning After pill - it didn't work because I'd already ovulated. My 6 month fetus and I can attest - It's NOT an abortifacient!

@not accurate, Hobby Lobby has a self funded health plan. Which I agree does make some difference in the calculations about whether this is an employee or employer matter. @Janni, I think there has to be a broader view. As a commenter said above, I cannot opt out of paying for the military even if I am a pacifist for religious reasons. (I am not, but it is an example that is true for many.) Taking an all employers are evil stance (or all employers are being forced to perform evil) really shrinks the conversation. The government requires employers to do many things. Not discriminate on the basis of gender or race is one. This mandate is at least partially a response to a 2000 EEOC requirement that was ignored under Bush. The mandate goes past the minimum requirements of the EEOC requirement, but it is an attempt at minimizing gender discrimination. I realize that not all people view this as gender discrimination, but I think it is important that this was put forward not as an attempt to impose religious restrictions, but as an attempt to minimize gender discrimination and expand healthcare in one area that really does make a difference for a very low cost. I think if we started as a discussion about how we can address the original intent of the mandate in a different format, instead of starting with the claim that we are martyrs, there might be a possibility of coming to a reasonable solution. Demonizing and calling someone evil and your enemy rarely results in actual solutions. As Christians it is our responsibility to treat the other as not only human, but loved by God.

Amen to the earlier comment about Hobby Lobby's labor practices being sub-Christian. It seems to me that freaking out about some of their money possibly supporting challenged contraceptive practices while profiting from the sales of hundreds of SKU's made by underpaid kids and peasants is quite contradictory. Both are problematic, but why choose only one? Perhaps they chose to challenge medical care but not labor practices because it'll line their pockets better. No profit for Hobby Lobby in challenging sweatshops. Some profit, though, in challenging Obamacare. Also, if Hobby Lobby is freaked out about some of their money supporting what they have discerned to be immoral, then what about the hundreds of thousands of Christian pacifists whose money supports the machines of war and slaughter? The reality is our tax dollars will always contribute to some good and some evil. Freaking out about Obamacare but not America's war machine feels very hypocritical. That said, I support Hobby Lobby's religious freedom. But I rebuke their hypocrisy and disturbingly selective morality. May they better seek justice for all of humanity, not only the unborn. Thanks for starting the dialogue about this, Katelyn.

The problem is that the religious right has cried wolf -- actually shrieked wolf (and trampled on all sorts of people) for years -- it's hard to muster up the will to take action on this kind of thing. It may be an issue all believers should care about; unfortunately, it's seen as a partisan play for power. One other issue: Does Chick-fil-A use humane practices in slaughtering chickens? Does Hobby Lobby carry products made by 5 year olds in sweatshops in India? What checks and balances do they have in place? What makes a company Christian? Some of Walmart's top executives are believers. They give to conservative Christian organizations. Yet how do they care for the families that work for them? Too many legitimate issues and perceptions to get on board with this one. I'll advocate for the sanctity of human life in my own sphere of influence.

I work for a religous healthcare entity. I am saddened by the possibility of no longer being able to work for an employer who can choose NOT to fund these things. Quite frankly, it has always given me comfort to know that my employer doesn't take part in providing abortions to its employees in any manner (or contraceptives or sterilization procedures). I always knew that if having any of those things was important to me, I could find a job elsewhere. Now, I won't have a choice in the matter. Any employer I work for will have to take part in the abortion trade. It's just plain evil.

Is the employer morally implicated in everything an employee does with his/her compensation? If an employee spends his/her cash earnings on an abortion, is the employer sinning by providing the cash that someone else used for wrong? If an employee spends his/her paid vacation time on a child prostitution tour in Asia, does this have anything to do with the employer? Employers paying a portion of premiums for an insurance plan is just another part of compensation, and the health care law has made it a required part of compensation for businesses of a certain size. The employee who uses his/her compensation to engage in sinful behavior is responsible for his/her own sin. The argument about paying for something immoral may apply differently when an employer actually owns, fully funds and runs the health program provided to employees. In that case, that employer would be paying directly for an immoral procedure every time it occurred, but the law does not require employers to provide insurance in this particular way. This article discusses Christian employers having to pay premiums to another company, for policies that include the possibilities of sinful treatments. Yes, the dollars in a diffuse way go toward sinful treatments that are paid for by the plan, but not directly. Just like the dollars they pay employees go toward sinful behavior in a diffuse way that is not the employer's responsibility. The analogy about the pornography law advocate was not accurate. More accurately, you could say that she is now required to compensate her students more than she once was required to do, knowing they may spend their earnings on pornography, which is legally available in our society whether we like it or not.

A Martyr? Really?? Because they don't get to choose what kind of health care their employees receive they are martyrs? The threshold here is pretty low.

"Our basic point is the government can't put a corporation in the position of choosing between its faith and following the law." So...a corporation can have faith?

Kelly, So anyone who happens to buy, sell, or consume a product that originates in China is somehow culpible in abortion via the 1 child mandate instituted by the Chinese government? I just want to make sure that you are consistent in this levying of "guilt" by loose association. I'm assuming that you, yourself have never purchased, sold, or utilized anything that originated in China lest you somehow contribute to the demise of unborn babies in China?

All this debate about what drugs or procedures an employer should be required to finance would disappear if health insurance was not tied to employers. There is no reason it should be. There was a time when health insurance was not an automatic benefit of employment and when healthcare was not prohibitively expensive. Personally, I would like to be able to choose my insurance for myself with no mandates on what kind of coverage I must buy. My employer doesn't choose my car insurance or my homeowners coverage. Why should they choose my health coverage? Regarding birth control - I used it for several years and always paid 100% out of pocket. I managed to do that even when putting my husband through grad school and working at a very low paying job. As drugs go, birth control can be gotten fairly cheaply. However, plenty of people have to take expensive prescriptions in order to function every day. Yet there is no mandate to cover these at 100%.

@Diana Prince: I used the term "women's healthcare" in my comment purposefully to include those Christians who do not believe in contraception. This issue goes beyond opposing abortion and includes many other organizations besides Hobby Lobby.

For Mike Huckabee, who launched all of this - for the BILLIONAIRE Green Family that is the collective Founder, Owner, and Proprietor of the Kingdom of Hobby Lobby - and, most importantly - for the American Public and all faithful Christians who have been royally SCAMMED... Hmmmm - Hobby Lobby is defying Federal Law because they want to "Stand Up For GOD!" - at least that is what Mike Huckabee claimed when they launched a MASSIVE Forum on Facebook, complete with Hobby Lobby's 40 percent OFF the first item purchased in the Store on Hobby Lobby Appreciation Day. It started at the beginning of the two day Facebook (and God knows where else in this era of Social Networking) Forum and Support Hobby Lobby Pep Rally as a just 'go to Hobby Lobby and demonstrate your support' - that changed VERY quickly into, 'BUY!!! SPEND!!!!! at Hobby Lobby - they need the money for the 1.3 million dollar fines they are incurring for defying the Employee Federal Healthcare Law. Sounds good on the surface - whether or not you personally believe the Morning After Pill is "abortion", ya gotta admire a BILLIONS OF DOLLARS ANNUALLY-earning, monster Corporation like HOBBY LOBBY for taking a public "Stand for God" and refusing to obey the law because they "oppose abortion" and will not pay for the Morning After Pill for their employees. OH......... BUT WAIT A MINUTE........... Having previously shopped many times at Hobby Lobby (which, after THIS debaucle and despite my being an avid crafter, will NEVER happen again)... - I was struck by how much of their merchandise is MADE IN CHINA. CHINA??? You mean... the country whose Government ROUTINELY FORCES WOMEN, MARRIED OR NOT, WHO HAVE CONCEIVED AN "ILLEGAL DUE TO CHINA'S OVERPOPULTION" 2nd CHILD AND CANNOT PAY THE FINE FOR THAT TO HAVE AN ABORTION - USUALLY LATE TERM ABORTION IN CASES WHERE THEY HAD TO TRACK THE MULTI-PARA-PREGNANT-MOTHER-IN-HIDING DOWN - UP TO AND INCLUDING THE NINTH MONTH PRO PREGNANCY???? The Chinese Government has been doing this for decades - it's all over the media, the internet, and even YouTube. So I ask one of the secretly embedded, pro-Hobby Lobby Moderators in the Facebook 'HOBBY LOBBY'S STANDING UP FOR GOD SUPPORT DAY' Forum, "why, given their 'COURAGEOUS stand' against ANY form of ABORTION, INCLUDING (IN HOBBY LOBBY'S OPINION) THE MORNING AFTER PILL, WOULD HOBBY LOBBY CONTINUE DOING BUSINESS WITH CHINA IN TERMS OF SELLING SUCH MASSIVE QUANTIES OF CHINA'S EXPORTED MERCHANDISE (at a top dollar retail price, I might add) ? CHINA FORCES LATE TERM ABORTIONS ON MOTHERS WHO DARE TO CONCEIVE ANY MORE THAN ONE CHILD?" There had been much bantering in the Facebook Forum about the video, "The Silent Scream", (posted on YouTube should you care to watch it) in which a former physician physician utilizes sonography video taken during an actual abortion which shows the fetus trying to move away from the abortionist's cannula in-utero, then open its mouth in a silent scream as the vacuuming cannula makes contact with the fetus. It's a very compelling video, and I therefore posted the questions to the Forum participants, "Which scream is morally louder - the scream of a barely fertilized ova the Morning After Pill makes it impossible to implant inside the uterus - or the scream of the often LATE TERM, SOMETIMES DAYS AWAY FROM BIRTH FETUS as it is murdered, then wrenched from its mother's womb? At first, I was repeatedly ignored as I asked that question over and over - and over - again. Then, finally, the up until then (this forum lasted for two days) seemingly gentle and genteel "Christian", embedded Hobby Lobby Advocator and undeclared Moderator finally responded, saying that ALL STORES SELL GOODS EXPORTED FROM CHINA - WHY SHOULDN'T HOBBY LOBBY? When I responded that NO OTHER STORES ARE DEFYING FEDERAL LAW IN THE NAME OF GOD AND A STAND AGAINST ABORTION, AND THEN WHIPPING UP CHRISTIAN'S FRENZIED SUPPORT AND EXTRA PURCHASES TO HELP DEFRAY THE COST OF IT'S RESULTING FINES, and then asked, ...

What I don't understand is why this issue is any different than someone whose religious beliefs say war is sinful being "forced" to pay taxes that support US military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Either we are morally culpable for paying those taxes, providing that health coverage, or we aren't. If we do DO incur moral guilt because of the actions of our government, surely the Hobby Lobby owners must believe they are incurring guilt in areas other than just providing coverage for this contraceptive. But they don't seem to be making a big deal about the other areas of morally questionable government behavior.

The distance here seems incredibly thin, literally microscopic. General medical opinion defines a pregnancy as a fertilized egg attaching to the uterine wall. A fertilized egg that does not attach (for whatever reason) will not lead to a baby. This does happen naturally. A pro-life position that some take is that a fertilized egg is a legal person even if it never attaches to the wall, even if it will naturally never become a child. This leads to particularly sticky moral quandaries. Fertilized eggs in a lab should then be considered persons with rights, even though they are completely separated from any pregnancy.

As a woman I am sick and tired of people using "women's healthcare needs" and "abortion" interchangibly. I am a woman who has been sexually active for over 20 years, has health insurance, yet has never had an abortion. Is it possible for other women to not have abortions? Of course it is! Liberals want us to believe that abortion is a natural and normal thing that every woman does on a regular enough basis to need health insurance to cover it. Isn't abortion really used when an "accident" happens? Then women who desire abortions can purchase Aflac to cover their "accidents" and leave real Women's Healthcare Needs in the health insurance plans.

I'm still not seeing a cause for alarm here. The majority of the U.S. thinks women's healthcare needs should be included in insurance plans. The reason provided in this article that their lawsuit is all about one pill seems pretty thin. I'm a Christian, and if I start a business then I expect I'll have to comply with all the government regulations that come with incorporation. I wouldn't expect special treatment for my personal religious beliefs.

Hobby lobby, that can go both ways. If you hope that you are hoping that people's trust in the rule of law will be eroded. Democracy cannot exist if people start to think that political defeat has results so distasteful to them that waiting until the next election is not a sufficient response. One of the things that make a republic different from feuding tribes is an understanding that there are lines not to be crossed.

I no longer shop at Hobby Lobby. The merchandise is mostly imported from China and other third-world countries and made by wage slaves. Of course, (sarcasm, here), that business model is certainly in keeping with Christian beliefs--isn't it! No employee is being forced to use the drugs or the contraceptives. Hobby Lobby is simply being told that insurance must offer the coverage. Hobby Lobby's so-called "Christian" beliefs are not being challenged. (see my comment above on the exploitation of third-world people). I hope the Supreme Court throws the book at this company.

I am supportive of the mandate broadly. But I do support Hobby Lobby and others fighting it. I think part of the problem is that where the line can be drawn. On the Gospel Coalition's summary of Karen's Atlantic article is it clear that many of the people oppose this are not opposing it because they don't agree with abortion, but because they don't agree with contraception. So would it be enough that an exemption was given for RU 486 style abortive drugs? Because many believe that the pill is an abortifacient (even though current science says it is not). I agree the religious liberty issues are important. But the medical one is as well. 85 percent of unplanned pregnancies are aborted. So providing contraception should be a reasonable way to reduce abortions. However, a significant portion of pro-life people are also against all contraception. So that, seemingly to me, reasonable compromise is anathema. And there are many reasons why birth control pills are prescribed other than birth control (although that clearly the largest reason.)

Great post, KSP. Without trying to sound overly dramatic, the words of Niemoller come to mind: First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me. Thanks for boldly speaking out against this.