I couldn't agree more!!!! WEll said....

Out of step with the times, they are. Even in biblical times single mothers got short shrift and society made no bones about it. "The poor ye will have with ye alway". We in this country supposedly do not believe in "cruel and inhuman punishment but you have to ask yourself what some legislators are thinking". the best post I have read on this was last night when a contributor stated that our views on the sex act have changed and that we aren't cattle that come into season twice a year. Birth control is a necessity in these times. It is a necessity for all, not just those who can afford health insurance, and especially if you have strong feelings about abortion. Remember it is still called an abortion whether the fetus is viable or not.

i consider myself a semi jesus freak i attend church on a regular basis my dads a preacher but i disagree that we are delusional and irrational i know a number of us who agree on the health care plan and that places like papa johns and dardens family of restaurants need to give their employees the health care that their entitled to.

Do you believe in punctuation too?

Fine 'em and drive them out of business. Losing the world's worst chain of hobby and craft stores will be no great loss at all (said as someone who stopped shopping at their pitiful no-stock stores long ago)

Either comply with the law or get fined. If they continue not to comply, jail their sorry butts!

I find it so hilarious/confusing/sad that the whole body of fundamentalist Christians don't even trust their believing public enough to make the decision that they've instructed them to do.

Are these Bible-thumpers afraid that if they let their sheeple make their own decisions that they will choose a different path?

Basically, out of their fearful display of the freedom of choice of their believing public, they show us that the whole Evangelical Christian scheme is not about fostering a healthy and devout individual belief, but rather a culture of fear, bullying, threatening to bring individuals into "believing."

If they were really doing a bang-up job of making real "converts" they wouldn't be afraid to hand the reigns of decision making over to their followers!

Using 'jesus freaks' is pretty harsh....

I'm always wondering why the same businesses don't show as much concern in the whole usury thing.

Loren, it is not criminal law, so it would hard to jail someone or a corporation for not complying with the mandate. That's why there is a hefty fine instead. I guess a judge could find them in contempt and jail them or fine them for that but...

Apparently the Jesus Freaks need to adopt the Islamic methods of defending their religion from the Party of Free Stuff.

If the Hobby Lobby owner provided healthcare benefits as part of his proffered employment package prior to Obamacare, his employees HAD CERTAINLY ALREADY BEEN receiving contraceptives, and he's only raising religion as an impediment now for the first time because of Obamacare.

If he hadn't been providing healthcare benefits before, he will find a way not to provide them despite Obamacare, and his allegedly religious argument will be rendered moot.

Apparently the business name, Hobby LOBBY, speaks to the man's ulterior motive: not faith, but politics.

He is using his business to LOBBY against the reproductive rights of women of childbearing age.

The business itself has nothing to do with religion.

Meanwhile, Justice Roberts and the rest of the Court's conservatives are acutely aware of the Court's deeply damaged credibility as a result of rulings in Citizens United vs. The Federal Election Commission and the especially tortured illogic of his majority opinion in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius

. Ultimately the Court will uphold reproductive care for women, including contraception, over religious objection.

This will eventually be the result for religious institutions which operate non-religious businesses and employ individuals of other faith traditions, or no faith, as well.

Courts decide the merits of legislation by:

1) evaluating the law's validity within meaning of the Constitution and all the jurisprudence arising therefrom, and

2) weighing both sides in a civil suit, tasking themselves to rectify perceived imbalances.

No medical care inhibits anybody's faith practice in any way, except for those women whose faith limits their choices; and for them, there is always a struggle of conscience which is intensely personal, and which the claims in this lawsuit do not concern or address.

However you may feel about the subject of the article we're discussing, please take a moment to acknowledge privately what women endure in making these decisions.

Thesis #1:

The extent to which reproductive medical care infringes on the claimed faith tradition of any marketplace business is at best tenuous, being indirect and remote.

The female employee pays a premium to contribute to her employer's healthcare fund, as do most of the employees. The contribution the company makes to its healthcare fund is considered part of her pay. (Many companies providing healthcare benefits consequently pay a lower wage.)

Her employer pays into its healthcare fund en masse; single costs are not parsed. In fact, many companies offer their employees several healthcare plans, and the company pays for the number of employees in each plan as for so many head of cattle--an unfortunate analogy intended only to show there's nothing personal involved. The employer pays a predetermined premium for all healthcare coverage for employees, just as the employees do, and the government does, to this plan, and that plan. The employer customarily does not know that employee A's medical costs were $$$$ this quarter, while employee X's medical costs were $ for last year.

The government pays in, too, through Medicare (for which at least some employees are eligible). Already paying half the costs of nationwide healthcare before Obamacare, our federal government has a continuing critical interest in lowering healthcare costs. (Indeed, only federal government is big enough to lower healthcare costs. States cannot amass sufficient weight to do so, lacking economies of scale and national leverage. For this reason, 'religion vs. contraception' cannot be balkanized and will need to be decided at the federal level.)

Continuing the chain of custody (for lack of a better term), the company's healthcare fund pays the various insurance providers, who subsequently pay doctors, hospitals, and drug companies.

Thesis #2:

Denial of reproductive care presents immediate and long-lasting deleterious effects.

Women forced to bear unwanted pregnancies and subsequent care & costs of offspring for at least 18 years, with each successive birth, are forced into a recycling poverty that continues into generations and cuts across our entire culture. Our overpopulated and financially burdened society suffers, too. The more poverty, the more taxpayers are required to pay for the care of society's most vulnerable: single mothers and children in the highest numbers of all, followed by the unemployable, the sick, injured, and the elderly--all possibly resulting from unwanted birth deliveries.

No industrialized countries force women into unwanted pregnancies--and most underdeveloped countries have better and free reproductive care for women, as opposed to the USA -- because unwanted pregnancies are the single greatest cause of poverty throughout the world.

Thesis #3:

Finally, the courts will consider whether religious institutions with essentially non-religious businesses (hospitals and universities come to mind) can impose their faith practices on others.

The issue is NOT the religious freedom of businesses, as some here contend. Businesses can claim neither faith nor soul.

We face the right of people to be free from religious tyranny. Many of the people who came here from Europe in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries were escaping religious persecution. That historical fact resounds in the opinions of our Supreme Courts throughout almost 250 years.

The deists who wrote our Constitution resolutely proclaimed against religious persecution in the Separation of Powers Clause which holds our government, for once and for all time, to be completely secular and forever free from any religious intent in our laws. ("In God We Trust" on our coinage is vastly different from religious intent in our laws, and Obama's morning prayer with his minister is no expression of faith through law.)

In defiance of our national history against faith-based law, corporations now brazenly attempt to dictate limits on women's medical care in the name of God--and it must be stopped with peaceful ferocity equal to that of religious zealots who claim an insane, oxymoronic right to commit murder for the sake of fetal life.

Those who oppose abortion should fully support free contraception, because contraceptives often eliminate the need for abortions.

Opposition to both abortion and contraception aims only to oppress an entire class of people solely on the basis of gender.

I wonder who's paying for the legal team enabling Hobby LOBBY to prosecute this case through the court system--were I the gambling type, I'd bet Hobby LOBBY's not footing those hefty legal bills on his own.

Huh?

Gee, we do all realize that paying for contraception has just recently been mandated.

Before that, we weren't all trapped in the dark ages. We have been able to obtain contraception quite easily and affordably for a very very long time.

NewOrleansWinosaur, of course they don't trust their followers. they think their followers are just the same as themselves.

My wife has been on "the pill" for regulation reasons for most her adult life and because we have no health insurance we have done our research. She sees a cash only physician for 50.00 and gets a year's prescription for this and other medicines. We asked her doctor to write the generic prescriptions to allow us to buy "in bulk" and purchase a 6 month supply at a local pharmacy (that matches Costco's prices) for about 32.00.

I suspect with doctor co-pays and additional perscription costs above what insurance companies cover we probably beat out of pocket expenses to those that have health insurance.

For this we are going to jeopardize jobs? huh?

Many women CANNOT TAKE the GENERIC birth control. there are side affects with generics that brand name medications often do not have. some brand name prescriptions for birth control, are very expensive, as you may well know.

Shooter,

women have had to FIGHT for every thing, even their PERSONAL DECISION ( their right) whether or not to take birth control.

since it is assumed that boys will boys, and its a man's world, they have never had to fight for insurance coverage of viagra/cialis or vasectomies. IT HAS NEVER HAD TO BE MANDATED, or fought for by men, BECAUSE IT IS COVERED.

i do hope you include in your statement above in regard to the "Party of Free Stuff", the fact that medications for the sexual pleasure of men are FREE, and have been for YEARS.

i think its time women were/are treated fairly.

I can't afford that place, since I had a heart attack after my company moved to China and took my insurance with them.

No problem not shopping there or WalMart.

At the rate of $1.3 million/day, you won't need to boycott them for long. In a couple months, they should be penniless and out of business.

Don't worry, Tom. At $1.3 million per day, they won't be around much longer.

These posts are utterly ridiculous and show a real lack of maturity from the people posting in this forum. I do agree the Hobby Lobby chain should follow federal regulations. On the other hand, Hobby Lobby is a successful business with over 500 stores for a reason, and it is not because their stores are "crap." If the stores went out of business, think of how many people would lose their jobs. They offer employees with no experience 40 hours per week, a wage nearly twice the federal minimum, and full benefits after 6 months. I hope people please think before they post absurd comments.

I have a great Hobby Lobby here in Albuquerque..Used to shop there a lot..but it will be Micheals from now on. Why do they think because they have to provide access to insurance, they get to dictate what their employees do with that insurance? It belongs to the insured..to use as they please....it does not belong to Hobby Lobby. They take Social Security and Medicare out of their employees checks too...do they think they get a say in how their employees use that as well? Ridiculous!!

Same reason my insurance say I can use these hospitals and these doctors. I can go to whoever/wherever I want, just have to pay it myself.

I think as provider of the healthcare coverage, they can dictate what they cover and how much. They can say we'll cover it, but if you use this coverage, there will be 0 discount and an surcharge applied.

Mine charges a surcharge for smokers.

Except that the healthcare insurance businesses "provide" is considered, under Federal law, to be employee compensation. You okay with your employer telling you how to spend your money after you get your paycheck?

Logic, thy name is not troll...

Unless Hobby Lobby wants to establish itself as a church, it can't use the religious exemption to deny its employees benefits provided under the ACA. If it chooses to defy the law, it should be fined. If those fines result in Hobby Lobby going out of business--then so be it.

I'm tired of businesses wiping their feet on the Constitution and pretending that they're above the law.

You do realize they start their employees out at $13/hr and offer full benefits after six months. That's with no prior work experience or education. They also offer advancement opportunities into management and corporate positions from within. So before you spout off about Hobby Lobby not being a "decent" employer, you may want to get your facts straight. My girlfriend has worked there for two years, and her mom fifteen. Good luck finding a better starting wage and benefits with no credentials.

Apparently they differ what their going to pay depending on the store location. Where I live you get minimum wage at that place and the building is disgusting.

why should you have to justify getting birth control? where does it say my sex life is any business of my boss?

greg, I for one of many do not want to pay for anyones birth control or abortions. I am a christian and I don't like being called a bible thumper. Someday all you non believers will regret you are trying to make christianity go away. It's no wonder this country is going to pot. Oduma has divided this country right in two. All of you nuts that voted for him will regret that you did after he turns America into a pot smoking, same sex marriage, communist country. That's only a few of the many things he's screwing up.

Treehous: Time to get back up the ladder and realize that you cannot FORCE your beliefs on other people. It is just as bad as saying that because they don't follow your belief system, they have none.

treehous,

as a woman, i have been paying, through MY INSURANCE, for the sexual pleasures of men for years, and have never complained. the same insurance companies that do NOT COVER BIRTH CONTROL FOR WOMEN, pay for VIAGRA/CIALIS and vasectomies.

you think that is FAIR?

I for one of many do not want to pay for anyones birth control or abortions

You aren't going to be paying for anyone's abortions or birth control unless you personally make that decision.

Someday all you non believers will regret you are trying to make christianity go away

I love the arrogance (and non-Christian attitude here). So someone who never mentioned anything about religion is somehow automatically anti-Christian simply because they don't adhere to your narrow world view? I'm a Catholic and I think you're not really a Christian. So do I now get to call you an unbeliever? See how that works?

Oduma has divided this country right in two

Says the person who is insulting the president and has just insulted people on this messaging board who did NOT insult him. Obama hasn't divided anybody. YOU are dividing yourself from the rest of the nation.

All of you nuts that voted for him will regret that you did after he turns America into a pot smoking, same sex marriage, communist country

See how you're the only one being divisive here? No one else was. YOU went out of your way to divide yourself as the believer and the holier-than-thou one. No one else did this. And yet you think Obama is the problem here? Stop projecting

The court said "the religious liberty of the First Amendment is a shield, not a sword." These southern-fried fundamentalist scum with their crazy politics and crazier religion need their faces kicked.

Don't forget there are some who oppose vaccinations and cancer treatments based on religious reasons.

If Hobby Lobby actually wins think of all the religious conversions we'll have in the corporate world.

It's fine if a person objects to vaccinations, blood transfusions, and any other medical procedure or medicine; but those objections may have no further effect than on a person's own conduct. No amount of disapproval grants anybody the privilege of making decisions for another person.

The company is privately held.

And yet....insurance will pay for men to have erections? You think thats fair?

Ask an employee who makes $8.00 an hour if they think they can pick up a $45 dollar a month expence my dear.

Condoms are available without having to have a prescription, Vince. A morning after pill does require one and costs a good deal more. Once again, female contraception is much more complicated and pregnancies resulting from their FAILURE is more than likely the cause. Women, once again, get stuck being the responsible party, yet have these decisions made for them by men.

One small difference: Condoms are OTC (over-the-counter).

Birth control is not.

Birth control is BASIC healthcare for women. Furthermore, Hobby Lobby is full of it--Plan B has nothing to do with abortion. It's basically a high-dose birth control pill that prevents ovulation.

Go back to wacko world, Vincenzo, where the fact your head is up your ass won't be so obvious. You're giving Italians a bad name.

Why oh why do some of you men think the only reason a woman takes birth control is for sex? Get your peabrained head out of your butt and stop listening to Rush Lumpbrains and Faux Fake and BS Gnewz.

Women do not just take the pill to prevent pregnancy. Study up!

Hi, Vincenzo --

Just a thought, but you probably missed Rachel's show last night, didn't you? With the explanation of how contraception works?

You've just fallen head-first (sorry) into the pit of ignorance made famous by ol' Rush LimpBough his very self. A condom is a hell of a lot cheaper than the morning-after pill you mention. Don't think a prescription is required for a condom, unlike normal contraception. Just a guess, but you're not a poor female trying to support her family while trying to stave off additional mouths to feed. Am I right?

But don't you worry: I had so many problems with my lady parts that I had to bid them adieu. So after one child, I never had to force my husband (or later, some other poor man) to use a condom. So I'm no longer part of the problem, am I? Can I qualify for medical care now that I'm no longer a "lady-parts" person? Pretty-please?

Oh, and many of us would agree with you that morning-after pills should be rarely used. How much better if women could, for whatever reason, control conception before the fact. Wait -- they can, if they can afford to or live in the right state or have just the right pharmacist or work for a sane employer! It's called contraception! Believe it or not, women sometimes have sex (or are forced into it) by men who didn't wait for permission or wear a condom.

Cheese. Please educate yourself before betraying yourself in public. Your comment is (or ought to be) embarrassing.

(If you think this is bad, you should read what I deleted before posting.)

Vincenzo,

VIAGRA/CIALIS AND VASECTOMIES ARE COVERED BY THESE VERY SAME companies who refuse to pay for women's birth control.

employers that have refused to fund birth control for women in the past fund viagra/cialis and vasectomies FOR MEN.

THEY PAY FOR THE SEXUAL PLEASURE OF MEN, BUT do not include hormonal coverage FOR WOMEN, which can be used for "conditions" other than preventing pregnancy.

being a woman is a "pre-existing" condition. its about time women get the health care coverage that men have taken for GRANTED FOR YEARS!

I have issues with endometrial shedding (heavy, terrifying bleeding for men out there) and estrogen regulation that leads to very, very painful migraines that under the wrong conditions could trigger a stroke (hereditary). These are issues that have been easily, EASILY treated by a low-dose estrogen birth control at the tune of $92/mo. As we speak, I am waiting to see my OBGYN to get on a better perscription that will fall under the Affordable Care Act so as to avoid paying $92/mo.

THERE ARE MANY REASONS BESIDES SEX TO HAVE BIRTH CONTROL! For the love of God, I'd like to rename the whole genre of medications "harmonal therapy perscriptions".

the women would have to be on birth control pills every day of every year for 25 years to pay the cost of ONE vaginal, no complication, no epidural live birth. These insurance companies should not even be allowed to offer insurance that does not include contraception because the contraception can SAVE THEM MONEY. see that? by denying women the right to choose whether they can GET pregnant- they are costing themselves money.

This isn't about paying for abortion....it's about paying for the prevention of pregnancy.

Karen, you seem confused. Are you saying you are 'Pro-life' and yet 'Pro-death,' as in executions? They kinda conflict with each other don't they?

Do your research. Most unwanted pregnancies do NOT end up in the happy home scenario you're thinking of. The majority end up malnourished, ignored, undereducated, mistreated, abused, fostered, dumped, or incarcerated. More often than not, these children become the problem children for future generations.

Even if we were talking about abortion (and we're not, we're talking about pregnancy prevention), our government spends more countless times over on the aftermath of these unwanted pregnancies than it would on ending them in the first place. Heartless? yes. Statistically true? Yes.

Very well said, NO Winosaur! Bravo.

Most abused, neglected and unwanted children already wish they hadn't been born. If our society cherished the already born before imposing their will on those not wanting to bear children at that time, perhaps the need to abort would go down as well.

If you define "life" as beginning at "the moment of conception" and "conception" as being when the sperm enters the egg, then the pill, morning after or not, and IUD do "abort" a life. That is why the personhood amendment is so damn dangerous. It outlaws nearly all forms of contracept because, except for the condom, nearly all types of contraception interfer with the implantation of the fertilized egg in the uterus.

The court pointed out that a for-profit corporation doesn't meet the religious organization exclusion rule.

I'd love to see how many actual churches, upon full examination, meet the criteria for non-profit religious organizations. Sure they may use member donations to help the poor, etc., but it sure seems like we have a lot of preachers who live very high on the hog.

And just to echo the comments of a few others - how stupid do you have to be to think that contraception is "an abortion-inducing drug"?

Me, too, Susan. I do love Hobby Lobby. I boycotted until their request was denied. And I quit Target and Walmart when they made their employees come in to begin Black Friday on Thanksgiving Day. I just hope my local hometown grocery store doesn't do something to screw up.

If you don't buy craft item's or hang pictures, why would you!

It is also hypocritical that 'conservatives', who claim to revere law and order, are most often the ones flouting the law. A law-abiding company would comply with the law. Only a lawless one, such as Hobby Lobby, brazenly defies the law and acts as if it were doing something praiseworthy.

I knew if I came to comments on msnbc I would see alot oof trash and boy am I seeing trash. Keep it up guys until you realize what a mess this country is in because you nuts voted in oduma. This used to be a wonderful place to live until nuts started telling people who don't believe the way they do they couldn't put this up or say this etc: I don't shove my religion down anyones throat. I just want to believe what I do without some big mouth calling me names. Go crawl back into your holes cus that's where we all will be after oduma runs this country fo 4 more years

Sometimes I see posts here and think I have to respond. And then I realize that our early designers have it right. No need to suppress others' ideas, or call people names, or even engage in a conversation. Just let people talk, and people can evaluate a comment without any assistance.

This used to be a wonderful place to live until nuts started telling people who don't believe the way they do they couldn't put this up or say this etc

You do realize that you are the nut according to your own post, yeah?

I knew if I came to comments on msnbc I would see alot oof trash and boy am I seeing trash. Keep it up guys until you realize what a mess this country is in because you nuts voted in oduma

So it's okay when nuts like you- according to your own logic- tell other people what to do, but when other people tell you what to do then they're nuts? What???

I don't shove my religion down anyones throat.

But you just said that you did and that, that made America a wonderful place! Those were your exact words!

I just want to believe what I do without some big mouth calling me names. Go crawl back into your holes

But it's okay when you call people names, right?

Speaking of Papa John's, anyone notice that "Papa" John whined about the ACA making him raise his pizza prices by 14 cents, but then he goes on TV with Peyton Manning saying they're giving away 2 million free pizzas? Yeah, that ACA is really sticking it to ya, John....

Looking at Papa John's 2011 Annual Report, pizza sales accounted for around $1.07 Billion in revenue. At an estimated $10 per pizza, that's 107 million pizzas sold. 14 cents per pizza comes out to $15 million. Now, if he's giving away 2 million pizzas at that same $10, he's giving away $20 million.

If he's willing to give away $20 million in pizza, why does he have to raise prices in order to pay $15 million for his employees to have health care?

Reason is they aren't actually giving away $20 mil in pizza. They're most likely giving away around 1/3 of that (cost of goods) whereas the retail equivalent would likely be $20 million to consumers. I'd reckon that everything included (labor, electric, rent, etc), a large supreme pizza probably costs the corporation around $5 if that to make.

NOW - yeah, I thought about that too. Wonder how it shows up in their accounting, though.

I'm mostly just bummed that Manning even makes commercials with Schnatter. And it really makes no difference to me if they raise prices or not. There's always a better pizza alternative here, so I never buy Papa John's anyway.

Those of us who are attentive to the deterrent value, that's who.

Who wants to give odds on if or for how long they insist on paying that fine?

People with money never have to pay. It's us po folk that pay. And pay. And pay.

The mortgage fraud settlements are my second biggest disappointment with Obama. My first is that his administration allowed people on Wall Street and the banks walked away from the whole economic crisis without any real criminal or civil sanctions. In fact, they are all doing very well despite the whole economic mess. Sending bankers and traders going to jail would not fix the economy or unemployment, but it sure would make everyone else feel a hell of a lot better.

As usual, you definitely qualify as a future president by being one of the most consistent morons to post here.

If you smoke and get cancer, it is your choice. If you eat too much and do not exercise and you have heart problems, it is your choice. Those are personal choices just like birth control and abortion. Do you get my drift?

If you knew what the issue was I would give your post credence but as it is...no.

If the lass wants to have an abortion, that's her choice and totally personal including the paying for it.

Great solution - let her choose whether to have an abortion and pay for it herself, but don't give her the option of having a way to prevent the pregnancy in the first place.

Mike spelled it out pretty well above, but I'll be more blunt - every choice a person makes about their own health is personal. How long will it be before some organization says "Our faith tells us that God did not intend for mankind to smoke or consume anything that can cause cancer, so if you choose to smoke we're not going to provide insurance that pays for chemotherapy, drug therapy, cancer surgery, etc."?

The day we force women to bear unintended children, there had better be a damn long line of people who support that law, ready to adopt and raise those children. I won't hold my breath - I never seem to see pro-lifers demonstrating with a gaggle of adopted children in tow.

I heartily agree about the unintended pregnancy. It is a much greater tragedy to have unwanted, unloved, neglected children, than to have a termination.

Last summer on a hot Sunday afternoon, there were a gaggle of pro-lifers and their disgusting placards marching around the local mall for about 4 hours. I makes me wonder in what wacked out world, do these people think that they get to put their values over everyone else's.

Just because someone is rich doesn't give them the right to push their beliefs on others and punish their employees. What would happen if he were a Jehovah' Witness?