The Hobby Lobby case: A timeline of events


Return To Article
  • Hamath Omaha, NE
    July 1, 2014 4:43 a.m.

    @ Furry

    Thank you for a detailed response. I appreciate it.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    June 30, 2014 10:40 a.m.

    @Hamath 7:35 a.m. June 30, 2014

    Accoridng to scientific and medical standards, pregnancy starts when a fertilized ovum implants in the uterine wall.

    According to the sealing standards of the LDS Church, (which provide that vicarious ordinances are permitted only for a person who has lived, and vicarious sealing is not available for stillbirths or miscarriages because, according to the person I talked to in the appropriate department, "living" for the purpose of the sealing ordinance is defined has having been born and taken a breath.

    One further thing to consider -- I don't know if you are aware, but between a third and a half of all fertilized eggs never implant in the uterus and, therefore, do not start a pregnancy. Of the eggs that implant, between a quarter and a third self-terminate in the first trimester, and a considerable number more self-terminate in the second and third trimesters, including some that are born but never draw a breath. That, to me, doesn't describe "life" or "living." For me, pregnancy is the process that builds the body in which the spirit resides in mortality; life starts when the spirit joins the body.

  • boneheaded, but not a smidgen SLC, UT
    June 30, 2014 10:16 a.m.

    sorry libs, another strike against forcing everyone to follow barry. more to come.

  • Hamath Omaha, NE
    June 30, 2014 7:35 a.m.

    @ Furry,

    From what I understand the drugs prevent the fertilized egg from connecting to the uterus wall. So it would depend on your definition of when life starts. If it starts at fertilization or when the egg is connected to the wall (or later). If life starts at fertilization then the drugs are abortion drugs. I might be wrong. I haven't investigated it deeply. Please provide evidence otherwise. Thanks,

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    June 30, 2014 7:29 a.m.

    I sincerely hope that Hobby Lobby founders, and fundamentalist Christian advocates, Green family lose their case.

    No one has hindered their personal ability to chose birth control or not. Rather the issue involves their employees who may not necessarily hold the same religious views.

    There is a big difference between one's personal religious views and the views of others in the public sphere. The Green family is attempting to force their religious views into the public sector.

    No one told the Green's to go into business, nor told them to offer their employees insurance. It was voluntary. As such they ought to follow the law. And the law is certainly Constitutional.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    June 30, 2014 7:06 a.m.

    One BIG problem -- the drugs in question are not "abortion-producing drugs". They do not terminate a pregnancy. They mereky keep a pregnancy from starting. They are contraceptives, not abortifacts as the Green family claims. They are basic preventative health care.