Court: Hobby Lobby can challenge health care law over birth control mandate

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    July 2, 2013 10:26 p.m.

    Stalwart Sentinel

    Your point is a non sequitur. Under the law, freedom of religion applies to all faiths, which has nothing to do with Christian exceptionalism. Furthermore, you are the one with your hand in someone else's pocket demanding special treatment because you believe you are more informed on how to live other peoples lives. That is called secular exceptionalism and blaming the victim (and simply - hate)

  • Vaughn J Kearns, UT
    June 29, 2013 10:07 p.m.

    I find it interesting that the Americans United for Separation of Church and State don't realize that simply having the Government issue a decree that is against any particular religion enforces the concept of the State controlling the religion. The idea that prayers in schools is an example. Because the Government disallows this then it promotes the beliefs a a particular group of people. The idea that the Government can force individuals to purchase products and consider it a tax on the individuals is crazy. What the Government has accomplished is to change the working conditions of Americans to Part-Time Employment with no benefits rather than some benefits. Wait and See what happens in the coming years. Already Public Institutions (Granite School District and others) are doing this with Non-Contract Employees, Substitute teachers, Etc.)

    What Hobby Lobby is doing may provide their employees with benefits that would be unavailable if the majority of the workforce was reduced to Part-time Status.

    Look At Walmart and its employment practices, resulting in substandard income and the need for Government subsidies to their employees. All of these factors are adding to the need of the government for increased revenue (TAXES).

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    June 29, 2013 7:50 a.m.

    Obama and the left would have Obamacare become the new Edmunds-Tucker Act, only its target is not just the LDS, but ALL people of faith, requiring them to adopt the left's amorality.

    I just hope the ruling is confirmed on appeal

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    June 28, 2013 4:16 p.m.

    So if the employer is responsible for the employees birth control, does that mean they have to have a robo-caller reminding them to take their pill every day? Or perhaps the employer needs to hand them out at work, like at lunch, or when they clock in, or something, and make sure it was swallowed.

    What about barrier methods? What is the employers responsibility there? (It's a rhetorical question. Don't answer. It would get screened out anyway)

    Seriously, if you can't afford a movie and popcorn, don't go. If you can't afford birth control, don't...

    It is not your boss's responsibility. It is an individual responsibility, as in your responsibility.

  • Clarissa Layton, UT
    June 28, 2013 2:25 p.m.

    I'd rather Hobby Lobby go out of business than give into demands they feel are immoral. It's not easy to 'Stand for Something.' Do I have a problem with birth control? No, but I believe I had to pay for it myself. I was able to 'handle' the financial hardship on a new teacher's salary. Believe me, it wasn't much.

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    June 28, 2013 12:32 p.m.

    Joan Watson

    I have to note that you did not address the subject matter so I must assume you have no valid response.

    Further, I am not a "faithless hopeful"; I attend my ward all three hours every Sunday just like the majority of other LDS. I simply don't need to push my personal moral convictions onto others to sleep at night.

    Counter Intelligence

    Your point is a non sequitur. Under the law, there is no such thing as a for profit "church-owned business," there is just a business. If a Church happens to own a for profit company, they receive no special treatment and are afforded the exact same rights as any individual business owner. Sorry, as I noted above, it's time for Christian exceptionalism to come to an end in the American public sphere.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 28, 2013 9:59 a.m.

    "Contraception is nearly as likely to cause an early abortion [failure of a fertilized egg to implant itself in the endometrium], as it is to prevent fertilization from occurring."

    Then why is your church fine with contraception but not okay with abortion (outside of the standard exemptions)?

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    June 28, 2013 9:31 a.m.

    Bob K

    I see misunderstanding too: Under the Obama imposition of the HHS mandate (which can easily be reinterpreted without legislative action), church owned businesses are required to provide birth control and abortofacient drugs (simply yelling that churches are not required is dishonestly misleading)

    If I worked for the Human Rights Campaign (or their wholly owned business) would you make them pay for my ex-gay psychotherapy? (never mind the obvious irrationality of me working for someone whom I grotesquely disagree with)

    So why do expect a Catholic University to pay for something that violates Catholic teachings - then have the audacity to complain that you are somehow the aggrieved party?

  • Rustymommy Clovis, NM
    June 28, 2013 9:06 a.m.

    I'm always amazed at the control people claim an employer has over their lives. If I don't like my employer's point of view, I always have the option to get employment elsewhere. For pity sake, employees are not slaves and are not compelled to keep a job if they don't like the terms of employment. With way too high unemployment rates, it seems like there are probably other people who would like those jobs. Fringe benefits are part of a total compensation package and should be considered when taking a job. Don't like the terms? Look elsewhere. In this case, nobody is telling somebody they can't have birth control; the employer just doesn't feel that they should have to pay for it if it violates their sense of morality. If an employer fires an employee because they choose not to have children, then they are violating an employee's rights and should be penalized for overstepping an employee's freedom of choice in a private matter. The decision to have or not have children is a private choice and is neither the prerogative nor the duty of an employer.

  • andyjaggy American Fork, UT
    June 28, 2013 9:02 a.m.

    The most surprising thing about this to me is that I didn't realize birth control was still so frowned upon my mainstream Christians. Multiple studies have shown that people given free access to birth control have an almost 0% rate of abortions. Personally I would much rather see people use birth control than see them getting abortions.

    ....and please don't pull out the birth control is an abortion argument, that's not backed by any credible science.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    June 28, 2013 7:49 a.m.

    If this were about abortion Hobby Lobby would be right, but there is no logical reason to oppose birth control other than some religion has said not to do it it, is an arbitrary rule as such as such Hobby Lobby has no right to force this practice or viewpoint on other people.

  • Bob K porland, OR
    June 28, 2013 1:45 a.m.

    I see misunderstanding of the issue in the comments. Let's see if I can explain:
    1-- In the USA, jobs must be open to people of all backgrounds who are qualified.
    2-- Many entry level jobs attract poor women
    3-- Most women in the US use birth control
    4-- Poor women must sometimes choose between shoes for the kids and bc pills
    5-- Society benefits if women do not have extra, unwanted kids. These are the people who end up in the Emergency Room for the flu. Employers benefit due to less maternity leave.
    6-- If Maria gets a job working for A, who provides bc, and Alicia finds a job only with B, who does not, does Alicia deserve to get pregnant, because she cant afford pills.
    CHURCHES ARE NOT FORCED TO PAY FOR BIRTH CONTROL, but non-church jobs need to be equal for all Americans

  • Jory payson, utah
    June 27, 2013 11:07 p.m.

    Hobby Lobby here is what you do.

    Spin off each of your stores into their own entity. Turn your store into a franchise. That way Each store can have below the 50 required employees so you don't have to give your employees health insurance and you don't have to pay for the contraception. Problem solved.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    June 27, 2013 10:55 p.m.

    A person can prove the earth is flat if they are selective enough in their choice of facts. Your post raises valid points as usual - but you ignore the most salient fact: You can acquire your own birth control and abortofacients completely independent of any action by Hobby Lobby or the Catholic Church.

    The fact is; The earth is not flat AND the idea that those who cannot get other people to pay for their free stuff constitute some sort of victim class is laughably pathetic, highly offensive and morally disingenuous

  • LifeLibertyHappiness Draper, UT
    June 27, 2013 8:25 p.m.

    "This court has taken a huge step toward handing bosses and company owners a blank check to meddle in the private medical decisions of their workers," executive director Barry Lynn said in a statement. "This isn't religious freedom; it's the worst kind of religious oppression."

    What a joke of a comment by attorney for the AUSCS. That's pure entitlement mentality. No one is stopping anyone from seeking birth control solutions. They just aren't going to pay for it. How does that meddle in the affairs of others? If my car insurance won't pay for oil changes, does that "oppress" me? Guess I'm forced to never change my oil. Of course that would be ridiculous. It's the typical liberal argument. If a liberal disagrees with a conservative, the liberal is more enlightened, but if a conservative disagrees with a liberal the conservative is a bigot, homophobe, oppressive, etc., whatever the issue happens to be. Then it's off the Congress/courts to force people to do what liberals want.

    What if we had civil dialogue and worked towards solutions, really trying to understand each other? Outcomes would be better for both points of view.

  • The Skeptical Chymist SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    June 27, 2013 8:07 p.m.

    All of these particular debates could have been avoided if we had done the sensible thing and established universal healthcare coverage with a single-payer system (i.e., the federal government). Then no employer would directly pay for health insurance, so no employer could object to what is covered in the policy.

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    June 27, 2013 7:37 p.m.

    What is to keep corporations like Coca Cola / Pepsi, General Motors / Ford, McDonalds / Burger King, etc. from having religious objections. Courts have ruled that Corporations are people too. Can Corporations get religion?

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    June 27, 2013 7:23 p.m.

    "Contraception is nearly as likely to cause an early abortion [failure of a fertilized egg to implant itself in the endometrium], as it is to prevent fertilization from occurring."


    Pure and utter nonsense.

    Contraceptives work by preventing ovulation OR by preventing fertilization.

    By 2002, studies produced evidence that Plan B did not interrupt implantation.

    By 2007, scientific consensus was building that morning-after pills did not block implantation.

    In 2007, 2009 and 2010, researchers gave Plan B to women after determining with hormone tests which women had ovulated and which had not.

    None who took the drug before ovulation became pregnant. Women who had ovulated became pregnant at the same rate as if they had taken no drug at all.

    Erica Jefferson, an F.D.A. spokeswoman: "The emerging data on Plan B suggest that it does not inhibit implantation.

    Diana Blithe, a biochemist who oversees contraception research for the National Institutes of Health, said the possibility of an effect on implantation should not be cited on the labels.

  • Joan Watson TWIN FALLS, ID
    June 27, 2013 6:52 p.m.

    to Stalwart sentinel
    "hobby Lobby will go belly-up and serves as a reminder that Christian exceptionalist is coming to an end in the U.S. - as it should."

    Spoken like a faithless hopeful - only in your dreams 'stalwart."

  • djk blue springs, MO
    June 27, 2013 6:30 p.m.

    i shop hobby lobby for many reasons but the best reason is their family values and their religous stand. i support hobby lobby and am sickened by the court systems for bending with the liberals screaming

  • LVIS Salt Lake City, UT
    June 27, 2013 6:28 p.m.

    Pa. Reader
    Harrisburg, PA
    "Anti contraception = pro abortion.
    Not an opinion, just a cold fact."

    Seriously? Seriously? Um, no. Not a 'cold fact'. How about pro-responsible choice when deciding to have sex?

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    June 27, 2013 5:48 p.m.

    We need health care by and for all. End this silliness involving employers.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    June 27, 2013 5:42 p.m.

    apparently there are some people here that actually believe the rest of us are responsible to pay for their recreational sex decisions. No one is stopping them from doing it, but it shouldn't be our responsibility to pay for their fun. Especially if it violates the religious conscience of those being coerced into paying.

    Good grief, how did we get to this point? Honestly, sometimes I believe I am not living in the country in which I was born.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    June 27, 2013 5:34 p.m.

    Re: "Anti contraception = pro abortion."

    Actually, that's not a fact.

    Contraception is nearly as likely to cause an early abortion [failure of a fertilized egg to implant itself in the endometrium], as it is to prevent fertilization from occurring.

    So, the appropriate equation would be -- "anti-contraception = pro-life."

    Not an opinion, just a cold fact.

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    June 27, 2013 4:52 p.m.


    Incorrect, this is not about someone sharing my political ideology - they can do as they please in the privacy of their own home. Rather, this is concerning a private, for profit business refusing to operate under the established rule of law. The owners chose, of their own volition, to enter the free market and they must now operate under the rubric set out for all for profit companies. Hobby Lobby is not special, they will not get a "free pass." As noted numerous times above, there is quite literally no legally recognized right for the owners of Hobby Lobby to take this action and I can't wait for the fine to start, for all the conservatives out there to "support" Hobby Lobby by shopping there for a week, they'll start a Facebook page to "support" Hobby Lobby, then they'll lose interest, and Hobby Lobby will go belly-up and serve as a reminder that Christian exceptionalism is coming to an end in the US - as it should.

  • grandmagreat Lake Havasu City, AZ
    June 27, 2013 4:43 p.m.

    Hobby Lobby has my business because of their christian Beliefs, not forcing their employees to work on Sunday's, and many other plusses. I am happy to say that they are are an example to all other merchants. I pray that their business shows a large profit and puts the others to shame.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    June 27, 2013 4:43 p.m.

    "...for-profit businesses — not just currently exempted religious groups — should be allowed to seek an exception if the law violates their religious beliefs...".

    It's against my corporate religious beliefs to spend any more money on my employees then absolutely necessary, in order to keep as much money as possible for myself...

    Sounds good...

    I'm in...

    Let's do this thing.

  • duggity Bountiful, UT
    June 27, 2013 4:42 p.m.

    Think about this; my wife can't use birth control pills for health reasons and I'm allergic to latex, so I have to go to the store and get the really expensive condoms to have any type of birth control. Shouldn't my employer have to pay for that? And yes I think it would be insane to try to foist that expense on the taxpayer or my employer, but if you think logically you will come to the conclusion that a case just like this will end up in courts eventually if the law continues as it is. So does the government use this as an opportunity to go in and "regulate" condom manufacturers? And if the owner of the company I work for is opposed to condom use for religious reasons, shouldn't he be able to oppose it?

  • Pa. Reader Harrisburg, PA
    June 27, 2013 4:31 p.m.

    Anti contraception = pro abortion.
    Not an opinion, just a cold fact.

  • Tators Hyrum, UT
    June 27, 2013 4:13 p.m.

    @ Happy Valley HERETIC:

    If a person or company (owners) have religious reasons for not believing in contraceptives (and yes, the vast majority of contraceptives are used for birth control), why is it so difficult for you or anyone else to respect their right to believe as they see fit? Isn't that part of what religious freedom stands for in our country?

    When democrats tout how wonderful diversity is, does that mean only as long those diversities are in total agreement with your political and religious ideologies?

    With all your many online comments, isn't that basically what you keep asking for and trying to promote... for others to try to understand your liberal viewpoints and allow you the right to believe as you see fit? Is it asking too much of you to give the same consideration in return?

  • Eliot Santaquin, UT
    June 27, 2013 4:09 p.m.

    I absolutely agree that we ought to let common sense rule. The first step would be to repeal the law requiring employers to provide health insurance to their employees. There is no right to access birth control through a health insurance plan and there is certainly no right to demand that your employer pay for it. If an employer claims that spiritual or faith healing is the only way and refuses to pay for an employee health plan than so be it. People can choose whether or not they want to work for an employer and one of the criteria would be what kind of health insurance, if any, was offered. That is called freedom and it ought to work for the employer as well as the employee. Equally absurd is the assertion that Hobby Lobby's argument is similar to denying health insurance to blacks or Mormons or any other such group. Hobby Lobby doesn't want to pay for contraception for any of its employees, not just certain groups of their employees. If a person wants health insurance that pays for contraception, then they shouldn't work for Hobby Lobby.

  • JP Chandler, AZ
    June 27, 2013 4:05 p.m.

    Based on your analogy I think we need to review our current practices for teaching critical thinking skills in our public schools. What we're talking about is being forced to pay for someone to use birth control when you consider it morally wrong. What you're talking about is discrimination. There's not much similarity between the two.

    This may seem like no big deal to many people. It's just birth control after all. What if instead we were talking about forcing companies to cover abortions? No one should be forced to pay for their employees to do something they consider morally wrong.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 27, 2013 3:27 p.m.

    Unplanned pregnancies are the leading cause of someone considering abortion. This healthcare mandate helps prevent abortions. A similar provision in Belgium is a large part of why they're #1 in the world for lowest abortion rates.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    June 27, 2013 3:24 p.m.

    The Church of Corporate America doesn't believe in anything but faith healing if it adds to their bottom line.
    Those who believe that contraceptives are prescribed only for birth control, must have had sex ed in a red state.

  • Tators Hyrum, UT
    June 27, 2013 3:16 p.m.

    @Stalwart Sentinel:

    So you think it would be a wonderful thing if this issue were to bankrupt this major, national sized company and put many thousands of people out of work... all because the owners don't share your political ideologies.

    Apparently, you want others to try to understand your point of view and be accepting of it, but then give none of that back in return. Wow! How narrow minded can an opponent get? I think a new level has just been reached!

  • slave American Fork, UT
    June 27, 2013 3:13 p.m.

    I hope a group of state governors join forces and try and stop the inclusion of birth control in the health care system. It is simply wrong to force anyone to pay the cost. Last time I checked Walmart has a family planning section that for cash will solve the problem. Wait, that's the issue. Why should we plan and be responsible when big brother will hand out all we need. This has nothing to do with religion. The current administration in it's blind desire to give has again found a way to take money from hard working people and give it to the "I'm entitled" generation. If you are going to procreate then maybe it is time to start acting the part of parent and adult.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    June 27, 2013 3:11 p.m.

    Should your boss be able to determine which prescription medications you take at home? Should your boss have a say in how many children you have?

    The principle of religious liberty protects your right to make moral decisions for yourself, not others. Obviously, a law that required Hobby Lobby’s owners to use birth control would be a gross violation of their religious liberty. But the mandate doesn’t do that. It merely requires that the 22,000 employees of Hobby Lobby be given the right, if they choose, to access birth control through a health-insurance plan.

    Fundamentalist Christians might refuse to pay for a public school system that teaches evolution. Conservative Muslims might refuse to pay for public museums that may contain art that offends them. More to the point, a boss who believes in spiritual healing might refuse to provide medical coverage at all, arguing that only God, not a doctor, can make you well.

  • John20000 Cedar Hills, UT
    June 27, 2013 2:47 p.m.

    This could be simple, if the federal government would get out of the way. I work for you, you pay me, I buy whatever I want.

    No more: I work for you, you buy stuff for me, then pay me less because you bought me stuff already. The stuff you bought was against your religion to buy. We argue.

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    June 27, 2013 2:41 p.m.

    If the courts allowed hobby lobby not to cover contraceptives how long until there is a religion that doesn't allow any medical treatment at all?

  • What is the truth? Sandy, UT
    June 27, 2013 2:40 p.m.

    @WRK.. um if it was scientifically proven that sacrificing a chicken worked, then yes I would be all for it.

    Honestly, there are religions out there that don't believe in blood transfusions, surgeries, faith healing for diabetes (you remember those stories about how children have died because of this belief??). We want those people telling their employees what medical care they can and cannot have? Let common sense rule, thank you very much.

  • WRK Riverton, UT
    June 27, 2013 2:27 p.m.

    So, for those who say that Hobby Lobby needs to pay for the medical care of "birth control", then if I believed that sacrificing a chicken would heal some illness I have, then why would they not have to pay for the chickens that I would need to sacrifice for my health.

  • Arizona Rocks Phoenix, AZ
    June 27, 2013 2:02 p.m.

    I am happy to hear that Hobby Lobby can challenge the health care law over birth control .. This is wonderful. God bless your business and employees and family and may Heaven's light and peace shine upon you !

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    June 27, 2013 2:00 p.m.

    It will be a great day when this ultimately bankrupts Hobby Lobby.

  • Shimlau SAINT GEORGE, UT
    June 27, 2013 1:59 p.m.

    As I read the article, it seems that they are saying that Hobby Lobby is using their religious beliefs in interfering in the medical care of their employees. what it sounds like to me is that they are just asking that then not be compelled to pay for their contraceptives. They haven't threatened to fire anyone who uses them, they just don't want to be forced to pay for them. what is the issue?

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    June 27, 2013 1:59 p.m.

    Guys, calm yourselves.

    To make the business pay fines while waiting for a court to decide if they're liable is _not_ a "victory." It's simple judicial caution and fairness.

    If a private for-profit organization decided that it wasn't going to offer health insurance coverage to its Black, or Mormon, blue-eyed employees because of its "moral beliefs," would you be OK with that? That's exactly what's going on here, and the question is fairly being asked, can private religious beliefs be used as a justification for treating people unfairly? Me personally, I believe strongly that that the answer is a resounding, "no." However, that's for the legal system, not me, to decide.

    So Hobby Lobby, you're being given the benefit of the doubt. That's not remotely the same thing as a "victory."

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    June 27, 2013 1:35 p.m.

    Great job!

    Anything that barack doesn't like is a good thing for America

  • TRUTH Salt Lake City, UT
    June 27, 2013 1:10 p.m.

    Now that is a Victory......Congrats Hobby Lobby!