OKLAHOMA CITY – A federal judge Monday rejected Hobby Lobby Stores Inc.'s request to block part of the federal health care overhaul that requires the arts and craft supply company to provide insurance coverage for the morning-after and week-after birth control pills.

In a 28-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Joe Heaton denied a request by Hobby Lobby to prevent the government from enforcing portions of the health care law mandating insurance coverage for contraceptives the company's Christian owners consider objectionable.

The Oklahoma City-based company and a sister company, Mardel Inc., sued the government in September, claiming the mandate violates the owners' religious beliefs. The owners contend the morning-after and week-after birth control pills are tantamount to abortion because they can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in a woman's womb. They also object to providing coverage for certain kinds of intrauterine devices.

At a hearing earlier this month, a government lawyer said the drugs do not cause abortions and that the U.S. has a compelling interest in mandating insurance coverage for them.

In his ruling denying Hobby Lobby's request for an injunction, Heaton said that while churches and other religious organizations have been granted constitutional protection from the birth-control provisions, "Hobby Lobby and Mardel are not religious organizations."

"Plaintiffs have not cited, and the court has not found, any case concluding that secular, for-profit corporations such as Hobby Lobby and Mardel have a constitutional right to the free exercise of religion," the ruling said.

Heaton wrote that "the court is not unsympathetic" to the problems cited by Hobby Lobby and their owners, the Green family. He said the health care law's expansion of employer obligations "results in concerns and issues not previously confronted by companies or their owners."

"The question of whether the Greens can establish a free exercise constitutional violation by reason of restrictions or requirements imposed on general business corporations they own or control involves largely uncharted waters," Heaton wrote.

Hobby Lobby's attorney said the companies' owners will appeal.

"Every American, including family business owners like the Greens, should be free to live and do business according to their religious beliefs," Kyle Duncan, general counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said in a statement.

The morning-after pill works by preventing ovulation or fertilization. In medical terms, pregnancy begins when a fertilized egg attaches itself to the wall of the uterus. If taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, it can reduce a woman's chances of pregnancy by as much as 89 percent.

Critics of contraception say it is the equivalent of an abortion pill because it can prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus. The lawsuit also alleges that certain kinds of intrauterine devices can destroy an embryo by preventing it from implanting in a woman's uterus.

Hobby Lobby is the largest business to file a lawsuit against the mandate.

Hobby Lobby calls itself a "biblically founded business" and is closed on Sundays. Founded in 1972, the company now operates more than 500 stores in 41 states and employs more than 13,000 full-time employees who are eligible for health insurance coverage. The company, which is self-insured, has said it will face a daily $1.3 million fine beginning Jan. 1 if it ignores the law.

"It is by God's grace and provision that Hobby Lobby has endured," said David Green, founder and CEO. "Therefore we seek to honor God by operating the company in a manner consistent with biblical principles."

The Green family has said it has no moral objection to the use of other contraceptives and will continue covering them for its employees.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/19/judge-rejects-hobby-lobby-case-against-obamacare-contraceptive-coverage-mandate/#ixzz2Cn6osy6t

Hummm sorry but stuff like this blows my mind... They don't have a issue with supplying their employees with health insurance as many seem to have. But have a issue with what the health insurance must cover instead based on religion. But what about the belief of those that are employeed by them.... Just because they believe one way does not mean that right should be taken away from the ones that believe otherwise.. Just saying...

Religious people who own a company should not be trying to force their beliefs on their employees. The owners and employees who follow the same belief system do not have to use certain medications, but to block other employees from using them just because of their religion? No, that goes too far.

'Religious people who own a company should not be trying to force their beliefs on their employees.
The owners and employees who follow the same belief system do not have to use certain medications,
but to block other employees from using them just because of their religion? No, that goes too far."


It's a two-sided coin, actually.

Why don't these complainers stop trying to force their beliefs on employers.

Aren't they the least bit grateful that business owners are providing jobs and insurance at all?

At a time where it's tough to get jobs, people should not have to turn down jobs simply because the employers may have different religious beliefs. They should not have to worry that they'll not be able to get medication through insurance because their employers want to push their religious beliefs on their employees.

I feel for the owners.

It is sad that the country doesnt recognize life at conception and those who believe in lifes value are so outnumbered legally and socially. I believe only if a company is receiving NO federal funding, loans, or the such,, should it be excused from following federal laws.

I do wish federal laws were more 'tolerant' of the religious beliefs of others though.

Humm so if their religion is against using Doctors at all their employees should not get insurance at all huhh?? Just saying for that is what is being implied!......Sorry I don't buy that at all...

I'm just thankful I work for a small company that believes in handing down some of their profit to benefit their employees...Yes the company I work for pays for all their employees health insurance as well as a life insurance policy....

Not only that they actually help all the guys that work for them to be able to buy all their tools. Company pays for them and puts them on a payment plan to pay them off at $25 a week.. Best company I have ever worked for..And ya know what everyone is at work everyday with a good attitude wanting to help the company make it!

I think it is a matter of necessity and commmon sense really

although, common sense is another debatable concept

of course, there is a strong necessity in the case of medical care with doctors, to recover from illnesses, and treat disease and injury,,etc,,,

there is more of a convenience to have bc then there is a necessity,


as long as abstinence and condoms are easily accessible, there is not the same urgency or need for them as there is for medical care

I do think basic health care should be covered because people become ill and have accidents in the course of life that can prevent their ability to provide for theirself or their family if left untreated


I just dont think it should go so far as mandating non medical care, like birth control, which is more a prevention convenience, than an actual TREATMENT of a medical condition,,,

Who decides what's necessary, though? Should the employer be able to decide what medication is necessary for their employees?

Preaching abstinence to adults isn't going to work. And unfortunately, condoms aren't 100% effective. Many are against abortion, so I would think that they would be ok with the use of the morning after pill to prevent pregnancy in cases where it's needed.

thats an immeasurable value,,,

but it certainly needs to be a reasonable expectation and not a mandate to cover any and everything

for example, insurance to cover a hospital visit when one has a fever and pain would be reasonable to me

insurance to cover the cost of cold medicine for a cough would not be

since sex is not a mandatory part of life and a choice, I think it is unreasonable to expect or mandate employers to assist an employee in preparing for that personal and unnecessary choice,,,


unless there is a pregnancy, when it once again becomes more about medical care that is necessary than a mere convenience,,,


just my opinion,,but the courts made their decision,, I feel for those who want to offer health insurance but dont want to be forced to assist with what they consider premeditated taking of life,,,

I think people should and do have the personal choice, I just dont think companies should be mandated to cover the cost,,

true 'adults' should be able to do that when they make the choice to be active , in my opinion

So, am I supposed to believe that a fertilized egg that isn't yet attached to the wall of the uterus is somehow already a human being?

Do you have a list of medications that you believe should be available through insurance and that should not be?

I want to work for these guys!

opponents can file a charge of religious discrimination with the eeoc

The preaching of abstinence may be the only voice of reason...

It's a shame that so many adults are living their lives without restraints.
Yet they insist on having some institution provide the solution to their multitudes of indiscretions.

Unwanted pregnancies have become a pathological disease
by society's absence of moral standards.

I agree with this. Having sex outside marriage without protection is immoral.

Without all the religious bibble-babble...That is pretty stupid. That's besides my thoughts that birth control shouldn't even be covered under insurance in the first place, "We can't do it ourselves, so help us out Big Brother" sounds an awful lot like a codependent society.

I'm 27 years old, have had sex a number of times, and I do not have a kid...Personal responsibility has to kick in somewhere.

The problem here, as as I see it, is that the Bible doesn't prohibit the use of birth control. The claim that a fertilized egg in a woman is immediately a human being is a claim that is not found in the Bible. Thus, the owners of Hobby Lobby have a very weak argument. Sure, the Roman Catholic Church says that it's wrong for someone to use birth control, but the owners of Hobby Lobby aren't members of the Roman Catholic Church.

It isn't immoral for those who do not share your beliefs.