Good job Obama, nothing like a free country...

[Soonerjeepman]

but like he said, they didn't build it so how dare they think they can run it the way they want...and I just love how lib's scream about everyone having a right to do, believe, say what they want...seems not true for a Christian view.

Column: Christian companies can't bow to sinful mandate

By David Green, USA Today, Sept 12 2012


When my family and I started our company 40 years ago, we were working out of a garage on a $600 bank loan, assembling miniature picture frames. Our first retail store wasn't much bigger than most people's living rooms, but we had faith that we would succeed if we lived and worked according to God's word. From there, Hobby Lobby has become one of the nation's largest arts and crafts retailers, with more than 500 locations in 41 states. Our children grew up into fine business leaders, and today we run Hobby Lobby together, as a family.


We're Christians, and we run our business on Christian principles. I've always said that the first two goals of our business are 1) to run our business in harmony with God's laws, and 2) to focus on people more than money. And that's what we've tried to do. We close early so our employees can see their families at night. We keep our stores closed on Sundays, one of the week's biggest shopping days, so that our workers and their families can enjoy a day of rest. We believe that it is by God's grace that Hobby Lobby has endured, and he has blessed us and our employees. We've not only added jobs in a weak economy, we've also raised wages for the past four years in a row. Our full-time employees start at 80% above minimum wage.

But now, our government threatens to change all of that. A new government health care mandate says that our family business must provide what I believe are abortion-causing drugs as part of our health insurance. Being Christians, we don't pay for drugs that might cause abortions. Which means that we don't cover emergency contraception, the morning-after pill or the week-after pill. We believe doing so might end a life after the moment of conception, something that is contrary to our most important beliefs. It goes against the biblical principles on which we have run this company since day one. If we refuse to comply, we could face $1.3 million per day in government fines.


Our government threatens to fine job creators in a bad economy. Our government threatens to fine a company that's raised wages four years running. Our government threatens to fine a family for running its business according to its beliefs. It's not right.


I know people will say we ought to follow the rules, that it's the same for everybody. But that's not true. The government has exempted thousands of companies from this mandate, for reasons of convenience or cost. But it won't exempt them for reasons of religious belief. So, Hobby Lobby — and my family — are forced to make a choice. With great reluctance, we filed a lawsuit today, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, asking a federal court to stop this mandate before it hurts our business. We don't like to go running into court, but we no longer have a choice. We believe people are more important than the bottom line and that honoring God is more important than turning a profit.


My family has lived the American dream. We want to continue growing our company and providing great jobs for thousands of employees, but the government is going to make that much more difficult. The government is forcing us to choose between following our faith and following the law. I say that's a choice no American — and no American business — should have to make.

David Green is the CEO and founder of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

[Sooner5030]

the mob says you will provide the healthcare they demand.

http://freedomfeens.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Majority-Rules1-300x240.jpg

[cleller]

There's a guy that's living proof of what you can do without resorting to being a greedy soul-destroying corporate pig. I think he knows what he's talking about.

[yermom]

i hope he wins and decouples the insurance racket from being tied to your employer

[marfacowboy]

What a distortion. He's not paying for "abortion causing drugs." He pays a portion of a premium for employee coverage, and it's not likely that his premium isn't going to be affected because the insurance company is now required by law to cover a drug they were already covering.
The doctors and the insurance company have always made the decision about what drugs are prescribed and paid for. The doctor-patient relationship is none of his business.

[pphilfran]

What a distortion. He's not paying for "abortion causing drugs." He pays a portion of a premium for employee coverage, and it's not likely that his premium isn't going to be affected because the insurance company is now required by law to cover a drug they were already covering.
The doctors and the insurance company have always made the decision about what drugs are prescribed and paid for. The doctor-patient relationship is none of his business.

I don't care if he is right or wrong...we shouldn't be forced into paying for every frigging piece of heathcare...especially an over the counter drug like Plan B or birth control that is reasonably priced...

If the insurance company wants to cover those items then fine...or if you want to purchase a rider to cover birth control then more power to you...but they shouldn't be mandated...

[Midtowner]

I don't care if he is right or wrong...we shouldn't be forced into paying for every frigging piece of heathcare...especially an over the counter drug like Plan B or birth control that is reasonably priced...

If the insurance company wants to cover those items then fine...or if you want to purchase a rider to cover birth control then more power to you...but they shouldn't be mandated...

What's the argument that these drugs shouldn't be treated like prescription allergy meds? There are perfectly acceptable over the counter allergy meds, but some folks still receive prescriptions.

[Soonerjeepman]

because they are paying for drugs that are morally unacceptable to them. Their religious beliefs are being compromised by the government forcing them to pay for such drugs. Ya know, Freedom of Religion thing?

might add, if ya don't like your company's health care package, either buy your own or go work for a company that has what you want. Don't see why the company is forced to carry a certain healthcare plan...that is a "fringe benefit".

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

the mob says you will provide the healthcare they demand.

http://freedomfeens.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Majority-Rules1-300x240.jpgBrevity is the soul of wit...and, a picture is worth 1000 words.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

i hope he wins and decouples the insurance racket from being tied to your employerif not serious, absolutely funny!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I don't care if he is right or wrong...we shouldn't be forced into paying for every frigging piece of heathcare...especially an over the counter drug like Plan B or birth control that is reasonably priced...

If the insurance company wants to cover those items then fine...or if you want to purchase a rider to cover birth control then more power to you...but they shouldn't be mandated...This isn't hard, is it?

[marfacowboy]

because they are paying for drugs that are morally unacceptable to them. Their religious beliefs are being compromised by the government forcing them to pay for such drugs. Ya know, Freedom of Religion thing?

might add, if ya don't like your company's health care package, either buy your own or go work for a company that has what you want. Don't see why the company is forced to carry a certain healthcare plan...that is a "fringe benefit".

Again, they're not paying anything. I maintain their premiums won't change a penny, either way. They're going to pay the same thing. If they don't like the fact that the insurer and the doctor have the right to prescribe and fund that prescription, they can stop offering insurance.

[Midtowner]

because they are paying for drugs that are morally unacceptable to them. Their religious beliefs are being compromised by the government forcing them to pay for such drugs. Ya know, Freedom of Religion thing?

might add, if ya don't like your company's health care package, either buy your own or go work for a company that has what you want. Don't see why the company is forced to carry a certain healthcare plan...that is a "fringe benefit".

If you choose to participate in commerce as a for-profit business, certain rules are going to apply to you. It may be against your religion to serve black, gay or Muslim customers, but if you don't, you're going to have the FBI breathing down your neck. And keep in mind, these companies aren't paying for these drugs. They're paying for insurance plans with insurance companies who ultimately pay for these drugs. This is the price of doing business in this great economy. We shouldn't allow any exceptions or that's the camel's nose under the tent. The next thing you hear, we'll be looking at Wal-Mart not wanting to cover autism treatments or Sears not wanting to cover cancer. An all-or-nothing proposition works because it is all-or-nothing.

As far as birth control goes, aside from the treatments some employers find morally reprehensible, birth control can treat painful menstrual cramps, can reduce the amount and duration fo menstrual bleeding, can help regulate periods, can help in clearing up acne, can lower the risk of endometrial and ovarian cancers and can treat endometriosis and polycystic ovary syndrome. So again, how are those uses, which no one is saying are immoral for anyone under any religious law something we should talk about the insurance companies not having to pay for?

And why isn't viagra on the table?

[KantoSooner]

I too want to make sure I live according to biblical principles. There's a boatload of stuff in the bible about how to obtain, treat, trade, sell, 'lie with' and otherwise manage one's position as a slave master.
By God! I want my slaves back! To Hell with this liberal government that took away my slaves (illegally under GOD's law) and now tries to prevent me from owning slaves. Overreaching communists!

And don't be smirking, you women! Day Two, you're back to chattel status as well. I'm sick up and fed with all this nanny-state crap telling me how to treat my wimmens. All I need to know about that is in the bahbul; and let me tell you: there's a bunch in there about obedience and me being lord and effing master in my home. Yeeyah!

We be getting back to true nachural law raht quick 'round here.

And it won't be any too soon.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

If you choose to participate in commerce as a for-profit business, certain rules are going to apply to you. It may be against your religion to serve black, gay or Muslim customers, but if you don't, you're going to have the FBI breathing down your neck. And keep in mind, these companies aren't paying for these drugs. They're paying for insurance plans with insurance companies who ultimately pay for these drugs. This is the price of doing business in this great economy. We shouldn't allow any exceptions or that's the camel's nose under the tent. The next thing you hear, we'll be looking at Wal-Mart not wanting to cover autism treatments or Sears not wanting to cover cancer. An all-or-nothing proposition works because it is all-or-nothing.

As far as birth control goes, aside from the treatments some employers find morally reprehensible, birth control can treat painful menstrual cramps, can reduce the amount and duration fo menstrual bleeding, can help regulate periods, can help in clearing up acne, can lower the risk of endometrial and ovarian cancers and can treat endometriosis and polycystic ovary syndrome. So again, how are those uses, which no one is saying are immoral for anyone under any religious law something we should talk about the insurance companies not having to pay for?

And why isn't viagra on the table?Wait, what? You ARE for Socialized Medicine and nannystatism? Oh no, Vladimir, say it ain't so!!!

[Soonerjeepman]

If you choose to participate in commerce as a for-profit business, certain rules are going to apply to you. It may be against your religion to serve black, gay or Muslim customers, but if you don't, you're going to have the FBI breathing down your neck. And keep in mind, these companies aren't paying for these drugs. They're paying for insurance plans with insurance companies who ultimately pay for these drugs. This is the price of doing business in this great economy. We shouldn't allow any exceptions or that's the camel's nose under the tent. The next thing you hear, we'll be looking at Wal-Mart not wanting to cover autism treatments or Sears not wanting to cover cancer. An all-or-nothing proposition works because it is all-or-nothing.

As far as birth control goes, aside from the treatments some employers find morally reprehensible, birth control can treat painful menstrual cramps, can reduce the amount and duration fo menstrual bleeding, can help regulate periods, can help in clearing up acne, can lower the risk of endometrial and ovarian cancers and can treat endometriosis and polycystic ovary syndrome. So again, how are those uses, which no one is saying are immoral for anyone under any religious law something we should talk about the insurance companies not having to pay for?

And why isn't viagra on the table?

According to the author, owner of Hobby Lobby, other companies have been granted exemption to not participate due to other reasons, but since Hobby Lobby is asking for the exemption for religious grounds it isn't approved. Which to me is unacceptable. I, being a husband and father of a daughter, am perfectly aware of the uses (besides contraception) of birth control pills...thanks for the biology lesson.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

According to the author, owner of Hobby Lobby, other companies have been granted exemption to not participate due to other reasons, but since Hobby Lobby is asking for the exemption for religious grounds it isn't approved. Which to me is unacceptable. I, being a husband and father of a daughter, am perfectly aware of the uses (besides contraception) of birth control pills...thanks for the biology lesson.Midtowner will always try to help you with your(flawed, obviously not enlightened)thinking. He's a gem in the midst of wanton neanderthalism.

[Midtowner]

According to the author, owner of Hobby Lobby, other companies have been granted exemption to not participate due to other reasons,

I think what Green is talking about is the size limitation. You have to have a certain number of employees to be required to pay under the mandate. I'd like to see what other exemptions there are. I couldn't find any, but I didn't look hard either.


but since Hobby Lobby is asking for the exemption for religious grounds it isn't approved. Which to me is unacceptable. I, being a husband and father of a daughter, am perfectly aware of the uses (besides contraception) of birth control pills...thanks for the biology lesson.

And you still failed to explain why birth control pills are evil and Viagra isn't, especially considering the alternative uses.

[SoonerAtKU]

I, too, am interested in these thousands of other exempted businesses and the reasoning behind such. What, specifically, clears them from practice versus Hobby Lobby? What about their employees' current coverage will change? I'd be highly surprised if the insurance company they currently use doesn't allow for birth control to be covered. I didn't know there were insurance companies that didn't do that.

[pphilfran]

What's the argument that these drugs shouldn't be treated like prescription allergy meds? There are perfectly acceptable over the counter allergy meds, but some folks still receive prescriptions.

If the insurance company wishes to cover, then fine...as far as scrips for OTC allergy meds then that is part of the problem for our unacceptable healthcare costs...but if the insurance company wants to pay for a script to replace a OTC drug then more power to them...be ready to accept the fact that costs will continue to skyrocket due to "free" drugs and treatment...

[TheHumanAlphabet]

**** The Socialist!!!

[Midtowner]

If the insurance company wishes to cover, then fine...as far as scrips for OTC allergy meds then that is part of the problem for our unacceptable healthcare costs...but if the insurance company wants to pay for a script to replace a OTC drug then more power to them...be ready to accept the fact that costs will continue to skyrocket due to "free" drugs and treatment...

Is there an OTC birth control I'm not aware of?

[diverdog]

I too want to make sure I live according to biblical principles. There's a boatload of stuff in the bible about how to obtain, treat, trade, sell, 'lie with' and otherwise manage one's position as a slave master.
By God! I want my slaves back! To Hell with this liberal government that took away my slaves (illegally under GOD's law) and now tries to prevent me from owning slaves. Overreaching communists!

And don't be smirking, you women! Day Two, you're back to chattel status as well. I'm sick up and fed with all this nanny-state crap telling me how to treat my wimmens. All I need to know about that is in the bahbul; and let me tell you: there's a bunch in there about obedience and me being lord and effing master in my home. Yeeyah!

We be getting back to true nachural law raht quick 'round here.

And it won't be any too soon.

Yeah Lincoln ruined a good thing. LOL

[Soonerjeepman]

it is amazing how some of you lib's can turn a point..but that's your game.

[marfacowboy]

it is amazing how some of you lib's can turn a point..but that's your game.

Actually, it's the right that is turning the point, trying to make it seem like they're "paying for abortion drugs" and birth control. It's absurd.

[badger]

The Greens did something really, really good for the Tulsa community a few years ago: They saved Oral Roberts University.

The younger Roberts family was leading ORU right into the ground, with debt piling up and students wondering if their university was about to close. The Green family stepped in and said that they would donate the money to save the university on the condition that the Roberts family step out. The Roberts are gone, the ORU has been cleared and the university remains open.

I support the Greens in this lawsuit.

[pphilfran]

Is there an OTC birth control I'm not aware of?

That particular post was in response to OTC allergy medicine being prescribed and paid for by insurance...my earlier post was about Plan B being OTC...

Whatever the case, I doubt if it is cost effective when we expect a doctor to write a script for OTC allergy medicines and then have the script to go through the various layers to pay for the OTC medicine...

[pphilfran]

Actually, it's the right that is turning the point, trying to make it seem like they're "paying for abortion drugs" and birth control. It's absurd.

If BC and abortion drugs are being covered by insurance then who pays? Is it "free"?

[Soonerjeepman]

Actually, it's the right that is turning the point, trying to make it seem like they're "paying for abortion drugs" and birth control. It's absurd.

lol..seriously? ok, the business is being FORCED by the government to supply insurance, that includes coverage for the scripts...is it that hard? The major point was that the government is forcing the business to go against their principals but yet allowing other companies to be exempt. I've read 1 post making ref to protecting the rights of blacks, gays, muslims etc...this has nothing to do with denying those "rights". It's freakin insurance.

The United States was founded because of governmental tyranny on religious beliefs...separation of church and state was meant NO state shall tell you what your religious preferences should be, not the other way around.

[marfacowboy]

lol..seriously? ok, the business is being FORCED by the government to supply insurance, that includes coverage for the scripts...is it that hard?

No, not all businesses are being forced to provide insurance.
The scripts are covered today. They'll be covered tomorrow at the same cost.



The major point was that the government is forcing the business to go against their principals but yet allowing other companies to be exempt. I've read 1 post making ref to protecting the rights of blacks, gays, muslims etc...this has nothing to do with denying those "rights". It's freakin insurance.

They're doing it today. They're offering insurance that provides these services. Nothing is going to change except they are going to be required by law to do what they're already doing.

The United States was founded because of governmental tyranny on religious beliefs...separation of church and state was meant NO state shall tell you what your religious preferences should be, not the other way around.[/QUOTE]

[marfacowboy]

If BC and abortion drugs are being covered by insurance then who pays? Is it "free"?

Well, this should be obvious. The insurer pays a portion, and the enrolled individual pays a portion.

[olevetonahill]

Is there an OTC birth control I'm not aware of?
They even come in purty colors

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/illinois/images/Illinois/condoms2.jpg

[pphilfran]

Well, this should be obvious. The insurer pays a portion, and the enrolled individual pays a portion.

The insurer doesn't pay chit....the policy holders, if they use the product or not, or agrees with the use of the product, pays the cost of the product...

[KantoSooner]

Yeah, it seems like the crux of the biscuit, to quote Frank Zappa, is that some employers are using religious belief arguments to try to redefine 'comprehensive'. My suspicion is that the whole argument has more to do with politics and money than any deeply held convictions.
Especially since bc would appear to have been covered for a long time without raising any kerfuffle (1) and (2) no one is mandating its use.

[BermudaSooner]

What a distortion. He's not paying for "abortion causing drugs." He pays a portion of a premium for employee coverage, and it's not likely that his premium isn't going to be affected because the insurance company is now required by law to cover a drug they were already covering.
The doctors and the insurance company have always made the decision about what drugs are prescribed and paid for. The doctor-patient relationship is none of his business.

actually cowboy, you are wrong. As an actuary and someone who re-insures the insurers providing cover, I know that everything covered or not covered is considered in the pricing of an insurance policy--particularly health policies where the data is so granular and easy to obtain.

Now in this case, although I don't don't for sure, but I would assume that the plan with the "abortion causing drugs" is possibly and likely even cheaper as a pill is a hell of a lot cheaper than having a baby.

That being said, governement forcing an employer to provide something that is against their religious beliefs is difficult to take.

[KantoSooner]

Bermuda, you may know the answer to this. Under ACA/Obamacare are there mandates for providing 'comprehensive' insurance? And are there legal definitions of what 'comprehensive' means?
I would think that bc would have been included in any comprehensive definition of 'comprehensive', but I'm just speculating.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

it is amazing how some of you lib's can turn a point..but that's your game.
it IS sorta amazing, the convoluted crap they come up with, twisted facts, outright lies, and apparently, blatantly wrong interpretations of things! Also willfully and intentionally disregarding facts, ideas and situations they don't like...and, it either doesn't bother them, or they are unaware of the erroneousness of what they're doing.

[Midtowner]

They even come in purty colors

You've missed the point entirely.

Condoms can't help regulate hormones. Read books.

[Midtowner]

Yeah, it seems like the crux of the biscuit, to quote Frank Zappa, is that some employers are using religious belief arguments to try to redefine 'comprehensive'. My suspicion is that the whole argument has more to do with politics and money than any deeply held convictions.
Especially since bc would appear to have been covered for a long time without raising any kerfuffle (1) and (2) no one is mandating its use.

From an insurer's point of view, as business decisions go, paying for birth control vs. pregnancy is a pretty easy decision.

[pphilfran]

Bermuda, you may know the answer to this. Under ACA/Obamacare are there mandates for providing 'comprehensive' insurance? And are there legal definitions of what 'comprehensive' means?
I would think that bc would have been included in any comprehensive definition of 'comprehensive', but I'm just speculating.

Page 58 - max delectable of 2k for single and 4k family...a lot of other gobbledegookp that you might be able to figure out...

http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf

[pphilfran]

From an insurer's point of view, as business decisions go, paying for birth control vs. pregnancy is a pretty easy decision.

I agree...but that should be the insurers choice and not a mandate..we cannot expect insurance to pay for each and every penny on each and every thing that is available...

The basic coverage should be for catastrophic instances...if a person wants better coverage they pay for that additional coverage out of pocket...if they want coverage for birth control and it is not covered they pay for the additional coverage...

WE are making very inexpensive healthcare items ungodly expensive by requiring excessive amounts of paperwork and layer upon layer of business...

[Midtowner]

I agree...but that should be the insurers choice and not a mandate..we cannot expect insurance to pay for each and every penny on each and every thing that is available...

The basic coverage should be for catastrophic instances...if a person wants better coverage they pay for that additional coverage out of pocket...if they want coverage for birth control and it is not covered they pay for the additional coverage...

WE are making very inexpensive healthcare items ungodly expensive by requiring excessive amounts of paperwork and layer upon layer of business...

Well tell your damn party to stop cutting off Planned Parenthood's funding then :)

They offer a very inexpensive route to birth control and all medical necessities for ladyparts. Because they are a comprehensive ladypart servicer, some states are trying to destroy them.

[pphilfran]

The same goes for some preventive medicine...some is very cost effective...while others cost much more on the preventive side than they save over the long run...each should be looked at individually and action taken based on the overall costs...

Our beliefs that our overall individually lives are far more important than any cost is going to bankrupt us...we must look at what is most cost effective for the whole...and then if an individual want to go whole hog and get every preventive test and procedure done to themselves they should pay out of pocket or upgrade to a higher cost plan...

[pphilfran]

Well tell your damn party to stop cutting off Planned Parenthood's funding then :)

They offer a very inexpensive route to birth control and all medical necessities for ladyparts. Because they are a comprehensive ladypart servicer, some states are trying to destroy them.

It is not my party...I am voting against all incumbents...

[KantoSooner]

Mid and Phil,
I was just thinking out loud. It sort of seems nonsensical for this to have become such a bellowing point for either side. BC is cheap, on the one hand, either for users or for providers. And it's apparently been part of plans for a while so why the outrage now? (I really didn't know this, largely because for most of my adult life, I've lived under national health plans outside the US. And, unlike here, those operated pretty much along the lines of "Your doctor said you should have X, Y, Z; so, here you are." I never had to think about what was or wasn't covered. You paid your monthly taxes, got your little card and went to the Dr. if you needed something.)
The only thing I could come up with is that its a political season and that some people are jockeying for position so that they can later tailor the insurance they are 'required' to provide.

[olevetonahill]

You've missed the point entirely.

Condoms can't help regulate hormones. Read books.

I dint Miss shat Dumas
You asked about OVER THE COUNTER BC I showed ya some
Now apologize :sneakiness:

[pphilfran]

I think it is a problem now because in the past it was not the government telling a provider that they must offer coverage...the provider would cover if it was cost effective...

Some people, right or wrong, are dead set against birth control...and they feel it is not the place for government to force them to pay a small fee for coverage they will not use or believe in...

Like I said many times in the past...we should have a plan similar to the Swiss plan where basic, catastrophic coverage is non profit...premium plans are available to the Swiss that offer more coverage with higher deducts that the insured pays out of pocket...and this is where the insurer makes a profit, not on the basic, low cost coverage...

Forcing everyone to pay for everything available is going to bankrupt the entire system....

I find the entire mess discouraging...

[Midtowner]

Forcing everyone to pay for everything available is going to bankrupt the entire system....

I find the entire mess discouraging...

I don't. It's progress. Will this system work? I have no doubt that it'll fail. That's the point though--get the people to buy into an entitlement they want, create an unworkable, compromised system which you can later blame Republicans for since all they would do is try to obstruct things. Then when the thing goes to hell in a handbasket, the Dems will be right there with single payer, a fully socialized system, etc., i.e., something workable.

It's a pretty obvious strategy and the Republicans are going right along with it.

[KantoSooner]

Phil! You can't be serious!! Look at the Swiss plan?!? You, you, you commiefagjunkie! You KNOW we aren't allowed to survey world healthcare plans and borrow good ideas from ferriners, don't you?
Hells Bells, we were even allowed to compare the variety of systems at work in this country to determine what might work better than our current hot wet mess.

[marfacowboy]

actually cowboy, you are wrong. As an actuary and someone who re-insures the insurers providing cover, I know that everything covered or not covered is considered in the pricing of an insurance policy--particularly health policies where the data is so granular and easy to obtain.

I didn't say they weren't considered. Of course they're considered. I said I didn't believe it would affect their premiums. They're providing that service today as part of the policy. Are you telling me that they are going to increase the cost of the policy to an existing client simply because of a change in the law, even though the costs increases to the insurer may be zero or negligible?



Now in this case, although I don't don't for sure, but I would assume that the plan with the "abortion causing drugs" is possibly and likely even cheaper as a pill is a hell of a lot cheaper than having a baby.

Exactly! And we know the number one priority of the insurer is to maximize profit, not get into religious squabbles.


That being said, governement forcing an employer to provide something that is against their religious beliefs is difficult to take.

They're covering it today. Why hasn't Hobby Lobby dropped the coverage or asked the insurer to not cover those items? It's not been an issue until "Obamacare," and the only reason it's an issue today is because OBAMA pushed the act. When Romney did it in his home state it was a non-issue and a success.

[Midtowner]

When Romney did it in his home state it was a non-issue and a success.

Pshaw... we know there are no Catholics in Massachusetts, so there's no way in Hades they've had a chance to gritch about the issue yet... right?