To be clear, birth control is very closely tied to (white) women's liberation. An attack on birth control is an attack on women in the workplace and gender equality more broadly.

It's pretty troubling that Hobby Lobby getting a lot of political sympathy in part because they're framing the disputed medications as abortifacients instead of contraceptives. OBGYNs say that they aren't abortifacients, but Hobby Lobby says that they can decide biochemical questions according to their religious faith. According to their argument, if an employer decided that ibuprofen is an abortifacient, motivated by sincerely held religious belief, then they can refuse to cover it.

I cannot wait for the case where an employer says they'll only cover maternity care for married women. It's coming.

We have a pretty good idea of how some of the Jsutices will rule. Kennedy is often a swing vote, but I think he will be with Scalia/Thomas. I don't hold much hope for Aiito. Roberts is the Justice to watch.

I'm really interested in the turnout, though I am a bit worried as well. I think it's very dangerous to give corporations the right to exercise religious freedom. For one thing, who's beliefs are being applied? It allows potentially one person to discriminate against who knows how people, because the person with more money obviously has a greater interest in freedom of religion then those without.

Well, there is a big movement of white Christians that want to see white women stop using birth control to stop the "take over" of America by those "Non-Americans". There are many arguments against birth control and they aren't all just religious. Religion is a nice way to package all of them so you can hide behind the 1st amendment. These same people feel the role of women is in the home as mothers and wives so aren't swayed by any arguments to the contrary. It feels like 1900 sometimes.

Psi U -- you nailed a core question: Whose beliefs should be determinative? There is a strong argument that it should be the individuals. The slippery slope can be even more frightening. Will a religiously affiliated hospital be able to refuse to follow a health care directive against heroic measures on religious gounds (tabling for the moment, recent decisions based on state law)? In medical emergencies one doesn't always have the luxury of choose one's hospital.

This already happens.

: (

Yeah- this seems to be the crux of the case. Hobby Lobby isn't refusing to pay for all BC, they're refusing to pay for some BC based on an extreme minority opinion. They only want to not cover birth control that prevents implantation (IUDs and morning after pills).

It's an interesting spin to the now-classic "religion prevents my acceptance of BC" argument.

So now this case becomes part religious freedom, part science, part religion-vs-science.

Except morning after pills also prevent ovulation, not just implantation.

If I remember the argument correctly, it's that even if a method can prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, they don't want to support it.

Not saying I agree, though.

The evidence shows that they do not prevent implantation just ovulation.

^^^
Yup this!
They're building one here in my city--they won't be getting one thin dime from me

I wish I could say that I'm proud that Hobby Lobby has never gotten any money from me and they won't because of their politics.

It's true that I haven't and will not shop there, but it has had in the past most to do with my utter inability to do anything remotely artsy or crafty.

But if I ever discover some heretofore unknown abilities, they certainly won't get any money from me.

Exactly. I have a couple friends who were prescribed birth control for other conditions. One of them has an IUD for PCOS (Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome). Another was prescribed birth control pills for acne**. If the pill didn't cause extreme side effects for me, I would have continued taking them for just that reason; my skin had never looked better!

**I know that the Hobby Lobby case doesn't involve BC pills, but if this passes, you can bet other companies will probably try to exclude coverage for those as well.

Or the case where a company won't cover treatment for AIDS, because that's a "gay disease." The possibilities are endless… and outrageous.

This is what I keep wondering. Let's pretend it's the CEO. What happens when a new CEO takes over and they want to cover these forms of birth control? And let's say 10 years later, another CEO comes in and refuses to cover them all over again?

People can say, "speak with your feet," or whatever, but what happens when you go to a new company and they implement a similar restriction? Or maybe they win a case where they can refuse treatment for some other medication that you need?

If this passes, the court system is going to overflow with desired exceptions from companies.