FYI the company this whole fiasco is about is paying for 16 contraception drugs/pills/whatever.  They are just refusing to pay for the ones that are basically pills you take when you find out your ALREADY pregnant that then kill the baby.  

So please don't equate this to viagra.

abortifacients, or the morning-after pill which merely prevents implantation?

If we're talking about the morning after pill, then the menstral cycle kills a lot more babies than that pill does.

Hobby Lobby may have only wanted to not pay for those four contraceptives, but the Supreme Court's ruling covers ALL contraception. Many people here are also referring to ALL contraceptives. That was what my post was referring to. But...

Abortifacient is not used to refer to any of those four pills in medicine. And as far as medical science is concerned, pregnancy doesn't actually happen until the egg attaches itself to the uterus. Honestly, I don't even think the pill you described exists. Pregnancy can only be detected after the egg has been implanted, and the contraceptives don't work after that happens.

“A pregnancy exists once a fertilized embryo has implanted in the uterus. Prior to that implantation, we do not have a viable pregnancy,” said Dr. Barbara Levy, vice president for health policy for the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Levy’s group argues that emergency contraception “cannot prevent implantation of a fertilized egg,” and that it is “not effective after implantation; therefore, it is not an abortifacient.”

Drugs such as RU-486 or methotrexate combined with misoprostol were designed specifically to bring a medical end to a pregnancy and are clearly abortifacient. But those are not contraceptives, Levy said, and they’re not included in the mandate.

Levy contends that her group’s definition of pregnancy, established in 1970, “ is scientific. By the time I was in medical school, it was crystal clear to all of us.” "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/whats-abortifacient-disputes-over-birth-control-fuel-obamacare-fight/2014/01/28/61f080be-886a-11e3-a760-a86415d0944d_story.html

So as far as I'm concerned, yeah. I can equate this stuff to Viagra. I mean, I get you have your own beliefs, maybe deeply rooted in religion or an agnostic moral code, but I personally follow what the majority of science and the medical community has to say. According to most of them this isn't abortion. Both are a means to enjoy sex without having to worry about pregnancy, but both also have their medical uses outside of that, which is why any responsible health plan ought to cover them. I don't personally know if THESE FOUR that Hobby Lobby didn't want to pay for have medical uses outside of preventing pregnancy, but given that the Supreme Court's ruling affects all contraceptives, that's not really relevant here, I don't think.

I know isn't it hilarious how mad some people get when they hear someone wants to do something they don't do?  For God's sake people, providing birth control is not the same as forcing it!

Exactly!  The funny thing is that the morning afer pill doesn't even kill anything!  It just prevents the sperm from reaching the egg (Most people don't know that it takes days for it to get there).  We should start administering quizes about the subjects politicians are about to debate to be sure they actually know what they are talking about! 

yes, and living long lifes and dying of old age kills more people than murderers do. we dont justify homocide because of that though

Someone could rip up your constitution and it would make no difference. Thats what the US government might as well be doing, with all the breaches of it recently.

I think a lot of people are missing the big issue here...Nobody. Not a person or a company should be allowed to circumvent federal law just because they don't agree with it. More importantly, the supreme court made it's second huge ruling in favor of a company despite the obvious case against it.

Welcome to the great American Oligarchy.

Perhaps you should tell Obama that. No one is circumventing federal law here, the Judes are determining what federal law can be, given the federal laws they already have to abide (you know that whole constitution that sets up our legal, and law system). Yes welcome to the great american oligarchy with King Obama

There's a hierarchy when it comes to the law, and several methods of determining which controls when laws conflict. In this case, the argument is that this portion of the ACA (a federal law) is either outweighed by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (another federal law) or the Constitution (THE law of the land). Due to this 5-4 decision, there was no circumventing of the federal law after all.