"The bill does not amend that law. It explicitly preserves federal rules that provide an exemption for churches and other houses of worship that have religious objections to providing coverage for some or all contraceptives.

The bill also preserves an accommodation devised by President Obama for nonprofit religious organizations, like colleges, hospitals and charities, that have religious objections."

so WHAT does it do exactly?

Repeal The Religious Freedom Restoration Act or RFRA and remove the Free Exercise clause from the Establishment Clause! Clearly it is not clear enough for the theocrats.

#13 As I understand it, it applies to what Hobby Lobby changed- corporations. There have always been exemptions for actual religious organizations, but HL opens the door for any closely held corporation to discriminate based on their "religion".

Please read the Supreme Court's decision before you take up arms against Hobby Lobby. It was far more limiting and specific than the media and many politicians make it out to be.

I'm not against contraceptives or a woman's right to birth control by any means, quite frankly I'm a big proponent for it, but I don't understand why people think they have the right to force those who own businesses to provide services to their employees they may find objectionable.

Actually, #9 is mostly correct. Hobby Lobby provides coverage for 16 types of birth control. Those categorized as abortifacient are what they do not want to cover. That means ECPs ( emergency conception prevention) which include day-after pills (whether or not they are actually abortifacient, since some aren't) and copper-T IUDs specifically (as they are in the category of ECPs because they can be inserted up to 5 days after conception), and abortion (which is pretty horrible if that's your version of birth control).

Ultimately, these are still available, but Hobby Lobby is taking the stance that you are "on your own" for post conception contraceptive measures. It doesn't mean you can't get birth control, it just means they want their employees to think ahead, not react.

Additionally, some contraceptive measures they are excluding aren't abortifacient, (as I noted) but are in the same category as those that are. That issue just indicates a need to properly categorize contraceptive measures.

Finally, people are making more out of this than it should be. Right and left wings. Special interest groups are using partial information and aggrandizement to produce anger and fear. This is a simple case that has been oversensationalized. I learned the above in twenty minutes of Google searching and reading more than headlines and pop news sites.

so wait, Hobby Lobby can decline to pay for ANYTHING as long as they sincerely believe it is an abortifacient?

God how the socialist dem libs can be so two faced......"health care decisions are not the bosses business, period"! Indeed!!?? Well whoop-dee-frickin-doo.......paying for other folks contraceptives shouldn't be anyone elses business or obligation, either. Ya flop on your back, throw your legs in the air and enjoy sex is nice.Lots of us have had the experience, but those involved should sure nuff pay for the damn condom themselves.

Is she really that stupid? The SCOTUS didn't rule it was okay to not provide birth control, it ruled the abortion drugs didn't have to be provided. All these drugs are still available, not just paid for by the insurance provided by the employer.

I live in WA and Murray is one of my senators, makes me ashamed even though I never voted for her.

The Supreme Court is the law. They decide what is constitutional and unconstitutional. Do we really think the Senate can change that. Hobby Lobby is a family owned private corporation. They are not traded on the stock market. They are private. Even though we may not like the choice, do we really want the government telling "private corporations" what the government wants. I do not.

Senator Murray is being untruthful when she states that “People across the country understand that if bosses can deny birth control they can deny vaccines, HIV treatment or other basic health services for employees or their dependents," in her challenge to the Hobby Lobby decision.

The Court assumed that FREE contraception INCLUDING the four at issue was OK when it stated,

"We will assume that the interest in guaranteeing cost-free access to the four challenged contraceptive methods is compelling within the meaning of RFRA."

The Court specifically suggested that the LEAST-RESTRICTIVE standard of the law in getting women free contraception could be accomplished by the government providing such coverage when it stated:

"The most straightforward way of doing this would be for the Government to assume the cost of providing the four contraceptives at issue to any women who are unable to obtain them under their health-insurance policies due to their employers’ religious objections."

Finally, please read the decision which states: "THIS DECISION CONCERNS ONLY THE CONTRACEPTIVE MANDATE and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for VACCINATIONS or BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS, must necessarily fail if they conflict with an employer's religious beliefs. Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice." (emphasis added)