Maybe someone on this forum can help clarify something for me, because I am confused about the ruling myself, even after reading it and listening to news comentators on it:
Will Hobby Lobby still provide MOST forms of birth control or not, that is, after the ruling?
I thought their argument was against having to provide for birth control that the Hobby Lobby owners believed were "abortive" in nature, like the Plan B (so called Morning After) pill. I didn't think the ruling was that Hobby Lobby would not provide most forms of birth control. They have always provided those kinds in the past (At least, this is what I have been led to believe... I could be wrong.) So, in a list of birth control methods available in the world, Hobby Lobby was refusing to provide a couple of them only that they deemed "aborted life" and that was the crux of the issue. Preventing preganancy itself doesn't seem to be an issue, at least in this particular case.
I will add here that I am concerned myself by religious over reach. As an ex-JW, I hate it when so-called moral majorities inflict their beliefs on me. So, the ruling is concerning to me as well. I'm not defending it... yet.
But at the same time, I want to be balanced in my view on what just occurred and not claim something that isn't, that is, that women have been denied birth control entirely if that isn't a fact.
Anyone?