by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 6/30/14 

The Supreme Court ruled today that the Christian-run Hobby Lobby doesn’t have to obey the HHS mandate that is a part of Obamacare that requires businesses to pay for abortion causing drugs in their employee health care plans.

The Obama administration was attempting to make Hobby Lobby and thousands of pro-life businesses and organizations comply with the HHS mandate that compels religious companies to pay for birth control and abortion-causing drugs for their employees. However, the U.S. Supreme Court today issued a favorable ruling in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., a landmark case addressing the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of business owners to operate their family companies without violating their deeply held religious convictions.

Writing for the 5-4 majority, Justice SamuelAlito handed down the decision for the high court, saying, “The Supreme Court holds government can’t require closely held corporations with religious owners to provide contraception coverage.”

The court ruled that the contraception mandate violated the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act, a 1993 law and it held that the mandate “substantially burdens the exercise of religion” and that HHS didn’t use the “least restrictive means” to promote this government interest, tests required by RFRA.

“HHS’s contraception mandate substantially burdens the exercise of religion,” the decision reads, adding that the “decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates.” The opinion said the “plain terms of Religious Freedom Restoration Act” are “perfectly clear.”

“If the owners comply with the HHS mandate, they believe they will be facilitating abortions, and if they do not comply, they will pay a very heavy price — as much as $1.3 million per day, or about $475 million per year, in the case of one of the companies,” the opinion reads. “If these consequences do not amount to a substantial burden, it is hard to see what would.”

“There are other ways in which Congress or HHS could equally ensure that every woman has cost-free access to the particular contraceptives at issue here and, indeed, to all FDA-approved contraceptives,” the opinion concluded.

“The plain terms of RFRA make it perfectly clear that Congress did not discriminate in this way against men and women who wish to run their businesses as for-profit corporations in the manner required by their religious beliefs,” read the opinion.

Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy joined in the majority decision. Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

“In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs,” Ginsburg wrote.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion saying that government itself could provide the coverage for contraception and the abortion-causing drugs if a company declines to do so.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg issued a dissent that claims the decision is “of startling breadth,” a claim the majority denies. The major decision indicates it applies to the abortion mandate, not blood transfusions or other practices to which people may have religious objections.

The Hobby Lobby decision only applies to companies, including Conestoga Wood Specialties, which had a companion case pending before the Supreme Court. Non-profit groups like Priests for Life and Little Sisters are still waiting for a ruling about their right to opt out of the mandate.

The Obama administration said it was confident it would prevail, saying, “We believe this requirement is lawful…and are confident the Supreme Court will agree.”

Americans “don’t give up their rights to religious freedom just because they open a family-run business,” Lori Windham, senior counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented Hobby Lobby. “This is a landmark decision for religious freedom. The Supreme Court recognized that Americans do not lose their religious freedom when they run a family business.”

Barbara Green, co-founder of Hobby Lobby, also responded: “Our family is overjoyed by the Supreme Court’s decision. Today the nation’s highest court has re-affirmed the vital importance of religious liberty as one of our country’s founding principles. The Court’s decision is a victory, not just for our family business, but for all who seek to live out their faith. We are grateful to God and to those who have supported us on this difficult journey.”

See the pro-life reaction in pictures…

Responding to the decision, Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel David Cortman told LifeNews: “Americans don’t surrender their freedom by opening a family business. In its decision today, the Supreme Court affirmed that all Americans, including family business owners, must be free to live and work consistently with their beliefs without fear of punishment by the government. In a free and diverse society, we respect the freedom to live out our convictions. For the Hahns and the Greens, that means not being forced to participate in distributing potentially life-terminating drugs and devices.”

In July, a federal court granted Hobby Lobby a preliminary injunction against the HHS abortion-drug mandate. The injunction prevented the Obama administration from enforcing the mandate against the Christian company, but the Obama administration appealed that ruling. Hobby Lobby could have paid as much as $1.3 million each day in fines for refusing to pay for birth control or abortion-causing drugs under the mandate.

After the appeals court ruling, U.S. District Judge Joe Heaton issued a preliminary injunction and stayed the case until Oct. 1 to give the Obama administration time to appeal the decision.

In an opinion read from the bench, the court said, “There is a substantial public interest in ensuring that no individual or corporation has their legs cut out from under them while these difficult issues are resolved.”

A December 2013 Rasmussen Reports poll shows Americans disagree with forcing companies like Hobby Lobby to obey the mandate.

“Half of voters now oppose a government requirement that employers provide health insurance with free contraceptives for their female employees,” Rasmussen reports.

The poll found: “The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 38% of Likely U.S. Voters still believe businesses should be required by law to provide health insurance that covers all government-approved contraceptives for women without co-payments or other charges to the patient.

Fifty-one percent (51%) disagree and say employers should not be required to provide health insurance with this type of coverage. Eleven percent (11%) are not sure.”

Another recent poll found 59 percent of Americans disagree with the mandate.

The Green family, which owns Hobby Lobby, grew their family business out of their garage. They now own stores in 41 states employing more than 16,000 full time employees. They have always operated their business according to their faith.

Kristina Arriaga, Executive Director of the Becket Fund, tells LifeNews, “In fact, the Greens pay salaries that start at twice the minimum wage and offer excellent benefits, as well as a healthcare package which includes almost all of the contraceptives now mandated by the Affordable Care Act. Their only objection is to 4 drugs and devices which, the government itself concedes, can terminate an embryo.”

“Their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act should be protected by the government. Instead, the government has threatened them with fines and fought them all the way to the Supreme Court,” Arriaga added.

“The government has already exempted tens of millions of Americans from complying with the mandate that forces employers to provide certain specific drugs and devices. However, it refuses to accommodate the Green family because the Green family’s objections are religious.  We believe that the government’s position is not only extreme and unconstitutional; it presents a grave danger to our freedoms,” she continued.

“My family and I are encouraged that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide our case,” said Mr. Green, Hobby Lobby’s founder and CEO.  “This legal challenge has always remained about one thing and one thing only: the right of our family businesses to live out our sincere and deeply held religious convictions as guaranteed by the law and the Constitution. Business owners should not have to choose between violating their faith and violating the law.”

by Jordan Sekulow | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 6/28/14 

After being re-arrested less than a day after being released from death row for her Christian faith, Meriam Ibrahim and her American family have reportedly been released from the custody of Sudanese police forces on the condition that they not leave Sudan, as possible charges are brought against them.

They are not free.

Meriam and her American family were about to board a flight to freedom earlier this week, when 40 members of Sudan’s National Intelligence Security Service (known as the “Agents of Fear”) detained her along with her American husband and her two American kids – Martin, a toddler, and Maya, a newborn baby girl.  After being detained at the airport, Meriam and her American family were arrested and taken to the police station.

Sudan is accusing Meriam of attempting to use an “illegal [false] travel document” in trying to leave the country and is accusing her husband – a U.S. citizen – of being an accomplice.  It is unclear from reports if Sudan has formally charged Meriam with a crime, one that could carry with it a seven-year prison sentence, or whether they are still investigating the allegations.

Regardless, the fact remains that Meriam, her American husband, and her American kids are not free to leave the country.

Meriam’s attorney stated, “Meriam was released after a guarantor was found, but, of course, she would not be able to leave the country.”  Unlike bail in the U.S., in Sudan a guarantor would not just forfeit money, that person may actually have to stand in the place of Meriam criminally were she to flee the country.

According to press accounts, her lawyer also stated that Meriam and her American family are now in the U.S. embassy.  This is a critically important development for her safety.  However, they are not free to leave Sudan.

The United States must never let Meriam and her family who are U.S. citizens leave their sight from this point forward.  There were reports that when Meriam was taken into custody at the airport, it was done in the presence of U.S. diplomatic personnel.  This can never happen again.

Yesterday, a U.S. State Department spokesperson said that “from our perspective, Meriam has all of the documents she needs to travel to and enter the United States. It’s up to the Government of Sudan to allow her to exit the country.”

Later that day the State Department released a short statement, providing:

The State Department has received confirmation that Meriam Ibrahim Ishag has been released on bail and is no longer being detained at a Sudanese police station. She and her family are in a safe location and the Government of Sudan has assured us of the family’s continued safety. The Embassy remains highly engaged in Ms. Ishag’s case. We will provide more information as it becomes available consistent with privacy laws.

The Obama Administration, and the State Department in particular, must continue to aggressively demand freedom for Meriam and her American family.  While not physically in the custody of the Sudanese government at the present time, Meriam and her American family are not truly free until they are safely in America.

It would be an act of diplomatic malpractice were the U.S. to allow Meriam and her American family to fall back into the hands of the Sudanese government – the government that just days ago planned to execute her for her Christian faith.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans have demanded Meriam’s freedom.  Meriam expressed her gratitude for that support when she left the police station, telling the BBC, “I would like to thank those who stood beside me.”

At the ACLJ, we will not rest until Meriam, Martin, Maya, and Daniel, their American husband and father, are safely home.  Join us by urging the Obama Administration to take direct action to bring them home.

LifeNews Note: Jordan Sekulow is Executive Director of the American Center for Law & Justice and writes for On Faith’s blogging network at the Washington Post, where this column originally appeared.

by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 6/26/14 

In a unanimous decision today, the Supreme Court struck down a Massachusetts buffer zone law prohibiting pro-life free speech outside abortion clinics. The decision is a huge victory for pro-life sidewalk counselors who provide women with abortion alternatives.  The decision strikes down a Massachusetts law that created a 35-foot “buffer zone” restricting pro-life advocates from speaking with people entering abortion facilities.

Saying the abortion buffer zone is “inconsistent with the First Amendment,” the Supreme Court ruled that that the buffer zone violated the First Amendment because it “restricts access to ‘public way[s]’ and ‘sidewalk[s],’ places that have traditionally been open for speech activities.”

Masschusetts Citizens for Life reacted to the decision in an email to LifeNews:

Massachusetts Citizens for Life welcomes the Supreme Court unanimous decision, McCullen v. Coakley, which strikes down the Massachusetts so-called Buffer Zone as a violation of the First Amendment. The court reiterates tradition in this country that the sidewalk is the vehicle for free speech.  There are already laws on the books which prohibit blocking entrances, harassing people, etc.​The McCullen decision makes it clear that more restrictive laws may be written only if the current laws are not working – something that the state of Massachusetts failed to prove.

Mark Rienzi, professor of constitutional law at Catholic University of America’s Columbus School of Law and lead counsel in McCullen v. Coakley, told LifeNews, “Americans have the freedom to talk to whomever they please on public sidewalks. That includes peaceful pro-lifers like Eleanor McCullen, who just wants to offer information and help to women who would like it. The Supreme Court has affirmed a critical freedom that has been an essential part of American life since the nation’s founding.”

Kristan Hawkins, the president of Students for Life of America, told LifeNews:

“Today’s Supreme Court ruling in McCullen v. Coakley is wonderful news for all Americans because it upholds our crucial First Amendment rights of free speech but perhaps no more important than for women considering abortion because it frees sidewalk counselors at abortion facilities to be able to offer compassionate and caring alternatives.

“While the ruling is great news for the free speech of anti-abortion advocates, this isn’t about us. This is about giving women the opportunity to be informed of all of their options and isn’t that what the pro-abortion movement is all about? If Planned Parenthood and their allies truly favored choice and not their pocketbooks, they would be elated at this decision as well. Because if abortion is right and harms no one, then why not give the woman a chance at choosing life by presenting her options she may not even know about? Sidewalk counselors can’t stop women from having abortions, but they can offer information, resources, and just a listening ear  to those young women who feel desperate and alone.

“Because of this ruling striking down the buffer zone and upholding our constitutional rights, pro-life students across the nation will continue to be that compassionate lifeline for women in their most desperate hour, helping her to choose life for both her and her child.”

          Americans United for Life legal counsel Bill Saunders previously wrote at LifeNews about the scope and magnitude of the case:

For years, the government in Massachusetts has been treating public sidewalks as private property of the abortion clinic, with criminal penalties for anyone that offers life-affirming alternatives.  But among the decisions to be issued by the U.S. Supreme Court by the end of June is a case challenging that restrictive Massachusetts law, McCullen v. Coakley. Hopefully, the Court will go further  and reverse a 2000 decision, Hill v. Colorado, which has been the basis of restrictions on pro-life free speech ever since.

In 2007, Massachusetts enacted a law that prohibits anyone to “enter or remain on a public way or sidewalk adjacent” to a stand-alone abortion facility, but it does not equally apply to all persons. The “no entry zone” is actually a “no pro-life speech” zone, as the Massachusetts government explicitly exempts employees or agents of the abortion facilityacting within their scope of employment.

Americans United for Life has been actively involved opposing this anti-American, anti-speech law, twice filing an amicus brief on behalf of 40 Days for Life. In 2009, we filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to hear this case (on petition for cert). This past fall, we filed again, urging the Court to overturn the law.

The AUL brief explains how the Massachusetts law violates the First Amendment freedom of speech rights of 40 Days for Life by establishing a no pro-life speech zone, where no alternatives to abortion may be offered.  Contrary to the First Amendment and Supreme Court precedent, it forces pro-life speakers to either shout (from 35 feet away) or be silent, effectively foreclosing speech by those who engage in personal, direct, peaceful communication.

An abortion clinic employee, under the law, is allowed to approach women on the public sidewalk and say anything. However, our client, 40 Days for Life, cannot on that same public sidewalk offer, “I can help you” or even stand and pray without facing criminal penalties.

Even if a woman consents to listen or wants to hear what 40 Days has to say on that public sidewalk, that communication is not allowed by the draconian Massachusetts law.

Such blatant viewpoint discrimination should be held unconstitutional, even under the standards of the Supreme Court’s 2000 decision, Hill v. Colorado. Important to the Court’s finding in  Hill that the “no approach” Colorado statute was “viewpoint neutral” was that it applied to “all” speakers: “That is the level of neutrality that the Constitution demands.”  The Massachusetts statute clearly does not meet that test.

But the Court in McCullen has the opportunity to do more than merely correctly applyHill; it has the opportunity to correct the strained reasoning of the majority in Hill   that upheld the Colorado statute.

In Hill, Justice Kennedy poignantly opened his dissent, writing that “[t]he Court’s holding contradicts more than a half century of well-established First Amendment principles. For the first time, the Court approves a law which bars a private citizen from passing a message, in a peaceful manner and on a profound moral issue, to a fellow citizen on a public sidewalk.” He continued, “If from this time forward the Court repeats its grave errors of analysis, we shall have no longer the proud tradition of free and open discourse in a public forum.”

It is time to reverse Hill.  Let us hope the Supreme Court will do so, thereby restoring the free speech rights of pro-life Americans not only in Massachusetts but throughout the land.

by Josh Brahm | Birmingham, AL | LifeNews.com | 6/25/14 

The Christian Post reports today that the Alabama Women’s Center, the sole abortion facility in North Alabama is scheduled to close its doors on Friday.

This is due to them failing to meet all of the requirements of the Women’s Health and Safety Act, which stipulates that doctors working at Alabama abortion facilities must have hospital admitting privileges in the same city where they do abortions, and they must meet the same building safety standards as ambulatory surgical centers. According to an al.com report, these safety standards require a number of things, including making hallways at abortion clinics wide enough to accommodate patient gurneys.

According to a WAFF report, while the Alabama Women’s Center was able to meet some requirements of the new state law, they were unable to meet the building safety standards in time, so they chose to voluntarily surrender their license. They are working to open a new abortion facility in the area as soon as possible. There are also three abortion facilities in Alabama that will remain open, Planned Parenthood in Mobile, West Alabama Women’s Center in Tuscaloosa and Reproductive Health Services in Montgomery.

From the Christian Post report:

James Henderson, executive director of Christian Coalition of Alabama, which has been protesting the clinic for the last 10 years along with other pro-life activists, told al.com that they will have a memorial for all the babies killed at the clinic.

“We’re going to have a memorial service and remember the lives that should have been,” he said. “By reasonable estimates, there have been over 30,000 unborn babies killed at the various abortion clinics in Huntsville.

“It’s wiped out a city larger than Athens and almost as big as Madison.”

Pro-choice supporters told WAFF, however, that the closure of the abortion clinic was just another way for the state to restrict women’s reproductive rights and called it a “wasted effort.”

“We have women coming here from Mississippi, Georgia, Tennessee, middle and South Alabama that don’t care about access to local emergency rooms because they don’t stay in town for it,” said clinic advocate Kathy Zentner. “If the legislators really cared about women and health, they would make facilities available.

Of course, women don’t stay care about access to a hospital until she’s tragically hurt in a botched abortion. It’s like saying, “I don’t care about living near a hospital, because I don’t ever go to the hospital.” Sure, until you get hit by a car, when you really want to be able to get to a hospital.

There’s a reason why the Alabama legislature voted for this bill, and that was to protect women’s safety, regardless of whether they know how many other women have been hurt by botched abortions.

by Kendra Burger | Des Moines, IA | LifeNews.com | 6/24/14 

The 11-year-old Iowan girl you see standing in the middle of the picture below is my hero. She is the definition of the pro-life movement. She is not blinded by the abortion industry’s lies. She has a profound message to share with you.

While working the Iowa Right to Life booth at NICHE 2014, this girl picked up one of our 12-week baby models and said to me, “Last year, at the Iowa State Fair, I got a 12-week baby model, and now, I keep it out on my dresser so that when my one friend that I know comes over to my house, she sees it.

She doesn’t know that abortion is wrong. I kind of show it to her and say, “Isn’t it so cool we were once the size of a grain of salt and we were fully human?” …I hope that she’ll know how babies are really alive when they’re inside their mom’s womb!”

We asked her to repeat her message into our voice recorder, so we could share it with you. Listen to her 40-second testimony here.

You see, without these 12-week baby models at the Iowa State Fair, this 11 year old could not have witnessed to her friend, and without your help, these baby models cannot be purchased.

by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 6/23/14 

Leading pro-life activist Gary Bauer, the former presidential candidate who is now the head of the group American Values, says President Barack Obama will have a terrifying legacy once he leaves office: more babies aborted than jobs created.

“This ought to be the epitaph of this administration: In the last five years under this president more babies have been aborted than jobs have been created,” Bauer said on Friday at the Faith and Freedom Coalition’s Road to Majority conference in Washington, D.C.

“Now that is a good summary of this president,” said Bauer, who is president of the nonprofit American Values. “Few things make Barack Obama more passionate than abortion on demand.”

LifeNews chronicled the laundry list of pro-abortion actions Obama took during his first term. Below isa video from CNS News of Bauer’s comments:

CNS News spotlighted the comments from Bauer today and provided more analysis on them.

About 1.2 million babies were aborted surgically in the United States in 2008 (or about 100,000 per month), according to the Guttmacher Institute. If that number has stayed generally constant, then over the last five and a half years of the Obama administration, about 6.6 million babies have been aborted.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics seasonally-adjusted employment numbers, there were 142,152,000 million people employed in January 2009, when Obama was inaugurated. In May 2014, the latest month on record, there were 145,814,000 people employed–an increase of 3,662,000 million.

“That’s how radical this guy is on abortion,” Obama said. “And, by the way, he totally ignores the fact that it’s black babies disproportionally that never get to take the first breath of freedom in this country,” said Bauer.

“And it’s black women that are being exploited by abortion-on-demand as Planned Parenthood intentionally locates abortion clinics in inner cities all over America,” he said.  “The president of the United States ought to be ashamed of himself for being part of this and what it does for black communities.”

by Josh Brahm | Dublin, Ireland | LifeNews.com | 6/20/14 

A foundation in Ireland is helping to provide life-affirming options to parents of children born with severe disabilities.

The mission of The Jack and Jill Children’s Foundation is to provide direct funding to families of children with brain damage up to the age of 4 who suffer severe intellectual and physical developmental delay, enabling them to purchase home respite care. They also provide end of life care to all children up to the age of 4 years.

The foundation’s website says, “These are children who as a result of their condition require intensive home nursing care. The Foundation gives these families the gift of time, time to do the things that we so often take for granted like shopping, taking their other children to the park, a night’s sleep, etc.”

The ministry was a huge help to Tom and Mandy Dunne. When Mandy was 20-weeks pregnant with her daughter Muireann, she learned through an antenatal scan that Muireann had Patau’s syndrome, a condition “incompatible with life.” Patau’s syndrome is a chromosomal abnormality that prevented Muireann’s brain from developing properly. Tom and Mandy were informed that if Muireann survived the rest of the pregnancy, she probably wouldn’t survive the birth.

“Our lives fell apart,” Tom and Mandy told the Irish Times. “When at 20 weeks you are told about this, you have 20 weeks to get in your mind what you want.”

Abortion was never an option to Tom and Mandy. “It would never have been an option for me. We were going to be grateful for whatever time we had with her. When her time was up, it was to be on her terms and not ours.”

When Muireann was born her parents were told that she probably only had minutes to live, but then she surprised everyone by starting to cry. Her skin went from grey to pink. Eventually bringing the child home was becoming a possibility, but that caused Tom and Mandy to panic. They never thought this could happen, so they hadn’t prepared their house for that.

Then they got a very helpful visit from Joanna Doyle from The Jack and Jill Foundation. “When you are coming home with a really sick child and you feel like you are on your own, you don’t know how things are going to work out,” said Mandy. “After talking to Joanne, it really made us more comfortable about going home.”

The Jack and Jill Foundation helped Tom and Mandy to have the right attitude about what they were doing. “We looked on it as if we were bringing her home to live, not die,” said Mandy.

After six-weeks of love and caring, Muireann passed away at her home. The nurses that the Jack and Jill Foundation provided helped Tom and Mandy through that process, as well as with aftercare support.

Tom and Mandy’s story reminds me of one of my favorite YouTube videos, “Choosing Thomas.” Parents T.K. and Deidrea Lauxs allowed The Dallas Morning News to film their journey with their son Thomas who was born with Trisomy 13 and died five days later at home.

At the end of this moving video, Deidrea explains why they did not abort Thomas. “We didn’t not terminate because we were hanging onto some sort of hope that there was a medical mistake or that there was going to be some sort of medical miracle. We didn’t terminate because he’s our son.”

To learn more about The Jack and Jill Foundation, visit their website at JackAndJill.ie.

To learn more about perinatal hospice and palliative care in America, visit PerinatalHospice.org. It is really important to know what options are available because you may know somebody who would benefit from that information one day if they get tragic news about their unborn baby.

An attorney involved in a Supreme Court case that will determine to what extent privately owned businesses can opt-out of providing certain types of birth control for religious reasons believes there are "'high stakes" involved in the outcome.

Matt Bowman, senior counsel with the Alliance Defending Freedom, has served as an attorney for Conestoga Woods Specialties, who alongside Hobby Lobby, have sued the federal government to be exempt from the Health and Human Services' "preventive services mandate" that requires businesses to cover birth control that can lead to the early termination of a pregnancy.

"The stakes are very high in the Conestoga and Hobby Lobby case," explained Bowman regarding the First Amendment implications in the lawsuit. "It involves fundamental issues of whether or not religious freedom belongs to every American, and whether the government can redefine freedom to force citizens to buy abortion pills for other people."

Bowman also told The Christian Post he believes that family-owned businesses, like Hobby Lobby, should not have the government "deprive them of the religious freedom that all Americans possess by imposing crippling fines on them unless they violate their consciences."

"All Americans, including family business owners, must be free to live and work according to their beliefs without threat of government punishment," said Bowman.

Since the HHS announced their new rules regarding contraceptive services that businesses must provide in their health care plans, numerous lawsuits have been filed against the federal government.

Hobby Lobby and Conestoga both had their appeals reach the Circuit Court level. Hobby Lobby won their case before Tenth Circuit, while Conestoga lost theirs before the Third Circuit. The Supreme Court combined the two cases and heard oral arguments in late March.

In a statement made to the press on the day of oral arguments, Barbara Green, a member of the family that owns Hobby Lobby, said she felt "encouraged" by the direction of the arguments.

"We were encouraged by today's argument. We are thankful that the Supreme Court took our case and we prayerfully await the Justices' decision," said Green, whose family-owned business already provides coverage for 16 of the 20 different types of contraceptives in the mandate – just not the four drugs and devices that can cause the early termination of a pregnancy: two types of IUDs and for Plan B and EllaOne, the morning-after and week-after pills, respectively.

Critics of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga have argued that if the two companies win their case before the Supreme Court it will have dangerous ramifications both regarding religious freedom and women's health.

Julia Mirabella and Sandhya Bathija of the Center for American Progress argued that Hobby Lobby succeeding harms employees' religious freedom.

"If the Supreme Court were to side with Hobby Lobby, it would be another piece of pro-corporate precedent from an increasingly pro-business court. Such a decision would also impact how we define religious liberty in America," wrote Mirabella and Bathija.

"Will corporations soon be permitted to override the religious-freedom rights of their employees? What other types of exemptions will these corporations have? Will these companies be free to disregard all civil rights laws barring discrimination?"

A decision by the Supreme Court on the two appeals regarding the HHS preventive services mandate is expected by the end of the month.