Local Protesters Gather at Urbandale Hobby Lobby

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

Hobby Lobby, an Oklahoma based craft store with two Des Moines area locations remains under fire.

It comes after the Supreme Court ruled the company and other family owned businesses don’t have to cover contraception for employees that may impose on the owner’s religious beliefs.

Saturday, a group of about 15 protesters gathered outside of the store’s Urbandale location.

They held signs and handed out information sheets to customers as they walked into the store.

On its website, Hobby Lobby says it covers 16 FDA approved forms of birth control.

Protesters say the company should be required to cover all forms.

“Employees earn their benefits. They pay for their benefits. They should as citizens be able to make their own health care decisions on how they want to use their health care dollars,” said Marti Doyle, a protester.

Hobby Lobby explains its stance on the company website. To see it, click the link.



    • Jane

      Yeah, Hobby Lobby and those with deep “religion” pick and choose from the bible what they want to follow. Nutty.

    • AverageRedNeckGirl

      Dean, I agree with you as well. My opinion is that birth control is a personal not a corporate responsibility. I know this is not going to sit well with those trying to boss businesses around and think that they should paid $15 for minimum wage and get everything provided for them. Yes, I also agree the life insurance is also a personal responsibility. You don’t like your job, go somewhere else. I usually did that in my early days of employment including McDonalds.

  • gimmieabreak

    I’m with Dean.
    I bet these protestors don’t really know what they’re protesting.
    The only contra Hob Lob is against is the abortion pill and not the regular pill.
    they just don’t want any part of ending a life.

    • Molly

      You must not be a scientist, not to know when life actually begins.
      Have you forgotten the ACA was approved through non-partisan?
      Some of the Supreme Court “judged” who has a deeper faith than another. The Separation of Church and State should always be uphold.

  • educatedRu?

    The protestors know more than you give them credit for. The decision runs deeper than just hobby lobby, and people who would take the time to see the long term implications would be welcome at the next equal rights rally.

    • Chris

      You are correct. Wish I knew about the protest I would have attended. Our country has entered dangerous territory when some on the Supreme Court can be allowed to “judge” who has a deeper religion than another.

  • Right Wing Patriot

    The four types of birth control (out of 16) that Hobby Lobby objected to are not banned…they just don’t want to be forced to pay for it on their religious beliefs (life at conception). SCOTUS made the correct decision. If one of their employees needs that type, they can go buy it foe themselves. Hobby Lobby isn’t going to object as its none of their business.

      • Right Wing Patriot

        The cost does not factor in the equation. If you need it, find a way to pay for it. Why does everyone have to have their stuff paid for by other people?

      • Sally

        so don’t have unprotected sex with someone you don’t want to have a child with and you won’t need the abortion pill. It sounds like they are willing to pay for many other forms of birth control, 16 out of 20. Get over it. Insurances don’t always cover the most expensive drug either if there is something equal in effectiveness but cheaper. Get over it. You want something your insurance doesn’t cover, pay for it!

  • Mark

    You are correct. Wish I knew about the protest cause I would have attended. Our country has entered dangerous territory when some on the Supreme Court can be allowed to “judge” someone who has a deeper religion than someone else.

  • educatedRu?

    The decision from SCOTUS affects everyone that can be, could be, might be, or will be discriminated against due to a specific “deeply held religious belief”. Already there are 145 active law suits in the courts where a particular group wants to discriminate based on religion.

    • Andy

      The judges who where unable to keep their personal views out of the court’s decision, should be removed. Iowa’s Medical Board did the same on their decision for telemedicine. Our country needs more diverse leaders in these positions. I can hear it now if judges and board members of non Christian faiths played this same game. This is going to backfire in due time.

  • Marti Doyle

    I can assure you that those of us who protested today outside of Hobby Lobby today are very much aware of what we are protesting. Our goal was to provide education to others about this decision and the very frightening precedent that it has set. Hobby Lobby is not a church. It is a for- profit corporation that has made the choice to be an employer. When it made that choice, it means that they need to follow the laws that are made in regard to employers. As an employer they should not have the right to impose their personal religious beliefs on their employees . This ruling now allows corporations to interfere with their employees access to the health care they have chosen to utilize after consulting with their physicians. Health care coverage is not a gift from employers. It is something they have earned and paid as part of their employment. Employees should have the right to use what they have earned in whatever way they wish . Do you really want your employer to have the right to make health care decisions for you? What if your employer belongs to a religion that doesn’t believe in blood transfusions? Should they be able to say that the health insurance you have worked and paid for should not cover blood transfusions?
    I might have more sympathy for Hobby Lobby if I really thought this case was about conscience. If they truly held to their convictions than they would not have more than $73 million in mutual funds with investments in companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, as well as drugs commonly used in abortions. They could utilize an available faith-based investing strategy where they can opt out of these kinds of investment but they have not chosen to do so. They would also not stock their shelves with merchandise from China, where abortion is sometimes mandated. What this is really about money. Instead of paying for this coverage, they can now rely on the government to pay for the coverage they should be providing.
    Lastly, I want to address the statement that Hobby Lobby just doesn’t want to pay for the “abortion pill”. The contraception that Hobby Lobby does not want to provide are Plan B, Ella, and two types of IUD. Despite Hobby Lobby’s argument that these contraceptives are “abortifacients” this belief is not supported by the medical community. According to the Mayo Clinic, these medications prevent or delay ovulation and do not act after fertilization. This ruling has also opened the door to other parties who are making the argument that they do not want to provide coverage for any type of contraceptives.

    • Not Blindly Partisan

      Actually Marti, those are the point you wish this case as about; however they aren’t. In 1993, our elected officials passed wrote a bill, voted on it which it passed by an overwhelming bipartisan majority and signed into law. That law is what this case is about. The law was put into place so that the federal government can not create laws that would otherwise force employers to act in such a way as would violate their religious beliefs. The PPACA does just that. Further, you are wrong about how these four contraceptives work. They don’t prevent ovulation. Common birth control pills do that which are still covered by the policies provided by Hobby Lobby. These four either prevent eggs from being fertilized, or more commonly and specifically with IUD, prevent fertilized eggs from implanting into the uterine wall. To address your claim of hypocrisy in their 401(k) investments, they don’t have control over the funds that get traded daily in all of the mutual funds that the 401(k) is invested in. I would also urge you to read the prospectus of the supposed religious investment organizations. I would like to direct you to page 3 of said prospectus that states there is no guarantee that funds won’t be invested in these organizations. I am sure that since you are well aware of what you are protesting, you have these resources at your fingertips. If not, do a simple Google search for AveMaria-Prospectus, go to page 3 and see for yourself. The quote you are looking will start with “Additionally a stock my be sold (but is not required to be sold)…” I sure which people that posted what they knew actually knew what is reality. That and $73Million argument is a strawman argument if there ever was one. They have zero guarantee as I have demonstrated that their funds will not be invested in those companies unless they don’t offer a 401(k).

      • Marti Doyle

        The 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act which you refer to and on which this decision was based has an interesting history. It was passed after a controversial Supreme Court ruling where the Court upheld the firing of two American Indians who argued that the ingestion of peyote was part of their religious ceremonies conducted by the Native American Church. Interesting the firing was upheld by the Court with Justice Antonin Scalia saying that using a religious exemption in conflict of a valid law “would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind.” The RFRA attempts to strike a balance between religious liberty and governmental interests. It says that “governments should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification”. The compelling interest argument is based on a prior federal court ruling known as the Sherbert test which says that if a PERSON claims a sincere religious belief and a government action placed a substantial burden on that belief then the government would need to prove a compelling state interest. My argument is not with this law, it is a ruling that grants personhood to a corporation and gives it the same or more rights than individuals.
        Since you encouraged me to do more research, I would encourage you to do additional research on the types of contraception that Hobby Lobby has labeled as “abortifacients”. This belief is not supported by the medical community. These methods will not disrupt an established pregnancy. They prevent pregnancies and therefore, prevent abortions. Here are a few links for you to start your research https://www.acog.org/About_ACOG/ACOG_Departments/Health_Care_for_Underserved_Women/Frequently_Asked_Questions_about_Hormonal_Approaches_to_Emergency_Contraception

        Hobby Lobby’s beliefs that these contraception are “abortifacients” do not have a medical basis. They are ,therefore, religious beliefs (which is the argument that the Court made). I would argue that since these are religious beliefs they are forcing their employees to follow these beliefs by not allowing them to use their earned health benefits to access this type of health care.
        As far as your argument about Hobby Lobby investments, I would argue that to my knowledge Hobby Lobby has not even attempted to use faith-based investing strategies offered by services such as Timothy Plan and the Ave Maria Fund. If they have such strong convictions that they are willing to take a case all the way to the Supreme Court that they would at least make the attempt to not invest in companies such as Teva Pharmaceutical (TEVA), Bayer (BAYRY), and Pfizer (PFE) who manufacture that very contraceptives that they want to deny coverage to their employees for.

    • Right Wing Patriot

      You commet about the mutual funds is naive. Do you know everywhere you retirement funds are invested? They can be spread out literally over hundreds of companies that are traded daily. The only way to prevetnthis is offering NO 401(k) program. This is a bogus arguement.

    • Mike Cee

      Simple. You have a choice not to work at Hobby Lobby if you don’t agree with their policies. Now Marti, pay attention because I’m going to give you some important information. You don’t have to work at any company that has policies you don’t agree with. The Supreme Court has decided that Hobby Lobby is within their rights to limit what benefits they pay their employees-end of story.

      If you do choose to work for a company such as Hobby Lobby, you could actually pay for your abortions and contraceptives yourself. I know that requires a level of personal responsibility that may be difficult for someone such as you to muster, but rather than make someone else pay for your indiscretions, you could actually bear the responsibility for them.

      Now Marti, here’s another thought. You could actually start your own business and provide all of the benefits to your employees that you like. Of course, if you own and run your own business you wouldn’t have the time to stand around sticking your nose in other peoples business. Especially if your employees stand around whining and moaning about the benefits that you, as an employer, choose not to provide.

      It’s all about personal responsibility and taking responsibility for your own actions. It’s just a shame that there is a generation that wants someone else to pay for everything.

      • Right Wing Patriot

        Mike Cee – Brilliant points! As you can see, Willy can only toss insults. He is one lost and bitter soul.

      • Joe

        Hi Mike! Hobby Lobby isn’t taking responsibly, cause they’re getting a free ride and won’t be paying for this birth control. We the people will be paying for it instead.

      • Marti Doyle

        Mike- I will not reply to your posting with the same condescending tone that you replied to mine. I actually believe that people can disagree and still be civil and respectful. I find it interesting that you imply that that this situation can easily be resolved by people simply finding alternative employment. Not everyone is as fortunate to be able to have such a choice. I think that you may also have missed my point about this being a frightening precedent. The Supreme Court decision in this case has opened the door for any employer to argue that they do not have to follow laws that they disagree with. Also, Hobby Lobby is not the only employer who is seeking this type of ruling; some who are arguing that they do not want to provide coverage for any types of contraception. The next employer could be your or my employer who does not wish to provide coverage for health care that we or someone we love is in need of. My husband is currently in the hospital recovering from a heart attack. I am sure glad that his employer doesn’t believe that stents are not the type of health coverage that they wish to provide.
        I am at the age where I know longer need birth control. That doesn’t mean that I don’t think that I should stand up for others who need this type of health care. In response to your other comments, I have owned a business and have many things that I could be doing with my time. I just happen to think that exercising my first amendment rights to protest what I think is a dangerous ruling was well worth my time.
        I find your comment about “sticking your nose” in other people’s business interesting since you seem to be comfortable with an employer “sticking their noses“ into their employee’s personal health care choices. In response to your last statement about a generation that “wants someone else to pay for everything”, I refer to my point about health benefits not being something that is given to an employee. Health care benefits are earned as part of a compensation package and in most cases, partially paid for by the employee. Employers should have no more say in how their employees spend their health care dollars than they do with their money from their paycheck.

  • Ruby

    Hobby Lobby doesn’t have to cover ALL the birth control forms…that is like saying all companies should cover EVERY form of medical procedure for EVERY medical challenge out there. Guess what, News Flash folks…….. companies don’t.

  • Susie

    The judges, who sided with Hobby Lobby, are male and Roman Catholic. Most Catholics use birth control some time in their lives, so we’re not “practicing Catholics” per the Church.
    Very scary the Supreme court judges applied their personal beliefs to this judgment. Our state Medical Board did the same thing with the telemedicine. Separation between church and state clearly was on not upheld in either of these decisions.

  • Jay

    A person, specifically a woman, has the ability to determine whether or not they become pregnant. They choose to either have intercourse or not, except in cases of abuse.

    If I chose to drive my car intentionally into another car, would the insurance company pay for it?

  • Dan

    So who is working on the rocket today? All these rocket scientists out protesting again about something they think they know something about. I think if I was Hobby Lobby’s CEO I would make them all part time and not worry about any health insurance at all if this keeps up.

Comments are closed.