By / Jul 2

"This is the scariest thing the Court has ever done,” emailed a friend to me yesterday. Understandably, women’s hearts are beating fast and our heads are spinning with confusion due to uproars declaring a heightened “war on women” in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Sebelius v. Hobby LobbyStores, Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius decisions.

The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold citizens’ First Amendment right to live and work according to our moral convictions should not scare women. What should frighten us is the deceptive and potentially harmful misinformation so-called “progressive” voices within pro-abortion lobby groups, mainstream media, and, most disappointingly, from some within the Church are feeding us.

Lending to the “war on women” outcry yesterday was Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund. According to Huffington Post, Richards stated, “Today, the Supreme Court ruled against American women and families giving bosses the right to discriminate against women and deny their employees access to birth control coverage.”

First, let us quickly debunk Richards’ misleading sentiments by clarifying that women are not denied access to birth control coverage. In fact, Hobby Lobby and Constenaga wood are willing to provide 16 out of the 20 forms of contraception dictated by the Obama Administration’s invasive Health and Human Services mandate. The point of contention arose when the Southern Baptist Green family and Mennonite Wood family declined to pay for abortion-inducing emergency contraception, including Plan B, Plan B One-Step, Next Choice, and Ella.

Just to prove that the Supreme Court decision did nothing to limit women from accessing these four abortifacients, this morning I visited my local CVS pharmacy. Walking straight back to the pharmacy I simply asked, “Do you sell Plan B?” The young female attendant said, “No, but we have the generic version Next Choice.” The cost of came to about a little over $40.00.

I declined to finalize the sale, but did notice that there were no conservative evangelicals or conservative politicians forbidding me—a 26 year-old woman—from accessing these abortion-inducing drugs. Am I really supposed to believe that my health is at risk because my boss will not pay for it?

Second, and most importantly, Richards ignores that women actually won yesterday. Although opponents of the court’s ruling are directing women by focusing on a “personhood of corporations” argument, it is vital to remember that behind the Christian family-run business Hobby Lobby and Conestoga are women. Namely, Barbara Green and Elizabeth Hahn sought protection to live by their convictions. These women and their families were victories and we should celebrate their courage to defend their constitutional rights in the face of fierce hostility.

In addition, Hobby Lobby’s legal counsel consisted of several women including Lori Windham. Speaking for the Green and Hahn family, Windham shared, “Women’s voices are heard standing up for religious freedom. This case is about the freedoms of all Americans, women and men. And it’s something that all Americans should celebrate.”

Glance at the photographs taken outside of the Supreme Court moments after the ruling was released. You will notice the photos captured joyful young women, many of my friends who work for faith-based pro-life, pro-family non-profits. These young Christian women  were supporting religious freedom for all women, not corporate greed or capitalism.

Women of faith like Barbara Green, Elizabeth Han, and our pro-life friends and I, are ignored because we refuse to depend on emergency contraception for liberation. True liberation and the ability to live out Truth can only be found in Jesus Christ alone. According to Galatians 5:1, “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.”

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is filled with women (and men’s) liberation stories. As followers of Christ, we are charged with the Great Commission to share the message of true salvation  (Matthew 28:16-20). But sadly, many among the Religious Left continue to base women’s liberation from an embellished oppressive, patriarchal society through birth control instead of the transforming liberation through Jesus Christ.

The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC), is one such voice inside the Christian community that sees so-called “reproductive” rights as women’s ticket to freedom. The RCRC is a coalition including the Episcopal Church, Presbyterian Church (USA) and United Church of Christ (UCC). Outraged by the court’s ruling, RCRC stated, “Real religious liberty protects the rights of women to make thoughtful decisions about whether and when to use contraception in private consultation with their doctors, their families and their own faith – there is no place for a boss’s beliefs in such conversations.”

Missing the point, Rev. Richard Cizik, President of the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good, wrote, “The supporters of Hobby Lobby think they are being ‘pro-life.’ They are wrong. A massive study conducted in 2012 showed that contraception coverage without a co-pay could dramatically reduce the abortion rate.” Since when is the Hobby Lobby ruling about monthly contraception?

Again, David Gushee and Brian McLaren, two leading voice among the Evangelical Left, both raised the same question, “Are critics taking seriously the public health benefits of no-cost contraception coverage, and the moral benefits of the likely dramatic reduction in the number of unplanned pregnancies and abortions?”

Aside from the fact that these professing believers do not acknowledge that these drugs are life-terminating, these men are misleading women to believe these drugs are safe and regular forms of birth control.

Women, don’t be fooled! As RCRC wrongly claims, Hobby Lobby’s exemption from paying for these four abortifacients will not cost families “$40 a month.” Nor can they be used as regular forms of contraception.  The major problem with Cizik, McLaren, Gushee’s shared argument is that they mislead women to believe that Next Choice, Plan B, and Ella are all regular forms of birth control. According to Next Choice’s packaging, is to be used in an “emergency” only and not as a regular form of birth control because it contains a higher dose of levonorgestrel, the drug typically comprising the Pill. Yet, regular forms of the Pill can cause women serious health complications including breast, cervical, and liver cancer, according to the National Cancer Institute.

If there is such a thing as a “war on women,” it is being launched by “progressives” who view women’s worth according to how much free birth control we attain. Thankfully, our value extends beyond our ability to “family plan.” Women are hardworking, witty, caring and intelligent beings made in the image of our Creator, who calls us to live by faith beyond our sanctuary walls.

Chelsen Vicari
Chelsen Vicari serves as the Institute on Religion & Democracy’s Director of Evangelical Action and is the author of the forthcoming book Distortion: How the New Christian Left is Twisting the Gospel and Damaging the Faith (Frontline, September 2014).

By / Jul 1

Yesterday morning the front page of Hobby Lobby’s website featured a discount on a four-by-six wooden block emblazoned with the simple declaration: “I Pray for America.” Nothing on the page even indirectly mentioned the Supreme Court’s landmark decision yesterday in Burwell v Hobby Lobby, but with regard to the Green family’s vision for an America that respects religious liberty, it’s hard not to conclude that they have been praying for America and that their prayers have been answered.

I’ve followed the progress of this case with keen interest. Academic professionals who study First Amendment law are watching this case. Christians involved with closely held, religiously motivated family corporations have nervously awaited this ruling. Pastors who watch over the souls of sincere believers who try to live out the dictates of their faith in the workplace have wondered what new realities might dawn upon their flocks because of this ruling. I fit into all three of those categories, so Justice Alito today had my rapt attention.

The academic side of me is thinking about the state of religious liberty in the United States after this ruling. It may be more complicated and nuanced than you think. Four realities come to mind.

First, this is a welcome and important ruling, not only because of the relief it gives to Christians engaging in business, but also because of the disapproval it sternly communicates toward a presidential administration that is the most hostile toward religious liberty of any in our nation’s history. The decorum appropriate to the highest level of our federal judiciary precludes name-calling, but the Court’s judgment of the administration was pretty transparent when it said, “HHS’s view that RFRA can never require the Government to spend even a small amount [to pursue its interests in ways less restrictive upon religious free exercise] reflects a [low] judgment about the importance of religious liberty that was not shared by the Congress that enacted that law.” It is encouraging to see the Supreme Court’s willingness to castigate the cavalier manner in which this administration has handled questions of religious liberty.

Second, the Supreme Court has voiced its full-throated support for a holistic view of religious liberty rather than the amputated “freedom of worship” that many sectors of our nation are seeking to advance as a counterfeit of the constitutional doctrine. Religious persecution throughout history has not always consisted of imprisonments and beheadings. Both in first-century Galatia and in eighteenth-century England, governments have sometimes tried to starve believers through economic sanctions rather than to imprison them. The Court has rightly observed that “HHS would effectively exclude [devoutly pro-life] people from full participation in the economic life of the Nation” and has acknowledged that even in its economic form, religious persecution is still wrong. Religious liberty must protect a person’s right to be a Christian (or whatever else) not only on Sunday in the pew but on Monday in the office as well.

Third, religious liberty is still very fragile in our nation. If you’ll look at the Hobby Lobby decision carefully, you’ll notice that the Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby based not upon the First Amendment but upon the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA). The Supreme Court did not affirm today any constitutional right; it affirmed a congressionally adopted provision. What Congress giveth, Congress can take away. Since this ruling and every other Supreme Court ruling based upon the RFRA exist only upon the sometimes-capricious whim of our elected legislators, in its next term, Congress could vote to overturn RFRA and Christians would be back on the same hook. Thankfully, we have reason to believe that today’s Congress would not do so, but religious liberty will not be secure in this nation until the Supreme Court’s decision in Oregon v Smith is set aside and free-exercise rights are once again protected by the First Amendment.

Fourth, although religious liberty ought to be and sometimes is a subject matter that unites conservative and liberal Christians, the Hobby Lobby case has demonstrated that this consensus tends to be a one-way street. Conservatives tend to harbor greater opposition to drug use and tend to be less disposed toward interreligious ecumenism, but more conservative groups like the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission stand alongside left-leaning groups like Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty to oppose rulings like Oregon v Smith and to defend the liberties of Muslims who face opposition when they wish to build mosques. When the shoe is on the other foot—when liberal political objectives like acceptance of same-sex marriage and universal access to free abortion come into conflict with the tenets of religious liberty—liberal groups tend not to cross the aisle in our direction. The Baptist Joint Committee declined to say anything about the Hobby Lobby case, and Americans United has predictably rubber-stamped the Obama administration’s objectives, with Barry Lynn personally articulating a new mission statement advocating Separation of Church and Life. The greater sincere commitment to religious liberty is demonstrated when one is willing to part company with one’s usual cohort to take an unpopular stand.

The pastoral side of me wonders how this ruling will affect people. I rejoice to think of the people who were in jeopardy who now are not. Some beautiful, creative, redemptive things have happened throughout history when Christians have tried their hands at pursuing their secular employment to the glory of God. The Obama Administration stood poised to make that much more difficult for Christians to accomplish in this country. I rejoice that they have not succeeded. I dare to hope, in spite of the fact that the Obama Administration may very well work around this ruling to serve their allegiance to Planned Parenthood in the end, that the lives of some of the youngest and most vulnerable among us might be saved because of this decision.

This decision presents an opportunity before Christian (for want of a better word) laypeople. The Supreme Court has affirmed our right to embody our faith in our workplaces, and Christ has given us a commandment to do so. That commandment goes beyond our being selective in the way that we purchase insurance. Are we making the most of our opportunity to demonstrate the character of a holy, loving, compassionate, and merciful God in our workplaces? In 1857 Jeremiah Lanphier caught a vision for what it meant to follow Christ in the workplace. A great revival ensued. My friend Geoffrey Kolander spent several weeks last year praying, writing, and laboring for a spiritual awakening among Christian businessmen in Amarillo, TX. Two consecutive SBC presidents have prioritized the need for spiritual awakening in our nation. What would happen if more Christian businessmen followed the lead of the Green family and decided to make their faith an integral part of the way that they pursued their careers?

What would happen if we pastors used this decision not only as an opportunity to talk about religious liberty but as a way to kindle in our congregations a vision for the workplace as a venue in which to live out one’s faith?

The United States Supreme Court understood its role: “Our responsibility is to enforce RFRA as written.” As believers living and working in this society, our responsibility goes far beyond theirs. Let’s not drop the subject with a favorable judicial ruling; let’s show the world what wonderful things can happen when Christian individuals, proprietorships, partnerships, and yes, even corporations, dare to conduct their business dealings to the glory and delight of their Lord.

By / Jun 30

Russell Moore, president of the ERLC, shares his thoughts on the ruling given by the Supreme Court of the United States on the Hobby Lobby and religious freedom case. 

"The government cannot set itself up as lord over the conscience…What the Supreme Court has done today is reaffirm a basic American principle that our Baptist ancestors fought for in the revolutionary era."

By / Jun 30

Russell D. Moore, president of the ERLC, shares his thoughts on the ruling given by the Supreme Court of the United States on the Hobby Lobby and religious freedom case.

By / Jun 27

On Monday, the Supreme Court will decide the religious liberty case, Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. Read the latest issue analysis produced by ERLC.

Andrew Walker
Andrew Walker is the managing editor of Canon and Culture. He also serves as the Director of Policy Studies for The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, the denomination’s entity tasked with addressing moral, social, and ethical issues. In his role, he researches and writes about human dignity, family stability, religious liberty, and the moral principles that support civil society. He is a PhD student in Christian Ethics at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Andrew lives in Franklin, TN with his wife and daughter and is a member of Redemption City Church. You can find him on twitter at @andrewtwalk.

Travis Wussow
Travis Wussow is the director of international justice and religious freedom for the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission.

By / Jun 24
By / Jun 19

A panel discussion featuring Russell D. Moore, Rick Warren, David Platt and Sam Rodriguez discussing religious liberty. The event was held during the Southern Baptist Convention 2014 Annual Meeting.

By / Jun 11
By / Apr 4

This week a well known company whose products I have used for years made national headlines. Why? They made a controversial decision based on their closely held corporate convictions in response to a national outcry. They were criticized by those on the other side who claimed that their expression of their organizational beliefs would violate the freedom of their employees and cause them harm.

No, I am not talking about Hobby Lobby. I am talking about Mozilla.

Yesterday, newly appointed Mozilla CEO Brandon Eich resigned amidst an online furor that erupted because he donated $1,000 to support California's Proposition 8 opposing the legalization of same sex marriage. Though Eich had worked for the company for years, made significant achievements in the tech field, and committed to keep his personal convictions isolated from his corporate leadership, criticisms (and even boycotts by some groups, like dating site OK Cupid) resulted in his resignation.

Isn't it interesting that many who don't think Hobby Lobby can have corporate convictions now think that Mozilla can?

The parallels between the two situations are striking. Of course, there are some distinctives between the two that keep them from being identical. But think about the similarities between them on the basis of the following assertion about convictional decision making by organizations (divided into four aspects): (1) Organizations can hold (2) closely held corporate convictions (3) that are used to make significant decisions (4) that reflect the beliefs of its leadership.

Let's think through the parallels between these two corporate situations in light of all four of aspects of the assertion above.

1. Organizations can hold: This is an issue of ability. Can an organization, as an organization, have corporate convictions that drive decisions. It is not a question of should they hold any particular conviction(s). It is Hobby Lobby's conviction that it will not provide abortion-inducing contraceptives. It is Mozilla's conviction that they will not be led by someone who opposes same sex marriage. It is inconsistent to suggest that one organization can have a core conviction and not the other.

2. Closely held corporate convictions: This is an issue of Identity. Notice the term is corporate conviction, not religious belief because Mozilla would likely deny that a particular religion is driving their decision. Regardless of whether an organization's convictions are explicitly based on religion, all companies have some form of corporate values. Both Hobby Lobby and Mozilla have explicitly stated core convictions. It is inconsistent to suggest that one organization can have corporate convictions and not another.

3. That are used to make significant decisions: This is an issue of strategy. It should be expected that corporations make strategic decisions on the basis of their core values. In the case of Hobby Lobby, the decision was to oppose coverage of abortion inducing contraceptives. In the case of Mozilla, the decision was to remove a leader whose personal beliefs did not match their corporate values. It is inconsistent to suggest that it is right for one organization to make strategic decisions based on core convictions and not the other.

4. That reflect the beliefs of its leadership: This is a question of ideology. The personal preferences of a company's leadership can, and often do, shape the corporate convictions of an organization. One of the main critiques of Hobby Lobby is that its leadership has forced its convictions onto the employees of the organization. But isn't this precisely what Mozilla has done too? How would reactions have been different if Mozilla ran off their CEO for supporting same sex marriage rather than opposing it? Mozilla chairwoman Mitchell Baker said the company failed to stay “true to ourselves” and reflect its organizational culture of “diversity and inclusiveness.” In both cases, the convictions of the leadership caused the organization to make controversial decisions. It is inconsistent to suggest that it is right for one organization to make decisions that reflect the ideologies of its leaders and not the other.

Mozilla's decision has raised major concerns for those who care about freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Whether you are Hobby Lobby or your hobby is to lobby for what you believe, you must count the costs of your convictions.

By / Mar 27

WASHINGTON (BP) — The Obama administration's acknowledgment that its stance would require businesses to underwrite abortions without the right to a legal challenge may have been a particularly telling moment in a March 25 U.S. Supreme Court case that likely will be a landmark in religious liberty.

It seemed that way to some who oppose the government's position, and they expressed an opinion that it seemed that way to some of the justices.

The Supreme Court heard 90 minutes of oral arguments regarding the federal government's abortion/contraception mandate, which requires employers to provide abortion-causing drugs and devices for their workers. Two family owned businesses — nationwide retail chain Hobby Lobby and Pennsylvania-based Conestoga Wood Specialties — had their opportunity to present their contention that the federal rule violates free exercise of religion rights and a 1993 law protecting religious liberty.

Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy asked Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, the Obama administration's advocate, if he thought a for-profit corporation “could be forced in principle to pay for abortions.”

At first, Verrilli seemed to deny it would, saying, “[T]he law now is to the contrary.”

Kennedy countered: “But your reasoning would permit that.”

Verrilli eventually said, “Well, I think that if it were for a for-profit corporation and if such a law like that were enacted, then you're right, under our theory … the for-profit corporation wouldn't have an ability to sue.”

Lawyers for both plaintiffs cited the exchange in their assessments of oral arguments.

“The justices were extremely concerned about the idea that just because a family tries to earn a living in business they abandon their constitutional and statutory freedoms,” said Matt Bowman, senior legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). “I found it interesting that the justices also were very explicitly concerned about the notion that the government's position is so extreme that if they force families and businesses to provide abortions of any kind, even presumably surgical or late-term abortions, those families would not even be able to have a day in court to object.

“[T]hose are extreme positions on the part of the government,” he told Baptist Press.

“Ultimately, what the government is doing here is forcing people to buy abortion products for other people,” said Bowman, whose organization has represented Conestoga Wood. “And that unprecedented mandate — given at the same time that the government is exempting a hundred million people from it for secular, political reasons — can't be squared with the deference that we give in our country to religious freedom itself.”

Mark Rienzi, senior counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which has represented Hobby Lobby, said, “I think the court had a lot of very hard questions for the government. The government essentially admitted the theory that they're offering in this case would support an abortion mandate.”

After Verrilli said there is no current law requiring for-profits “to provide abortions,” Chief Justice John Roberts cited the current case.

“Isn't that what we are talking about in terms of their religious beliefs? One of the religious beliefs is that they have to pay for these four methods of contraception that they believe provide abortions,” Roberts told Verrilli. “I thought that's what we had before us.”

Verrilli admitted it was the belief of the business owners but said federal and state law did not support a belief that the methods constitute abortion.

The regulation issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to implement the 2010 health care law requires coverage of federally approved contraceptives, including the IUD intrauterine device and such drugs as the morning-after pill Plan B. Both the IUD and morning-after pill possess post-fertilization mechanisms that can cause abortions by preventing implantation of tiny embryos. The rule also covers “ella” which — in a fashion similar to the abortion drug RU 486 — can act even after implantation to end the life of the child.

While some conscientious objectors to the HHS rule oppose underwriting all contraceptives, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood protest paying only for abortion-causing drugs.

Roberts, Kennedy and associate justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer seemed suspicious of Verrilli's arguments, but justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg repeatedly challenged Paul Clement, who represented the businesses.

Kagan told Clement, solicitor general under President George W. Bush, the corporations have another choice — they could refuse to provide health insurance and pay the $2,000 tax per employee.

“Well, just to put this in concrete terms, for Hobby Lobby, for example, the choice is between paying … a $475 million per year penalty [for refusing to abide by the mandate] and paying a $26 million per year [tax],” Clement said. “You have a government law that specifically says you must do something that violates your religion — and it's enforced with a penalty, and with all due respect I think $2,000 per employee is a penalty.”

Kagan disagreed, saying, it is “not saying you must do something that violates your religion. It's giving you a choice. You can do this thing or if this thing violates your religion you can do another thing.”

After the arguments, Hobby Lobby co-founder Barbara Green said in a written statement her family had built the business based on the Greens' Christian faith and wants “to continue to live out our faith in the way we do business.”

“We believe that no American should lose their religious freedom just because they open a family business,” she said, adding, “[W]e prayerfully await the justices' decision.”

Anthony Hahn, chief executive officer of Conestoga Wood, said his family never expected to see a time when the government “would force us to be complicit in the potential destruction of human life.”

“We didn't choose this fight,” Hahn said in a written statement after the arguments. The Hahns, Greens and others, he said, “would have been happy to just continue providing good jobs and generous healthcare benefits. But the government forced our hand. We hope and pray that the Supreme Court will uphold the religious freedom of all Americans who seek to glorify God even as they go about making a living.”

Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-choice America and a leading supporter of the HHS mandate, told reporters outside afterward, “We will not have our rights extinguished. Our bodies are not our bosses' business.”

The plaintiffs' lawyers expressed encouragement after the arguments.

“I won't make guesses, but it felt like a good day,” Rienzi said outside the court. “It felt like they asked really good questions, and we're happy with it.”

Bowman added, “I'm hopeful. I'm a Christian, and I'm hopeful.”

Planned Parenthood Federation of America President Cecile Richards expressed optimism as an advocate for the mandate.

“It was a wonderful day I think for women, and I really believe that this court understood that women have the right to make their own decisions about their health care and their birth control, and it's not their bosses' decision,” Roberts told reporters.

Supporters of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood have said religious free exercise for Americans is in the balance as the Supreme Court ponders its decision, which is expected to be issued before its term ends in late June or early July.

Russell D. Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, has described the case as “the most important religious liberty case in a generation.”

The decision “will set the tone for the next hundred years of church/state jurisprudence in this country,” he said. “If the federal government can force organizations and businesses to pave over their own consciences, to choose between being believers and being citizens, what will stop the government from imposing its will on anyone's conscience next?”

The justices heard arguments about the mandate after more than two and a half years of protests by pro-life and religious freedom advocates. Objections to the regulation failed to produce either a withdrawal from HHS or adequate conscience protections requested by religious liberty proponents.

HHS provided an exemption to the rule for churches and their auxiliaries. The administration also offered an accommodation for non-church-related religious organizations, but critics called it inadequate because it still forces such groups to provide access to the drugs through third parties.

More than 300 parties, including non-profits and for-profit corporations, have combined to file 94 lawsuits against HHS, according to the Becket Fund. The consolidated case the justices heard March 25 only involves for-profit businesses. The non-profit cases have yet to reach the high court.

The case arrived at the Supreme Court after divided opinions at the appellate level. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia ruled against Conestoga Wood, saying for-profit, secular organizations “cannot engage in religious exercise.” In ruling for Hobby Lobby, however, the 10th Circuit Court in Denver rejected the Obama administration's argument that protections under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act do not extend to for-profit companies. It ruled corporations “can be 'persons' exercising religion for purposes” of the RFRA, which requires the government to have a compelling interest and to use the least narrow means to burden a person's religious exercise.

The ERLC signed onto a friend-of-the-court brief filed by the Christian Legal Society in support of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood. Also among the 59 briefs supporting Hobby Lobby and/or Conestoga Wood, according to the Becket Fund, was one signed onto by Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary; its president, Daniel Akin, and Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church, a mega Southern Baptist congregation in Lake Forest, Calif.

The Green family has said it will not comply with the mandate if it loses in court. The arts and crafts retail chain of more than 600 stores could face fines totaling $1.3 million a day. The Christian bookstore chain Mardel, also owned by members of the Green family, is part of the suit as well. Both are based in Oklahoma City.

The Hahn family has been living under the mandate since its group health plan was renewed in January 2013. Refusal to abide by the mandate could cost the family an estimated $95,000 a day. Conestoga Wood is a wholesale manufacturer of kitchen cabinet parts.

Original story posted here.