You are viewing this article in the archives. For the latest breaking news and updates in Ann Arbor and the surrounding area, see
Posted on Mon, Dec 31, 2012 : 4:12 p.m.

Judge grants Domino's founder temporary injunction against contraception mandate

By John Counts

Thumbnail image for monaghan_new.jpg

Tom Monaghan

Tom Monaghan, founder of Ann Arbor-based Domino's Pizza, was granted a temporary restraining order by a federal judge against the Affordable Care Act’s requirement to provide coverage for contraception, reports.

Monaghan sued the federal government over the act's mandate that would force employers to provide insurance coverage for contraception and sterilization. He cited religious reasons, the report said.

Read the full story at

John Counts covers cops and courts for He can be reached at or you can follow him on Twitter.



Thu, Feb 14, 2013 : 5:19 p.m.

If Monaghan has sold all his stock in Domino's why are you tying in Domino Pizza's new move on its outlets to his battle over contraceptives? If so, the only connection is that he is their headquarter's landlord. However, if he is still involved with the pizza business, I want no part of them. If he is not, it is bad reporting to connect him in such a way that it alienates many of us in the Ann Arbor area who have very unhappy memories of his personal behavior towards many of us. If our religious faith opposes war should we refuse to pay the huge portion of our our tax that supports it? The people the majority elect are always forcing some of us to pay for things they believe is in the general good, that we believe are wrong. If Monaghan's supporters will concede me the right to withhold paying for war on religious grounds, I will concede their right to save a few pennies on contraceptive insurance -- which may well cost them much, much, more in education and many other taxes to pay for the undesired babies. I would appreciate it if any response to this is rational and reasonably polite.

Nicholas Urfe

Wed, Jan 2, 2013 : 7:39 p.m.

If Monaghan can claim his religion trumps our laws, isn't that the same as people who want Sharia religious law to trump the laws?


Thu, Jan 3, 2013 : 5:10 p.m.

katmando: I wish I would have read this reply before I took you seriously earlier.


Wed, Jan 2, 2013 : 9:23 p.m.

I see no difference between sharia laws and christain ones.


Wed, Jan 2, 2013 : 5:47 p.m.

Why does everyone always want "free stuff" from the company they work for or from their government ? What happened to working for your own ? There are way too many people these days that think they deserve "free stuff". And by the way - who do we think is paying for all the "free stuff" ? Companies don't pay taxes - people who buy their products do in the form of higher prices do. Does everyone get that ? Last week I saw 3 women checking out at a grocery store all using bridge cards to purchase huge packages of steaks. During the checkout process they were taking forever as to maximize each card's balance and I noticed that all of them had tattoos and smart phones. Meanwhile I am checking out with rice and chicken breasts that I'm paying for on my own dime. This isn't an isolated incident. I feel like there are a large number of people who want "free stuff" so they can spend their money on "other stuff" they don't need like tats, phones, nice clothes, etc. I am really worried about this new mindset of Americans that they deserve "free stuff" all the time; no matter what the "free stuff" is.....


Thu, Jan 3, 2013 : 5:08 p.m.

katmando: You missed the point. These days there seem to be a lot of Americans NOT ASHAMED to just grab and take as much from the government or companies they work for because they "deserve" free stuff. That worries me - American didn't used to be like that. But to your point - we live in a democracy, if the wage is unfair, quit and move on. arborani: Can you clarify your comment ? Do you not believe a lot of the people who are demanding "free stuff" don't actually need it ? Because it's absolutely true.


Thu, Jan 3, 2013 : 3:56 a.m.

The "welfare queen" myth never really dies - just gets embellished with tattoos and cell phones.


Wed, Jan 2, 2013 : 9:22 p.m.

free stuff? why doesn't he pay a fair wage for a fair days work?

Michael Prozinski

Wed, Jan 2, 2013 : 5:22 p.m.

Religious beliefs should not be part of what laws and regulations a corporation wants to follow. There are plenty of regulations a business must meet: health, safety, workmans comp, anti-discrimination policies. taxes, etc. You don't get to pick and choose. I could honestly care less what your personal religion says on these matters, or how you personally choose to live. That's YOUR choice. But, your choices do not get to dictate how other people live their life, nor the conditions of their employment. If you CHOSE to start a business, then you must abide by the laws and regulations of the land. Sorry, you can't pick and choose based on your personal beliefs, nor require others to live by your code of conduct. Conduct your personal life as you see fit, and operate your business according to the laws and regulations.


Wed, Jan 2, 2013 : 5:52 a.m.

This one is simple, don't buy Domino's Pizza! Monaghan is still vested to some degree. This is why sane Catholics are leaving the church.


Wed, Jan 2, 2013 : 5:16 a.m.

That someone doesn't care to be coerced into being party to chemical and other means of terminating young human life is reasonable. For those dissenting, I suppose you can send in your money to be used in the termination of the offending young human life.


Wed, Jan 2, 2013 : 7:28 a.m.

But Tommy M. is spending HIS greater wealth to (allegedly) protect "young human life" even though the definition of "young human life" is in dispute. So there's THAT imbalance (about 600:1, compared to the average wage earner) to consider. Of course: everyone knows that "protecting" one kind of life at the expense of ANOTHER (more mature) life is WRONG. And the underlying issue has nothing to do with that: the real issue (as usual) is about proper health care and who gets it. IF an employer wants "better employees" - many opted to contribute to health insurance costs under a company plan AS one of the benefits of employment. Monaghan's real agenda is to AVOID the cost of contributing to health insurance costs. His eye is on the bottom line (for his own company and all the others). The rich and powerful have to look after each other, don't you know. :-)

sun runner

Wed, Jan 2, 2013 : 12:45 a.m.

Not every woman uses hormonal birth control for contraception. Some of us need it to mitigate the effects of painful or irregular menstrual cycles. I myself was on hormonal birth control for ten years in an attempt to control my seemingly uncontrollable cycles. For four of those years I wasn't even sexually active. Yes, that's right: I was a virgin who took birth control pills.

Michigan Reader

Wed, Jan 2, 2013 : 2:18 a.m.

I should mention that the use of Viagra and the like is OK as long as there has been a sacramental marriage i.e., a marriage sanctioned by the church.

Michigan Reader

Wed, Jan 2, 2013 : 2:14 a.m.

@sun runner--Would you believe the Catholic Church isn't opposed to those four years of use. That was treating a legitimate medical issue, with anything else adverse being incidental and not intended. Same with Viagra and its competitors. IF the need is legit. It's the intention of the parties that matters. To use it to prevent conception is ALWAYS wrong in the church's view. None of this means the lawsuit has no merit, I think the Monaghan and company will win.

A A Resident

Tue, Jan 1, 2013 : 8:06 p.m.

AAPS Student, do your homework. (wink) The claims and arguments in the two cases are not the same.

AAPS Student

Tue, Jan 1, 2013 : 7:35 p.m.

This has been done before. The federal government was sued and Obamacare was declared constitutional. Sorry you don't like the contraception mandate Domino's Founder, but there is nothing you can do about it.


Wed, Jan 2, 2013 : 1:30 a.m.

It appears there is something he can do, and in fact, IS doing about it. Litigation seems to be going his way.


Tue, Jan 1, 2013 : 11:59 p.m.

As usual, the people complaining about the healthcare bill actually don't understand it. People using the "public option" are getting the same healthcare, from the same doctors and the same health insurance agencies, as everyone else. If you don't get health coverage from your employer, and you can't afford to buy it yourself, you can get a voucher to get it from one of the exchanges where the usual insurance companies will compete for your business. Personally, as a supporter of the health bill, I don't view the threat of employers dropping health coverage as a negative. It's silly that our health coverage is tied to our jobs. It should be separated and that will be a positive change with the new law.


Tue, Jan 1, 2013 : 9:40 p.m.

I'm with Michigan Man here. Maybe he should just let the employees default to this new public healthcare option! It might even be cheaper for him. Then the employees can enjoy the second-rate care that so many other countries with socialized healthcare experience.

Michigan Man

Tue, Jan 1, 2013 : 8 p.m.

AAPS - so wrong. Many things Tom can do - how about dropping all healthcare related benefits for all employees?

AAPS Student

Tue, Jan 1, 2013 : 7:36 p.m.

I agree with jns131!


Tue, Jan 1, 2013 : 6:30 p.m.

Here is what Monaghan fails to see the whole picture on birth control. BC is not only used to keep you from getting pregnant, but it also helps with a whole host of women problems. Women who have heavy cycles use this product to control the flow. It also controls the hormonal onset of acne. The list goes on and on. So, Tom Monaghan, with whom I boycott your horrible product and now you, think before you get in the middle of womens issues. I feel so sorry for your wife and the people who work for you. I wonder if you are union. I would love to strike your company.


Tue, Jan 1, 2013 : 7:20 p.m.

Monaghan doesn't have any "product" to boycott. He is involved in property management. He sold Domino's long ago.

A A Resident

Tue, Jan 1, 2013 : 4:09 p.m.

Clownfish, it appears that Monaghan goes by Catholic theology, not ancient Hebrew law. The two are a bit different. As far as requiring his employees to adhere to any religious practice, I haven't seen any evidence of that. It appears that what he objects to is being involved in the birth control supply chain, and a government with forces him to do that, contrary to his religious beliefs. He has a right to contest what the government attempts to force him to do, just as you do. Or are such rights reserved only for those who happen to share your views?


Wed, Jan 2, 2013 : 7:18 a.m.

Actually: do to the endless and numerous ABUSES of ownership rights - those rights have long been subject to what you think of as "government controls." Just sayin' - it's accepted practice to curb the privileges of criminals (even when they own a business). BTW: no one contests Monaghan's "right" to contest the government: it's just that he manages to get ALL businesses out of the business of: responsibility to employees. Wealth brings power and power corrupts: especially when wealth also insulates the owner from consequences.


Tue, Jan 1, 2013 : 6:33 p.m.

I think the constitution keeps his workers from free speech and the right to do what ever they darn well please. I think he needs to reread the constitution and stop forcing freedom of his own will on his workers.


Tue, Jan 1, 2013 : 2:43 p.m.

Does Tom demand that the men that work for him impregnate their sister-in-laws if the husband dies or leaves? "Go in to your brother's wife, and perform your duty as a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother." Genisis 38


Tue, Jan 1, 2013 : 6:35 p.m.

So when does Mormon Law go into effect with Monaghan and Catholicism?


Tue, Jan 1, 2013 : 2:40 p.m.

Did Tommy ban bacon, ham, mixing cheese and beef and the wearing of mixed cloths while he ran Dominoes? ALL of those things are banned in the Bible. Contraception is not mentioned, is it?


Tue, Jan 1, 2013 : 9:34 p.m.

Tommy wouldn't do that clown! He only follows the Bible as long as it doesn't interfere with his true God, Profit.

Ed Kimball

Tue, Jan 1, 2013 : 8:20 p.m.

Technically, I don't think the Bible bans mixing meat and cheese -- that's an extension that rabbis introduced later. You're right about bacon, ham, and mixed cloths. On the other hand, I don't think the Bible explicitly mentions contraception. That's a prohibition introduced later by the Catholic Church.


Tue, Jan 1, 2013 : 2:32 p.m.

Now conservatives favor activist judges. Imagine that.

Laurie Barrett

Tue, Jan 1, 2013 : 1:22 p.m.

Law trumps religion in the USA. Boycott Domino's pizzas. Boycott any fast food corporation that tries to steer employee benefits away from their legal obligation to provide them. People get rich and it makes them averse to sharing.


Wed, Jan 2, 2013 : 1:25 a.m.

So... jns... is he still forced into vicious servitude... or did he quit? If he quit, then he sets a nice example to all the disgruntled Monaghan employees who have to continue paying for their own contraceptives and chemical abortafacients. They can quit. They're not slaves. (And pretty soon they'll have a slew of great contraceptive - providing jobs to choose from because our good president is really gonna turn this economy around. You'll see. )


Tue, Jan 1, 2013 : 6:37 p.m.

I gave a plus rating on this one. My husband use to work for Dominoes. The horrors he could tell about how they treat their workers? Scary.


Tue, Jan 1, 2013 : 6:36 p.m.

I have a feeling he has not read nobama law care yet.

Michigan Reader

Tue, Jan 1, 2013 : 3:34 p.m.

"Law trumps religion in the USA." Freedom of religion IS the law. It has been since the 1700's.

Basic Bob

Tue, Jan 1, 2013 : 2:42 p.m.

Monaghan doesn't own Domino's pizza. Check their proxy statements - he doesn't own enough to require reporting to the shareholders or SEC. Restaurants and "Fast food corporations" do not provide health benefits to the vast majority of their employees, but they are under no legal obligation to do so. If you feel this is a loophole and have a moral difficulty with it, feel free to cook at home. Look at all the money you'll save.

A A Resident

Tue, Jan 1, 2013 : 1:32 p.m.

Laurie, if you truly believe that law trumps religion, please note that a court of law has determined that Monaghan has no legal obligation to provide these benefits, at least for now. It sounds like you may be getting your own secular religion confused with the law.

A A Resident

Tue, Jan 1, 2013 : 1:11 p.m.

"The sky is falling, the sky is falling." No, it's not. Most people who work for Monaghan took the job when birth control wasn't part of the benefits package. They must have considered this a reasonable comprise to have the job, and somehow muddled through paying for it on their own, just like many people have done for decades. The only change here is "no change". Nothing worth getting hateful about.


Wed, Jan 2, 2013 : 6:50 a.m.

Never has occurred to you has it: that job applicants are SCREENED by the employer and SELECTED according to how well the applicant's "outlook" matches the employer's?? And that's regardless of how hypocritical the employer's purported 'values' may be. :-) Besides, how do you know what Domino's Pizza job applicants WERE THINKING a few DECADES AGO when Tommy Monaghan was in charge?? We're talking about the current MULTI-MILLIONAIRE who's been blatantly touting ONE religions belief system. Using his money to openly support something which MANY people disagree with. RE: "when birth control wasn't part of the benefits package." is BACK WHEN not NOW. You're tacitly admitting that you're applying ONE OLD (RELIGOUS BASED) STANDARD to today's world. So there's definitely something fishy about touting "nothing new" when most Americans want something IMPROVED over the past. RE: "and somehow muddled through paying for it on their own, just like many people have done for decades." Are you OMNISCIENT? How exactly do you KNOW that ALL those needing an abortion "muddled through"? Just to inform you of the facts about those people: many lived their lives tragically as a result of the UNAVAILABILITY of abortion under THE OLD system. People dedicated to advancing human existence: think those who promote the outmoded "values" of the past are complacent fools.


Tue, Jan 1, 2013 : 6:11 a.m.

It has little to do with the "nobility" of the Democrats (who have their own collection of nit-wit notions they intend to impose on the whole country): it's has ALL TO DO with this odious "trend" wherein religious ideologues like Monaghan use their privilige-brought-by-wealth to impose their own morals on the whole country. Honestly: when are people going to grow up and realize that things like the PUBLIC INTEREST demand equanimity? Tommy Monaghan: I am not of your religion - so shove your religious thugism. LEARN to live in a country where public interests are not subordinate to YOUR INTERESTS. Keep your money and your morals out of my life and those of millions of other Americans who believe differently than your bunch does. WAKE UP - what is the name of the federal judge who made this absurd "decision" in cooperation with T. Monaghan?? Identify this "jurist" - so that he can be made to answer to higher authority for his dereliction of duty. As it is, John Counts, your story looks like you're telling us of a fait accompli by the high & mighty rich pizza company guy. Just FYI: if all you're going to publish is stories about how original American values and legal standards have been taken away as a routine matter- you can close down shop tomorrow; no one will care. Mr. Counts: your assigned "cops & courts" but apparently don't know that stories about court cases / proceedings INCLUDE the names of judges. Wake up, darn it all!!


Wed, Jan 2, 2013 : 7:03 a.m.

@a2citizen: then why didn't PUBLISH that name?? I do understand: you may have forgotten that the staff (publisher, president and editor) of went around for months telling A2 citizens that THEY would provide ADVANCED news capability (compared to the old print newspaper, the Ann Arbor News). So now we see they had a "lot easier job in mind for themselves - all for the same profit level. Cop out -that's what it is and that's what I'm calling it. @masticate: You asked "Why should the public have any say in how a man runs his OWN company/" So here it is: READ UP on the history of businesses in the country - from Colonial Times to the present. You'll quickly SEE: "owners" allowing tremendous damage to our landscape and to their employees. All through "the privilege of private ownership." You obviously never heard of "employers" calling on the state guard to come and sweep employees's tent camps with machine gun fire. (Rockefeller: had the Colorado governor do just that because "his" miners were striking "his" mining company). Private ownership is no guarantee of PROPER behavior - therefore private owner privileges are often taken away. :-)


Tue, Jan 1, 2013 : 9:36 p.m.

TruBlu: No one tells you how to parent your children or spend your money. (Unless it's the government collecting taxes from you, ironically.) Why should the public have any say in how this man runs his OWN company? If you need birth control and can't pay for it yourself, then tough luck. Find a new job that includes that coverage. Work for someone that is willing to provide it, rather than force someone who doesn't want to.


Tue, Jan 1, 2013 : 6:39 a.m.

Apparently you didn't click the MLIVE link before you started your rant. psst...Lawrence Zatkoff And by "answering to a higher authority" did you mean a god or a president?


Tue, Jan 1, 2013 : 5:31 a.m.

ok, let me say it this way. His employees are not entitled to health insurance through work. It is a benefit, something he offers as an incentive to try to get employees, therefore he can say what is not included in the health care benefit package. By all means, his employees can leave if they don't like it, or he can stop offering health insurance altogether, or he can just cut everyones hours or positions at his business. I am sure that most people do not care if their boss doesn't want to cover birth control. It is probably more people, that do not work there that have such a strong opinion that he should.


Wed, Jan 2, 2013 : 2:19 a.m.

It's not widely known but the law has already been since 2000 that employers with 15 or more employees who offer prescription coverage have to offer coverage for contraceptives. The change with the new HHS mandate is that there are penalties for not complying: "In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today – and because it relies on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it applies to all employers with 15 or more employees. Currently, employers that don't offer prescription coverage or don't offer insurance at all are exempt, because they treat men and women equal, but the new mandate will penalize such actions."

Michigan Reader

Wed, Jan 2, 2013 : 1:53 a.m.

@snark12--Monaghan isn't infringing on anyone's rights. To the contrary, the HHS mandate infringes on the rights of every sincerely held Christian who owns a business and is required to furnish health insurance to his/her employees. The HHS mandate doesn't confer on employees the RIGHT to contraception, it mandates that the insurance companies provide it (funded or enabled by the premiums of the employer.) The other interpretation that reads as if Monaghan is infringes on the rights of his employees is turning things on their head.


Wed, Jan 2, 2013 : 12:09 a.m.

@Bunny The "his employees can leave if they don't like it" argument is not a legally recognized principle. Someone could have just as well said "she can leave that company if she doesn't like her boss pinching her butt," or "those black people can leave that state if they don't like not being able to use the water fountain." Yes, Monaghan could choose to not offer health care. I wouldn't have a problem with that. Let the chips fall where they may. @Michigan Reader It is well established that the right to infringe on others' rights is, itself, not a right recognized under the law. A business owner's religion could require him or his employees to do all kinds of things that we have already agreed are illegal. What if a business owner required his employees to tithe 10% of his income to the owner's church?

Michigan Reader

Tue, Jan 1, 2013 : 3:19 p.m.

@YpsiGirl4Ever--With lots of help from God. I'm incredulous as to how so many people are opposed to Monaghan fully practicing his religion...It's the HHS mandate that's imposing on all practicing Catholics an immoral act (enabling a grave wrong.) The Catholics don't IMpose morality on the country, Catholics PROpose.


Tue, Jan 1, 2013 : 9:12 a.m.

And he can have no one work at his business, and do all the operational tasks himself (teach, make pizza, janitorial, landscaping, secretary, HVAC Specialist, fix broken get the point, right Bunnybot?). Last time I checked Tom M. doesn't need use any birth control methods, right? So, this seems like a perfect solution to his problem. Then Tom can practice his beliefs and not force those opinions on his female FORMER employees because he would run everything, all by himself!


Tue, Jan 1, 2013 : 5 a.m.

No surprise here with Judge Zatkoff - one of the most conservative judges on the federal bench. He overturned former Detroit Police Officer Larry Nevers' murder conviction in the Malice Green case after the Michigan Court of Appeals and Michigan Supreme Court had affirmed the conviction and created a stir by issuing a bond order releasing Nevers from prison just before Christmas while the court was closed for the holidays. He also served as a character witness for former Macomb County Sheriff William Hackel at Hackel's sexual assault trial in Midland County. Hackel was convicted and sent to prison. More recently he dismissed Dr. Catherine Wilkerson's civil rights case arising out of her assault and battery claims against the AAPD in the Blaine Coleman incident; that case is now on appeal.


Tue, Jan 1, 2013 : 6:23 a.m.

Thanks for the name FAILED to provide in their "story" [aka, ripoff phone-in job taken from MLive]. I had no idea it was Zakkoff who cooperated with Tommy Monaghan to change national law. But it does figure, I agree. Here again, I worry that people are becoming too accustomed to this new "mechanism" where ideologies are "implemented" in anti-democratic, sanity-destroying ways. I never in my life imagined that Americans (of all the peoples on Earth) would tolerate being ruled from behind the curtains like this.

Dog Guy

Tue, Jan 1, 2013 : 1:49 a.m.

It is natural that our esteemed great ape cousins contemptuously refuse to talk to us considering our most cherished and defended ethical values are contracepting and aborting.


Tue, Jan 1, 2013 : 1:16 a.m.

Contraception is the answer..... Against the genocide of our African American population taking place in government surrogate agencies like Planned Parenthood. Pockets full of pills ills for everybody!


Tue, Jan 1, 2013 : 6:38 p.m.

Uh, I thought legalizing Marijuana was the pill for everyone and body?

Macabre Sunset

Tue, Jan 1, 2013 : 12:56 a.m.

No one should force an employer to pay for anything unnecessary to the work site, religious exception or otherwise. Right outcome, wrong reasoning.


Tue, Jan 1, 2013 : 9:31 p.m.

No one is forcing you to work for a company that doesn't provide health benefits. If you require health insurance, then work somewhere else. Simple.

Ed Kimball

Tue, Jan 1, 2013 : 8:16 p.m.

Then they shouldn't be forced to pay for ANY health care at all? OK with me, as long as we develop a universal health system, like every other developed country.

Nicholas Urfe

Tue, Jan 1, 2013 : 12:04 a.m.

Billion dollar corporations should not get to claim religious exceptions to the law. Corporations are not people - unless they can be put in jail like people.


Tue, Jan 1, 2013 : 8:57 p.m.

According to Federal definitions, "people" or more correctly "persons" include corporations.


Tue, Jan 1, 2013 : 2:28 a.m. Who do you think owns corporations?

Unusual Suspect

Tue, Jan 1, 2013 : 12:51 a.m.

Nicholas, you forgot to add your daily Koch brothers mention.


Mon, Dec 31, 2012 : 11:57 p.m.

i expected nothing else from tom. i sure hope he looses this one. i am not pro choice or pro life. what i am is my business not others. that includes the government.


Wed, Jan 2, 2013 : 1:17 a.m.

What Mr M. is is likewise a metter of his own personal business, which happens to be a foundational religious belief for him. You want the givernment to keep out of your business. Then you agree with Mr. Monaghan! Nice to see you turn around on this important issue, golfer.

Nicholas Urfe

Mon, Dec 31, 2012 : 11:19 p.m.

Gee, I wish I could claim a religious exemption for my taxes supporting war.


Tue, Jan 1, 2013 : 7:05 p.m.

AA - They have the option, but probably not the bucks Monaghan has to pursue the litigatin.

A A Resident

Tue, Jan 1, 2013 : 1:20 p.m.

Those who wish to assert that claim have the option of doing so, through the same mechanism that Monaghan used.

Dog Guy

Mon, Dec 31, 2012 : 11:19 p.m.

"Today a federal judge ruled . . . " is usually cause for Ann Arbor to dance in the streets.


Wed, Jan 2, 2013 : 5:38 p.m.

Funny take Dog Guy - I like it

Unusual Suspect

Tue, Jan 1, 2013 : 12:50 a.m.



Mon, Dec 31, 2012 : 10:56 p.m.

What worries me is that the precedent set here may be cited in similar litigation -and even encourage it.

A A Resident

Tue, Jan 1, 2013 : 1:24 p.m.

Legal precedent? That's the way our system works. Legal precedent has probably also been used to support things you like.

C.C. Ingersoll

Tue, Jan 1, 2013 : 3:07 a.m.

It can't -- now that the Supreme Court has ruled against Hobby Lobby this is just a waste of taxpayer dollars while they fight an uphill battle.


Mon, Dec 31, 2012 : 10:31 p.m.

Hope he wins. If you can''t afford to pay $10 or less a month for your own birth-control then don't have sex. You don't deserve free birth control pills on someone elses dime. No one owes you.


Tue, Jan 1, 2013 : 12:02 a.m.

"You don't deserve free birth control pills on someone elses dime. No one owes you." Umm.... First, these employees pay both a Co-Pay and Co-Insurance Premium on the employers' health care benefits. Second, the employer pays for the 70/80 or 90% Co-Insurance because -and ONLY BECAUSE-- the employee works at the business, and receives a health care package as a condition of employment. Thus, the employee has EARNED a health care package, by contributing LABOR for the employers' profit or revenue. The Women that Tom Monaghan denied contraception benefits, are NOT receiving ANYTHING for FREE.


Mon, Dec 31, 2012 : 11:13 p.m.

Smokeblwr.. I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or, well, just blowin' smoke... But just in case, I believe this country does have a "wall of separation between Church & State" - in which case what Abraham dictated (or any other religious figure or writings for that matter) should be irrelevant when it comes to the law.


Mon, Dec 31, 2012 : 10:57 p.m.

Sex isn't a biological necessity, it should only be done for reproduction and only in the strict Biblical sense as dictated to Abraham. Any other methods employed in the act of copulation that are not directly related to fertilization are not kosher and frankly, should be illegal.


Mon, Dec 31, 2012 : 10:54 p.m.

No, I mean the ACA law does not provide free birth control. Monaghan is not being forced to pay for someone's birth control. The law is that if health coverage is offered by an employer, then the employer cannot exclude covering birth control bills. And "covering" does not mean they are free. Everyone keeps talking about the "free birth control pills," but that is not what's at issue.


Mon, Dec 31, 2012 : 10:48 p.m.

your right, they aren't free, someone else has to pay for them, thanks for correcting me


Mon, Dec 31, 2012 : 10:39 p.m.

The birth control pills aren't free.


Mon, Dec 31, 2012 : 10:02 p.m.

This is reprehensible. It's against his religion to use contraception, but nobody is forcing him to. He wants to impose his religion on everyone he can, and the government should not be party to that. Besides, some contraceptives are prescribed for other medical conditions; this is strictly the business of the patient and her doctor. My religion bans smoking; can I therefore refuse to pay for coverage for lung cancer treatments for my employees?


Tue, Jan 1, 2013 : 7:01 p.m.

He doesn't want to impose his religion on you. He just doesn't want you imposing your beliefs on him, which is what providing birth control would do in his eyes. I believe in birth control, but I respect those who don't. That respect for the beliefs of others is something that seems to be so very lacking in so many of the comments I see here. Ironically, it comes mostly from liberals who pride themselves on tolerance, but seem to have tolerance only for their own way of thinking. Would I be disappointed were I a female employee of Mr. Monaghan? Yes. But I would find another way of getting the birth control or find another job. Watch them vote this one down. Tolerance.


Tue, Jan 1, 2013 : 4:43 a.m.

Doglover, Doglover.... people say the damndest things.

Unusual Suspect

Tue, Jan 1, 2013 : 12:49 a.m.

" It's against his religion to use contraception, but nobody is forcing him to." And nobody is preventing any of his employees from using contraception. Pay for it yourself. I pay for my Ibuprofen.


Mon, Dec 31, 2012 : 11:26 p.m.

But it is legal to test people, and not hire them if they smoke. So yes, you can choose to limit coverage to smokers.


Mon, Dec 31, 2012 : 11:06 p.m.

so it isn't really about children but about religion got it!


Mon, Dec 31, 2012 : 10:41 p.m.

you can get lung cancer and not be smoker


Mon, Dec 31, 2012 : 10:33 p.m.

or is it that others are inforcing their LACK of religion on him?

Michigan Man

Mon, Dec 31, 2012 : 9:58 p.m.

Round one to Monaghan. Fine man, great community leader during his Ann Arbor days and one who stands tall for his convictions. May God continue to bless him in this struggle.


Tue, Jan 1, 2013 : 4:39 a.m.



Mon, Dec 31, 2012 : 9:54 p.m.

anti-contraception means they are pro-abortion!


Tue, Jan 1, 2013 : 9:29 p.m.

@Mary, I think kat's point is that when contraception is widely available, the numbers of abortions are lessened. When contraception is banned, the number of abortions increase. Therefore, if you are someone that is against abortion, you should be pro-contraception.


Tue, Jan 1, 2013 : 8:54 p.m.

Huh?? Faulty reasoning and an incorrect assumption.


Mon, Dec 31, 2012 : 9:37 p.m.

I agree! I am pro choice and pro women's rights, but it is your "Choice" to work for a crazy conservative that would ban certain medications (Who by the way is paying for your health insurance). If you don't like your employer paid health insurance benefits then leave. I'm sure someone out of the 7.8% unemployed would gladly take your job if all it meant was paying for a single prescription out of pocket.


Tue, Jan 1, 2013 : 5:06 a.m.

cc, what's the average wage?

C.C. Ingersoll

Tue, Jan 1, 2013 : 3:04 a.m.

If it's anything like Domino's farms in the 1990's; women can't wear pants; men can't wear short sleeves or have facial hair and the entire half-mile long building was considered a "Theme Park" for tax purposes (zero taxes) because of the Frank Loyd Wright 1-room museum it contained. Monahan does more than live in the stone age...

Unusual Suspect

Tue, Jan 1, 2013 : 12:48 a.m.

Nobody is banning anything.