Another great article from today's Wall Street Journal, "ObamaCare v. Religious Liberty."

From the opinion page, this article does a good job of explaining just what legal issues are being looked
at in the combined cases of Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. 
Sebelius.  If you want to know what the case is all about (besides simply a terrible threat to our religious liberty), this is a good summary.  Here is a sample:

Contraception is cheap, plentiful and covered by most health plans. Most corporations are run for profit, not piety. Mr. Verrilli claimed the mandate is necessary to promote public health and gender equality, but HHS could have aided those goals without forcing a minority of business owners with moral aims to implicate themselves in what they consider to be grave moral wrongs.
HHS itself recognized religious sensitivity to the mandate by exempting some businesses but not others, and it could have extended the same conscience accommodations to for-profits as it did to nonprofits. Congress also could have created a free birth-control program for the poor or employees of religious institutions, or increased subsidies for Planned Parenthood.

Good news (we hope, because you never know) is that most commentators seem to think that a majority of the judges were leaning toward the preservation of religious liberty.  And by that I mean ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga.  May the Lord guide the decision!