You got so close, Philadelphia Inquirer.
You got so close to a fair, enlightening news story on a Democratic senator who says he opposes abortion but rejects the religious concerns raised by Hobby Lobby in its recent U.S. Supreme Court win.
But here’s where you fell way short: in providing crucial details concerning the actual religious objections involved. Your story seems to get politics. Religion? Not so much.
Let’s start at the top:
WASHINGTON — Sen. Bob Casey, an antiabortion Democrat, plans to vote Wednesday for a bill that would overturn the Supreme Court’s recent Hobby Lobby decision and force most businesses to offer employees the full range of contraceptive coverage, even if the owners raise religious objections.
The Pennsylvanian is siding with fellow Democrats – who argue that they are protecting women’s right to decide their own health care – and against many religious groups and Republicans, who say the court ruling protected religious liberties.
Casey, who is Catholic, said Tuesday in an Inquirer interview that he draws a distinction between abortion – which he still opposes – and contraception, which he has long supported and which he believes can reduce the number of abortions.
“The health-care service that’s at issue here is contraception, which means prior to conception,” Casey said.
But abortion has been a central part of the Hobby Lobby firestorm, which has also touched on health care, religious freedom, individual rights, and election-year politics.
OK, fair enough. Casey believes that the contraception involved here “means prior to conception.” But what do Hobby Lobby’s owners believe? Don’t expect an answer anytime soon in this story.
More from Casey:
Casey on Tuesday became the first antiabortion Democrat to cosponsor the bill, aimed at reversing the Supreme Court decision allowing business owners to exclude certain contraception options from their employee health packages. Some business owners said certain types of contraception could amount to abortion, an idea disputed by many doctors and scientists.
“I’m a pro-life Democrat, always have been, always will be,” Casey said. He later added: “I’ll go with the scientists on what contraception is, rather than a religious viewpoint of what science is.”
Deep in the story, the Inquirer finally gets around to that question — but answers it only vaguely:
In the Supreme Court case — revolving around Hobby Lobby, a chain founded in Oklahoma City, and the Lancaster County-based Conestoga Woods Specialties — business owners raised religious objections to some types of contraception coverage that President Obama’s health-care law mandated as part of employee health insurance. They argued that certain methods amounted to abortion.
What would those “certain methods” be? Why does Hobby Lobby object to them? And specifically how does Casey (not to mention the reported “many doctors and scientists”) differ with Hobby Lobby’s perspective on them? The Inquirer provides no answers.
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented Hobby Lobby, explains the family-owned company’s position on its website:
The Green family has no moral objection to the use of 16 of 20 preventive contraceptives required in the mandate, and Hobby Lobby will continue its longstanding practice of covering these preventive contraceptives for its employees. However, the Green family cannot provide or pay for four potentially life-threatening drugs and devices. These drugs include Plan B and Ella, the so-called morning-after pill and the week-after pill. Covering these drugs and devices would violate their deeply held religious belief that life begins at the moment of conception, when an egg is fertilized.
It’s really not such a hard concept to explain — even in a newspaper with a finite amount of space — as USA Today demonstrated in a story today:
GOP Sens. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire and Deb Fischer of Nebraska … argue that the ruling in the case does not limit women’s access to birth control but allows the family-owned company to avoid paying for certain birth control methods — in particular those that prevent maturation of a fertilized egg — that “would compromise their deeply held religious belief that life begins at conception.”
You got so close, Philadelphia Inquirer.
Image by Rob Wilson / Shutterstock.com