Left-wing bias at the NYT is nothing new, of course, but the following opening paragraph of a July 8th editorial is particularly egregious. But before I quote it, let me say that the problem is not that the editors have a point of view or even that it is a liberal-left point of view. The problem is their seeming inability, or rather unwillingness, to present a matter of controversy in a fair way. Here is the opening paragraph of Hobby Lobby's Disturbing Sequel<\/a>:<\/span><\/p>\n The Supreme Court violated principles of religious liberty and women\u2019s rights in last week\u2019s ruling<\/a> in the Hobby Lobby case, which allowed<\/a> owners of closely held, for-profit corporations (most companies in America) to impose their religious beliefs on workers by refusing to provide contraception coverage for employees with no co-pay, as required by the Affordable Care Act. But for the court\u2019s male justices, it didn\u2019t seem to go far enough.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n This is a good example of the sort of Orwellian mendacity we have come to expect from the Obama administration and its supporters in the mainstream media. War is peace. Slavery is freedom. A defense of religious liberty is a violation of religious liberty. Those who protest being forced by the government to violate their consciences and religious beliefs are imposing their religious beliefs. The Orwellian template: X, which is not Y, is<\/em> Y. <\/span><\/p>\n Every statement in the opening paragraph of the NYT editorial is a lie. The 5-4 SCOTUS decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby defended<\/em> principles of religious liberty. It did not<\/em> violate any women's rights. Neither the right to an abortion nor the right to purchase any form of contraception were affected by the decision. The ACA mandate to provide contraceptives was not overturned but merely restricted so that Hobby Lobby would not be forced to provide four abortifacient<\/em> contraceptives.<\/span><\/p>\n I won't say anything about the ridiculous insinuation in the last sentence, except that arguments don't have testicles.<\/em> Truth is not a value for the Left. Winning is what counts, by any means. They see politics as war, which is why they feel justified in their mendacity.<\/span><\/p>\n The quite narrow question the Supreme Court had to decide was whether closely held, for-profit corporations are persons under the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act . "RFRA states that \u201c[the] Government shall not substantially burden a person<\/em>\u2019s exercise of religion.\u201d<\/a>3<\/a> (Ibid<\/a>.)<\/span><\/p>\n If Hobby Lobby is forced by the government to provide abortifacients to its employees, and Hobby Lobby is a person in the eyes of the law, then the government's Affordable Care Act mandate is in violation of the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act. For it would substantially burden Hobby Lobby's proprietors' exercise of religion if they were forced to violate their own consciences by providing the means of what they believe to be murder to their employees. So the precise question that had to be decided was whether Hobby Lobby is a person in the eyes of the law. The question was NOT whether corporations are persons in the eyes of the law, as some benighted cmmentators seems to think.<\/span><\/p>\n Note also that the issue here is not constitutional but statutory: the issue has solely to do with the interpretation and application of a law, RFRA. As Alan Dershowitz explains<\/a> (starting at 7:52), it has to do merely with the "construction of a statute." \n
<\/span><\/p>\n
<\/span><\/p>\n