RULING: Here's another view

Hobby Lobby reality, not fiction.

Sholeh Patrick usually does a fantastic job researching facts on a wide array of subjects and presenting them in an entertaining and informative way. She occasionally hints to her liberal bias, but I was disappointed in the extent she leaned left when she apparently discarded the search for facts, fairness, and common sense regarding the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court case to put forth the “progressive” agenda as presented in the mainstream media, including the Associated Press—all message carriers for the far-left political agenda.

Her article states:

“Ruling on the latest of a handful of cases on the blurring separation between church and state, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that yes, closely held corporations such as the evangelist-owned ‘Hobby Lobby’ may refrain from providing health care coverage related to birth control, if they seek an exemption on religious grounds (even if it does cost a business far less than covering dependent children who may result).”

Her statement doesn’t represent a factual presentation of the findings of the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court case. Hobby Lobby has never rejected birth-control coverage to its employees, even before Obamacare was passed, and then Obama had it amended to contain options for abortion, including the “morning after” pill. Hobby Lobby continued to be willing to give 16 birth control options for women. However, they were unwilling to provide the four new methods in “ACA” intended to abort a prospective fetus who would never have the opportunity or right for the freedom to become a person.

One example of an opinion regarding the true Hobby Lobby insurance provisions is Dr. Robert Jeffress who wrote:

Hobby Lobby has objected to providing four of the 20 required contraceptives because they prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in a woman’s womb which the owners contend is tantamount to abortion and violates their religious beliefs.

There is no claim that Hobby Lobby has attempted to prevent women from exercising their constitutional right to obtain abortions -- the company just didn’t want to have to pay for them.

It’s a shame when thoughtless emotionality and political agenda replaces common sense and true facts.

KAREN PARRISH NORSKOG

Post Falls