It is always disappointing when the political editor, the guy we are depending on to give us nonpartisan political info, practices partisan politics, which is what political editor Mike Riopell does in his "Democrats offer pushback on Hobby Lobby ruling" article of July 10.
Mr. Riopell writes that "companies such as Hobby Lobby refuse on religious grounds to provide employees with contraceptive coverage." This is certainly the Democratic talking point on the issue, but it is just not true. Hobby Lobby provides coverage for 16 different types of birth control. What Hobby Lobby was objecting to was providing coverage for four birth control options that have the potential to abort a live fetus. It is a pro-life versus pro-choice issue, not a birth control versus no birth control issue.
Contact information ( * required )
Mr. Riopell could have easily given the reader some indication of this by writing that Hobby Lobby refused to cover all forms of birth control or some forms of birth control. He could have written that Democrats were introducing legislation that would require employers to cover forms of birth control that could lead to the abortion of a fetus, but instead he chose to leave out any language that would give readers any hint that the Hobby Lobby decision does not apply to all forms of birth control.
It is unfortunate that when it comes to political reporting, readers of the Herald were not given the straight story and were once again forced to read between the lines.