Appalling: NY Times editorial distorts, misleads, and lies to readers on HHS Mandate

posted at 12:31 pm on March 23, 2014 by Dustin Siggins

With many political debates, I try to give opponents the benefit of the doubt on intentions. Sure, raising taxes is a bad thing, but some politicians and pundits believe higher taxes will benefit society. Some people think we need to spend more, and others really fear climate change.

When it comes to the HHS abortifacient/contraception/sterilization mandate, however, I’ve almost stopped being that generous with the left’s media and thought leaders. This New York Times Magazine editorial is a prime example as to why. Almost from start to finish, the piece misleads and misdirects readers about the mandate, its opponents, and religious freedom.

Here are several examples:

First, the editorial says “for-profit corporations will ask the Supreme Court to take a radical turn and allow them to impose their religious views on their employees” by not providing contraception coverage as required by the mandate. This is a falsehood for at least two reasons: For one, the individual insurance market is an option for coverage, and colleges, high schools, Wal-Marts, and many other organizations provide birth control for free or very low prices.

Furthermore, most employees are “at-will” employees, meaning they can leave anytime they wish. If they want employer-covered contraception, plenty of companies will provide it.

In other words, many options exists for employees — and I haven’t even mentioned abstinence yet, which is 100 percent effective at preventing pregnancy.

Next, the editorial says exemptions from the mandate “would significantly harm other people.” This is clearly not true, as pointed out above, because options abound.

Third, the editorial makes the claim that a Supreme Court decision against the mandate “would flout the First Amendment, which forbids government from favoring one religion over another — or over nonbelievers.” In fact, the mandate gives special treatment to those who believe contraception, abortion drugs, and sterilization, and puts those who disagree with the mandate at a distinct First Amendment disadvantage with regards to speech and religion.

The editorial also argues that the mandate does not include coverage of abortion-inducing drugs:

The companies’ owners remain free to worship as they choose and to argue (incorrectly) as much as they want that some of the contraceptive drugs and devices on the F.D.A.’s list actually induce abortions.

It has been proven time and time again that the mandate covers abortion drugs. For just two examples of this, check out what Live Action’s Drew Belsky and I wrote a couple of months ago, or check out this incredibly thorough analysis of that question by Just Facts.

Finally, the editorial states that “the government plainly has a “compelling” interest in reducing the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions, and in furthering women’s health and equality.” Actually, women’s health would benefit from fewer contraceptives, and contraception use only lowers the abortion rate after increasing it dramatically. And if the editorial board wants fewer “unintended pregnancies,” it should start with encouraging abstinence. Pregnancy is a fairly common result of engaging in sexual relations, after all.

There are other statements in the editorial that need to be debunked, but this is just a sampling of the misleading and outright falsehoods it possesses.

 


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

No, the problem isn’t solved until someone PAYS for them – regardless of how their sold.

blink on March 24, 2014 at 10:21 AM

This. Pay for your own pleasure pills, males and females.

Schadenfreude on March 24, 2014 at 11:17 AM

Those who advocate for Hobby Lobby to win here –
do they put any limits/constraints on exemptions to laws and regs based on a ‘religious objection’?

verbaluce on March 24, 2014 at 11:07 AM

obama exempted more than half the land, based on nothing but political whim. Get over yourself.

Schadenfreude on March 24, 2014 at 11:16 AM

Hyperbole isn’t an answer.
But it’s revealing.

verbaluce on March 24, 2014 at 11:18 AM

Those who advocate for Hobby Lobby to win here –
do they put any limits/constraints on exemptions to laws and regs based on a ‘religious objection’?

verbaluce on March 24, 2014 at 11:07 AM

Of course there are limits. The fact that the administration has to make up crap arguments is a clue that we’re not close to them.

Again, while birth control is permissible under a number of religious sects, it is sacred in about 0 of them.

Also, I have a right to earn more money than my present employer pays–IF I can land a job to pay me that. I can have both a right to something, and my current employer does not have to grant me the fruits of that right.

But why is it when we talk about express rights in the Constitution that aren’t as fashionable as others, we must immediately play slippery slope?

Axeman on March 24, 2014 at 11:34 AM

But why is it when we talk about express rights in the Constitution that aren’t as fashionable as others, we must immediately play slippery slope?

Axeman on March 24, 2014 at 11:34 AM

That ought to give you some idea of just how fashionable following the constitution really is these days. (Hit for the libwits: Not very)

gryphon202 on March 24, 2014 at 11:42 AM

And those who support regulations which limit unfettered access to firearms aren’t ‘suggesting banning guns, for f*cks sake’…right?
:)

OT…I know..but just didn’t want the irony to pass.

verbaluce on March 24, 2014 at 11:17 AM

What part of “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” escapes you, libwit? Go ahead. Try to amend the constitution to guarantee access to birth control. I triple-dog dare you.

gryphon202 on March 24, 2014 at 11:44 AM

Yes, that would be a great argument. Unfortunately, they cannot make this argument alone. Instead they have to let out how they really feel, which poisons the well.

We have deranged people projecting their obsession with same sex relations and incest on others. They also call anyone who uses birth control, or is OK with it being covered as a slut.

Yeah right. I’m sure your level of over-generalizing is going to help in the long run. As far as I’ve read of this entire thread, nobody called everybody who used birth control a slut. Gryphon said he didn’t want to pay for sluts’ birth control, and Buy Danish thought it necessary to point out that not everybody who would be provided with birth control is a slut. (duh) As if that was the only implication in that sentence.

What do same sex relations have to do with birth control? Those relationships don’t need them. And I’ve observed this conversation without a much of a mention of same sex relationships, so I don’t think that many people are making the support argument and then throwing same-sex in there unrestrained. So you’re actually talking about other topics they don’t shut up about.

You guys are big on shut up.

Axeman on March 24, 2014 at 11:47 AM

Hyperbole isn’t an answer.
But it’s revealing.

verbaluce on March 24, 2014 at 11:18 AM

No hyperbole. Check out the stats. obama exempted more than half the land. He should have NEVER exempted himself, his family, the congress, the unions, nor anyone, if it were such a good pill to swallow.

He also should have Never wasted 17 million of hard earned taxpayers’ money to advertise the crap. Those 17 million could treat lots of sick people, alas.

Schadenfreude on March 24, 2014 at 11:51 AM

Yeah right. I’m sure your level of over-generalizing is going to help in the long run. As far as I’ve read of this entire thread, nobody called everybody who used birth control a slut. Gryphon said he didn’t want to pay for sluts’ birth control, and Buy Danish thought it necessary to point out that not everybody who would be provided with birth control is a slut. (duh) As if that was the only implication in that sentence.

What do same sex relations have to do with birth control? Those relationships don’t need them. And I’ve observed this conversation without a much of a mention of same sex relationships, so I don’t think that many people are making the support argument and then throwing same-sex in there unrestrained. So you’re actually talking about other topics they don’t shut up about.

You guys are big on shut up.

Axeman on March 24, 2014 at 11:47 AM

I guess I’ll throw in the obligatory…

I am against state recognition of same-sex marriage, and I don’t think churches or private businesses should be forced to violate their conscience because of them, but outside of that, I don’t give a flying Fluke what happens in the privacy of other’s homes.

Happy now, libwits?

gryphon202 on March 24, 2014 at 11:52 AM

some politicians and pundits believe higher taxes will benefit society. Some people think we need to spend more, and others really fear climate change.

Yeah, there are names for those people: morons.

earlgrey on March 24, 2014 at 3:10 PM

BIRTH CONTROL, SMIRTH CONTROL. They Have NO RIGHT to FORCE US to buy ANY of this GARBAGE “insurance”!

S. D. on March 24, 2014 at 8:23 PM

Likewise, verbaluce’s probably arguing that there shouldn’t be any limits on healthcare because the constitution explicitly states the right to healthcare shall not be infringed . . . oh wait . . . no it doesn’t. Sorry, nevermind.

blink on March 24, 2014 at 2:08 PM

No, it’s made up rights have no express limitation on them. But we read the 2nd amendment to be limited (because we like to).

Axeman on March 24, 2014 at 8:28 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3