Conestoga Wood Specialties

On Hobby Lobby, explain that 'deeply held religious belief'

On Hobby Lobby, explain that 'deeply held religious belief'

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.

The Inquirer report, of course, was published before a Democratic bill to reverse the high court's Hobby Lobby ruling failed in the Senate Wednesday.

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:

Please respect our Commenting Policy

Pod people: Grading the grades on Supreme Court coverage

Pod people: Grading the grades on Supreme Court coverage

After two recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings, I tried a different approach to analyzing some of the major news coverage.

I did what I dubbed "big news report cards" on coverage of the high court striking down a Massachusetts abortion buffer zone law — and on coverage of the court's 5-4 decision in favor of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties.

In the Hobby Lobby post, I focused on how various media handled one of the big misconceptions about the case — the idea that the Oklahoma City-based arts and crafts retailer refuses to pay for employees’ contraceptive coverage.

Please respect our Commenting Policy

How NOT to cover the ruling in the Hobby Lobby case

Hey @GetReligion, read the fear-filled, one-sided piece in @Forbes re: what will happen if @HobbyLobbyStore prevails: http://t.co/O47OaXrg6m @MattBranaugh Are you suggesting there is more than one side to this story?

@GetReligion Surprising, I know. According to this piece, everyone already agrees the government is right and Hobby Lobby is wrong.

With the U.S. Supreme Court’s highly anticipated ruling in the Hobby Lobby case expected as soon as today, Forbes offers a perfect example of how not to cover the decision.

Please respect our Commenting Policy

Pod people: Hobby Lobby and the Mennonite angle

On this week’s episode of the GetReligion podcast “Crossroads,” host Todd Wilken and I discuss media coverage of the Hobby Lobby case. Or — as our editor Terry Mattingly asked recently — is it really the Hobby Lobby case?

Now, I realize Hobby Lobby is a nationally known brand and that this punchy name fits better in a headline than that of Conestoga Wood, the cabinetmaking company owned by a Mennonite family in Pennsylvania that is also part of the case. Is it possible that “Mennonites fight for free exercise of religion” isn’t as culture-wars friendly a story line as “giant, rich conservative evangelical company fights, etc., etc.”?

Todd wondered if anyone had explored the Mennonite angle. My basic response: I don’t know. (Yes, such enlightening insight makes for great listening. But I digress.)

Please respect our Commenting Policy