I do not expect much from the editors at the New York Times in the way of giving the Catholic Church a fair shake. They seem to be that variety of liberal for whom the Church is the Easter Bunny with real estate, the vestige of an earlier age or of childhood desires, certainly not the progenitor of Western civilization, possessing a coherent worldview.
But, even by their low standards, their editorial opposing any broadening of the conscience exemption from mandated contracpetive care is astonishingly weak. They do not really argue the case, they simply make assertions. For example, the kernal of their argument is found in these sentences: "President Obama should stand firm against the church’s overreaching. Allowing a broad exemption for health plans sponsored by employers that object to contraceptives coverage would amount to imposing church doctrine on millions of women who may differ with the church’s stand on birth control and who may not be Catholic. " How is the request for an exemption an "overreach"? The editors do not say. Nor do they note that it is the new mandate, not the requested exemption, that changes the rules of the road. The editors provide no statistical justification for the assertion that "millions" of women would be affected. Millions? Besides, whether it is ten million women or, more likely, a few hundred thousand, the qomen in question chose to work at or attend a Catholic institution.
Most alrming is the fact that the editors do not even mention the First Amendment which, last time I checked, had something to say about government not interfering in religion. But, the editors of the Times, usually so proud in their defense of a wall of separation between Church and State have decided to rush over that wall now. The hypocrisy is as rich as their editorial is impoverished.
