 |
| The New York Times July 1, 2014 |
 |
| The New York Times Oct. 25, 1993 and… |
A Wee Bit of Inconsistency? The editors at the Times know the rest of the media will (mostly) not call them (or the Democrats) on their hypocrisy.
Most of the lefties don't even understand what they are protesting, but it is reassuring for them to protest it.
Hillary Clinton is upset that the Supreme Court based its Hobby Lobby decision on a law her husband and a lot of Democrats helped pass…
buzzardist
Native Americans receiving employment benefits despite using illicit drugs in religious ceremonies is obviously a good thing. Christians applying religious beliefs to narrowly restrict certain abortifacients from insurance coverage is always a bad thing. Why? Because Native Americans. Because Christians. Because women.
Congress had every opportunity to carve out exceptions to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act when Democrats passed the ACA. They didn't. Why? Maybe it was an oversight when Democrats were rushing to pass a bill--any bill!!!--using questionable parliamentary tactics. Maybe it was because adding such exceptions would have ruined any chance of passage. That's not really relevant. The fact is that Congress created no exception to the law, and so ACA enforcement has to be consistent with it. That was the law that Democrats almost unanimously supported back in 1993. It's still the law today.
