I love reading articles like this from the left. This article not only misrepresents the facts by linking religious rights to taking four pills in question in the Hobby Lobby case, it disproves what it is trying to prove.

Here are some issues that should be apparent in the article by a little thought behind the words of the article.

1. They misrepresent teachings of Jewish history. It is clear that an agenda is in the works when this author says it is a religious requirement to support contraceptives. What the article cites is a disagreement among two ancient Jewish Scholars on the role of a form of birth control as it relates to two Jewish Principles. They discussed whether a sponge like material for the prevention of pregnancy is allowed and even use the phrase, “may use” to distinguish it from being a religious obligation, as this article seems to try to advance.

For instance, in my religious tradition I “may use beer.” This does not mean beer is required or part of my religion. Rather, it is something I am allowed to use.

Also, the type of birth control addressed was a sponge material. I know of no objection to this sponge material today.

2. They confuse prevention of pregnancy with abortifacients.SCOTUS ruled against four abortifacients, but neither side argued against all contraceptives.

Abortifacients does not prevent pregnancy by blocking the sperm from implanting in the egg, but it jettisons the baby in a chemical abortion.  The Jewish discussion they reference was only concerning prevention of fertilization, not abortion.

3. They misrepresent the SCOTUS decision. SCOTUS and Hobby Lobby only focused on 4 drugs among all the drugs in Obamacare. Contraceptives were never the issues, but ones that abort a baby were at issue. Still today, you can get contraceptives from Hobby Lobby, you can still get abortifacients (though Hobby Lobby will not pay for it), and you still prevent pregnancy.

4. And, if it is a religious mandate to take these drugs (which it is not) that does not mean you can force someone to pay for your religious expression.  In fact, I am quite adamant that no liberty can exist or should exist on the back of another person’s being forced to contribute. I think, in general, most leftists would agree in the case of religious freedom.  The state should not force my employer to support my religious beliefs. He should not be required to buy me a Bible or pay for the Lord’s Supper elements.  In this article, it seems the left wants employers to begin to support religion in this way.

This is a reason I love the leftist’s articles. With a little bit of thinking, you discover what they say is really not what this issue is about, is twisted, and really just shows a radical left wing agenda.

Original article posted here.

Derick Dickens has an MBA in Leadership, MDiv, and MA in Religion.  He speaks regularly on topics ranging from Christian Worldview issues to business leadership, and he is an Adjunct Professor of Business and Human Resources.  Derick is also an award winning public speaker, speech evaluator, and leader.  Married for 16 years to his wife Lacie, they have three children and live in Lynchburg Virginia.  You can follow Derick on Twitter at twitter.com/derickdickens.