¶ … Religion and Birth Control at the Supreme Court" by The Editorial Board (2016) of The New York Times is written from a leftist perspective, which is immediately evident in the first line of the article, which states that the Senate Republicans are inflicting "harm" on the nation "by refusing to consider filling the Supreme Court vacancy" which Obama wants to fill with his nomination. The piece is an anti-religion op-ed that condemns those who object to policies that impinge on their religious principles and integrity because their doing so "places burdens on others" (Editorial Board, 2016). In other words, it is okay to burden the consciences of religious objectors, but it is not okay to burden others, i.e., liberals who believe that everyone should have the right to choose as they want except for those who disagree with them on what is right and wrong, moral and immoral, ethical and unethical. By obliging employers to pay for contraceptives, employers may be forced to violate their own principles: how can this be viewed as a good thing or as a win for the American people? It would be nothing short of authoritarianism, in which the government, here at the level of the Supreme Court, gets to tell people which religious principles are acceptable and which are not. It is, in other words, the separation of Church and State being completely eradicated, with the State assuming the role of religious arbiter. That is what this op-ed...

Its authors assume that anyone with common sense can see that religionists are ignorant and uncaring individuals who place their own righteousness above the needs of others. What the authors fail to consider is that not all people view religion or birth control in the same light. Some see birth control as an evil that is designed to prevent life from occurring -- but this article gives no mention or support to such a worldview. It simply suggests that such people who have this inclination are "harmful" -- because this inclination conflicts or goes against the aim of the leftist agenda behind the push for contraception and the forced requirement of employers to provide it even if it goes against the convictions of the employer.
This is what freedom is about? A more productive discussion would entail the focus of the issue itself -- birth control and religion. For example, why is birth control viewed as a good thing by some and why is it viewed as a bad thing by others? This could be followed up with a discussion about why employers owe it to their employees to give free contraception -- or why they should not be held responsible for giving free contraception (as though everyone wants and needs it).

The idea of birth control itself is rooted in the eugenics project guided by racist elites like Margaret Sanger who wanted to use birth control to stem the rise of the black population in America. James…