At Commonweal, Grant Gallicho responds to Margaret O'Brien Steinfels's claim that the Mother Jones article about Hobby Lobby's retirement plan (with its heavy investments in companies producing contraceptives and abortifacients) is "gotcha journalism"--I blogged about this discussion earlier today:
Hobby Lobby's argument is that the contraception mandate burdens its religious liberty because it cannot, as a matter of religious belief, allow itself to participate even remotely in the procurement of drugs and devices it believes cause abortions. A reporter discovered that the whole time the Greens have been advancing this claim their company's employee retirement plan has been investing money in companies that produce abortion drugs. That's not gotcha journalism. It's just journalism.
As Gallicho notes, the whole Hobby Lobby case "turns on financial cooperation," and so if the Greens find it within the bounds of conscience to invest in companies producing drugs designed to cause abortions, on what credible ground of conscience can they then claim that the Supreme Court should uphold their objection to providing contraceptives to employees because they believe some contraceptives are abortifacients?