Hobby Lobby didn’t object to all birth control pills

AN ARTICLE about the Democrats’ reaction to Charlie Baker’s remarks concerning the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision is a missed opportunity to inform readers about the background of this ruling. (“Charlie Baker backs away from Hobby Lobby comments,” July 10).

The court decided that Hobby Lobby owners, because of religious concerns, did not have to provide contraceptive coverage in health insurance for employees. Hobby Lobby owners, however, did not object to 16 of 20 available oral contraceptives. They balked at being forced to pay, through insurance premiums, for four drugs that could induce abortions. Their female employees are free to buy these with their own money.

This tempest in a teacup apparently forced Baker, Republican candidate for governor, to show that he is “in step with Massachusetts thought,” in the words of Tobe Berkowitz, a professor at Boston University. Have we sunk so low in Massachusetts that individuals are incapable of forming their own opinions but are lumped together in some kind of Orwellian group-think?

Bernhard Heersink