Monday 28 Jul
 
 
 photo BO-Button1_zps13524083.jpg

 

OKG Newsletter


Topic: emergency contraception

Consistent religious beliefs


Letters to the Editor

Nancy Roche
Isn’t it ironic that Hobby Lobby is using religious beliefs as an excuse to not participate in the health care mandate, but it doesn’t hesitate to import all that garbage they sell us from China, where women are still strongly encouraged to have abortions?
 
Wednesday, March 6, 2013

Balanced journalism


Letters to the Editor

Lawrence Curtis
Congratulations for publishing Dr. Dana Stone’s timely and splendidly written “The truth of emergency contraception” (Commentary, Feb. 20, Oklahoma Gazette). Her rationale was validly bolstered by well-supported and cited facts. Her commentary was an effective, appropriate and much-needed contribution to a volatile and poorly understood subject — more accurately, a widely misunderstood and high-profile controversy of the day.
 
Wednesday, March 6, 2013

Whole lotta crazy going on


Commentary

Kurt Hochenauer
There’s enough extreme ideological legislation floating around the state Capitol right now to make a decent reality television show.
 
Wednesday, March 13, 2013

Contraception and population


Letters to the Editor

Brandon Wertz
In response to “Embryonic” by Dr. Dominic M. Pedulla (Letters, Oklahoma Gazette, March 27), I have to admit that I am taken aback by a man of science being so disconnected from the idea that unchecked procreation will not have negative consequences in the long term.
 
Wednesday, April 17, 2013

Pondering religious freedom


Letters to the Editor

K.A. Straughn
Concerning Hobby Lobby’s refusal to pay for emergency birth control under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Dennis Weigand (Letters to the Editor, “Questioning Hobby Lobby, May 8, Oklahoma Gazette) writes, “Is employment at Hobby Lobby conditional on agreement with the religious views of the owners? If it is not, then [Hobby Lobby’s] claim that their religious freedom would be violated by the ACA is nothing but a hollow pretense to religious superiority, taking the position that Hobby Lobby’s religious freedom is more important than the religious freedom of their employees.”
 
Wednesday, May 22, 2013

Poor logic on Hobby Lobby decision


Commentary

Marci A. Hamilton
There are times when a court’s reasoning becomes so precious that it has no contact with reality, which is precisely what happened when the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit decided Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius. The most important issue in the case is whether a for-profit company is a religious “person” under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The short answer is “No.”
 
Wednesday, August 7, 2013

Hobby Lobby deserves protection


Commentary

Andrew Spiropoulos
In this time of polarized politics, it is hard to conceive of any significant bill that’s supported by the entire American political spectrum. But in 1993, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) achieved just that.
 
Wednesday, August 7, 2013
 
Close
Close
Close