One way liberal media reporters who cover the Supreme Court subtly skew their coverage in a liberal direction is by focusing on a given Court case through the lens of the how it impacts the government or how it would deal a "blow" to a liberal policy agenda, not how it impacts the rights of individuals who claim injury to the constitutional liberties.
The Wall Street Journal's Jess Bravin and Louise Radnofsky were no exception today in their coverage of the Little Sisters of the Poor lawsuit against the Obama/Burwell HHS over the contraceptive mandate.
Here's how they opened their story (emphasis mine):
WASHINGTON—An impassioned argument at the Supreme Court on Wednesday left uncertain the future of contraception coverage for women employed by religiously affiliated organizations, with a deadlock on the eight-member court appearing a serious possibility.
Notice the uncertainty is not cast as that of the right of a religious organization to be left alone by their government to operate according to their religious convictions, even though the Sisters are among the petitioners, the ones appealing their case to the Court for justice.
What's more, when you go to work for a religious organization like the Little Sisters, shouldn't you do so fully expecting that the organization will conduct itself in line with its religious beliefs, including on matters like contraceptive coverage? Is there really a clamoring among women who work for the Little Sisters to have this coverage?
If so, aren't there less-restrictive means for the government to provide and pay for the contraception without pushing the approval process and/or the financing for it on the religious order itself via its insurance contract?
These are questions that conservatives have been rhetorically asking in their longstanding defense of the Little Sisters, but, to the liberal media, the narrative they prefer to further is that of American women supposedly under siege by religious groups seeking to make Swiss cheese of ObamaCare.
