TWO #22 Crying Wolf on Religious Liberty by The Editorial Board of the New York Times

              The decisions that the Supreme Court makes has a large effect on our American Society, and there have been cases in history where the Court has made some poor decisions. Recently two owners of large companies  have come forward with cases to not follow the newly implanted Health Care Laws for they

feel that that the laws infringe their established religious rights. These large companies, with no-religious affiliations, feel as if they should not have to cover their employees for their birth control medication. The Editorial Board from the New York Times took on this situation to argue why the Supreme Court should knock down the case. The combination of these 18 well-respected journalists, who represent the Editorial Board, all speaking through one voice creates a powerful argument. The purpose of this collective article is to argue why the Supreme Court should strike down the new case that is going before them. The structure of this article was incredibly effective in the way that it was simple. The introduction includes background knowledge that informs the audience as to what the situation was then is followed by a firm thesis that the Supreme Court should not allow this case. All of the evidence is strong and located in the body of the article, much like is commonly taught in schools. The writers source out the actual laws that the two companies are trying to work in their favor and present them in a different way then the companies are trying to. The conclusion leaves the audience thinking about the effects that this verdict will have on society including future cases that may come down the line. While the article has a simple structure it still manages to be a sophisticated article that effectively argues their opinions. The actual argument for this article was deductive, it started with the argument and then had evidence to support the claim. I found this article to be exquisite. Even though there were 18 authors it really felt that there was only one voice. The article was informative without going to overboard. The audience would have to be people who knew enough about how the Supreme Court worked, but had little to no knowledge on the particular case the article was discussing. By the end of the article I was convinced that if the Supreme Court made this decision America would be in a whole lot of trouble.