The Bishops’ Selective Outrage

A reader writes:

Here's an interesting question re: exposing the partisanship of the Bishops. So, at the most recent debate, Romney stated that it was completely voluntary as to whether Catholic hospitals in Massachusetts had to provide emergency contraceptives to rape victims. Yet, it appears that it isn't voluntary, that there is no conscience exemption. So, this raises two important questions that speak directly to the partisanship of the Bishops, and in this case, specifically of Cardinal O'Malley in Boston:

Why would O'Malley not express the same outrage toward Romney's policy in Massachusetts as he has toward Obama's policy at the national level? And why wouldn't O'Malley feel required to correct the public record re: Romney's statement, since that statement leaves the impression with voters that it is Cardinal O'Malley who is choosing to provide emergency contraceptives?

It appears that he has done neither to date. It seems that there's no answer to these two questions except the political partisanship of the Cardinal.

And the fusion of the theocon hierarchy of the church with one political party.