Unlimited Access. Try it Today! Your First 10 Days Always $0.99

Opinion

News Opinion

Mandatory contraceptive coverage is tyranny

In his March 22 op-ed piece ("Why I chose Sandra Fluke") Rep. Elijah Cummings mistakenly identifies a freedom issue as awomen's healthissue.

For decades employees have been able to save money on health insurance costs by opting out of certain coverages. People beyond child-bearing years, celibate women and others were able to opt out of maternity coverage. People who didn't want to pay extra for vision coverage or dental coverage could opt out of such coverage.

The government telling private companies what they must sell is tyranny. Forcing companies to offer a product or service at no charge is a slap in the face of freedom. The insurance companies can't offer coverage for free. Somebody has to pay for it. So all of the insurance companies' customers pay more.

So thanks to the new health-care law and the Obama administration's mandate, a 60-year-old such as me has to pay for 14, 15 and 16-year-old girls' birth-control pills. I'm against abortion, but I have to pay for morning-after abortion pills. I also have to pay for women to get sterilized, a very expensive procedure. Making me pay for things my insurance company has to cover, things against my beliefs, is taking away my freedom. I should decide how to spend my money. The government shouldn't force me to pay for things. Pregnancy isn't a disease. In my opinion women should pay for their own birth-control pills or IUDs or condoms. I shouldn't have to pay for those things. Will I be forced someday to pay for men's condoms and Viagra pills? The government doesn't pay for anything. Taxpayers pay.

Catholic organizations such as Catholic Charities and Catholic Relief Services and the Archdiocese of Baltimore, which employ hundreds of people, are being forced by the government to offer health insurance to their employees or pay fines. They aren't being given a choice to find an insurance plan that doesn't offer free birth-control pills and morning-after abortion pills. So they won't offer their employees health coverage, and they will be fined. This is tyranny. America's founding fathers never envisioned the government telling private companies what to sell and telling them to sell something for free. They didn't envision employers being forced by the government to offer health insurance. Our founding fathers were familiar with tyranny and didn't want to see citizens subjected to it.

In Illinois, Catholic Charities can no longer place children in foster care or place children for adoption because only organizations willing to place children in homes of gay couples are allowed to be engaged in the placing of adoptive or foster children. How do children benefit from the government forcing out of the adoption business one of the best organizations at placing children? How can the Illinois government get away with forcing an organization out of a business it's been in for years just because its beliefs are different from Illinois legislators?

Elijah Cummings and others need to understand that the issue of forcing insurance companies to offer something free is a freedom issue and forcing organizations to carry health insurance providing services odious to them is a freedom issue.

James Roberts, Woodstock

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • Where OB-GYNs stand on over the counter birth control [Letter]
    Where OB-GYNs stand on over the counter birth control [Letter]

    A recent exchange within your opinion pages debated the benefit of over-the-counter access to oral contraceptives, with a letter to the editor ("Sun wrong on OTC birth control," Sept. 16) citing the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists as being supportive of recent proposals from...

  • Pills don't prevent STDs
    Pills don't prevent STDs

    This letter is in response to Susan Reimer's column about the GOP's attitude about birth control ("On birth control, young Republicans get it," April 15). I think Ms. Reimer's opinion is very narrow-minded. While I agree that young people often have premarital sex with no desire to procreate, I...

  • On birth control, young Republicans get it
    On birth control, young Republicans get it

    Two-thirds of young Republicans believe that every woman should have access to affordable birth control, 65 percent believe that insurance companies should cover contraception without co-pays and 51 percent believe that the federal government should continue to fund contraceptive services for low-income...

  • Birth control bait-and-switch [Editorial]
    Birth control bait-and-switch [Editorial]

    Our view: GOP candidates are touting their newfound support for expanded access to contraceptives, but the ploy could backfire

  • Why is Mikulski trying to 'fix' the Supreme Court's decision? [Letter]
    Why is Mikulski trying to 'fix' the Supreme Court's decision? [Letter]

    On her website, Sen. Barbara Mikulski proclaims that she is joining other senators to introduce a "legislative fix to protect women's health" following the Supreme Court's recent decision in the Hobby Lobby case. Whether you are for abortion or against abortion, whether you think your employer...

  • Pushy pro-lifers [Letter]
    Pushy pro-lifers [Letter]

    Letter writer Mary Catalfamo claims that Planned Parenthood denies any pregnant women immediate, free access to the full spectrum of information and counseling ("Supreme Court decisions won't limit women's rights," July 9).

  • An effort to shame, cloaked in the guise of women's empowerment [Letter]
    An effort to shame, cloaked in the guise of women's empowerment [Letter]

    Regarding the recent rant by small business woman and political activist Michelle Jefferson ("Stop griping and get a grip, ladies," July 11), it seems that she missed the most basic and fundamental message of the women's movement in the last century: don't leave your sisters behind.

  • Global needs: food and birth control [Letter]
    Global needs: food and birth control [Letter]

    While writer Mike Gesker ("U.S. food aid still critical abroad," July 10) rightly affirms our commitment to sending food to poor countries, as a member of Catholic Relief Services he fails though to address the other side of this economic problem.

Comments
Loading

70°