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

  • 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.

  • Misreporting the Hobby Lobby decision [Letter]
    Misreporting the Hobby Lobby decision [Letter]

    The Supreme Court decision in the Hobby Lobby case was confined specifically to exempting some employers from having to pay for medications or procedures that terminate a pregnancy after conception ("Court sides with employers in contraception case," June 30).

  • Hobby Lobby decision a case for Supreme Court term limits [Letter]
    Hobby Lobby decision a case for Supreme Court term limits [Letter]

    The inane Hobby Lobby decision clearly shows it is time to set term limits for the judges of the Supreme Court ("Corporations vs. people," June 30). It is time to get rid of Justice Antonin Scalia — the smuggest among the high court's nine, and Clarence Thomas — the dumbest,...