Unlimited Access. Try it Today! Your First 10 Days Always $0.99
News Opinion Readers Respond

Having access to contraceptives and getting them for free are two different things

Letter writer Anita L. Feith writes that it's hard to believe that in 2012 access to contraception is in the spotlight of a national debate ("Standing up for contraception," Feb. 23). One reason Ms. Feith probably finds this hard to believe is because it isn't true.

There is no national debate about whether to restrict access to contraception. The debate is about whether contraception should be paid for in the form of handouts from insurance companies or the government, both of which would pass along the cost to all consumers.

By Ms. Feith's logic — that anything other people won't buy for you is something you're being denied — I've been denied automobiles, clothing and food my entire adult life.

Where I do agree with Mr. Feith is that in this age of entitlement, it's a bit surprising that anyone has the mettle to say no to paying for something that someone else wants for free.

It's a bit disconcerting that so often those on both sides of the aisle blur the lines of truth when trying to make their point.

Many on the right claim that 50 percent of Americans pay no taxes. That's not true, and it doesn't tell the whole story. Half of Americans pay no income taxes, which is a different thing altogether.

On the other hand, many on the left fail to distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants when the topic of immigration comes up. Yet the word "illegal" is germane to the discussion.

Now some folks are blurring the line between not having something given to them for free and being denied access to it. It's simply not the same thing.

Given the exploding world population, there may be an argument for government involvement in family planning, including efforts to increase the use of contraception and subsidize the needs of the poor.

But the argument can't be that we all are somehow entitled to have everything we want given to us for free, or that we're somehow being treated unfairly when that doesn't happen.

Michael DeCicco, Severna Park

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,...