Become a digitalPLUS subscriber. 99¢ for 4 weeks.
NewsOpinionReaders Respond

There is no constitutional 'right' to birth control

Family Planning

In response to Max Romano's commentary regarding the "right" to birth control, to which constitutional right does he refer? I searched my copy of the Constitution and could find no reference to any such right ("The right to birth control," Feb. 15).

There are so many holes in his argument I hardly know where to begin. Start with "reproductive justice," whatever that is. Men and women do indeed have control over their future, sexual or otherwise; it's called making responsible decisions, not depending on a government mandate.

Mr. Romano conveniently ignores the fact that there are numerous other "birth control" options available for both men and women that are well out of the purview of the heavy hand of government.

His belief that a government mandated option is "free" is priceless. He tries to buttress his argument for "free" contraception by claiming the pill has other uses. I'm not nearly as bright as the good "doctors-in-training", but I'm guessing that there are other treatment options available for his accessory uses for the Pill.

He and his compatriots jump the shark when they claim that employers can't deny their employees "safe and effective health-care." Of course they can: It's their business, their money and their insurance plans. Thousands of businesses don't provide insurance at all.

Thankfully, most savvy businessmen and women understand that it is in their interest to offer such health plans; otherwise they may not have the workforce needed to compete.

"Rights," "access," "justice" — holy smokes, I pray that that these paragons of progressive liberalism wake up and get in the real world. They have spent too long in the protected confines of the ivory tower.

Craig R. Piette, Reisterstown

Copyright © 2014, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
Family Planning
  • 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,...

Comments
Loading