Readers React: Don’t let religious hypersensitivity block access to contraception

To the editor: It takes real nerve for a religious institution to argue that signing a piece of paper to avoid providing or paying for female employees’ contraceptive coverage makes it morally complicit in sin. (“Supreme Court should reject this religious liberty argument,” editorial, Nov. 10)

By this twisted logic, any 18-year-old man who adheres to pacifistic religious tenets could skip registration with our Selective Service and never bother with paperwork required to establish himself as a conscientious objector. After all, his religion disdains cooperation with the agency that musters draftees for a war, right?

As The Times avers, the Supreme Court should not allow the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to be transformed into a blank check for obstructionism.

Betty Turner, Sherman Oaks

..

To the editor: You seem to be saying that, since the Affordable Care Act was passed, a faith-based organization is not allowed to deal with an insurance company that, in line with the organization’s beliefs, refuses to cover contraception and the like.

You see, a woman of faith would say that she never would require those services, but her religious freedom is diminished by effectively subsidizing that kind of healthcare for other women. The church body that the woman works for is forced to act against its teachings.

This is the issue that the church bodies are squabbling over. They only want an insurance company that, along with them, is going to stand against this. It would be a faith statement from the insurance provider, which the Affordable Care Act might say is impermissible.

Issues like this ultimately go to court to be resolved.

Timothy Neumann, Arcadia

..

To the editor: Overlooked when we speak of “birth control” is that it addresses medical programs for a multitude of women, young and old. Not only do women of all ages have the right to their own destiny as to when and how many children they wish to have and raise, but a pregnancy for many would be deleterious to their health.

It is hard to fathom the ignorance and stubbornness of a religious community that completely ignores this. Its main argument is what? That a woman must never, ever, stop a pregnancy from occurring? That a woman under no circumstances should ever have the right to plan when she is physically, mentally and financially able to conceive?

Or, heaven forbid, a woman may decide she doesn’t want to ever have a child?

The Affordable Care Act is designed to cover the whole person. This ensures a healthier and happier society.

Diane Welch, Cypress

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook