To the editor: What unholy pandering: President Trump orders that employers who have religious or moral objections to contraception may refuse to provide the insurance coverage for their female employees. ("Trump administration launches attack in a culture war, rolls back Obama rules on birth control and transgender employees," Oct. 6)
Might sauce for the goose be sauce for the gander? What if employers like myself have a "moral objection" to providing insurance coverage that affords older men erectile dysfunction medication enabling them to impregnate women?
After all, medical science has established greatly increased risks of birth defects from the sperm of men over 40; for example, the incidence of autism in their offspring more than quintuples.
As a humanist, I firmly believe that the sole moral option is to let nature diminish the ability of older men to father children who bear significantly heightened risks of birth defects.
Leave it to the Trump administration to seek faith-based cover for its misogyny.
Robin Groves, Pacific Palisades
To the editor: So now Trump is announcing a rollback on coverage for women's birth control. Apparently, he is once again appealing to one of his main constituencies: white men who like to commandeer women.
Our mindless patriarch does not seem to realize, or care, that his latest asinine move will increase poverty, teen pregnancy and infant and maternal mortality. Regardless, Trump seeks to continue his policy and practice of treating women terribly and trying to take control of their lives.
Most women I know would not fathom having their personal and moral matters — indeed, their most basic life decisions — planned by such a man.
Joseph DeVitis, Rancho Mirage