Lisa Miller [“On Faith,” Feb. 18] and Daryl P. Domning [letters, Feb. 18] went off track with their arguments regarding forced funding of birth control by religious groups who oppose it.
These well-meaning folks cite — correctly — the fact that our tax dollars already pay for many things some may oppose, such as wars, the death penalty and welfare payments. Yes, taxes support everything government does, good or bad, moral or immoral. And we don’t get a religious exemption from paying our taxes just because they go toward some policies we oppose.
But tax dollars are not the issue in the birth control debate. It’s having to ante up private funds for insurance premiums that cover procedures that some see as immoral. We all pay taxes, but insurance is not taxes. Mr. Domning correctly said that blood transfusions, for instance, are opposed by a certain religious group. So should members of that group have a right to refuse to pay for coverage of that procedure? Frankly, yes. Don’t work for anyone who you know — and you should know beforehand — is morally opposed to something you might need or want.
Jack Webb, Springfield
●
I agree with Charles Krauthammer [op-ed, Feb. 17] that President Obama’s fix of the insurance provision is a sham. Insurance companies will raise everyone’s rates. But I disagree that there are constitutional issues.
A church is immune from state interference in its pastoral functions, but when it operates a business, it places itself squarely within the province of the state. For example, any hospital, church-related or not, pays bills, issues accounts and, in particular, hires employees of many faiths who pay taxes (in which the hospital cooperates) and are thus entitled to equal rights.
A church has every right to advocate for its beliefs, but it has no right in a business area to coerce adherence by financial pressure.
Dennis Clague, Arlington
Loading...
Comments