Re: “A much larger issue is at stake” (letter, 3-3).
The letter quoted the First Amendment as support for the viewpoint that laws affecting health care (contraception mandate) somehow negatively impact one’s ability to exercise one’s freedom of religion.
Ironically, the same quoted constitutional amendment is at stake in the eyes of those supporting the contraception mandate. In order to keep separate church and state, the government cannot allow religion or religious ideas to determine the law or enactment thereof (Larkin v. Grendel’s Den, 1982).
Laws regarding the rights of people can be disagreed with by church officials, but we cannot allow church officials to write laws with which the (majority of) people disagree.
A more controversial view of this debate is that it is not about religion; it’s about the government having its hands in U.S. health care. The best solution is to take health coverage away from employers or unions lest there be a religious/moral objection to any particular part(s) of the health coverage package.
Any employer would be ecstatic to pick and choose what it covers (refusing some items under the guise of moral objections) if it means more money for the CEO or shareholders. Why can’t U.S. citizens agree on one health care system and an appropriate way to practice it?
If the individual does not want a particular coverage (due to moral objection), then the individual should say so, not the employer.