Im­moral op­po­si­tion

The Times-Tribune - - Editorial -

Let­ter: Pres­i­dent Trump has ended the man­date for birth con­trol to be in­cluded in health in­sur­ance cov­er­age from busi­nesses and or­ga­ni­za­tions.

Birth con­trol pills do a lot more for women than pre­vent preg­nancy. They can treat en­dometrio­sis, reg­u­late men­stru­a­tion, pro­vide re­lief from cramps, pre­men­strual syn­drome and other con­di­tions.

The rea­son­ing, as with pre­vi­ous ex­emp­tions, is so a busi­ness or or­ga­ni­za­tion that has moral or re­li­gious be­liefs con­trary to us­ing birth con­trol can refuse to cover it.

So, let me get this straight. God would want a wo­man to suf­fer from an of­ten painful med­i­cal con­di­tion if she could not af­ford the birth con­trol that helps to ease the symp­toms of the con­di­tion?

God be­lieves that only eco­nom­i­cally com­fort­able women, or women who can get fi­nan­cial help from fam­ily mem­bers or have good health plans, should be able to have their symp­toms less­ened? Sar­casm aside, birth con­trol med­i­ca­tions treat a num­ber of med­i­cal con­di­tions. Us­ing re­li­gious or moral rea­sons to deny birth con­trol cov­er­age doesn’t say much for some­one’s moral or re­li­gious val­ues.


Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.