To the editor:
Thank you for allowing the opportunity for debating the issues of birth control and abortion insurance coverage. Here are some things people may not realize:
First, being so incensed with their rights, they forget the rights of the business owner and founder, whether a religious institution or not. It was their money that started it all (or donations from like-minded individuals.)
Second, you are just an employee, not the boss. Insurance coverage is a benefit that the employer offers to its employees. Some married women wave the coverage because they are on their husband's policy.
Third, what kind of coverage is more important and should be the priority in life? Birth control or coverage of pre-existing conditions and basic care? There may be a few exceptions, but they offer supplemental insurances.
Fourth, why is there not more of an outcry about no coverage right now for pre-existing conditions ... pregnancy is considered to be a pre-existing condition in some policies.
Fifth, why have people not complained and lobbied about employees who are part time with as many as 35 to 39 hours a week and cannot qualify for any insurance coverage?
Sixth, there are a lot of other conditions that are not covered that are considered cosmetic and that have to be paid out of pocket.
Seventh, when it comes to a questionnaire on types of the most important coverage a person wants on his or her policy, would it even make the list?
Eighth, if pro-choice business or corporate owners are lobbying for this, why have they waited so long and not offered this benefit to their employees before?
Ninth, they say they espouse choice - if so, then please allow the religious business owners and institutions or others who object to this coverage the same choice.
Last, a conscience clause is another name for choice.