March 7, 2012: Our readers write

Contraceptive controversy

I have a question for all News-Enterprise readers who support President Barack Obama’s orders making all religious institutions pay for their employee’s contraceptives and abortifacients.

If George W. Bush as presi-dent would have mandated all insurance companies no longer cover contraceptives would that have been a problem for you? If it would have been, please ask yourself why. Maybe your answer would be the standard government should stay out of the bedroom. But I imagine most who would disagree with Bush’s new rules would consider it a violation of their freedom. What right has he mandating something he had no right to mandate? Let’s have a little intellectual honesty here if possible.

Obama and his White House team along with the liberal press and Sen. Barbara Boxer repeat and repeat women must “have access to contraceptive services.” But all women have access to contraception today, don’t they? Yes, they do. There’s no law against birth-control drugs or devices. Nor are there any laws against the sale of the abortion-inducing drugs.

According to United Nations statistics, the United States has the most widespread use of contraceptives of most nations. Liberals always must frame their argument as a victim issue for people who think with their feelings and not their mind.

Americans who want contraceptives are free to get them. Forcing religious employers or their insurers to provide it is a federal power grab that does nothing but diminish freedom. Next, your daddy in the White House who has to make all the rules for his children might pick on a freedom you don’t like. Maybe he should make you pay for every sex change an individual wants or make you give up your car of choice to buy an electric one or mandate a new law ordering all restaurants to only serve vegetables. Impossible.

What can the president not do if he just decides to order it so regardless of your freedom or choices of interest and likes?

Debbie Bayles
Radcliff