I like reading Leonard Pitts’ columns and usually agree with his opinions. Recently, he wrote about the Supreme Court decision regarding the Affordable Care Act and the lawsuit about contraception. In the article Pitts compares contraception to blood transfusions. Really, Leonard? A blood transfusion is a procedure that can save a person’s life. Contraception for the purpose of preventing a pregnancy is a personal choice.
They are so far apart in similarities. One is to save lives, the other is to prevent a life. The four objectionable measures; two IUDs and two “morning after pills” all can prevent life. There are others available that are less objectionable.
If people want to use contraception, that is their prerogative, no matter what I believe. Contraceptive products are relatively cheap and are accessible to those who want to buy them.
Unless it is needed for a medical condition, why health insurance should be required to pay for something that has very little to do with health issues is beyond me. So, Leonard, if you are going to compare medical procedures; use examples that are comparable.
However, the other issue brought up deals with where one draws the line on what is objectionable to one’s religious beliefs.
That is where this decision has opened up a Pandora’s box. We as a nation need to tread lightly through this minefield of potential issues. But, it would not have been an issue had birth control not been part of the health care act.