Letter: Determining rights


Return To Article
  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    July 14, 2014 10:04 a.m.

    According to the American College of OB-GYN over 90% of US women use birth control at some time in their life, and over 70% of married women use birth control. In fact, statistically speaking, married women are more sexually active than single women and are much more likely to use birth control. This is about responsibility and planning.

    Also, according to GYN specialists, the four items in question prevent conception. This ruling was not made because the items (two drugs, two IUDs) are abortifacients, it was made based on the belief of the Green family that the items are abortifacients. Belief, not scientific fact.

    Sort of like when the 1600s when Galileo was imprisoned for teaching the earth revolves around the sun, which was opposed to the belief of priests, in the face of science, that the sun circles the earth.

    I think Ruth Bader Ginsberg is right. We had nine men on the Supreme Court for a long time, now we should go with nine women.

  • GK Willington Salt Lake City, UT
    July 14, 2014 8:51 a.m.

    to LDS Liberal

    Rush is right (politically just not correct).

  • Pendergast Salt Lake City, UT
    July 14, 2014 8:50 a.m.

    re: Mike Richards

    "Harry Reid does not honor the 1st Amendment which guarantees our right to live our religion without government interference."

    What about religion meddling in our Government? This isn't Iran.

    Who then Mr COTUS expert is assigned to 'check & balance' the judicial branch?

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    July 14, 2014 7:00 a.m.

    @HAHaHaHa 12:42 a.m. July 13, 2014

    So if I understand you correctly.

    A young married couple should have sex only when they want to breed; otherwises it is really a lack of self control, and responsibility. They should eschew the expression of love and marital intimacy that is the real pupose of xesual intimacy.

    Rape or incest is really a lack of self control, and responsibility.

    When a wife is conmpelled to have sex by her husband, it is really a lack of self control, and responsibility/


    Birth control, in any form, is basic preventative health care. It protects the woman against the ravages (death and injury) of an unwanted and/or unwise pregnancy. Women aren't broodmares, despite you wanting them to be. They have the right to determine when, and how often, they are going to risk their heath and lives in pregnancy and childbirth. They are the only lives-in-being in the equation, and deserve to have their right to make this decision be of primary importance.

  • KWL Bountiful, UT
    July 13, 2014 12:47 p.m.

    Folks, I know everyone keeps focusing on the birth control/abortion side, but there's another issue. Think of some moral issue you value, one where other people may disagree with you but that represents a line you would never cross. Then, imagine being told by the government you must cross that line. No looking for alternatives that leave everyone happy, no trying to find a compromise. It's their way or the highway.

    Look at some of the horrible things that have been done in the past, the Tuskegee Experiment, forced sterilizations, lobotomies. Sure, I can't imagine our current government (even on its worse day) signing off on one of these. But, our country's over 200 years old and I hope it lasts for centuries more. Do I really want to bet it will never make mistakes like this again? Children were forcibly sterilized in this country within my lifetime for reasons courts upheld. Prisons in California have been accused of continuing sterilizations to this day.

    Do we really want to bet none of us, today, tomorrow, or a thousand years from tomorrow, will have a reason to say, "No, this is wrong. I won't do this"?

  • Jl Sandy, UT
    July 13, 2014 11:47 a.m.

    How offensive are your comments Ha Ha? I am closely related to someone that requires your so called "lack of responsibility" for health issues other than contraception. Next time you make a judgmental comment here read up on your facts, please.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    July 13, 2014 10:35 a.m.

    @NoOneOfConsequence 1:48 p.m. July 12, 2014

    I'm so ashamed of our neighbors in Nevada who repeatedly send Harry Reid back to the Senate.


    Nevada's voters have nothing of which to be ashamed They elect a Senator who works for the good of all in the Unite States, not just those who are members of the far right extreme. It is Utah's voters who should be ashamed for inflicting Mike Lee, Jason Chaffetz, and their ilk on the United States.


    @J Thompson 4:28 p.m. July 12, 2014

    Neither the IUD or any of the contested mediations terminate a pregnancy. All they do, at the extreme of their alleged effect, is to stop a pregnancy from starting. They are therefore not abortifacients. There would be no reason to have any problem answering in the negative the questions you cite in a temple recommend interview.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    July 13, 2014 10:14 a.m.

    @ J Thompson: How many corporations have temple recommends?

    (And by the way, you do realize, don't you, that everyone who reads these boards and sees your comment has access to the LDS Church website which clearly states that abortion is allowed in certain circumstances including the ones in which emergency contraception would be used such as rape or incest?)

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    July 13, 2014 9:04 a.m.

    Othello, WA

    " Rush was right..."


    STOP the tape!

    Enough said,

    The End.

  • HaHaHaHa Othello, WA
    July 13, 2014 12:42 a.m.

    It really comes down to two issues here. First birth control is not really a healthcare issue. It is really about covering up, for a lack of self control, and responsibility. Rush was right, no matter how un-nice he was about saying it. That makes a large part of this crowd seething mad, because they don't want to hear the truth, or have the truth pushed back in their face. You can try to pain your self differently, by using a more "pleasant" term, but the truth is the truth.
    Secondly issue is paying for it. It's bad enough that people have to act this way, but why cant you pay for it yourself? Life isn't free. Grow up, take responsibility, and quite tying to make others pay for your life. Nobody is denying you access to anything, and it isn't even healthcare. Get your own wallet out, pay your own way.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    July 12, 2014 6:31 p.m.

    "Who is he, his party or the government to have the authority or right to determine what is right and best for “women’s lives?”

    I heartily agree. It should be women's choice what is best for their lives, not government, not the Democratic Party, not the Republican Party, not Hobby Lobby, not any given religion. In the area of health insurance women should not be a special case subject to special sanctions. Hobby Lobby wants, as a matter of their own "religious liberty" to dictate to their female employees what their health care options are. This is unconscionable.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    July 12, 2014 6:23 p.m.

    Let's see ---

    WHO'S telling women what they can or can't do?

    Is it the Government?
    Is it a Corporation?


  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    July 12, 2014 4:28 p.m.

    The last time I checked, the Church that I belong to asked some questions about abortion before granting a recommend to attend the temple. Attending the temple is something that devout members of that Church do. The "blessings" of the temple and of the work performed there are paramount in the lives of those members.

    The questions are:

    1. Do you encourage abortions.

    2. Do you pay for abortions.

    3. Do you perform abortions.

    A business could not honestly answer "NO" to questions 2 and 3 if it PAID for abortifacients as REQUIRED by Obama and ObamaCare. That is a direct infringement on our guanteed RIGHT to practice our religion without government control.

    NO WOMAN is being denied abortifacients. If she wants an abortifacient, she can go to her local pharmacy and buy that abortifacient herself.

    The issue at hand is whether the government can REQUIRE a business to be in the abortion business by paying 100% of the cost of those abortifacients.

    The Court said NO. Some people object to that. Tough! That is the law of the land.

  • E Sam Provo, UT
    July 12, 2014 3:59 p.m.

    An IUD is not an abortifacient.

  • care4usa Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 12, 2014 3:52 p.m.

    How about we pay for our own birth control like responsible adults and keep government and corporations out of our personal decisions? I, for one, want to personally make my healthcare decisions with the advice of doctors with whom I have contracted for services.

  • No One Of Consequence West Jordan, UT
    July 12, 2014 1:48 p.m.

    I'm so ashamed of our neighbors in Nevada who repeatedly send Harry Reid back to the Senate.

  • KWL Bountiful, UT
    July 12, 2014 12:56 p.m.

    I think the question is at what point do I consider it my right to tell someone else they must do something they consider murder or else give up their livelihood? When do I get to tell Hindus they have to eat beef? When do I get to tell Jews and Muslims pork is what's for dinner or tell Buddhists to desecrate shrines?

    According to this letter, when the alternative is to use one of sixteen other forms of contraceptive or cough up fifty bucks.

    And why? Because, apparently, my reproductive choices ARE my employer's business--and they can either bankroll those choices or suffer the consequences.

    Meanwhile, even though the argument is that it's the employee's choice, if an employee chooses not to pay money into a plan that pays for abortifacients, too bad, one man in Washington wants to take that choice away from me.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    July 12, 2014 12:08 p.m.

    So the gov't saying you should have the option to access birth control through health insurance coverage is inferior to a company or some other entity saying they won't cover it at all (like Wheaton College that wants to exclude all forms of birth control, unlike Hobby Lobby which opposed just the four)?

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    July 12, 2014 11:46 a.m.

    the author seems to have his cause and effect mixed up. Reid and others are attempting to return the decision making process to women instead of the corporations they work for when deciding which options are accessible when it comes to their own body .

  • ugottabkidn Sandy, UT
    July 12, 2014 10:53 a.m.

    Don, if this is such a moral, religious issue with the owners of Hobby Lobby, then why do they own stock in the very forms of contraception they want to reject in the health insurance they offer their employees? Why did they offer those contraceptives previous to the ACA? I reject the freedom of religion card. This is a landmark case that has many implications as Justice Ginsburg elaborated about but these issues could all be solved by implementing a single payer healthcare system. No more corporate religious rights would be imagined. You could focus on new bogus and we all could truly have access to the healthy choices you take for granted.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    July 12, 2014 10:52 a.m.

    The grand irony here is that it is employers,NOT the government that is telling women what's best for their lives. The gov't wants to leave it up to the women.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    July 12, 2014 10:14 a.m.

    Who is the corporation to determine a woman's rights?

    Why is the corporation allowed to force their female employees to follow the business's "religious values" when making their health care choices?

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    July 12, 2014 10:03 a.m.

    Right now the state of Utah is actively working to prevent same sex couples from getting married, denying them their rights. Rights denied are rights denied, emboldened by a mob or not.

  • John Charity Spring Back Home in Davis County, UT
    July 12, 2014 9:52 a.m.

    Shame on those who think that their employers are responsible for financing recreational sex. If people want to collate like crazed rabbits, they should pay for birth control themselves.

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    July 12, 2014 8:25 a.m.

    So based on this letter, I assume that Robertson is a strong advocate in favor of gay marriage...

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    July 12, 2014 7:17 a.m.

    Tom Blumer reported: "Harry Reid told the press that "the one thing we're going to do, during this work period, sooner rather than later, is to ensure that women's lives are not determined by virtue of five white men. This Hobby Lobby decision is outrageous, and we're going to do something about it."

    Harry Reid does not honor the 1st Amendment which guarantees our right to live our religion without government interference. Hobby Lobby willing pays for 16 of the 20 contraceptives. The four that Hobby Lobby will not pay for are abortifacients, which induce an abortion if taken as prescribed.

    Harry Reid does not believe that people have the right NOT to be forced by the government to pay for abortifacients. He thinks that women have the right to demand that someone else pay for their abortifacients.

    Which nation does Harry Reid live in? He took an oath to protect and uphold the Constitution, as written, not as he interprets it.

    The Court ruled. The Court is an equal branch of government. Reid has no authority to order the Court to do anything.

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    July 12, 2014 7:06 a.m.

    This is indeed a swiss cheese argument.

    Who indeed is an employer to tell his/her employee that a given, approved medical procedure or prescription is off limits? Since the company provided insurance is part of the employee's compensation, and since the employee undoubtedly pays a portion of said insurance, that employee ought to be able to have a choice to/not to have birth control. Please note that no one is forcing anyone to use birth control. Only the option to use if said employee wants to.

    However, five old men have told women that their corporate employer can paternalistically use religion to harm them. Hobby Lobby provided birth control to woman before it was required by the law known as Obamacare. Politics was the motivation behind the suit, and politics was behind the decision of these sad old men on the court.

    Government ought not take a position on religious matters. This decision was a bad one. Unfortunately you, and those like you wish the government to take your religious sensibilities to law. That is not how secular government works.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    July 12, 2014 7:00 a.m.

    Wow Mr. Robertson. Nothing in Senator Reid's comments says a woman should use contraceptives. His comments simply say it's a woman's right to choose and access is part of that choice.

    Contraceptives are part of women's health care and health care decisions and therefore belong as part of health care plans. Cost isn't the issue appropriateness is.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 12, 2014 2:23 a.m.

    From the piece: "Who is he, his party or the government to have the authority or right to determine what is right and best for “women’s lives?”

    I assume, then, that the author of this letter is strongly pro-choice.

  • FreedomFighter41 Provo, UT
    July 12, 2014 1:06 a.m.

    Couldn't the exact same be said about corporations?

    What else can corporations determine to be against their "religious convictions"?

    Giving people breaks? Discrimination? Child labor? Abiding by health and EPA laws? Heck, could a corporation determine that paying salaries be against it's religious convictions?

    Where does it end?