Your editorial “A company’s ‘beliefs’ supersede those of workers” (Opinions, July 2) argues that the courts and Hobby Lobby are trampling on the rights of employees by not providing abortion methods (deceptively called contraceptives; with the drugs in question, conception has already taken place).
The constitution clearly grants the right of the free exercise of religion. Where does the constitution grant the right to require others to pay for your abortion? The only trampling of rights in this case would be to require people who oppose abortions on religious grounds to pay for them.
The argument of your editorial that corporations are now free on religious grounds to refuse blood transfusions and the like is a red herring: First, there were no mandates before 2012 and no such situations arose when they could have freely occurred; why should they occur now? Second, if they do occur, the court talked about “compelling reasons” to require a benefit. Saving a life is a compelling reason to go against a person’s religious beliefs. Ending a life, however, is an entirely different matter. That is not a medical necessity but an elective choice and a morally debatable choice at that.
Don Cowart, Modesto
Premium content for only $0.99
For the most comprehensive local coverage, subscribe today.