To the Editor:
Re “Court, 7-2, Allows Religious Opt-Out on Birth Control” (front page, July 9):
This decision elevates the individual employer’s beliefs above those of his or her many employees. An employer who doesn’t approve of contraception should not use it. But why should that employer be able to say to people who do not share that conviction, “No, you cannot have insurance coverage to pay for it”?
The essence of a democracy is that people with different characteristics and beliefs show tolerance and respect for one another. That means that even if I do not agree with your opposition to contraception, I accept your right to hold that belief. But if you are an employer who, because of your beliefs — and your power as the provider of my insurance — interferes with my right to follow mine, that is a problem. Today it is contraception; what other beliefs will be affected tomorrow?
Stephen M. Davidson
Philadelphia
The writer is professor emeritus of health policy and management at Boston University and author of “Still Broken: Understanding the U.S. Healthcare System.”
To the Editor:
Allowing women access to birth control is not the central point in the Supreme Court ruling. It is about religious freedom. Religious freedom is one of the founding tenets of the United States, one that seems to be forgotten in these days of modern rights and nonreligious beliefs.
I am Catholic, a woman and a believer in birth control. I do not believe, however, that the state, or public opinion, should be able to step in and dictate to a religious community what it should or should not be able to stand for, believe in and have to allow.
Gretchen Kotab
San Jose, Calif.
To the Editor:
Re “Birth Control Access Is Curtailed, Again” (editorial, July 9):
You write: “It’s hard to imagine the conservative justices of this court, especially, allowing employers to claim a moral exemption and require their employees to pay out of pocket for, say, a treatment for Covid-19. That sounds absurd.”
It sounds absurd to me, too, until you consider that there is a large and vocal anti-vaccine movement in this country, and there are religious groups that object as well. So I can well imagine the next case being from a company run by someone who has a religious or moral objection to vaccines.
When does this end? When we have universal health care and take employers out of the equation of making decisions about the health care and morality of their employees.
Karen Strauss
Eastham, Mass.
To the Editor:
If the Supreme Court says some religious belief is all that’s needed to ignore the rules of our society, then I am going to start a new religion in which a key tenet is that taxes are the work of the devil.
Paying our hard-earned money to the government, which uses it for so many things we don’t like? How awful. I expect the court to rule that we are exempt from Tax Day. Come join me.
Michael Spielman
Bronx
Hail and Farewell, Colonel Vindman
To the Editor:
Re “Lt. Colonel Who Testified Against Trump Will Retire” (news article, July 9):
It is a tragic day for America when the decorated Iraq war veteran Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman is forced to retire because he has been bullied and betrayed by his commander in chief. Out of all the chaos of the Trump era, Colonel Vindman stood out for his humility, moral courage and unflinching dedication to duty and country.
I was deeply moved by his testimony during the House impeachment hearing when he reassured his Ukrainian-born father, “Do not worry, I will be fine for telling the truth.”
We need more truth-tellers like Colonel Vindman to understand and act upon the urgent challenges facing our country, starting with the corruption and incompetence of President Trump. This November, let’s all find the moral courage to choose truth over lies.
Alison F. Zepp
South Barrington, Ill.
A Remedy for Home Health Workers
To the Editor:
Re “13 Hours’ Pay for a 24-Hour Shift” (Op-Ed, July 1):
E. Tammy Kim powerfully illustrates the vital roles of home health workers in the pandemic. These front-line caregivers deserve full support for their unmatched heroism daily and during a global health crisis that has laid bare systemic government gaps.
The Home Care Association of New York State has joined labor and caregiver organizations in pressing Albany and Washington for remedy. Funding is urgently needed for wages that match the courage of caregivers at a time when Medicaid rates fall short of this obligation, with warnings of still further state budget cuts to come.
Home care has also appealed to all levels of government for personal protective equipment access and prioritization. Equipment inequities have required collective work by home care agencies in every borough of New York City who are voluntarily organizing citywide P.P.E. distribution centers for home care providers and workers.
A dedicated collective effort by government, payers and emergency management is needed to further provide these most essential protections.
Al Cardillo
Albany, N.Y.
The writer is president of the Home Care Association of New York State.
The Unmanly Sport of Trophy Hunting
To the Editor:
Re “A Soft-Handed Predator Masquerading in Manliness” (column, June 20):
Timothy Egan’s statements in light of the Trump administration’s decision to allow resumption of egregious practices for killing bears and other wildlife in federal preserves in Alaska is correct: “How we treat animals tells us something — a lot, in fact — about how we treat one another.” He says trophy hunters, including Donald Trump Jr., are “soft-handed predators masquerading in manliness.”
Trophy hunters speak in terms of their “sport.” But trophy hunting is not a sport; it is senseless killing for fun and, in some cases, like Donald Trump Jr., validation.
Any sports fan knows that a true sport involves two or more competitors, teams or individuals, equally equipped, subject to the same rules of engagement; the best competitor wins. In stark contrast, no sport is involved when one “competitor,” equipped with a high-powered weapon, camouflage clothing and other devices, pursues an unsuspecting animal and kills it.
If the trophy hunter wants to engage in a true sport, let him go into the forest on foot with no weapon and challenge the bear or other animal one on one. Of course, the brave hunter would never accept this challenge, because the odds would be reversed. The animal would be smarter, stronger and faster.
Robert H. Aland
Winnetka, Ill.
The author is a plaintiff in pending litigation against the Interior Department to prevent removal of Endangered Species Act protection of grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.