Letters: Not so fast, Hobby Lobby

Re “The Hobby Lobby dodge,” Editorial, Nov. 27

The Times is absolutely correct. Following Hobby Lobby’s claim, a “family business” owned by a Jehovah’s Witness adherent could refuse to fund the coverage of blood transfusions, skin grafts, organ transplants and so on.

There is no reason for any insurer to pick and choose services depending on reasons other than the needs of the insured.

Marta Schill Kouzouyan

Sierra Madre

The Times asserts that businesses should not be allowed to deny contraceptive coverage based on religious beliefs.

Maybe, but a more fundamental assertion is that government should not be allowed to force businesses to provide medical coverage in the first place. If an employer chooses to offer medical coverage to employees, it should be free to offer what it chooses.

After all, the employer is paying for most of it.

David R. Gillespie

Bonita

Some questions for religiously affiliated businesses bent on vetting drugs their employees can access through Obamacare:

If an employee has been raped, or her child has suffered an incestuous encounter, doesn’t society have a “compelling interest” in making available abortifacients to preclude resultant pregnancies?

Can a business owner whose religion condemns sexual relations outside marriage deny insurance coverage of other means of birth control to unmarried female employees? How about an unmarried male employee’s use of Viagra?

Absent well-reasoned responses to these questions, the Supreme Court should reject Hobby Lobby’s bid to impose “biblical principles” on drug choices legally available to its employees. Businesses’ religious preferences shouldn’t dictate their employees’ health options.

Dennis Alston

Atwater, Calif.

Re “Corporations vs. contraception,” Letters, Nov. 28

The letter opposing the Affordable Care Act’s coverage of contraception on so-called constitutional grounds — making the point that if corporations don’t have free-speech rights, then The Times doesn’t — is off base.

The Constitution specifically and explicitly grants special privileges to the press to assure a free and vigorous exchange of views and ideas critical of government and everything else. A free press is one of our essential core freedoms that is not in conflict with any other rights and privileges granted under the Constitution.

Joseph Bonino

Glendale

ALSO:

Letters: A thousand words

Letters: Plastic bags and the consumer

Letters: Feeding the hungry is a year-round task