Letters to the Editor for Sunday, February 19, 2012

The ultimate intrusion of Big Government

So, let me get this straight, Gov. Bob McDonnell and Attorney General Ken Cucinelli are using our tax dollars to sue the federal government to stop the health care reform bill because they think a Federal mandate for us to buy health care is a great overreach by the government — that mandating we buy health insurance is big government.

A constitutional debate? Fine. Have it.

Yet, Gov. McDonnell is now poised to sign a bill that will mandate doctors against their will perform a medically unnecessary procedure on women against their will that involves vaginal penetration. Apparently, McDonnell has no qualms about the scope or reach of a government mandate which can physically invade a woman’s body against her will.

McDonnell is also being handed a bill called the “Personhood Amendment,” which labels a fertilized egg a “person.” This same bill, when put to a popular vote in deep-red Mississippi, was defeated by double digits. In Colorado it lost twice by more than 40 percent. Voters in both states understood that giving an egg human rights would outlaw most forms of birth control. Because it would. When given the opportunity the other week to state clearly that this bill would never infringe on women’s right to birth control, the Virginia House of Delegates voted 64 to 34 against. No, thank you very much, they would like the denial of birth control to stay on the table.

The irony of course is that this legislation is put forward by anti-abortion groups. What do you think the denial of birth control will do to abortion rates? The not so dirty little secret is that these groups appear to be more interested in stopping non-procreative “fornication” than they are in decreasing the number of abortions. Either that or they don’t understand how birth control works.

The men who lead our state are pushing through a very, very big government agenda against women’s basic rights. Call the state Capitol at (804) 698-1470 and let your voice be heard.

ANNE SCOTT CARDWELL

Concord

Obama and Catholics

Regarding Bill Blackwell’s Feb. 12 letter regarding President Obama’s health care mandates affecting private religious organizations, people aren’t upset because they think that either Catholics as individuals would have to act against their faith by buying an insurance plan that pays for abortions, or that they’d have to have an abortion themselves. People are upset that Catholic (and other religious) organizations would be required to pay for a plan that helps cover the costs of what that organization thinks is the killing of an innocent child. Catholic organizations would, in essence, have to pay to cover the costs of something that violates a core tenet of their faith.

As health insurance is so often tied to employers, what would happen to those employed by Catholic organizations if the organization refused to provide health insurance to avoid a requirement to cover costs for an abortion? Could the organization even do that? I do appreciate the idea of having some basic things covered in all plans. It’s a good discussion to have. Having more plans to choose from than just your employer’s and just those inside your state would seem to be a good idea. If Catholic organizations choose to drop health care for their employees so that they wouldn’t violate a core doctrine, can we afford to dump more people into a public system that’s already underfunded?

I understand that the pro-life/pro-choice discussion is not based solely in the realm of theological discourse. Regardless, I’m not sure how I could make the argument that Obama cares for those of the Catholic faith (or other faiths) if he establishes a doctrine that requires religious organizations to pay to violate such a dearly held, long standing, well-established religious doctrine as the protection of life inside the womb, by forcing them to cover the costs of those who kill a child in utero. The free exercise of religious organizations to not directly financially support the death of an unborn child would seemingly no longer be permitted.

MIKE COBB

Lynchburg