President Obama isn't an enemy of the state
I had the opportunity to attend a town hall meeting by U.S. Rep. James Lankford. With serious issues confronting us today, I'm amazed that my fellow Oklahomans are concerned with when President Obama will impose martial law in America. Or why America surrenders its sovereignty to the United Nations. Do Oklahomans ask why elected leaders are failing the American people? Lankford said he was as frustrated as anybody with the failure of Congress and seems to put the blame for failure on the Senate. He fails to assign any responsibility to the tea party ideology and an insistence on supporting candidates that are so radical that they can't be supported by a majority of Americans.
NewsOK Related Articles
Obama isn't an enemy of the state. He's a liberal president with whom a majority of Oklahomans disagree. While he may not have won a single county in the state, he did win the election in 2008 with 52.9 percent of the vote and 365 electoral votes.
Scott Willis, Edmond
Federal government requiring businesses to pay for chemical abortions
Leila Abolfazli (Your Views, Oct. 7) said Hobby Lobby is suing the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services because of the mandate to provide birth control at no cost in its insurance plan. Had she bothered to inform herself of the facts, she'd know that Hobby Lobby covers birth control in its plan. Hobby Lobby is suing because of the mandate to cover the morning-after pill and other abortifacients. When these products were first introduced, the abortion industry assured the public that they wouldn't be used for birth control. They were only for emergency situations. Now they're telling us these products are birth control.
Hobby Lobby has no problem with providing coverage for legitimate birth control products. Its only problem is with the federal government requiring it to provide a chemical abortion.
Thomas Day, Mustang
Absence of facts
The tyranny of the majority
Leila Abolfazli (Your Views, Oct. 7) shows a surprising absence of facts. Arguing The Oklahoman compared this employer choice to an individual's right to refuse a vaccination requires more contortions than a circus performer. The National Women's Law Center attempted to link the two topics. The Oklahoman refuted the argument. The foundation of the editorial's argument was that companies are inherently run by one or more individuals whose freedom to exercise religious beliefs are enshrined in the First Amendment.
Abolfazli wrote, “True religious freedom gives everyone the right to make personal decisions ...” Except in this case it doesn't. No employer can prevent a woman from obtaining any form of birth control. Period. End of story. The only freedom being trampled upon is the employer decision not to subsidize that choice. What's next? Mandatory vasectomy coverage? Virtually all employer plans cover the use of birth control when used to treat underlying medical conditions such as endometriosis. The debate centers upon the elective use of these treatments in a manner that employers choose not to support.
The truth is much simpler. The NWLC and others have found a way for their supporters to get something paid for, in part, by someone else. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. Lord Acton was right: “The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority ...” That's precisely why we have the Bill of Rights, and specifically the First Amendment.
Readers wishing to respond to a letter to the editor can submit a response.