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.
Andrew Oster, Edmond
16 Week Curriculum With Instructions, Lesson Plans & CNG Conversion Kit