Dear Editor,
After reading the editorial in regard to the Catholic bishops we felt that we had to make some comments.
The bishops are not the Catholic Church, they are our leaders in the United States and as such are trying to protect us and our religious liberties and we appreciate it. The church is made of the individual members and the individual members are the church. The church is made of millions of individual members each trying to live by their conscience. These members are not only bishops and priests but doctors, nurses, teachers, business owners, employees and others.
This mandate is not an agreement between the president and the bishops but an infringement on the religious freedom of all members. Religious freedom is addressed in the First Amendment and is one of the reasons the country was established, going back to the Pilgrims. When a person is told they must do something that they feel is wrong it definitely is an infringement on their religious rights.
At a time when we are trying to protect our children against bullying, this is also a very good example of bullying when someone in power is trying to force people to do his will, he is bullying them.
Bob and Inez Kuestersteffen
Humboldt, Kan.
Dear Editor,
I read with interest your editorial on the bishop’s answer to Obama. There are a few things that need clarification.
First, the editorial referred to a “compromise.” Obama and all his people very carefully avoided that word and said accommodation. An accommodation leaves in place the very heart of the issue, the mandate he is trying to enforce. One of Obama’s first acts in office was a repeal of conscience rights granted to health care employees. And this was followed by an attempt to dictate hiring practices of religious institutions. This is his third attack. Is this a pattern?
Second, this issue has been framed by the administration as an issue of contraception. That is only partly true. Of particular concern to me is the “morning after” pill. In those cases where conception has already taken place, this pill stops implantation. Why is this crucial? At the instant of fertilization, a new life comes into being. And that new being is genetically human. Preventing implantation causes that human being to abort. Until 1965 the medical definition of when pregnancy began had for centuries been accepted to be at fertilization, called conception. But at the 1959 Planned Parenthood/Population Council symposium that began to change. Dr. Bent Boving asked to change the definition of pregnancy by simply moving conception from fertilization to implantation. He argued that there was a social advantage of having birth control preventing conception rather than ending an existing pregnancy. It only took six years to convince the American College of OB and Gyns to redefine pregnancy to agree with the Planned Parenthood definition. So by this definition a woman is considered “non-pregnant” but has been carrying a live human being for six days, the average time from fertilization to implantation. That is not contraception but abortion.
Third, supposedly the insurance companies will furnish all these things for free. The ration-ale is that this would be cheaper for them than paying for a birth according to Mr. Lew, the president’s adviser. I’m over 65. Will it be cheaper one day for them to pay for one pill to end my life than to continue paying for my health care? Where does the mandating of health care options end? And who will make all those decisions? Remember Pelosi’s words that you have to pass the bill to know what is in it. No one knew this was in it — until now. What else is there in the act?
Finally, I think the bishops and other people of faith should insist on the proven, tested, and Supreme Court adjudicated First Amendment right of freedom of religion and conscience. When weighed against a newly fabricated and untested right to free contraception, sterilization and “morning after” pills, I believe the First Amendment is the much stronger and time-tested choice. What we need is a freedom of conscience bill passed by Congress and signed by the president. This would be for all people of faith, not just Catholics. Do you think Obama would sign it?
Dave Roos
Iola, Kan.
