Letter Submission

To submit a letter to the editor, please email us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Letters must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published. We do not run anonymous letters. Local issues get priority, as do local writers. We encourage writers to keep letters to no more than 400 words, but will accept longer letters to be run on a space-available basis. Letters may be edited for spelling, grammar, punctuation and legal concerns.

 

You dismiss notion that life in the womb has any rights whatever

  • Published in Letters

To the editor,

In a rebuttal to James Veverka’s well-written letter attacking my view on president Obama’s mandate on health care, in regards to forcing religious institutions into providing contraception: You and Nancy both veer away from or don’t include abortion in your debate. That is my argument. I’m not a religious fanatic or a conservative Republican. I even voted for Obama because I thought he may make this country better. Instead it is as polarized as ...

To the editor,

In a rebuttal to James Veverka’s well-written letter attacking my view on president Obama’s mandate on health care, in regards to forcing religious institutions into providing contraception: You and Nancy both veer away from or don’t include abortion in your debate. That is my argument. I’m not a religious fanatic or a conservative Republican. I even voted for Obama because I thought he may make this country better. Instead it is as polarized as ever.

You say "a persons free exercise of religion stops when they infringe upon another’s liberty and equality under the law". One, I believe that not supplying abortion drugs is not infringing upon ones "rights" when they are voluntarily in the care of a religious institution. Two, you automatically dismiss the very notion of the life inside a woman’s womb as not having any rights whatsoever. Just because it doesn’t have a name yet doesn’t mean it’s not a person. Killing this person infringes on ‘a failed medieval argument’ of what James, preserving life?

Bishop Lori, who chairs the U.S. Bishops Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty said, “These details, we are told, do not impinge on religious liberty. What details are we talking about? For one thing, a government mandate to insure, one way or another, for an abortifacient drug called Ella. Here the ‘details’ would seem to be fertilized ova, small defenseless human beings, who will likely suffer abortion within the purview of a church-run health insurance program. And why worry about the other ways the government may soon require the church to violate its teachings as a matter of policy?”

Didn’t Obama promise adequate conscience protection in the reform of health care? Well there are waivers for those hospitals and churches whose primary purpose is to "inculcate religious values" and not act as a social service or community outreach program. That’s right, Washington agencies will now have the power to tell churches, synagogues and other houses of worship which of their ministries to the poor, sick, young and old are "religious" enough to get an Obamacare waiver. This despite the fact that the government was never intended to be in the business of "validating" the gospel. This assault on religious liberty is shockingly out of touch with the value that Americans place on their religious freedom and the founding principles of the First Amendment.

Your comment on the EEOC ruling was in error, as it was really a broad-based ruling, affirming that women’s contraception’s should be covered equally throughout insurance companies, but didn’t specify to what degree or to be under Obama’s mandate.

You and Nancy attacked religion on several fronts as being "medieval" and "backwards" when it comes to birth control, when in fact a report last year from the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit sexual health research organization, found that 98-percent of sexually active Catholic women are using birth control despite the church’s teachings. According to a Reuters’ report on the study, only 2-percent of Catholic women rely on natural family planning. Guess that these cave-women actually have a brain and lead productive lives without having to rely on their church buying their birth-control. You give them no credit.

So let’s see, your argument is a vague ruling by an inept organization (once led by Clarence Thomas, by the way, he’s a real favorite among feminists), multiple insults to any God-faring folk, a Fox News gripe, and a bunch of stereotyping. Throw in a Kennedy quote and you’ll have the perfect lefty letter. Ooops, you got me there, too. I love how you and every other hardcore Democrat puts Kennedy up on a pedestal, where if you dig a little, he was perhaps the worst husband, boyfriend and man towards women that this world has ever seen.

Here’s a quote for you, “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other matter of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.” – Supreme Court, 1943

Perhaps you and your ilk should pay more respect to Catholics as Catholic voters played a pivotal role in Obama’s election as they made up 27-percent of the electorate three years ago, which translates into about 35-million voters. I wonder how many of them, as well as independents like me (another 30 plus million) will vote for him this time around. I hope you enjoy his last summer in office, I’m counting the days.

Thomas Lemay

Laconia