Letters to the Editor

July 12, 2014

Letter to the editor | Court decision awry

The recent Supreme Court Hobby Lobby ruling, which allows corporations to decide which kinds of contraception and reproductive health care their employee health insurance plans will cover (in the case of Hobby Lobby: yes to Viagra, no to certain types of IUDs) raises some questions. Namely: What does it mean, in practice, to “support procreation” (as the Catholic church does, as many evangelicals do)? Does it mean that people should only ever have sex when conception is intended? Does it mean that anyone who could be pregnant should be pregnant? Does it mean that married people who don’t have children should be … forced to have children, or prevented from having sex?

Related content