Court is paternalistic

In the Hobby Lobby case, which we must know affects only women, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that an employer could deny, through its health coverage, access to some legally approved birth control methods for its female employees. The five justices in the majority were all men, and none of the three female justices agreed.


It says again that, in America, even in the Supreme Court, it is OK for men to decide what is best for women. This is blatantly paternalistic. Religion was the reason, but that should not override the issue of gender justice.

One might think that Chief Justice John Roberts, because the case affects only women, should have assigned the writing of the decision to one of the women justices. Since none of them agreed with the decision, it was written by a man, Justice Samuel Alito. I strongly fault the chief justice to allow this abomination. He should have required a decision that at least one female justice would accept.

The effect of this case can be undone by requiring any employers with strong religious interests not to offer health insurance. They should be directed to provide their employees the money they now pay, and let them get the insurance they want. This is now readily available to all individuals.

Victor Reilly

Aiken, S.C.



Thu, 01/18/2018 - 23:00

Letter: Out of the mouths of babes!

Thu, 01/18/2018 - 23:01

Letter: Partisan political games

Thu, 01/18/2018 - 23:00

Editorial: We are all commissioners now