There are many mandatory coverage requirements for health insurance companies. Some will be used only by a very few. If an insurance policy has a provision with which you disagree, you don't have to use it.
If insurance covers, for example, in-vitro fertilization, that doesn't mean we have to use in-vitro fertilization. My policy covers abortion; it doesn't mean I must have one. Policies cover many things many people don't need or use. Why is this one being singled out, and why does the U.S. Supreme Court cave in to it? ["Justices strike sound balance," Editorial, July 1]
Why is it okay to allow any organization, religious or not, to pick and choose among mandatory coverage?
I am disgusted by the Supreme Court and its ruling. I am disgusted by companies that force Americans to live by their rules. Where are my rights?
Susan Scharf, Flushing
In response to Cathy Young's column, "Court ruling is not a 'war on women' " [Opinion, July 1], 99 percent of American women who have had intercourse have used birth control at some point. Access to affordable birth control is about health and wellness. When the time comes, I hope that my granddaughters can decide what type of birth control is best for them, not just their pocketbooks.
Prescription contraception for men is, sadly, not yet available. Until that day comes, let's allow women equal access to this basic health need, rather than giving employers the ability to pick and choose what forms of birth control may or may not offend their morals, as the owners of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Woods now have the right to.
Suzanne Witzenburg, Port Jefferson Station
Editor's note: The writer is the former director of education and training for Planned Parenthood Hudson Peconic.