Geneva's ACA objection
Regarding the news story “Geneva College wrangles with Justice Dept. over Obamacare challenge” (Oct. 2 and TribLIVE.com): As a Geneva faculty member, I find it frustrating that the story obscures the key issue at stake in the college's lawsuit.
The offending paragraph is this one: “Geneva College is challenging an Affordable Care Act requirement that it provide employees with health insurance that covers birth control, including so-called morning-after drugs. The college, which is affiliated with the Reformed Presbyterian Church, claims the requirement violates its religious rights.”
In the mind of the American public, the words “birth control” mainly denote “contraception.” Neither Geneva College nor its sponsoring denomination has any official objection to the responsible use of artificial contraception. The issue is abortifacient drugs and abortion itself.
The story misleads its readers by citing the issue as “birth control.” Then the story merely hints at the real issue — abortion — by mentioning “morning-after drugs.” That's not responsible journalism.
Geneva College's objection to the Affordable Care Act is narrower in scope than the objection raised by the Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic bishops indeed oppose all artificial means of birth control. Reformed Presbyterians and other evangelical Protestants rarely make a similar objection. But the Catholics and evangelical Protestants agree that ending a human life — even one that is still in utero — violates the sanctity of life, the precious gift of a loving God.
Left unchecked, the Affordable Care Act could force Geneva College to become an agent in the taking of innocent human life. That is an intolerable tyranny upon our consciences. That's the real news, not the obscurities that the Trib published.
Byron G. Curtis
The writer is a professor of biblical studies at Geneva College in Beaver Falls.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Biased? Guilty as charged
- ‘Food fight’ lamentable
- It’s not personal
- Getting bad advice
- Amendment levels playing field
- UAW won in Tennessee
- Out of ‘other people’s money’
- HUD & Larimer
- Low blow