‘Gas Tax’ Garagiola is running scared
Re: “Md. drivers fired up over gas tax,” Feb. 21
This article says that “Senate Majority Leader Rob Garagiola… has said he will vote against the [gas] tax.”
“Gas Tax” Garagiola was the lead sponsor of a 10-cent-per-gallon gas tax increase when I testified against it before the Maryland Senate Budget and Tax Committee last year, suggesting that the committee march en masse over to the governor’s mansion and demand that almost $1 billion he raided from the Transportation Trust Fund be replaced.
Garagiola was then the lead sponsor of the bill to create the Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation Funding that called for a 15-cent-per-gallon gas tax hike with unlimited increases for inflation. He had himself appointed to one of only two legislative seats on the commission, and there was no written dissent. He’s also had his photo taken with members of START, whose main goal is a gas tax increase to fund Baltimore’s Red Line.
Voters are not deaf, blind and dumb. The point man for a gas tax hike is suddenly afraid of losing his April 3 primary. Garagiola should be rounding up Senate votes against any gas tax hike and telling the governor that he will not support his legislative program unless he abandons it.
Robin Ficker
Boyds, Md.
HHS regs are infringement of religious liberty
Re: “Many Catholic institutions already cover birth control,” From Readers,” Feb. 13
Edward Cohen’s letter on the proposed HHS regulations stated that “28 states have the same law.” Not quite. Most provide exemptions on religious grounds. Such exemptions were sought — and denied — under HHS’ proposed regulations, and are not provided under the insurance smokescreen proposed by the Obama administration.
Cohen also said that “some Catholic organizations provide contraceptives.” The fact that some persons in Catholic organizations disobey church teachings does not negate those teachings or mitigate the outrage suffered by those who adhere to them, just as Mr. Cohen’s decision to eat shrimp or bacon would not nullify Jewish dietary laws.
Catholic teaching holds that contraception is intrinsically evil. To comply with the HHS mandate would make both the Church and its employees complicit in a sinful act. The 30 pieces of silver the administration offers as a solution (i.e., insurance companies would pay for the coverage) does not negate the evil. The equivalent is requiring a devout Jewish merchant to offer free pork to all employees, even though that would be sinful under his faith dictates.
Leaving aside the question of whether the federal government has the authority to mandate contraceptive coverage, the fact that the Catholic Church seeks an exemption from a coercive rule that violates its teachings in no way imposes these teachings on anybody else.
Chris Wilson
Dunn Loring
Not covering contraceptives would be discriminatory
The religious liberty argument made to counter the federal rule requiring that employers cover contraceptive services is misguided. Contraceptives play an important role in women’s health and religious liberty does not extend that far, just as religious liberty did not exempt religious groups from laws that ban the practice of polygamy.
The argument that religious groups should not be required to pay for contraceptive care is also misguided, as we are all required to pay taxes that support policies we don’t agree with. The more recent version of the rule that takes the burden of the cost of contraceptives away from employers satisfied many, but was called an “accounting gimmick” by opponents.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits sex discrimination, and contraception is clearly a women’s issue.
Rebecca Small
Herndon
