The June 18 Metro article “House GOP targets D.C.’s reproductive-bias law” failed to note the law’s unprecedented breadth, which led then-D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray (D) and his general counsel to warn last year of legal and constitutional defects.
The law protects employees who make any decision relating to “the planned or intended initiation or termination of a pregnancy.” So pro-life organizations must employ women who plan to have abortions, as well as men who perform abortions or tell colleagues they will encourage women to have them.
This supposedly is to prevent reproductive-health bias. Not too long ago, a Post columnist spoke differently to a job candidate at a pet-rescue organization. The candidate was offended that only vegan meals could be brought in for lunch or be eligible for reimbursement on business trips. Karla L. Miller, The Post’s workplace adviser, replied that “it makes sense that an organization with a specific mission would want its representatives to practice what it preaches on the company’s dime and time,” saying she would “have to admire the dedication” of the employer [“ A beef with a meat-free office,” Washington Post Magazine, April 12].
So commitment to mission is admirable for vegan employers but punishable as bias for Catholic and other pro-life employers?
Richard M. Doerflinger, Washington
The writer is associate director of the Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.