Graduate student Carolyn Garland writes “After Little Sisters v. Pennsylvania, employers have a choice they might not recognize. 

Carolyn Garland, a graduate student in philosophy in the College of Arts and Sciences, wrote commentary for syracuse.com, “After Little Sisters v. Pennsylvania, employers have a choice they might not recognize.” The recent court case resulted in the high court ruling that “the religious order could omit contraception from employee health benefits because it violates their religious beliefs.” Garland argues that the ruling puts many women at risk of not receiving particular medications to treat health issues, therefore “employers with religious or moral objection to contraception must decide what they believe it is better to prevent: sin or suffering.”