Letters to the Editors

Keep children at the center of debates on DCF

Re: In his vision, the church-state line blurs, Aug. 22.

From 1994 to 1996 I was privileged to serve as chair of the District 5 Health and Human Services Board. During that time I had the opportunity to get to know and work with Gov. Lawton Chiles' secretary of what was then HRS, Mr. James Towey. To refresh our political memories, the Republicans of that era blasted Chiles and Towey for a dysfunctional child welfare system when deaths of children occurred. They were also critical of Towey because of his open faith statements, citing his work with a pretty liberal Mother Theresa as proof that he was not able to distinguish between church and state. Secretary Towey was ousted, the administration has changed, and our child welfare system is still terrible.

The politically generated "controversy" over Gov. Jeb Bush's appointment of Jerry Regier as secretary of the Department of Children and Families is nothing more than an example of what goes around comes around and only serves to shift our attention from those truly in need -- the children of Florida.

From my bias of being an ordained person, I have a very hard time understanding the paranoia that comes when the government seeks to partner with "faith-based groups." Throughout the history of our world, religious organizations have been providing "social services" long before there were such things as social workers and social service organizations. There is enough work to be done that it is foolish not to utilize every resource available to fix something that is in as much disrepair as this state's efforts to care for and protect our children.

I am a registered Democrat; politically and theologically, I am quite liberal. As one who works with and within Florida's child welfare system, I am quick to point out that the system has been and continues to be dangerously flawed. Politically, I strongly disagree with how Gov. Bush has tried to revamp DCF. Theologically, I am sure that I would disagree with Regier's beliefs. But neither is the point. The point is that until we make our children a nonpartisan, nonsectarian priority, children will remain in danger. I, for one, am eager to see if that is something that Jerry Regier can accomplish.
-- The Rev. David C. Gerber, St. Petersburg

Will we get fooled again?

Re: Jerry Regier.

Haven't we been here before?

When John Ashcroft was nominated as attorney general, he swore he wouldn't let his draconian personal views affect his actions in office. Now he wants to open concentration camps and turn neighbors into peeping Toms.

Will we get fooled again? It's time to get Regier out now, before he gets entrenched.
-- Brent Yaciw, Wesley Chapel

Don't hinder new DCF secretary

I find it typical of the Democrats and their allies that they are trying to oust an appointed state official before he even has a chance to show what he can do for the Department of Children and Families. The Democrats had the state Legislature in their grip for more than 100 years. The Democrats put all the laws and departments into place. Most or all of the state-run agencies were in dire need of renovation and reform when Jeb Bush became governor. The Democrats threw money at the troubled agencies and were unable to fix what was wrong with them.

When Jeb Bush took over he started fixing what was wrong with DCF and the long-neglected public school system, the Democrats became furious because the voters are seeing that they don't care about people but only about getting their power back. That goes for the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, too.

Supporting the new DCF secretary and helping, not hindering with slander and stupid stories, would benefit the children of the state. How many Democrats out there are willing to do that? None I will bet.
-- Barbara Gaebler, Kenneth City

Law shouldn't impede adoption

Re: Humiliating mothers? Or protecting fathers?, Aug. 19.

I have experience in the adoption process in Florida and I am the mother of two children. I have a concern about this new adoption law. We, as a state, need to concern ourselves with what is best for the child or baby involved in these unfortunate events. We need to be making laws and giving the rights back to the innocent children who are made to suffer in legal red tape and a child welfare system that is already overburdened. The young men whom this law is supposed to protect seem to have forgotten that they already had rights to begin with. The right to choose not to have sex. The right to use contraceptives. How about the right to actually get married (very good legal ground) before they become biological fathers. If these so-called victims of unplanned pregnancy took the time to find out if a pregnancy occurred they would not have to worry about their rights being jeopardized by the young mother or her family.

I have friends who have been foster parents to a little boy since he was six weeks old. This little boy will be starting kindergarten next year. This family has wanted to legally adopt this child since he was placed in their home. Although this foster child has had all the love and care that a child needs, where are his rights to have his case settled by the time he is old enough to go to kindergarten? The man who is the biological father has had years within the system to follow through on his state mandated rights and has continually failed to prove by law that he should have a legal right to the custody of this little boy. How much longer should this man's rights take precedence over an innocent little boy's rights?

Let us, as a state, make laws that protect our children from the extended time it now takes to make sure they are given the right to have a family. The comments made by Charlotte Danciu in this article make a great case against this law. I know that any new laws are not going to be perfect for every situation, but any law that can shorten the time a child is denied the right to a legal family has to be better than what we already have.
-- Joyce Kriever, Palm Harbor

Fresh thinking required

Re: Federal agents in 29 states nab dead beat dads and Humiliating mothers? Or protecting fathers? Aug. 19.

Is there anyone else out there who thinks that real change is needed in our society? Many laws, it seems, are designed for maintaining a delicate balance of conflict rather than resolving it. What if women were responsible for their bodies, their birth control and their babies, unless an intention (contract/marriage) has been made with a willing father? Birth control is not rocket science. It should be readily available (free) to every woman. Adoption should be a practical option decided by the mother and facilitated by the legal system. I am not an abortion advocate, but we need to be pro-choice as a last resort. Babies should be wanted. They should not be used for manipulation, leverage, or punishment of unwilling fathers. I believe that this admittedly drastic change in thinking would lighten one burden on society while mutually benefiting most men and women. Responsibility requires incentive.
-- Tricia Ritchie, Palm Harbor

Don't dismiss fathers so quickly

Re: State law shaming young mothers, by Nicholas D. Kristof, Aug. 24.

Comparing this state law to a gang-rape is stupid even for Kristof. First, most women know who the father of their baby is and will not be affected by this law. His first example is Sandra, who apparently slept with five men in about a one-month period. Kristof claims having Sandra print this in a newspaper will shame her. Was she ashamed to be sleeping with these men while she was doing it? If she didn't think this was a problem then, why should she be ashamed now? There is one very simple way to avoid being shamed: Keep your pants on. In cases of rape, at least one court has already stopped this, and I am sure the state Supreme Court would follow suit. And in this I am in full agreement with Kristof.

Remember, this law came into being because of a woman who offered her baby for adoption and told the agency she did not know who the father was. This was a lie and when the father discovered he had a baby, it led to a long court case and uncertainty for an innocent baby boy. Nor was this a single occurrence. Kristof would have us think that only the woman is affected by this law. Is the man who sees his name and description in the paper as a possible father less shamed? Yet he doesn't mention the fathers even once.

It looks as though women want full control of the birth and what to do with the baby and Kristof agrees with this. Under this concept, the only time the father comes into it is when the woman decides she wants some money from him. Then it seems, the father is important in the life of the baby.
-- Bob Bost, Gulfport

Shunning story hit home

Re: Spiritual shunning, Aug. 22.

With heavy heart and much emotion I read the article on the shunning of ex-Jehovah's Witnesses. I applaud Sharon Tubbs for a completely true account of what happens when even questioning the teachings of this cult. My husband and I were raised and married in this religion. He was a rising minister, I was a pioneer (going door to door for more than 100 hours a month). We were completely shut off from all friends and family. No one has explained what happens to one in a better way than this article and on Dateline. Over the years I can say that three of my nieces were sexually abused and one committed suicide (no one would believe her).

We both feel that even though completely being cut off, it was the best decision we made not to pursue reinstatement. We were sent a "family" letter telling us not to come to the door and knock, they would not let us in. His own mother was not allowed to speak to us until permission from the elders was given, and then only under certain circumstances and the name Jehovah was required to be proselytized. I thank you for telling this story in truth. Non-Jehovah's Witnesses now have a better idea of what we and so many others have gone through.
-- Vaun Perez, St. Petersburg

Religion shouldn't mask crime

After reading your article Spiritual shunning in the Aug. 22 edition of the St. Petersburg Times, I was disheartened to find yet another display of organized religion ever-so-efficiently evading society's ramifications for such crimes as abuse and molestation of children. Every individual who remains quiet about abuse taking place within church communities is an accomplice to these atrocities.

Those who use the Bible as spiritual guidance might ask: What would be the lesser evil -- to save the life or well-being of a child by reporting other Witnesses, priests, church members or leaders (pick a dogma) or choosing non-action to save themselves or the man-made establishment from humiliation?

Reading of the guilt, shame and other emotional and psychological terrorism that members of such faiths as Jehovah's Witnesses choose to endure is truly heartbreaking. I hope that more brave and unselfish people like Shirley Jackson and William Bowen come out of the woodwork to expose such crimes against humanity so that proper justice can be served -- regardless of religious convictions.
-- Jan Loeb Eisler, St. Petersburg Larger Area Secular Humanists, Madeira Beach

Share your opinions

Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They can be sent by fax to (727) 893-8675 or by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com (no attachments, please).

They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.

Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.

© 2006 • All Rights Reserved • Tampa Bay Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright