Your editorial of July 17, regarding U.S. funding of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), misrepresents administration policy, disregards U.S. law, and ignores Chinese law and policies that force women to have abortions.
The Bush administration is firmly committed to protecting the health of women and children in the developing world. The U.S. Agency for International Development provides more than $1.8-billion for health programs, including reproductive health, and an additional $377-million for education programs. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services also provides more than $314-million for health programs abroad. Further, this administration has dramatically increased funding for HIV/AIDS, including $500-million to prevent mother-to-child transmission.
The decision not to fund UNFPA was based on careful consideration of all relevant facts in light of the Kemp-Kasten amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, which requires that: "None of the funds made available in this Act . . . may be made available to any organization or program, which . . . supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization."
China has a program of coercive abortion with severe fines and administrative penalties for giving birth to an unauthorized child. UNFPA continues its support of, or involvement in, the management of China's coercive birth limitation program. We have actively engaged China and UNFPA, and are prepared to consider funding UNFPA in the future. Our objective in China is the realization of a climate where women and men make decisions freely about the number, timing and spacing of their children.
-- Arthur E. Dewey, assistant secretary for population, refugees and migration, U.S. Department of State, Washington, D.C.
Give troops credit for good works
Re: Boots tell a needed story, letter, July 30.
The letter writer complained that a photo of boots representing the casualties overseas was buried inside the paper and felt it should have been on the front page. I have two sons in the military; one got back a few months ago from Iraq and the other is there now.
What really needs to be on the front page is all the good that our soldiers are accomplishing while they are overseas! The information is available, but I suppose the negative picture is more sensational.
There's not much to get excited about when you read about a new water purification system - until you read that the village that has this facility finally has clean water for the first time in nearly 10 years, and our own Marines are the ones behind the accomplishment. What about the schools, health clinics, and new housing that have been built in the Mosul area of Iraq?
There is nothing pretty about losing our finest and brightest in a conflict but, please, respect their willing sacrifice enough to give them credit for the great things they have done. For more information on the good things, as well as the sad, check out www.centcom.mil It truly is an eye-opener. God bless our troops and the wonderful things they are doing.
-- J. Johnson, Brooksville
Viewpoints out of balance
After seeing what I consider to be the best Democratic convention in many, many years, I couldn't wait to see the July 30 St. Petersburg Times. I always turn to the editorial page to see what others think and expected to see some glowing reports.
Instead, Maureen Dowd, who is usually very liberal, slams the Democrats for being too Republican (A Republican Democratic convention); George Will, an extreme conservative, says Kerry's platform: running on empty; William Safire - Hard for voters to trust a straddler. Your feature editorial Strong words closes with "... Kerry probably succeeded in surpassing most people's low expectations for his speech-making abilities."
What are you trying to say? Tell me that everything coming out of the White House for the last four years hasn't been totally edited by the Bush elite? Tell me that Bush has a program for our America that is progressive, conservative, anything? And as for low expectations for a speechmaker, George W. Bush is about as poor as it gets. Ask Bush to participate in an open press conference with a questioning press corps. Let's have Bush and Kerry participate, without a script, in a debate and see who wins. Let's see John Edwards and Dick Cheney do the same with a ban on four-letter words and see who wins.
I don't mind you presenting both sides, but this was not honest or fair.
-- Stanley J. Landauer, Tampa
Remember Liberty's French roots
Re: Liberty has its limits, Aug. 4.
I wonder if political correctness caused the omission of who sculpted the statute and designed the structure, where the work was done and who paid for it. It is remarkable that your report noted that ". . . President Grover Cleveland accepted the statute on behalf of the United States" without saying who it was accepted from.
Possibly you can enlighten your readers that the statue was a gift from the people of France paid for by them primarily by voluntary donations. Frederic Auguste Bartholdi was the sculpture and Alexandre Gustave Eiffel was the structural engineer. The statue was completed in Paris in 1884 and was shipped to the United States in 1885 aboard the French frigate Isere.
-- Richard P. Flatau, Seminole
Kerry doesn't show steady leadership
It is interesting to speculate what the campaign message of John Kerry and the Democratic Party might be if President Bush had not used decisive force against Saddam Hussein when all the world's major intelligence organizations claimed he possessed "weapons of mass destruction" and posed a threat to world security for many reasons. Kerry himself cited this intelligence and his position on the Senate Intelligence Committee as reasons for his vote to authorize the war on Iraq.
Had President Bush decided not to deal forcefully with Hussein, would Kerry and the Democratic Party now claim that Bush showed inadequate leadership by not paying heed to the great amount of intelligence gathered and the threat Hussein posed?
Kerry's tendency to vacillate in his decisions for political expediency and to not display the stability of leadership needed during a time of war shows he is not ready for a prime-time leadership role. Leadership is not provided and victory cannot be gained when we constantly second-guess ourselves.
President Bush has continued on a steady course that puts our enemies on notice that the president, the American people, and our brave armed forces are fully prepared to fight terrorists - no matter in what country's caves or holes they hide themselves.
-- Steven Graves, Land O' Lakes
Loathing of Bush has a solid basis
Re: Party passions are not about policy, July 29.
George Will should certainly know better. He takes a not-so-subtle swipe at Democrats who, he asserts, are "unhinged by their loathing of George W. Bush... ."
Will neglects to tell us why Democrats loathe Bush. He simply draws the description out of thin air and lets it hang before us. Doesn't he realize that one's strong feelings must arise from the actions - as well as the persona - of a leader? Doesn't he see that Democrats and others are fervent in their desire to oust Bush from the White House because of what they see has happened to the country since he entered it? (Enormous federal deficit, frightening unemployment, ongoing Iraq war, etc.)
George Will actually ends his column with a statement that is almost laughable. John Kerry's "biography," he says, "suggests more banality than menace... ." Banal? John Kerry, with his education, his experience, his dignity? Because, in Will's views, his "compass is caution"?
Perhaps in world affairs, a leader's caution might be a great virtue - banal or not.
-- Abigail Ann Martin, Brandon
Don't disparage poll workers
Re: Is staff "the Achilles' heel" at polls?, Aug. 1.
I certainly don't feel like an Achilles heel when I work the polls. I may be 66 years old and retired but feel that I have a good work ethic. Our Pinellas County elections supervisor, Deborah Clark, has seen that we have been properly trained. It is certainly not her fault, or the fault of us hard workers, that some do not do their job.
Age shouldn't be a factor. Your article doesn't help voter confidence. Why don't you interview a regular poll worker? We do take our job seriously. I had been looking forward to working the general election this year. Now I wonder if I will continue to read negative comments about the poll worker's role. Nothing is perfect, whether it is human or machine.
-- Susan Kevas, Largo
Who is threatening marriage?
"Protecting marriage" is what the religious right claims to be doing. What exactly are they protecting it from?
I wish our churches would quit trying to push their doctrines and ideas into our laws, and focus on their own problems. Christians are not the protectors of marriage that they position themselves to be. Studies indicate that the divorce rate in the church is the same as in the general population. It looks as if marriage needs protection from the religious people as much as from anyone else. If they truly want to protect marriage they should attempt a constitutional amendment to prohibit divorce.
More than 20 religious organizations wrote to our lawmakers asking them to vote against the Federal Marriage Amendment. Some of these churches have been blessing same-sex unions for years. There is a reason for the separation of church and state. America should be opposed to one of many religious viewpoints being written into our Constitution.
-- Jason Farrer, St. Petersburg
Love defines a successful family
Re: Stay with traditional family environment, letter, Aug. 2.
The letter writer says that gays and lesbians cannot provide good parenting because of their "unintended inability to provide a traditional family environment . . ."
Since the 1960s household configurations in the United States have changed from the nuclear family, with one mom, one dad and two children, to a wide range of configurations. Working mothers, a high divorce rate, changing social concepts and immigration have all contributed to this fundamental change. Does that mean that it is bad?
Just because the letter writer defines a family as a mother, father and child does not mean it represents reality for most Americans. Nor does it mean that a successful family cannot consist of a single mother or father or gay parents. It is up to the individuals involved to make a family successful by whatever standards they want to define family. If that includes grandparents, adopted children of different race or whatever, so be it.
What the letter writer leaves out is that love defines a successful family and a family does not have to be traditional to be loving. That is a no-brainer.
-- Wayne Hooper, St Petersburg
A good beginning
Re: Gay marriage voted down in Missouri, Aug. 4.
Three cheers for Missouri! One down, 49 to go!!
-- Tim Robinson, St. Petersburg
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 through our Web site at: http://www.sptimes.com/letters/
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.
