Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Today's Letters: In abortion ruling, our system worked

By LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Published April 24, 2007

A step backward on abortion rights April 20, editorial 

Let's see. Conservatives twice vote a president into office, and the majority rules.

The president then appoints conservative judges to the U.S. Supreme Court, reflecting the views of the majority. The court's decision on the abortion issue happens to coincide with the views of those in the majority, and the majority's views are reinforced. It seems with this court, "moral concerns" are a consideration to the law where in recent previous courts they were not.

At this time, the majority of voters, men and women, are against abortion and outnumber those who are for it. It all started at the ballot box. So the country does not go backward just because you don't agree with the decision. It goes forward and our system of representation is maintained.

Steve Kennedy, Safety Harbor

Court showed concern for unborn

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision upholding the federal ban on partial-birth abortions is not "interfering with medical decisions best made by a woman and her doctor" as the Times wrote. It is instead, in my view, interfering on behalf of the unborn child, who should best make the decision but who cannot.

The very term "partial birth" is offensive. It seems to suggest this brutal act of ending the life of a child in the womb is justified because it isn't quite yet completely born.

The decision ignores "concerns for the health of the mother," according to the Times. No, it doesn't. But more important, it first pays attention to the health of the child in the womb, waiting to be born.

We weep for the victims of mass killings, and justifiably so. Yet we seem not to care for the mass of victims killed by abortion, even when they're almost born.

Jack Bray, Dunedin

The federal factor

The ironic thing about the concept of "abortion rights" is that if the opponents of so-called "partial-birth" abortion were consistent, the issue would never be the subject of a federal law to begin with. I remember former Sen. Bob Graham saying that abortion was a state issue and that the federal government should not legislate pro or con.

Blame Roe vs. Wade, not prolifers for any federal law to restrict abortion. Once the states lost the ability to restrict it, it was inevitable that laws against some forms of abortion would follow on the national level.

It would have been better if the entire matter were left to state legislatures to deal with. The Supreme Court opened up a can of worms in 1973.

Of course, both sides miss the irony of the fact that the Bill of Rights nowhere mentions abortion - thus making it a state issue. It is even more puzzling how your paper never misses a chance to chip away at the Second Amendment, yet favors a "right" never contemplated by the Framers.

Leonard Martino, Tampa

Voices were heard

In the U.S. Supreme Court's majority opinion on the "partial-birth" abortion ban, Justice Anthony Kennedy cited the damage abortion causes women. This came from the pages of a brief that was submitted by the Justice Foundation on behalf of Sandra Cano and 180 women hurt by abortion. Ten of these 180 named women are from Florida. Two thousand notarized affidavits containing testimonies as evidence that abortion hurts women were also submitted by the Justice Foundation as part of this historic case. More than 100 of these affidavits are from women in Florida, one of them being mine.

Allan Parker, the lead attorney at the Justice Foundation, stated, "Absolutely, the Supreme Court was aware of the women's affidavits and used them in the majority opinion to strike down an abortion procedure for the first time since 1973. It is no longer legal in the United States of America to partially deliver a baby and kill it in the process of it being born."

Unfortunately other abortion procedures performed through the ninth month of pregnancy will still be legal.

Rebecca Porter, Plant City

Air show dangers

The Blue Angels tragedy in South Carolina Saturday reinforced my fears of having air shows over urban areas. I have seen disasters at air fields where spectators, who were kept a distance away, were killed or injured by a jet crashing to the ground.

When I left San Francisco in 2004, it wisely stopped similar air shows over that magnificent city. Those of us who were concerned, complained about the possibility of a jet slamming into San Francisco and creating massive destruction, deaths and injuries. For years, we were loudly chased away by those who were concerned with patriotism and the amount of money the air show would attract.

I hope the tragedy in South Carolina will be a wake-up call for the Tampa Bay area.

Stan Koyama, Tampa

A draft for peace 

We fail to share war's sacrifice April 16, Mark Shields column

Columnist Mark Shields' piece just about knocked me out of my chair.

Here I've been frantically donating time and energy to local and national peace groups to get our troops home from this useless war. But now I can see why this isn't making much difference.

Most Americans already have peace. Some have so much peace they don't even vote or read or watch the news.

The peace groups I belong to will shudder, but I now believe the only way to get our troops home and to ensure that no more are misused by greedy politicians is to make sure every American has a reason to know what our country is doing overseas and what it's like to live with the day-to-day fear of their loved ones coming home in a body bag or being maimed for life.

To give peace a chance, we must bring back the military draft for both men and women. When all American families are forced to sacrifice a loved one, only then will they sit up, pay attention and take action.

D.K. Hedding, major, U.S. Air Force, retired, Lutz

Time to leave Iraq

President Bush should stop mischaracterizing and misleading the American people on the military action in Iraq.

The war with Iraq has been won. The Iraqi army has been defeated, and Saddam Hussein's government has been toppled. What is happening now is sectarian violence for power - Iraqi people, Shiite and Sunni Muslims, killing each other. What needs to occur is for the Iraqi people to make peace with each other and start working on rebuilding a new Iraq. This being the case, it is time for a phased pullout from Iraq. Leave Iraq to the Iraqis.

As for the war against terrorism, that is not going to be won in Iraq. Al-Qaida terrorists attacked the World Trade Center in New York, and they were not the Iraqis, they were mostly Saudi Arabians. Practically every country in the world is a potential target of al-Qaida and each country is now involved in its own war against terrorism.

President Bush should stop misleading the American people into thinking that we must continue to fight Iraq until we win. We have won that war. We have just not won the peace.

V. Paradis, Seminole

Fighting alone

Unfortunately, many of our military men and women are practically alone while engaging in the global war on terrorism. Where is the support of the European leaders? Apparently these leaders (e.g.: France and Germany) have become resistant to the very idea that their countries are susceptible to acts of terrorism or the threat of nuclear war.

After 9/11 and the runup to the Iraq war, it soon became clear that these arrogant leaders did not support the United States in our time of need. Furthermore, they have not met their responsibilities in supporting the global war on terrorism.

The anti-American Europeans should remember that in World War I and World War II approximately 2-million Americans fought on European soil. Many lost their lives so thousands of Europeans can live free today.

May God bless America's freedom!

Joan Atkins, Palm Harbor

[Last modified April 24, 2007, 00:59:55]