Over the last few weeks, there have been many letters regarding abortion, reproductive rights and the Grace Act. I understand the statements being made. But what I don’t see are any solutions for women. If abortion is illegal, who is (if at all) going to provide prenatal and postnatal care? Where will the support come from for an unwanted pregnancy?
People will want to adopt healthy babies, so the mother’s health care is paramount. But what many people don’t want is to adopt a child out of foster care. There are over 400,000 children who need to be adopted. They lost their parents for many reasons: abuse, poverty, unwanted, orphaned, drugs etc. At least 20,000 “age out” (become adults) each year.
There are a lot of unwanted children out there. Until the government can take care of these children and guarantee the health of women, it should be the choice of the mother to make a decision about her body. A choice. Her choice.
I welcome Warren Fain’s letter [Aug. 4] as an opportunity to have civil dialogue about what have become the dividing issue of our time — abortion rights, pro and con. Let’s examine the role of religion in public policy debate.
Where reference to excerpts from religious texts are concerned, it is important to recall that one of our most revered constitutional principles is the separation of church and state.
This principle is embodied in the dis-establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution: There shall be no establishment of religion. This clause is critically important because we live in a religiously pluralistic society. Therefore, when discussing public policy, we must be extremely careful how particular, sectarian beliefs and practices are invoked. We don’t want to end up like a Taliban theocracy.
That is, we cannot, as Jews, Muslims, Christians or humanists, use what we take to be our own “religious truths” as litmus tests by which all citizens must be legally bound. This is simply unconstitutional.
However, that is not to argue that Quranic or Biblical verses cannot be important inspiration or guidance for shaping one’s individual approaches to public policy discourse. The key point is that it is not helpful (and may actually impede civil discourse) to appeal to such excerpts as deciding criteria, when fellow citizens may be religiously inspired or guided by very different religious texts.
Beyond this larger point, there are a number of other problems to be considered here. Not the least of these is the complex matter of interpreting specific lines of religious text within a particular tradition — but this is the subject of another letter.
Thanks again for your earnest and sincere contribution to this dialogue.
It seems like voter fraud is easier with paper ballots. So why would we go back to the old ways? I love the voting machines. Quick, safe, easy and you are done. There are people there to give you a refresher on the machines if you just ask. The booths are private.
If we are doing paper ballots, why not just mail them out — or better yet, let us create our own. Then we could mail them in, or not, and the postal service could shred them, or not.
My vote is to leave it alone. Constantly changing what works is so stupid. Just look at how “progress” has screwed up our children in schools.
Get opinion pieces, letters and editorials sent directly to your inbox weekly!