Letters to the Editor

Reader refutes letter’s disputes

This is a response to Elizabeth Madden’s Nov. 17 letter, “Reader disputes column point by point.”

I confess I had not read Daniel Suddeath’s column, so I dug it out of the recycle bin and read it. So, based on both of your letters, let me put it this way; if I had to choose between one of you to be with me on a deserted island, I hope you are a good swimmer … and my sarcasm is not meant to be offensive.

I’ll cover a few “quickies” (Based on its double meaning, I hope it’s okay for a family newspaper.) before I get into the main reason for my letter; numbers represent your points:

1. I covered this in my Sept. 12 letter so, for the second time, the Democratic Party is not interested in defunding the police. Just because some Democrats want to defund the police does not imply we all want to any more than just because two HOR Republicans did support the 2019 Population Connection Action Fund Position some of the time meant that all Republicans did (“Population Connection Action Fund” magazine 2020, pages 8-10.)

3. To say one is for or against Socialism is like saying one is for or against TV channels; which ones?

A quick internet search of “Are Social Security and Medicare Socialistic?” proved the word Socialism is so vague, your comment, “Socialism is a losing proposition as a platform,” is meaningless. My current bumper sticker is “If you hate Socialism, get off my public roads.”

6. Concerning abortion, please, Ms. Madden, enough of the Virginia Governor’s comment on a late term abortion surviving baby; his “kept comfortable” comment, there was no “until they pass,” he was not promoting infanticide and it was taken out of context. Just a reminder that we are Pro-CHOICE and NOT Pro-abortion. Since he was talking about late, third semester abortions, I’ll address it first and, fortunately, according to a 2016 report from the CDC, these abortions accounted for less than 1% of all abortions. Space does not permit me to discuss this further.

I am starting off with a question I would really appreciate a Right to Life (RTL) person to write in an answer because, so far, I, and other Pro-choice people I have read or discussed this with, have never been given a moral answer. If you feel you have the right to remove abortion as one of the choices for a pregnant woman, then, morally, shouldn’t you provide, AT LEAST, financial support for her through pregnancy and until the child reaches the age of adulthood, 18? Please don’t “dance around the question” such as the answer I often receive; she could give the child up for adoption. No, that is a choice she has; she should not be pressured to make that choice based on your desire to eliminate her choice of abortion. However, even if she chooses adoption, the same question would apply; your, at least, financial obligation to her for all of the expenses in pursing the adoption.

The question also identifies the ideology difference between the two groups; that is, you cannot legislate morality. This is one of the lessons we learned from the Prohibition Period of 1920-1933. True, that may be the only similarity that period has to abortion; I do understand abortion, due to the pregnancy, is much more complex.

There is much more I would like to write but to keep this close to 600 words, I do propose a solution; otherwise, criticism of the RTL group would accomplish little (Yes, I doubt many RTL will buy it). Put our focus where it belongs, on the potential mother and, through education, provide her with love, compassion, understanding and opportunities, through volunteer methods, so she is better prepared to make, what may be, the most difficult decision she will ever have to make in her life, how to deal with her pregnancy and her unique set of problems her pregnancy and another child will have on her life.

Larry E. Farr, Jeffersonville

Higher tobacco costs beneficial

The American Cancer Society’s Great American Smokeout is about making a plan to quit. As anyone who has ever used tobacco will tell you, quitting isn’t easy. But tobacco users are not alone in this battle — our community has the power to help Hoosiers quit and help protect our kids from tobacco products.

How do we do that? Well, increasing the price of tobacco is proven to help people who use tobacco quit for good and to prevent our young people from ever becoming addicted to tobacco products. Next year, our lawmakers will hopefully seriously consider increasing the state’s cigarette tax by $2 per pack or more. Join me in calling on our state’s leaders to support this lifesaving measure.

Smoking is the most preventable cause of disease and death in Indiana and nationwide. But we can help change that. By increasing the cigarette tax by $2 per pack, we can prevent an estimated 39,000 young people from smoking, help over 65,000 adults quit, and save 28,300 individuals from premature, smoking-related death — while generating significant tax revenue and health care savings for Indiana.

As we continue to face COVID-19, we must do everything in our power to keep our communities healthy and safe.

Mary Kost, ACS CAN State Lead Volunteer, New Albany

Trending Video

Recommended for you