Frank Kelly: Pro and Con
Editor: Congratulations to the voters of the 10th District. You obviously understand what Sen. Frank Kelly and The Sun don't.
Mr. Kelly can't understand that one can be pro-choice and not favor abortion. The women -- not government -- should have the right to decide. One choice would be to have the child.
The Sun can't understand that Janice Piccinini won because constituents saw capability and not a one-vote candidate. As a teacher and member of Maryland State Teachers Association I know that she's an outstanding leader.
What I can't understand is why your editors are so negative about her potential? Give her an even break and let her prove her worth.
George L. Sledge.
Editor: The Tenth District has just lost one of the finest, upstanding legislators to serve in public office. Sen. Frank Kelly spent 12 years improving the living conditions for those in northern Baltimore County and the state of Maryland. Without Senator Kelly, programs and projects such as the University of Maryland Shock Trauma Center, the spending affordability law, light-rail service for Cockeysville-Timonium, the preservation of 177 additional acres of land at Oregon Ridge and nearly 30 drunk driving laws might not have existed to benefit the citizens of Maryland.
He loses and what for? To ''prove'' that abortion is a fundamental right to being a woman. To ''prove'' that women will sacrifice all to secure that right. Well, congratulations! You've taken one issue which personally affects a small number of people (Don't most women say ''I would never have an abortion?'') and sacrificed unsurpassed integrity, leadership and effectiveness on the altar of abortion rights. That won't balance the budget, encourage fiscal responsibility and pump money and projects into the 10th District.
Michael R. Smith.
Literacy for Kids
Editor: Located in an out-of-the-way spot in The Sun on September 6 was a short article on Baltimore County's Dennis Rasmussen's announcement of a $86,700 grant to fund a series of advertisements and a phone line for the ''Literacy Works'' program for adults. The article said the grant is aimed at teaching about 6,000 adults and will supplement the $887,000 in adult literacy programs now operated by county schools.
Although I believe that any adult who wishes to learn to read should receive help (there is adult education being offered at reasonable rates in almost every high school and community college in Baltimore), I am more concerned with the children presently in school who need to learn to read now so they do not become illiterate adults. The adult literacy program is like trying to close the barn door after the horse has gotten out.
From personal experience, I know how hard it is to find tutors to teach my son reading at a reasonable price. I have, every year, approached the school my son attends to seek a list of tutors for reading, and every year, without fail, I have been told that they do not keep a list of available tutors. I have even called the Baltimore County School Board, only to be told that they also do not keep a list of tutors and would not be able to recommend anyone.
I have taken adult education classes for various things and I plan on taking a class this fall. If adult education can be offered at a reasonable rates, why is it not possible to offer children the same type of service at a reasonable rate. How can the schools, particularly teachers, ask parents to volunteer to help them when they refuse to help parents?
If Baltimore County can fund all sorts of dubious projects, why can't it fund something as important as our future? Are there any teachers out there who are around after 3:10 p.m. for the children? (I sure would like a job where I could work six hours or less a day, make twice as much money as I make now, have the summer off and blame the parents for everything.) Can't some of the money for adult literacy programs be used to stop the flow of illiterate adults who pass as children through our school classrooms?
Kathy Jo Oswinkle.
Why Women Can Vote
Editor: I'm surprised that you didn't contact Deborah Cornely to correct her impression that the words, ''We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal'' appear in the U.S. Constitution (letter, Sept. 3). These words are nowhere in the Constitution. They are part of the Declaration of Independence.
Mrs. Cornely's assertion that ''American women have the tenacity of judicial activists to thank for their suffrage'' is also incorrect. Women's suffrage is guaranteed by the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Judges have no part in formally amending the Constitution, although they amend it every day by interpreting it.
Thomas McCarthy Sr.
Editor: According to Deborah Cornely ''American women have the tenacity of judicial activists to thank for their suffrage'' This, of course, is not true.