The exclusion of spousal notification in the Supreme Court's ruling in Casey vs. Planned Parenthood is extremely detrimental to the institution of marriage in this country.
No father would be denied the right to protect anything that belonged to him, even if his wife was the one destroying it. Not his car, house, property, etc. Why then should he not have a say in what happens to his own offspring?
Surely he is to be held partially responsible for the upbringing of his children -- for educating them, feeding them, clothing them. He would be culpable of neglect if he let them go without any of the essentials of life. Yet five of the Supreme Court justices say that he has no say in whether his own child is allowed even to be born.
In marriage, two become one. There is a unity formed which each partner vows to uphold until death. Certainly there are still two people, but they must work together -- at least they must discuss things. The husband contributes to the creation of the child, he ought at least to have the right to know that it exists.
We are writing this letter to protest your handling of the news about the death of Juanita Jackson Mitchell.
What's the point to include in the article her sons' past involvement with the criminal justice system? Any casual observer of local news is well aware that her sons went to prison on obstruction of justice charges. Both sons have served their time and are now trying to get on with their lives.
We think it was inappropriate for The Sun to include this information in what otherwise was an excellent article on a lady who gave so much of herself to help not only African Americans but all people who were denied basic human rights.
It was disheartening to read this piece of old news. Also, by adding the financial problems she encountered overshadowed her many accomplishments and diminished the critical role she played in the civil rights movement. In fact, the words civil rights movement and Juanita Jackson Mitchell are synonymous.
Many of her accomplishments occurred during a time when African Americans were denied access to many economic and employment opportunities enjoyed and taken for granted by white Americans.
She was one of few African Americans of her time to graduate from college (University of Pennsylvania, 1931). She was the first xTC African American to graduate from the University of Maryland Law School and the first African American to practice law in Maryland. And she accomplished all this while raising a family.
She truly exemplified the phrase "working mother." Her passing symbolizes the end of an era. She will be missed.
The writer represents the Baltimore City Council African American Coalition.
Various critics, in reminding us that President John F. Kennedy would have been 75 in May, have conjectured that although JFK won't be labeled as great by historians, he ranks very high in likability, as did FDR and Eisenhower.
In his recent biography of Kennedy, historian Thomas C. Reeves names a few qualities he says voters consider in selecting a president. One is good looks, which rather startles me. He
contends that "Americans link physical attractiveness" to good character, intelligence, sensitivity, sincerity and other positive qualities.
As a voter I've never thought of good looks as a valid qualification for high office.
Should I do so this year, I'd probably place George Bush first, Bill Clinton second and Ross Perot third in the "good looks" category.
So far I haven't heard that factor mentioned by either campaigners or commentators, but perhaps the point will be introduced later on, in desperation.
No question about it. In pursuit of the better life in almost any endeavor, it's no small help to the ambitious to possess an attractive exterior.
Well, the bloom is off the rose, the honeymoon is over or whatever other cliche you prefer. It appears that the euphoria that first accompanied the opening of the new and wonderful Oriole Park at Camden Yards is finally beginning to fade.
The first shot that I noticed in a growing barrage of discontent was a column by respected veteran sportswriter John Steadman several weeks ago, detailing some design deficiencies of the new ball park. Then, more recently, Michael Olesker very graphically described his experience in those unbelievably bad $13 seats out in left field. And now the fans are getting into the act with their letters to the editor.
Let me add my observations.
I was introduced to the new Oriole Park a couple of weeks ago during the Yankees series. I was awe-struck by that first glimpse of the inside of the park one gets upon emerging from the entrance tunnel: this is truly a baseball park.