Letters To The Editor


October 19, 2003

Backing choice at the expense of living babies

In the editorial "Ebb tide?" (Oct. 14), The Sun claims that the partial-birth abortion bill applies to a rarely used procedure and that the legislation is the result of a Republican drive to "intrude, to intercept, to intervene in the difficult and painful decisions made mostly by young, unmarried women."

The fact is that the National Coalition of Abortion Providers estimates that this procedure is used 3,000 to 5,000 times annually. So to call it rare is misleading at best.

Most everyone, Democrat or Republican, understands the ghastly nature of this procedure. The question is: Is The Sun so far to the left that it believes in the sanctity of abortion so much that it would continue to allow mostly young and unmarried women to opt for this murderous alternative, even when their health or the baby's health is not at risk?

Can the left be so absolute in its refusal to erode a woman's right to choose that the value of life in a living human being is completely disregarded?

Doug Lombardo


Abortion procedure is simply inhumane

The Sun's editorial "Ebb tide" (Oct. 14) suggests that opponents of partial-birth abortion rely on "shock" value, as if some sort of added horror has been inserted in order to bring about an irrational emotional response from those who hear the procedure explained.

But not one embellishment is needed to make the procedure seem any more horrid and cruel than the very facts of the procedure suggest.

The procedure involves inducing labor, going through the entire birth process and then, with only its head remaining in the mother, merely inches away from its first breath, the fetus is brutally killed without even the benefit of painkillers or sedation of any kind.

This procedure should not even be in the pro-life vs. pro-choice argument. It should be looked at from a purely logical and scientific standpoint as nothing more than the killing of a child just before he or she would take a first breath.

This procedure is cruel and inhumane, and we as human beings should be ashamed if we allow it to continue.

April Rose


Give the first lady break she deserves

As a new resident of Maryland and Baltimore, I am annoyed with the amount of attention received by Kendel Ehrlich's remark about her desire to "shoot" Britney Spears.

Give the woman a break. She is a mother concerned about what children see today and her comment was only publicized because she is the governor's wife.

She has apologized with a great deal of class. And she said she knows better and should not have said what she did. That should be the end of the story.

I had no idea that Ms. Ehrlich was pregnant until I read Susan Reimer's column "Mrs. Ehrlich could learn a thing or two from Britney" (Oct. 14).

I think Ms. Reimer's belief that Ms. Ehrlich attempted to mitigate her faux pas with the news of her pregnancy is just plain boorish. And surely columnists have more relevant issues on which to focus.

Martha Tecca DelPizzo


Ehrlich must learn from her mistake

I agree with Susan Reimer that by announcing her pregnancy, Maryland first lady Kendel Ehrlich somewhat tried to dodge the bullet of her comments about Britney Spears ("Mrs. Ehrlich could learn a thing or two from Britney," Oct. 14).

We learn from our mistakes and Ms. Ehrlich should learn that shooting from the hip does not earn her the right to judge Ms. Spears without being judged herself as well.

Mildred Santos


Congress also bears burden for the war

Jules Witcover's column "Bush's PR push on Iraq," (Opinion

Commentary, Oct. 15) repeats the commonly heard belief that President Bush wangled the power to wage an unprecedented, pre-emptive war against Iraq "from a gullible Congress."

I'm afraid that this hypothesis of sudden gullibility stops us from questioning why the Congress really went along and, worse, keeps us from holding our representatives responsible.

Ellen Robbins


Palestinians choose to fuel fires of hatred

G. Jefferson Price III has chosen to begin the historical record in 1973 ("Good and bad once seemed clear in the Mideast," Oct. 12). But the Palestinians began their reign of terrorism in 1948 when the state of Israel was re-established and when Jordan ruled Judea and Samaria where most of the Palestinians lived.

For more than 50 years the Palestinians have been sneaking across the border and blowing up buses and restaurants and murdering innocent Israeli civilians.

Israel has responded with remarkable restraint to repeated murderous Palestinian acts of terrorism. Israel has repeatedly attempted to negotiate with the Palestinians and the result has been more Palestinian terrorism, perfidy and intransigence.

The Palestinians have had numerous opportunities to make peace but they have always chosen to fuel the fires of conflict and hate.

The Palestinians do not want peace. They want to destroy Israel and replace it.

Gary J. Kaplowitz


It's time to question Israel's right to exist

Baltimore Sun Articles
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.