Abortion ban puts the unborn ahead of women
As I read of the Senate vote to approve the ban on a procedure called "partial-birth abortion," I was chilled by the fact that this law makes no exception for a mother's life or health ("Senate OKs bill to limit abortion," Oct. 22).
Sen. Rick Santorum stated that "this is a very, very important day for this country and for those babies who would be the object of this brutal procedure."
But when does it get to be an important day for some woman whose life or quality of health may hinge on this procedure? And when did the unborn child become more important than the health of the mother?
This is a procedure that only medical specialists should decide to use or not to use, based on their training and experience. And this bill would have been much more palatable and equitable if it had just said doctors can make exceptions in the interest of the mother's life or health.
When I last checked the Senate, it did not contain 100 licensed ob-gyn doctors. I hope our Supreme Court justices have more sense.
Practicing medicine without a license?
Apparently the brothers Bush (Jeb and George W.) don't think they need medical degrees to hang out their shingles ("Comatose woman to be fed again," Oct. 22, and "Senate OKs bill to limit abortion," Oct. 22).
Elected officials have no place in medical decision-making. The medical profession has experts who review its complex 21st century ethics.
It's time we let patients and their doctors decide what is best, with the help of their next of kin when sadly this is necessary and without second-guessing by elected officials, who know little of the personal or medical issues involved.
Elizabeth H. Lehmann
Nothing immoral about saving a life
The Sun castigates Florida's Republican leaders for intervening "in a legal matter already settled in the courts" (the case of Terri Schiavo), suggesting the Legislature injected itself into the case "in a manner that was probably illegal and certainly immoral" ("Florida's mob rule mentality," editorial, Oct. 23).
But the fact is that what the Florida Legislature did was pass a law allowing Mrs. Schiavo's feeding tube (which the Florida courts had ordered removed) to be reinserted so she wouldn't starve to death.
How the passage of a law by a legislature is "illegal" escapes me, as does the notion that preventing a helpless person from suffering death by starvation is somehow immoral.
And how can a newspaper that supports the murdering of human fetuses as a woman's "right to choose" have any credibility on morality?
Let the legislators determine our laws
To suggest that the judicial system, not the legislature, should be the definitive voice on matters such as the Terri Schiavo case misunderstands the design of our country ("Florida's mob-rule mentality," editorial, Oct. 23).
Elected officials should be making the laws and the judicial system should be defending and (when necessary) defining them.
Judges are not scrutinized in their deliberation of justice; politicians are subject to scrutiny. Liberal judicial interpretation of law is undermining our nation, not stabilizing it.
We don't need faceless judges to be in control. We need politicians willing to lead by taking a stance on the tough issues and then face the voters at election time.
Iraq rhetoric takes an Orwellian turn
Orwellian double-speak is here, as in the novel 1984, and only 19 years late.
In response to scores being killed in Iraq, President Bush said, "The more successful we are on the ground, the more these killers will react" ("Coordinated Iraq bombing kills 35," Oct. 28).
I guess if Mr. Bush's Iraq policies are really successful, hundreds will die in a day. By his standards, Mr. Bush must think our policies in Vietnam were extremely successful. Tens of thousands died there.
Does even this administration believe such absurd double-speak?
Preferring Iraq as it once was
In a speech in Australia, President Bush asked, "Who can possibly think that the world would be better off with Saddam Hussein still in power?" ("Bush defends Iraq war during his address to Australian parliament," Oct. 24).
The answer is: All of the families who have lost loved ones in the invasion of Iraq to find its nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. All of the Iraqi families, mostly civilians, who have lost loved ones, including many children. All of those Iraqis who are killing our troops and giving their lives in suicide bombings.
All of the citizens of the world who demonstrate every day in opposition to our invasion and occupation of Iraq. All of those Iraqis who have been made homeless and jobless as a result of the invasion. All of those Iraqis who find their country in shambles and almost lawless.
All of the Americans who have watched our economy go from an annual surplus to a record deficit.