Letters To The Editor


August 18, 2004

Still another failure to save vulnerable kids

I think it is a reasonable assumption that I am not the only person wondering how many children have to die at the hands of abusive parents before the people in authority intervene. And why in God's name would workers at Johns Hopkins Hospital allow two small children to be sent home with a mother whom they felt was "intellectually limited," and a father who "was beating on her" [the mother] in the hospital room ("Couple deny killing twins," Aug. 13)?

Such tragedies are happening all too often of late. Not one abused child should be allowed to slip through the system. Our children cannot protect themselves. It is up to us to do it for them.

In The Sun's article, officials and child advocates pointed to the deaths of the one-month-old twins as an a example of a flawed child welfare system.

Flawed child welfare system? That's a gross understatement.

Doris J. Tallman


Adoption succeeds more than it fails

For every adoption horror story, I would bet there are at least two success stories ("Activists aim to expose darker side of adoption," Aug. 15).

Giving birth doesn't automatically make you a "mother" any more than knowing how to drive a car makes you an auto mechanic. It's nurturing and caregiving that make you a mother.

And a child born to a drug-addicted or abusive mother, and whose father has long since disappeared, is not better off with that mother than he or she would be with a loving, caring family that could provide a stable environment in which to grow up.

The fact of the matter is that some people are just not meant to be parents.

D. Pazourek


Kerry acts to protect the rights of all

Linda Chavez would do well to remember that those who are elected to the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives do not go to Washington exclusively to represent their own personal views or to make sure their own personal interests are served ("Why churchgoers prefer Bush to Kerry," Opinion * Commentary, Aug. 12). They go there to represent the people -- all of them -- and to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

The fact that Mr. Kerry personally believes life begins at conception, yet consistently votes to preserve a woman's right to choose, is not a matter of political expediency but of understanding that denying women the right to make reproductive choices would be an abrogation of the constitutional rights he is charged with protecting.

It might surprise Ms. Chavez to know that many of us actually respect those elected officials who have the ability to understand that they represent many people, of varied beliefs, who are all protected by the same Constitution, and that eroding constitutional protections in the name of one's personal beliefs compromises the foundation upon which the nation rests.

Anne G. Schoonmaker


Bellicose policies aren't so Christian

I must say that Linda Chavez usually makes my blood boil with her worship of President Bush. Now, Ms. Chavez dares to speak for churchgoers and people of faith ("Why churchgoers prefer Bush to Kerry," Opinion * Commentary, Aug. 12).

As one who has a strong faith and has been a churchgoer for more than 35 years, I want to say that Ms. Chavez does not speak for me -- nor does she speak for many people of faith that I know.

My faith subscribes to the God of love -- not a God of fanaticism, war and hatred.

Paula Baranowski

Havre de Grace

Linda Chavez's column, "Why churchgoers prefer Bush to Kerry," prompted me to write about a troubling aspect of "churchgoing" Christians' concerns.

When President Bush invaded Iraq, many Iraqi civilians were injured or killed. And more than 900 American soldiers have been killed since he invaded Iraq to destroy a dictator who was not a threat to our country.

I cannot imagine that Christ would condone these violent actions. Yet this use of violence and loss of life does not seem to upset many Christians.

It is puzzling to me that many Christians are more appalled at the possibility of Joe marrying Jim than the bloodshed and the resulting heartache that Mr. Bush has caused through his policies in Iraq.

Michele Anderson


A quick commercial for private clinics?

I would like to know why The Sun's editors took it upon themselves to write an editorial praising the for-profit MinuteClinics ("Quickie clinics," Aug. 16), which will arrive in our area soon.

This editorial read like an advertisement for this company, which is a business and not a charity. Using terms like "ingenuity," "patient-friendly" and "promising" crosses a crucial line in biasing the reader toward this enterprise and constitutes an endorsement.

The inclusion of the stores' location and pricing structure makes the editorial sound even more like an ad.

Why has The Sun allowed its journalistic integrity to be compromised in this way?

Christine Stutz


Please take statue to another location

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.