Letters To The Editor


June 25, 2007

Pro-life president is just a hypocrite

On Wednesday, President Bush vetoed legislation that would have expanded federal funding for embryonic stem cell research ("Stem cell veto spurs Md. alarm," June 21).

He stated that allowing this bill to become law would "compel American taxpayers - for the first time in our history - to support the deliberate destruction of human embryos."

Thus Mr. Bush cloaks himself in the words and mantle of a pro-life person. But his actions speak louder than his words.

As governor of Texas, Mr. Bush signed more than 100 execution orders. Being pro-capital-punishment is not pro-life.

As president, Mr. Bush is directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of people in Iraq, including many of our own warriors. Being pro-war is not pro-life.

As governor and president, Mr. Bush has actively worked to decrease social spending - which can save lives by funding critical human services.

For example, a 12-year-old boy recently died in Maryland after a tooth infection spread to his brain. Why? Because he could not get the care that he desperately needed ("Flurry of action after boy dies from neglected teeth," June 1).

Ignoring the most needy among us is not being pro-life.

So now it will be at least another couple of years before federally funded embryonic stem cell research - something most Americans want - can come out the closet.

During those years, and indeed for years after, living, breathing human beings will continue to suffer and die unnecessarily - all because of Mr. Bush, the hypocrite president.

Jana Meacham


What of destruction of lives in Iraq?

President Bush said, in vetoing a bill that would have allowed federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, that funding such research would compel Americans to support the deliberate destruction of human embryos ("Stem cell veto spurs Md. alarm," June 21).

It is more than tragic that he apparently doesn't have the same compunction regarding the destruction of human lives in Iraq.

Ruth Fried

Owings Mills

Take care of kids already born first

I think embryonic stem cell research is a good thing. The embryos used for such research generally come from fertility clinics and would be simply destroyed if they were not used for research ("Stem cell veto spurs Md. alarm," June 21).

Frankly, I think it is the fertility clinics that are immoral.

The human population has already exceeded sustainability levels for this planet. Humans do not need help with fertility; we are quite fertile enough.

If we don't curb our reproduction, the planet will curb it for us through drought, famine, natural disasters, etc.

We are also failing to take care of many of the children who are already here.

Couples who feel the need to have children by artificial means should instead adopt or take in foster children. They would be doing a desperately needed service. But to insist on expensive treatments that often result in multiple births or excess embryos is selfish.

However, the frozen embryos in question for stem cell research are here already.

Let's use these embryos for the greater good rather than simply flushing them.

Pat Harcarik


Nothing `hateful' in limits to care

I read The Sun's editorial "Xenophobia's victims" (June 20) and then, perplexed, I read it again.

According to The Sun, people who want to deny publicly funded medical services to illegal aliens are "hateful"?

To assume that all good-hearted Americans would feel compelled to foot the medical bills for any person on this planet willing to walk across our southern border is absurd.

Some of us are not, I would remind The Sun, intent on national suicide.

The Sun's editorial board is so far out on the fringe left that it can't even see the center anymore.

Michael P. DeCicco


Real estate agents not part of lawsuit

I was most disturbed by The Sun's article "Class action alleges home equity theft" (June 19).

It is absolutely despicable what some people will do to make money. And the actions of the lenders and title companies involved in this case appear to be reprehensible.

But I was more disturbed when, toward the end of the article, reporter June Arney quoted from the complaint in the lawsuit that stated: "Hundreds of Maryland families, who thought they had entered into contracts to save their homes from foreclosure, did in fact enter into illegal contracts and transactions facilitated by real estate professionals whose sole motive was to enrich their extravagant lifestyles at the expense of hardworking Marylanders who were cash poor but equity rich in their properties."

I feel that this statement about "real estate professionals" is misleading to the public.

It implies that real estate agents were involved in harming the public.

But in fact the lawsuit is against some lenders and some title companies.

There are no real estate agents involved in this lawsuit.

Joan Solomon


The writer is branch vice president for a residential real estate firm.

Doom and decline in Mayor Dixon's city

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.