- The Washington Times - Tuesday, January 28, 2003

Columnist blind to abortion's 'terrible poverty'

In her latest column, "30 years later, no truce in the abortion conflict" (Metro, Friday), Adrienne T. Washington states: "We all want to prevent the need for abortion. Where we differ [in the abortion debate] is whether we believe it's our business or the government's to enforce our views on other folks' private lives."
Does Mrs. Washington wear blinders? Government constantly enforces society's views on private persons' behavior vis-a-vis myriad laws. For example, it is illegal to murder or steal. We must educate our children. We can go to jail for taking illegal drugs. The list goes on and on. The abortion issue is not about a "woman's reproductive rights," as pro-abortion activists like to claim. It's about choosing to take an innocent pre-born person's life. Just once, I would like to hear a proponent of abortion tell it like it is and say, "I believe it is a woman's right to kill her own baby if she so chooses." That's the real crux of the debate. I would like to remind Mrs. Washington that, to paraphrase Mother Teresa, it's a terrible poverty for a woman to take the life of her child so that she may live as she wishes.

Woodbridge, Va.

Adrienne T. Washington's column "30 years later, still no truce in the abortion conflict" has the effect of slandering pro-lifers as extremists who routinely threaten abortionists simply because the wife of an abortionist Mrs. Washington knows is concerned about his welfare. Actually, the vast majority of pro-lifers are praying for abortionists' conversion and wish them no harm.
Unfortunately, there have been several well-publicized crimes against abortionists by a few crazed people. However, there are many more instances of violence done by abortionists and those connected with the abortion industry, and these rarely receive wide publicity. For example, an Arizona abortionist will soon be facing trial on charges of sexually abusing more than 100 women. Another abortionist received a five-year sentence for letting a woman on whom he had performed an abortion bleed to death while he met with his tailor. Abortuary "escorts" jostle and block pro-lifers to keep them from giving women information about medical and financial help available if they choose to let their babies live.
Abortions routinely are performed on poor women who are unaware of the help available to them and their babies, women who are not familiar with fetal development and women who are unaware of the physical and psychological risks of abortion.
If abortion is such a benevolent procedure done by such caring people as Mrs. Washington's doctor friend (a self-described Catholic), why do abortionists block legislation requiring women to make an informed choice? Because abortion is medically and psychologically risky for women, but awfully lucrative for abortionists.

Silver Spring

Police strength not in numbers

According to Sunday's article on Mayor Anthony A. Williams' crime summit, "A real estate investor who attended the homicide workshop told the group that he had recently moved and said he felt safer on the streets of New York City, with its population of more than 7 million, than he does in the District. He was politely told that the District is not New York, which has 40,000 police officers" ("Residents vent crime concerns," Metro).
Yes, but New York City has 8 million people (the correct population figure), while the District has just 572,059, per the latest census. What matters is not how many police each city has, but how many police each city has per capita. According to the latest data from the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics (May 2002), the District has 25 percent more sworn police personnel per capita than New York. In fact, we have the highest ratio of cops to residents of any city in the country.
Rather than trying to cook the data to discredit our concerns, perhaps one day the police leadership (and its boss, Mr. Williams) will accept responsibility for the decreasing quality of life in our nation's capital.


No good will come from force and tyranny

I am writing in response to Nat Hentoff's column "Abandoned by the Bill of Rights" (Op-Ed, yesterday). Alas, in ruling that a U.S. citizen, Yaser Hamdi, could be imprisoned indefinitely without charges or a lawyer, a federal appeals court was only carrying on a sad tradition of judicial activism.
In essence, the court found that Mr. Hamdi was not a "person" for purposes of the Constitution. If he was a person, he would have all the rights of a person, such as the right to a speedy trial before a jury of his peers.
The ability of the court to find who is and who is not a person can be traced back to Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857), a case in which the Supreme Court found that a runaway slave was not a person, but the property of the owner. More recently, in Roe v. Wade, the court found, in effect, that a fetus was not a person but the private property of its mother, to be disposed of at her will.
Neither of these decisions has resulted in the expansion, let alone the protection of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. Instead, the blood they caused to be spilled continues to affect us.
If the words of the Declaration of Independence mean anything at any time, they must be held in force today: that it is self-evident no person's rights can be alienated from them in any manner by anyone, even the Supreme Court. To pretend otherwise is to vainly construct a fiction that can be sustained only by force and tyranny, from which no good will come.

Boone County, Mo.

Gun editorial on target … mostly

I was pleased to read Sunday's editorial about the two Baltimore businessmen exonerated for defending themselves and their property ("How guns save lives"). They were lucky, as Maryland gun laws often favor the criminals.
For example, I am an individual with a disabling medical problem. Because I require two canes to walk, it is obvious that I cannot flee from danger. As a result, I felt the need to be able to protect myself when I go out.
I applied for a permit to carry a handgun for my defense and protection. The Maryland state police ruled that I did not qualify for a permit, stating that I lack a "good and substantial reason to carry, wear, or transport a handgun." I was told I needed police records of threats and assaults to qualify for one.
I sent letters to the attorney general, former Lt. Gov. Mike Miller, the president of the Maryland Senate and other officials, asking them to explain how many and what sorts of threats and assaults I must endure to qualify for a permit. There has been no response to this request. It appears the state of Maryland prefers the physically disabled to remain victims-in-waiting. Or perhaps we, the disabled, should just be ordered never to leave our residences.
It must be quite easy for a politician to rule against carrying a handgun for protection. After all, politicians often have their own permits or armed security personnel available to them around the clock.


The editorial "How guns save lives" took liberties with accepted journalistic practices when it stated that Kenny Der and Darrell Kifer "were confronted by [Tygon] Walker, who threatened to kill them."
Mr. Walker very well may have confronted and threatened to kill the two gun-carrying men with a hammer. However, the only evidence that he did so was provided by Mr. Der and Mr. Kifer, who may have had a vested interest in promoting that view. In the absence of corroborating evidence, it would have been more accurate to say that Mr. Der and Mr. Kifer "were confronted by Mr. Walker, who they said threatened to kill them."
It might make the rhetorical case stronger to describe the threat as an unequivocal fact, but it is a distinction that should have been made for the sake of objectivity.

Etlan, Va.

Sign up for Daily Newsletters

Manage Newsletters

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide