Letters to the Editor
anonny
Published Letters: 124 Editor's Choice: 13
-
Minimizing abortion
[Read the article: Coat hangers and crochet hooks ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yes, making abortion illegal does not make it go away.
It is hard to compare abortion rates between countries because a) it is hard to estimate the number of illegal abortions and b) a number of legal abortions in one country are performed on citizens of another country where abortion is illegal. (The "b" case used to happen with high frequency between Germany and Holland.)
However, best estimates suggest that the lowest per capita rate of abortion - legal and illegal combined - occurs in Holland and Sweden, two countries where abortion is legal. Of course, those countries also have full access to birth control and sex education, thus keeping unwanted pregnancies down, AND a full complement of social services (adoption support, cheap medical care for mother and child, government payments for 1+ years of maternity leave, government-subsidized day care, etc.) for those who choose to give birth. Finally, the culture is such that there is no social stigma for giving birth out of wedlock or without a male partner.
Unfortunately, the most of the people who call themselves "pro-life" are social conservatives and so oppose all of those social services, oppose sex education and some even oppose birth control, and definitely think there should be social stigma for getting pregnant out of wedlock. It's funny that they call themselves "pro-life" and "pro-baby" but don't want the government to actually assure that the baby will be given appropriate medical care, education, or a healthy family environment.
There are a few people, though, who call themselves pro-life who would support all those things -- many have formed a Pro-Life Democrat organization. Although there are only a few of them, and I'm not in agreement with their views on making abortion illegal, I must admit that their policy positions are consistent.
-
About that 2006 victory ...
[Read the article: Emanuel endorses Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]... and he headed the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee during the party's very successful election year in 2006.
That is a factual statement. He did head the DCCC, and the Democrats were very successful. The implication that he had anything to do with it, however, is misleading.
Emanuel has not been a fan of the 50-state strategy, and his approach to backing Democratic candidates was to choose the most conservative Democrats he could find. In general those he put money on, such as Harold Ford, lost, while most of those who won upsets he dismissed as lost causes.
In short, Emanuel represents the old DLC, "Republican Lite" strategy. It's possible he's rethinking his views -- he does seem to float with the political winds -- but if anything he was a hinderance to the 2006 election successes.
-
@amspeck
[Read the article: Touché, Senator McCain]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A whole bunch of us who were pretty sour on Carter at the time have had a chance to see what waiting 25 years to get serious about renewable energy and energy efficiency has wrought. I'd much rather have had a second Carter term than any Reagan terms.
Perfect response!
It was my first election with a vote -- being a rebellious teenager I wrote in "none of the above" (like anyone cared) on my absentee ballot but come election day I was firmly rooting for Reagan. In 1980 it wasn't so much that we'd suffered years of high unemployment, high inflation, waining international influence (the 1978 middle east accords had to be weighed against the Panama Canal giveaway and the impotent responses to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan and the taking of the hostages in Iran), being thoroughly whipped by the Japanese and Germans in manufacturing, poor Olympic showings even behind little East Germany, and worst of all, Disco -- no it was that as a country we seemed completely unable to do anything about it. Carter, bless him, talked about a national malaise and a crisis of confidence -- loser talk. Reagan talked tough. Man, we as a nation were ready for some tough talk, even if the person making the talk was clearly a low IQ actor with crazy views.
Fortunately, a lot of us first-time voters who fell under Reagan's spell then have since matured. (Those who haven't are frequent contributors to NRO and FreeRepublic message boards.) Carter certainly had his problems: his inability to get along with his own party and being responsible for the reintroduction of religion into mainstream politics being two of them. However, he was a visionary in many ways -- especially on energy policy -- he just didn't have a clue how to get congress to enact anything meaningful.
In any event, McCain's put-down of Carter will only hurt McCain among the independents he desperately covets. Only die-hard Reaganites still think poorly of Carter.