Women should take responsibility
Re “The GOP’s war on birth control” (Editorials, July 12): It is so easy to point to the Republican Party as being the bad guy for not wanting to subsidize birth control for sexually active teens and others. The Republicans want you to take responsibility for your personal life; the Democrats want to take care of you from cradle to grave.
If someone really wants to be responsible about their sexual life, wouldn’t it make more sense to use a condom? Using a pill is not going to help from contracting a sexually transmitted disease. What’s more important? Responsibility and self-respect, or dependence?
Bernadette Hicks, Carmichael
What about the consequences?
Once again the not-so-Grand Old Party has declared war on America’s women. By trying to abolish or diminish the capability of Title X funds for birth control, STD education and women’s health issues, Republicans want to open Pandora’s box.
Couples will not suddenly stop having sex, which will result in more pregnancies without access to birth control. More pregnancies also mean more abortions, legal or otherwise. More babies for poor women will likely require more money for social welfare programs. Are the conservatives who oppose Title X ready to face these consequences? Or are they even thinking of what the ramifications of their actions will be? Or do they care?
Eileen Glaholt, Sacramento
Unwashed minds entitled to facts
Re “Conservatism hijacked By Republican Party extreme” (Forum, July 12): Alan Miller laments the contrast between William Buckley and “hate merchants” like Rush Limbaugh who have “hijacked the conservative movement.” How ironic that publisher Jack Fowler, Buckley’s National Review associate for three decades, stated that he liked Limbaugh. Indeed, the fact that Buckley’s study was a place he was “privileged to visit countless times” speaks to mutual admiration they held for each other.
In asserting that he “provokes” his students to challenge their assumptions about liberals and conservatives, Miller insists they consider a wide range of sources, including satirical shows on TV. To his students, I would put the question: Are any of Mark Levin’s critically acclaimed best-sellers defining conservatism and the unrelenting liberal efforts to undermine it on your recommended reading list? Or is Comedy Central presented as a more authoritative source of enlightenment for the “unwashed minds” that Buckley deplored?
James McCandless, Roseville
What’s the value of infrastructure?
Re “Drought is wake-up call for major changes” (Forum, July 12): It may come as a shock to Lester Snow, executive director of the California Water Foundation, but when it comes to the drought, California’s biggest problem is not infrastructure, it is the lack of water. Until and unless we reduce the amount of CO2 circulating in the atmosphere, we will be spending our money on endeavors whose effect will be essentially wasted.
David O Newell, Orangevale
Old South a slave society
Re “South Carolina heeds its better angels” (Viewpoints, July 12): Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker wonders what “lasting effect” the “symbolic gesture” of South Carolina furling the Confederate flag will have. The shootings and reaction have generated much discussion about U.S. history.
Though a healthy dialogue, Parker made a glaring understatement when she said that “the Old South ... did, in fact, include human bondage.” While this should be obvious, it begs the question of slavery’s scope. Historians today distinguish between “societies with slavery” and “slave societies.”
Parker’s quip implies the former was the case in the South. But in the antebellum South, society revolved around slavery. By 1860 capital investment in human property (4 million slaves) was greater than all else combined in the United States. U.S. Senators from South Carolina proclaimed slavery a “positive good.” Slavery was central, not peripheral to the South, secession, the Confederacy and the Civil War.
David Kuchera, Sacramento
Murder is the real issue
Re “Jail dumps a prisoner, and a woman dies” (Forum, July 12): Dan Morain’s column missed a crucial point regarding the murder of Kathryn Steinle in San Francisco. The killer isn’t a refugee, seeking political asylum and a better life; he isn’t an undocumented immigrant; he is a five-time border jumper who had absolutely no business being in this country, let alone being entitled to “receive services” – precisely the type of individual Donald Trump rightfully described.
The “far more complex issue” isn’t homelessness, it’s about the collective failure of all agencies involved to prevent this five-time loser from re-entering the country to cause further damage to himself and to others.
Michael Miro, El Dorado Hills
The issue is open borders
Dan Morain’s column about the killing in San Francisco is just an excuse to attack the homeless problem. I feel certain that if this man would have been returned to Immigration and Customs Enforcement he would not have been able to shoot this lady. We must close our borders now.
Donald E. Perry, Sacramento
Portraying killer as the victim
Dan Morain dismisses the idea that there is anything wrong about sanctuary cities by citing former Mayor Art Agnos that they were necessary to protect illegal immigrants from right-wing death squads. End of inquiry, apparently. Morain never elaborates or even mentions the matter again but simply accepts it and labels those who disagree as bloviating demagogues.
To hear Morain tell it, the killer was a victim and the only thing the authorities did wrong was to release him without providing him with adequate services. That is like chastising a homeowner for failing to make lunch for a burglar.
Paul H. Greisen, Sacramento
Making excuses for the killer
Dan Morain points out that the San Francisco sheriff declined to hand Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez, an undocumented immigrant, over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement because he had no violent criminal history.
Then he goes on to lament how Sanchez was dumped on the street with “No shelter. No money. Definitely no attempt to rehabilitate him.”
Moraine is making excuses. The fact remains, if San Francisco were not a sanctuary city, if it had held Sanchez for ICE, he would not have been on the street to find the gun to kill Kathryn Steinle.
Carol Cabana, Roseville
Who has ultimate responsibility?
Well put, this column covers a lot of ground in this case. However, we will not find out what action will be taken in the case of the federal agent that left the weapon unsecured. As far as the accused, however, the issue of responsibility for that individual’s actions is already being typecast as no one’s fault, e.g., we failed, the system failed, etc. This is absurd. He made a decision to take drugs and the associated lifestyle that goes with it. As far as services go, well, if people will not use them, then what? This case already has proven what a sham the current immigration laws are.
Andrew G. Mattson, Sacramento