Body parts video isn’t ‘deceptive’
Re “The abortion wars rage on 43 years after Roe v. Wade,” (Editorials, Jan. 15): The Bee’s characterization of the Center for Medical Progress’ videos as “deceptive” and a “video smear” misrepresents the facts.
The complete, unedited videos have been released for anyone to see. An unedited video cannot be deceptive by definition. It is what it is. The Center for Medical Progress welcomed the lawsuit and listed questions the suit will answer – questions Planned Parenthood has dodged to this point.
Edward Speegle, Gold River
Keep standing up for women’s rights
Re “The abortion wars rage on 43 years after Roe v. Wade,” (Editorials, Jan. 15): I was thrilled to see The Sacramento Bee editorial board acknowledge the escalating war on women being waged across the country. As president of the Fem Dems of Sacramento, I trust that women are smart, capable beings who can make informed decisions about their bodies without interference from the government.
Having spent time in Kenya working for a human rights organization, I’ve seen firsthand how restrictions on abortion access negatively impact women, increasing maternal mortality rates and restricting women’s future options. We millennials weren’t around when the same was true for American women. But as politicians continue to chip away at Roe v. Wade, it’s more vital than ever that we stand with Planned Parenthood and hold accountable those who dare take away our rights.
Erica Root, Sacramento
Abortion the same as an execution
Re “The abortion wars rage on 43 years after Roe v. Wade,” (Editorials, Jan. 15): The Bee’s angry editorial has the fundamental error of supporting the notion that women have “the right to decide when and whether to bear children.” This position contradicts all concepts of justice, as well as The Bee’s own stand against the death penalty.
Can there be any doubt that that organism in the mother’s womb is a human being? Given, then, that there is a live human being in the mother’s womb, an abortion is really no different from an execution. Please stop supporting a woman’s “right” to execute her unborn child.
Bob Slakey, Carmichael
The legal problem with death penalty
Re “Californians evenly split on life term vs. execution,” (Page 8A, Jan. 15): If morality and justice don’t work as arguments against capital punishment, perhaps the Field Poll results will persuade some that this ancient practice is now unconstitutional.
Citizens like me who are opposed to it are systematically excluded from capital juries because we might spare a defendant from the gallows who meets the technical criteria. This is logical. But the poll shows that about 6 out of 10 Democrats and minorities should be automatically excluded, leaving the juries made up of whites and Republicans.
This is inexcusable. The Constitution entitles defendants to a unanimous verdict on death by a jury of their peers.
John Adkisson, Sacramento
Teachers union protects kids, too
Re “Teacher’s union is too powerful,” (Letters to the Editor, Jan. 14): Mr. Yeager’s letter seems to promote the widely held belief that there is a pool of thousands of dedicated teachers out there who are willing to commit to a lifetime of low pay and no job security, and can’t find work because most jobs are taken up by lazy, overpaid teachers.
Nothing could be further from reality. Teaching is a rewarding but grueling profession. The only way to draw talented and dedicated people into teaching is to provide a living wage, decent benefits and reasonable job security. Historically, unions have been the only entities capable of making this happen. Despite all their faults, unions play a vital role in making safe high-quality education available to all kids.
Richard Hanson, Carmichael
National labor reform needed
Re “In Friedrichs case, justices should follow precedent, side with labor,” (Editorials, Jan. 11): Yes, union members can get a refund on dues used for politics, but only after they jump through union-imposed rules designed to thwart refunds. And yes, members can decertify their union, but only if they can withstand the pressure tactics employed by union officials.
So how do we fix this? All of these issues and more are effectively addressed by the Employee Rights Act now before Congress. It would expand on Friedrichs and protect employees in the private sector. Big Labor’s response? Crickets.
Center for Union Facts,
EXTRA LETTERS ONLINE
Find them at:
HOW TO SUBMIT
Online form (preferred):
Other: Letters, P.O. Box 15779,
Sacramento, CA 95852
150-word limit. Include name, address and phone number. Letters may be edited for clarity, brevity and content.