UC abandons Californians
Re “UC Davis increases out-of-state students” (Page 1A, July 3): It was my good fortune to begin practicing law with a Southern California law firm with former Gov. Pat Brown. He took the new lawyers to lunch, showing interest in our careers. When asked about his accomplishments as governor, he noted the UC system and California aqueduct.
So it was more than disheartening to read that an internationally recognized university system established and paid for by Californians has decided to turn its back on deserving California students in favor of out-of-state students. I imagine Pat would be as distressed as I am at this shameful political gambit.
Poking in the eye the taxpayers who make the system possible is an affront that should be investigated and remedied by the Legislature and Gov. Jerry Brown. Shame on you, Janet Napolitano and the UC regents.
John Briggs, Fair Oaks
Vaccines not about public health
Re “Science gets its say, at last, on vaccines” (Editorials, July 1): In violation of the California Constitution, the new law denies children the right to a school education unless they prove they have received multiple doses of 10 federally recommended vaccines or a medical doctor grants a medical vaccine exemption, yet there is no public health emergency in California.
If vaccines work, and if my child is vaccinated, he, she or I have nothing to fear from a child that is not vaccinated. The only child at risk is the unvaccinated child.
The bill to eliminate the personal belief exemption was proposed after measles cases were reported at Disneyland in January; however 24 of 134 California measles cases occurred in school-aged children, while 40 of the affected had already been vaccinated. Science may “at last get its say,” but it is a deliberately distorted message. This bill is not about public health.
Jim Snoke, Volcano
Assisted suicide is about choice
Re “Another view of assisted death bill” (Letters, July 3): Physician-assisted suicide should simply be a matter of choice. We either have control over our own bodies and lives, or we don’t. And if the state has control over our bodies and personal life choices, that is tantamount to institutional slavery.
Religious-based rules that apply to all our personal life choices are blatantly unconstitutional. If you don’t want to choose physician-assisted suicide, that’s your choice. But please don’t attempt to choose for the rest of us.
Dorothy L. Wake, Sacramento
Marriage already redefined
News flash: “Marriage” was already redefined years ago. The government did that when it provided benefits for married people. Things like tax breaks and property rights make it more of a legal contract than a religious pact.
I am married, and my wife and I have both been divorced. The children from previous marriages are on their own, and we are not having more children. To those who define marriage for procreation, we should not be allowed to marry. To some religions, we couldn’t be married since we’ve been divorced. I imagine that all the LGBT community wants is the legal standing and benefits that the government has tied to the term “marriage.”
We should separate the religious view of marriage from the government’s view. Maybe that could help to tone down the rhetoric.
Barry Wagner, Folsom
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.