Bar goes too far
In February 1990, The Evening Sun published a news item under the heading, "Abortion -- Bar Association Backs the Right to Choose." In substance, the article referred to the American Bar Association's approval of a resolution opposing government interference with a woman's decision to have an abortion.
Because of vigorous protest by attorneys nationwide, the American Bar Association withdrew the resolution, reverting to its previous position of neutrality.
At the recent annual meeting of the association, its House of Delegates approved a similar resolution, passed and then revoked in 1990, favoring abortion rights.
My position, and the position of many other attorneys, has not changed since 1990. I consequently sent a letter to the American Bar Association tendering my resignation. The letter reads, in substance, as follows:
"The would-be 'co-President' of the United States struck at the American Bar Association. Hillary Clinton was the keynote speaker at the recent convention in San Francisco and $l presented an award to the principal honoree, Anita Hill.
"At the same convention, the House of Delegates reversed the ABA's previous position on neutrality with respect to the abortion issue, coming down with a resolution favoring abortion that had Hillary Clinton's fingerprints all over it.
"This puts the ABA in a very perilous position, particularly with respect to its responsibility to rate judges nominated for positions on the federal bench.
"In Hillary's own words, the American Bar Association is now an 'active agent' with respect to the abortion issue.
"Two years ago, I threatened to resign from the ABA but reconsidered when the House of Delegates reversed itself and retained its neutral position.
"I don't think the House is going to reverse this year. Therefore, I tender my resignation as a member of the American Bar Association, which membership has extended over a period of 20 years."
Since you published the original story in 1990, I feel it important to let your readers know that, in the opinion of many attorneys, a horrible mistake has been made for which the ABA will suffer.
John T. Enoch
Whose kids does GOP care about?
What I learned from "Ladies' Day" at the Republican National Convention is that Barbara Bush, like husband George, is a liar. She told so many whoppers about Republicans' "family values," I was sure her nose would grow.
You'd think she hadn't heard the speeches of Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson. You'd think she was the only person in America who hadn't heard Dan Quayle's "damned if you do, damned if you don't" diatribe against Murphy Brown and other unmarried mothers-to-be: Don't have an abortion and don't have a baby out of wedlock (unless you're my daughter).
Well, never mind their lips; we can read their family values record. Eleven and a half years of Republicans (including 3 1/2 years with Mrs. Bush's husband) have left us with more #i homeless children, more children living in poverty, more children getting worse educations, more children victimized by crime and uncontrolled guns, more children living in communities in
despair, than at any time since the 1930s' Great Depression.
Eleven and a half years of Republicans have left us with no medical insurance, no child care for working parents, no parental leave for child emergencies.
Eleven and a half years of Republicans have left us with thousands of children dead of AIDS for lack of research money, for lack of a condom, for lack of truth-telling.
Perhaps the only children Barbara Bush cares about are her own, like son Neil, whose savings and loan profiteering got him a mere slap on the wrist.
Perhaps it takes a "radical feminist" like Hillary Clinton to care about the children of the poor as well as the children of the rich.
TSU unjustly pulled plug on swimming and diving
Recently we received shocking news.
We are the student-athletes at Towson State University, and on Aug. 11, we were informed that the university suspended the men's and women's swimming and diving teams, effective immediately.
Twenty-four years ago, Ray Riordon started the TSU swimming program. This year would be his 25th year of dedication to his athletes and his school.
In return for his hard work, Dr. Hoke Smith, president of TSU, suspended this program in an attempt to solve budget problems. Coach Ray Riordon was informed of this abrupt and unjust decision only three weeks before classes and training would begin.
The personal and financial hardships the students, coaches and families now face was not a concern of Dr. Smith.
Cutting the men's and women's swimming and diving teams will save about $60,000, yet TSU is adding a women's soccer team, which will cost at least that much. We, the swimmers and divers at TSU, will no longer have an opportunity to pursue the sport we love.
We have had stressed to us the need for dedication to our sport, and have responded with the needed dedication, team spirit and school spirit. And now of course, totally unexpectedly, we have lost an important part of our school experience.
We hope our bitterness can be short-lived, but this may leave us with a long-term resentment that will make our college days a negative part of our lives. After all, the idealism stressed as part of the swimming team has been thrown back at us -- dedication to the school and sport has resulted in apparently no dedication from the school to us.
It was morally and ethically wrong for the university to do this to us. We will fight to have this decision reversed. We hope others will support us in this effort.
&Laura; and Kathy Gundersdorf
Elect Clinton(s), destroy the family
First Ladies are potentially the second most powerful people in Washington because of their influence on their husbands. While many observers study the ideology of the vice president, his influence on the president pales beside the First Lady's power.
Hillary Clinton thus deserves close scrutiny, for not only will she be her husband's closest confidant, but she is also a major player in the left wing of the Democratic Party.
Unlike Nancy Reagan and Barbara Bush, Hillary Clinton's influence will go beyond personnel and extend to public policy. In this light, her views on the family are frightening.
In a 1974 article entitled "Children Under the Law," she proposed the virtual destruction of the family and the penetration of the government into its remnants.
She advocated the abolition of legal status of minority for children and a reversal of the legal presumption of their incompetence, the extension to children of procedural rights enjoyed by adults, and the rejection of the presumption of an identity of interests between parents and their children. In other words, if parents and their teen-agers disagree, call in a judge.
Her malice toward the traditional family is so strong that she compares it to slavery. It is a crime that children are dependent on their parents, that "along with the family, past and present examples of such arrangements include marriage, slavery and the Indian reservation system."
Instead of letting parents decide what is right for the individual children, she would have children raised by the tender mercies of the federal government.
So what if Hillary Clinton has nutty ideas? Reportedly, she helped Bill Clinton select judges in Arkansas. If he is elected president, undoubtedly she will help pick bureaucrats and federal judges.
At that point, the quiet destruction of the American family will begin.