School Lunches Not Free
Jean Thompson's article on school lunch program cuts contains a major error. She calls it a free lunch. It's not free. It's paid for by the federal government with money that the Internal Revenue Service takes from taxpayers like me. Now Congress wants to spend less, and let me keep more of what I earn.
Advocates for lunch subsidies say, in effect, that they want the government to force me to feed their kids. Well, I've got kids of my own and feeding them is a high priority for me. A parent's most important job is taking care of his/her children; It's not the government's or the taxpayer's job. Help for the needy should be a gift from those who have to those who haven't, not some "right" that can be imposed upon those who've worked for what they have.
Aberdeen Proving Ground
Pro-choice women were certainly mislead by Rep. Robert Ehrlich during the campaign of '94. We heard over and over that he would support a woman's right to choose. Then we read that he cast a vote in Congress in lock-step with his party, that denied police protection to abortion clinics.
Well, this "stand-up kinda guy" that we heard from all summer can sit down as far as I'm concerned. Women need Congresspeople that we can trust.
Baseball players say they deserve more money. The owners say "no way." So the baseball players went on strike. . . . With a strike, everybody loses.
The players could have been more creative by using the money for the strike to give the players more money. I have a suggestion: Let the players get another job. Will Oriole Park sit idle all summer?
I think that the baseball strike should stop. I think the players get enough money as it is. What is going to happen to Oriole Park or to the people who work there?
I think this baseball strike is a waste of time. . . . Like most other people, I want another season. I don't want baseball to be a legend or a memory.
L The writers are fifth-graders at Youth's Benefit Elementary.
Should Dr. Foster Become Surgeon General?
On March 5, you ran a Perspective piece by Karen H. Rothenberg entitled "Should Dr. Foster Be Confirmed?" Since the time he was nominated, there has been much controversy over whether this OB/GYN, who performed a countless number of abortions, should be eligible to hold the honored position of surgeon general.
Should this man be condemned because he made the choice to make legal abortions available to his patients? I think not.
Initially, I had a concern that Dr. Henry Foster had lied to the American people.
In retrospect, it appears that Dr. Foster's misjudgment is more one of withholding details concerning the number of abortions he performed -- much like President Clinton withheld details on several issues in his past, such as marijuana use and his position on the Vietnam War and the draft. This did not stop the American people from electing him president. Dr. Foster never said he did not perform abortions, he simply did not disclose all the details.
What is the difference anyway? Abortions are legal . . . it's the woman's choice.
Did you ever think that maybe the reason Dr. Foster was not totally up front when it came to how many abortions he performed was because he knew that a controversy such as this would arise and be blown out of proportion? . . .
Amanda J. John
Why didn't "Should Dr. Foster Be Confirmed?" address the central issue Americans are disgusted about?
Dr. Henry Foster lied to every citizen in the United States on several occasions. This has little or nothing to do with pro-choice or pro-life. Rather, it has to do with honesty.
When one is asked what qualities a good surgeon general should have, dishonestly should not top the list. . . . Karen Rothenberg's suggestion that "Foster has the creativity and vision to make a difference at a time when our country needs leadership" is merely a smoke screen to hide the forest fire of lack of integrity. . . .
. . . Dr. Henry Foster has the knowledge as a former OB/GYN to provide answers to the most perplexing health problems facing the nation. As Karen Rothenberg wrote, "Prevention of infant mortality, teen-age pregnancy and heterosexual transmission of HIV could be brilliantly addressed" by Dr. Foster if he is given the chance. With the low morals of many in today's society, it is obvious that America needs his "creativity and vision to make a difference at a time when our country needs leadership." This is something Dr. Foster can provide. . . .
Karen H. Rothenberg's piece in favor of Dr. Henry W. Foster's confirmation as U.S. Surgeon General did not fully address the controversy about his sterilization of the mentally retarded in the 1970s.
Ms. Rothenberg swept this issue aside by saying that "Medical, ethical and legal standards do change. And any physician with a lifetime of professional experience will be caught up in these currents." . . . The practice of sterilizing the mentally retarded has been wrong and will always be morally wrong no matter what the new "current" of ethical standards says.
. . . Another group of "professional" doctors performed forced sterilization on the mentally retarded over 50 years ago. We remember them today as criminals of the Third Reich. . . .
William K. McKinney
. . . Could or should an obstetrician/gynecologist hold the position of surgeon general? Our country will never know unless it gives one a chance.
Yes, Dr. Henry Foster performed abortions, but as Karen Rothenberg wrote, they are "legal and he appropriately made his services available to his patients." . . .
A surgeon general should provide our society with the "creativity, initiative and vision" to help public health. But until we learn to grasp the challenge at taking a chance, our country may not know the effects an OB/GYN would have on society. . . .
As the Senate vote nears, would we rather see our country's public health come in dead last, or top priority with this election of the next surgeon general?
A5 The writers are students at Fallston High School.