Airport slots parlor is a terrible idea
When the citizens voted to allow five slot machine licenses in Maryland, they probably thought the legislature would stop wasting time with slot machine bills ("House bill would allow 3,000 slot machines at BWI," Feb. 17).
House Bill 777 would "alter the number of lottery facility operation licenses and number of video lottery terminals that may be awarded to provide for the award of a video lottery facility operation license at Baltimore-Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport."
Of course we all know about the harebrained idea to put a slots facility near Arundel Mills mall. But slots at the airport? Poor Justice Thurgood Marshall is probably rolling in his grave at the thought of this proposal.
The opponents of slot machines tried to tell the people that the slots referendum would not be the end of the nonsense on this issue.
I guess we all deserve to say a big, "I told you so."
Kim Roman, Glen Burnie
The writer is a former co-chairwoman of NoCasiNo Maryland.
Can we reconsider the slots vote now?
After reading "House bill would allow 3,000 slot machines at BWI" (Feb. 17) all I can say is "I told you so."
As this proposal would need to be approved as an amendment to the state constitution, I propose that we should also have the ability to vote slots out entirely.
I feel that we were sold a bill of goods on a slots proposal that could never work the way we were told it would.
Now that people have a much better idea of what slots could, and could not, mean to our state, perhaps people would now vote not to have this pig-in-a-poke in Maryland.
David Gosey, Towson
Gun bills undermine privacy, due process
Lt. Gov. Anthony G. Brown's support for legislative initiatives that would take firearms out of the hands of suspected abusers is understandable given that his cousin was shot to death by her estranged boyfriend ("Violence vs. right to guns," Feb. 13).
However, he is also a member in good standing with the Maryland Bar Association. And this suggests that he ought to have a reasonable grasp of the concepts of lawful search and seizure and of due process of law - both of which seem to be violated by the legislation proposed.
The Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution are not legal minutiae. They are among the most precious of our rights.
For Mr. Brown even to suggest legislation that runs counter to these bedrock constitutional notions is cause for concern for us all.
Michael D. Rausa, Forest Hill
Octuplets a reason to curb in vitro births
As a retired dentist, I know that my ability to provide quality care was enhanced by constant advances in science and technology. However, sometimes a scientific breakthrough can be used in an unfortunate and morally repugnant manner.
I believe this is the case in the use of in vitro fertilization by a single woman who already had six children, one of whom is autistic, to give birth to eight more children ("Mother of octuplets got her 14 kids via in vitro," Feb. 1).
I would suggest that the surgeon general and Congress draw up national regulations to prevent such a disaster from occurring again.
Just because something can be done does not mean it should be done.
Marc Raim, Baltimore