Letters for November 2, 2006

Defend children, defeat abortion
Re “Eternal vigilance to protect rights” (Letters, Oct. 19):

The threat is real, all right! To the unborn! And it has been since the 1970s.

Those 250 people and the experts, who gathered to protest abortion and the drugs used by some to rid themselves of unwanted pregnancies, were absolutely correct.

Those over-the-counter pills are abortifacients, which preclude the egg from attaching to the uterine wall, thus precluding that life and possibly, the life of the one taking the drug and certainly, the mental, physical and moral life of same.

If we don’t want our children to have so many unwanted pregnancies, perhaps we should become more present and caring parents and teach our children right from wrong. The fact that Nevada teen pregnancies dropped to 12 percent is because the wonderful Planned Parenthood (the biggest killing machine of the unborn in the whole world) has wormed its way into the schools of our nation to teach our children, not right from wrong, but how to partake of wrongdoing and not have to be held accountable for the results.

They think so anyway.

Our laws are based upon the Existence of that Creator and His Laws! Remember the Ten Commandments? How about the 5th! Thou Shalt Not Kill. What part of “Thou Shalt Not Kill” do we as a nation not understand?

Some say they are against abortion “except in cases of rape, incest and health of the mother.” What sort of an “exception” would you make for a 2-year-old child? After all, we’re talking about the same genesis here, only the age is different.

Instead of the defenders of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we have become the obliterating force of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness because if we deny life, we have denied liberty and the pursuit of happiness and that Guy, from Whom we assumed our rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is going to make us wish to hell we listened while we still had the chance.

Mary Santomauro
Stagecoach

Wrong choice
Re “Eternal vigilance to protect rights” (Letters, Oct. 19):

Thanks to Nicole Donald for pointing out the dangers of “reproductive freedom” practices.

Ms. Donald thinks that her personal reproductive freedom relies on birth control products and services. Her freedom is thus controlled, not by her, but by businesses and services that profit from her. Her dependency is evidenced by her need to publicly encourage others to adopt her point of view.

True freedom is behaving in an ethical manner and then accepting responsibility for the results of that behavior.

Ms. Donald urges voters to “keep personal decisions out of the hands of politicians” by voting for politicians who support her point of view. Ms. Donald places her faith in these politicians’ ability to protect her from the results of her behavior. This is ludicrous and indicative of her refusal to accept responsibility for her own behavior.

As a former employee of a hospital that performed abortions, I invite Ms. Donald to tour a Pathology Lab and view the dismembered bodies of aborted babies. This experience might prevent her from extending her dependency to clinics that provide a tragic quick fix for a price.

Being truly free is not and never has been easy. Handing over our personal freedom to drug companies, clinics and politicians is a “choice” none of us should ever make.

Judith M. Hansel
Reno

I’d like to thank the Academy
Re “Best of Northern Nevada” (Feature story, Oct. 19):

Although my name was listed as second-best bartender, I’m sure it was a mistake, and I would like to place credit where credit is due. Josh Parr, my Manager/Bartender/Right Hand Man at the Reno Jazz Club deserves the recognition, not me.

Nobody can sling drinks better than Josh when the heat is on or come up with a better practical joke at a better time, and I have yet to see him stumped on a drink recipe. (I just hang out, glad-handing and telling dumb jokes.) Thanks, and keep on rockin’ RN&R!

Alex Panschar
Reno Jazz Club

Editor’s note: Sorry, Alex, the readers have spoken, and you’re it. But we like Josh, too.

Correction
Re “Sorting out the smoke—and mirrors” (News, Oct. 26):

In the story “Sorting out the smoke—and mirrors,” we wrote, “Question 4 would prohibit smoking in most public places including movie theaters, indoor restaurants, schools including day care and college campuses, bars with food, grocery stores, indoor restaurants, government buildings, malls.” This is incorrect. The sentence should read, “Question 5 would prohibit smoking in most public places including movie theaters, indoor restaurants, schools including day care and college campuses, bars with food, grocery stores, indoor restaurants, government buildings, malls.”

Question 4 will actually roll back laws against second-hand smoke. Question 5 will help to limit non-smokers’ exposure to second-hand smoke. We apologize for any confusion our error caused. This has been corrected on the Web site.