Opinion

Letters to the editor

Dear Editor,   Last week a student from University of Pennsylvania took the liberty to write in to The Temple News to express her opinions regarding contraception in the newspaper. The record needs to be set straight about this for one final time so there is no more distortion and misinformation coming from one side… Read more »

Dear Editor,

 

Last week a student from University of Pennsylvania took the liberty to write in to The Temple News to express her opinions regarding contraception in the newspaper. The record needs to be set straight about this for one final time so there is no more distortion and misinformation coming from one side in this debate.

The contraceptive mandate in President Barack Obama’s healthcare plan obfuscates liberals who are quick to think that Catholic institutions must provide contraception, regardless of their religious views. This inclination is wrong, based on our Bill of Rights. It is not within the government’s power to force its religiosity onto private entities who are expressing their freedom of religion. Not once has any GOP candidate come out to oppose contraception and at no point have they ever said states should ban contraception during this campaign. The true issue-at-hand is the ability of religiously affiliated institutions to provide care that is in line with their morals and beliefs.

The First Amendment allows for freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. The Obama administration would be wise to take this fact into consideration before trying to force Catholic institutions to provide services that are not “rights” in any sense of the word. Let’s say the government mandates that birth control, which is very affordable and readily available, be covered in any plan or at any religious institution, regardless of their beliefs and based on a sense of “public health.” At what point will the government stop forcing institutions to do things that are contradictory to their First Amendment protected beliefs? Should we get free toothbrushes because they are good for “public health?” Obvious answer here is “no.”

This person also came out in support of Planned Parenthood with more misinformation. According to their own services manual online, Planned Parenthood uses 3 percent of its budget to finance abortions, and performed 329,445 abortions in 2010, all at taxpayer expense.

Since our public tax dollars are used to fund and subsidize abortions, I think it is only natural that people would want to remove all federal dollars from Planned Parenthood. After all, if they have so much money left over to perform abortions, why are they receiving any tax dollars in the first place?

A clear answer to the Planned Parenthood situation is this: If each liberal that complained about zeroing out funding donated just $10 to Planned Parenthood, I am sure they would be more than adequately-funded.

Regardless of their anti abortion or pro-choice stances, the GOP candidates do not support public financing of abortions or the usurpation of religious liberty at the hands of an overzealous government, nor should they.

 

Sincerely,

Erik Jacobs

President, Temple College Republicans

 

Latest posts by Editor (see all)

11 comments on “Letters to the editor

  1. Erik Jacobs on said:

    Let the record show I used the terms “pro life” and “pro choice” in writing this article. Tasteless edit from the editor.

  2. Regan Everett butts on said:

    Your editing the word “anti-abortion” in where the author had used the term “pro-life” and is a clear message to all that what Abraham Lincoln said in his day is true today.

    “Better to be thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt. “

  3. Eric Cedor on said:

    Dear Temple News,

    It is an outrage that the paper would censor a story in a way that changes how the reader interprets an argument; and therefore, instills bias. If the paper were to change pro-choice to anti-life, there would be an outcry heard around the country. The same should occur for this indecent act.

    Sincerely,

    Eric Cedor

    Treasurer, Temple University College Republicans
    Treasurer, Temple university Students for Intellectual Freedom

  4. John Featherman on said:

    I am the endorsed Republican candidate for U.S. Congress in the Pennsylvania First Congressional District. I am pro-choice, but I’m often labeled as “pro-abortion,” despite my protests. I am not “pro-abortion.” In fact, I don’t support any taxpayer funding of abortion. In my opinion, abortion should be a last resort. So it is wrong to refer to me as “pro-abortion.”

    Likewise, it is wrong to change Jacob’s language to “anti-abortion.” “Pro-life” individuals hold a different, more positive perspective, where they celebrate life in all forms — from conception to natural death.

    While we can debate the pros and cons of each position, we should not allow political correctness or a liberally-biased editor to change a key term whose original language holds positive connotations to a community. It’s one thing to edit for clarity; it’s another to forward a political ideology.

    The solution? Fire the editor!

  5. marissa on said:

    Anti abortion is AP Style. That’s correct for media.

  6. Yotam on said:

    Hi All,

    Let’s take some quotes by Republican Candidate Rick Santorum in his interview with Chris Wallace on Fox, and see if they can apply to other religious issues.

    “President Obama decided that he could impose his values on people of faith, when people of faith believe that this is a grievous moral wrong.”

    “How about the separation of church and state when the state wants to force the church and people who are believers into doing something that they don’t want to do.”

    As pacifists, should Quakers be exempt from paying the portion of their taxes which go towards fighting wars?

    Mormons are morally opposed to smoking. Are companies run by Mormons allowed to not provide health care if one of their employees gets lung cancer from smoking?

    As a Jew I am morally opposed to pork consumption. However, Congress created the National Pork Board which promotes pork as a food product. May I demand money back from the government, due to my moral opposition?

    Really, it is a serious question. If the answer is “anything anyone is morally opposed to they have the right to not pay for” than that’s an answer.

    -Yotam Dror

  7. Yotam on said:

    oh, and although anti-abortion is correct AP style, pro-choice is not. It should be pro-abortion. As much as I disagree with this letter, that is one issue Erik does have a point on.

  8. Kendrick on said:

    Contraception is not a necessity in order for people to live normal, healthful lives. Healthcare should be for providing treatment for ailments that can directly affect one’s health-related quality of living and no more. Pregnancy is not a disease, and it should not be treated as such. Having sex is a choice (except in cases of rape), and people should be responsible of the choices they make and be aware and accepting of the consequences that come with them. If anyone wants to have sex, then s/he should be responsible and buy the contraceptives him or herself. If not for religious reasons, contraception should not be covered by/imposed upon insurance companies or employers for health-related issues alone. Furthermore, no one is obligated to work for the Catholic Church. If one does not agree with the institution’s ideology, then s/he is free to look for another job or seek insurance through a private company.

    Abortions should not be covered by taxpayer dollars. Again, pregnancy is not a disease. Having an abortion is also a choice that is the result of another choice (except in cases of rape). People should be responsible for the choices they make. Even though women (not to be/sound sexist) may want “freedom” over their own bodies, they are the ones who become pregnant; if they do not want a child, then there are ways to ensure they do not conceive.

  9. Megan Carter on said:

    Kendrick,

    For some women, contraception actually is a necessity in order to live normal, healthful lives. While pregnancy is not a disease, you seem to not understand that if a woman was to become pregnant, it would affect her life emotionally, physically, mentally, as well as financially. You are right that sex is a choice. But birth control does not cost more or less based on how much sex you have. It is, in fact, a DRUG. Birth control also has health benefits BESIDES preventing pregnancy. As I assume you are not a woman who needs birth control, I would suggest doing some research on this.

    Also, I do want FREEDOM over my own body, not “freedom.” Your implication that becoming pregnant is a deserved consequence of a woman having sex is in fact sexist and irresponsible thinking.

  10. Kendrick on said:

    Megan,

    I amm aware of the more serious health issues birth control fixes, such as menorrhagia–for which iron supplements, NSAIDs, Mirena, dilation and curettage, operative hysteroscopy, endometrial ablation, endometrial resection, and hysterectomy (birth control is not the only solution to this problem)–and less serious health issues, such as acne–for which there is Proactiv. Furthermore, birth control’s primary use is to prevent pregnancy–hence its name–and is usually taken by those who either are or plan to be sexually active, regardless of cost, paying for it themselves, which is responsible. I am not saying that one cannot take birth control; I am saying that it should not be imposed upon insurance companies and the Catholic Church to cover it–because for the majority of women, it is not a true necessity, and there are alternatives to such complications that birth control also fixes.

    I did not say that pregnancy is a deserved consequence of a woman’s having sex; however, it is a natural consequence of biology. Should men be the ones to become pregnant? Perhaps, and quite frankly, all men should take responsibility for their part of conception. You are right that pregnancy indeed causes great changes in a woman emotionally, physically, and especially financially. That being said, we–and especially adult women–are all aware of these facts before making a decision to have sex, and by extension, use/buy contraceptives. Children are expensive–not only financially, but emotionally. If women do not want to risk such a burden, they have the power to say no; if they wish to have sex but do not want to conceive, then they and/or their partners have the freedom to buy contraceptives.

  11. Danny Teichman on said:

    What gives you the right to tell a woman what to do with her body? To even recommend what she should do with her body?

    You think that it’s immoral and antithetical to your religious beliefs that some of your tax dollars go towards funding family planning? Well I think its immoral that immensely more of our tax dollars go towards funding imperialist wars that seem to have no end. I think its immoral that we heavily subsidize industries that are destroying the environment. Furthermore, I think it’s immoral that someone who will never be able to have a child thinks it’s permissible to tell someone who can that she has no control over when or if she has one.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

826,862 Spam Comments Blocked so far by Spam Free Wordpress

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>