[the_ad_placement id=”banner-right-placement”]

[the_ad_placement id=”banner-left-placement”]

Letter to the Editor: So much for logic

Let me see if I can maintain my composure while addressing a letter titled, “Letter to the Editor: So much for the children …”


The writer starts out with a false conclusion that the reversal of Roe vs Wade has returned the United States to the stone age. I will resist suggesting that the current White House Administration is doing a very good job of returning us to a more primitive state. So much for resisting.

The writer concludes that the reversal of Roe vs Wade, “… prevents abortions in many states”. The determination that abortion is not a constitutional right does nothing to prevent abortions. The decision simply stated that abortion is not a constitutionally guaranteed right. It is now back to the people of each state to decide for themselves if the killing of unborn babies is allowed in their state. At least back to the political majority that controls each state. In California the liberals have the political advantage. In California one can still kill their unwanted babies and use your tax dollars to do it. (Did I expose my bias? Yes, I did.)

Then there is a mini-tirade about men wanting to control women (again all men same box). At least the writer admits he (gender assumed) likes to control things, especially women. He even suggests using guns to assure that control.

There is an unsubstantiated claim that conservatives are not really pro-life. I believe some are and some aren’t. But to put any group in an all-inclusive box does demonstrate an intolerance of that group. And this person owns guns? Maybe not. To quote the writer, “We liberals want healthy families and children.”. No one else just “We liberals”. Evidently, if the children are inconvenient it is OK to kill them before they are born, healthy or unhealthy. That is Brave New World stuff.

Whose life does not matter? Clearly the unborn.

There is an unclear reference to the “supreme court” (I am assuming the US Supreme Court) putting “…an end to the Federal Government ability to control CO2 emissions”. End quote. Again, an obvious misunderstanding of what the US Supreme Court decision really said. Their decision simply stated that the Environmental Protection Agency does not have the authority to cap emission standards based on other acts that congress has enacted. That authority lies with Congress. Somewhat more complex than that but the feds can still control CO2 emissions but it has to be codified in law and not at the whim of unelected executive branch departments. The EPA is not a branch of the federal government. They work for the executive branch. That is why the Executive Branch is so mad about the decision. It is a clear demonstration of the checks and balances of the 3 branches of the federal government. After all, that is protecting you from actions taken outside of your representation in congress. Come on man. Did you sleep through social studies?

Climate change is real, the cause is unknown, enough said.

Phil Shafer
Quincy, CA

[the_ad_placement id=”banner-left-placement”]