11-13-1999
LETTERS: Letters for November 13, 1999
Abortions and Common Sense
Stuart Taylor Jr.'s musings about the lack of "common sense"
embodied in laws banning partial-birth abortion [10/9/99, p. 2865]
represent another twisted example of so-called modern thinking.
Logic, religion, and science all lead to the inescapable conclusion that a
fetus is 100 percent human. It was the Supreme Court's 1973 decision in
Roe vs. Wade that brought us to the current state of affairs. Deciding
that a fetus is not a "person" from a constitutional perspective
does not change the facts. Instead, it was the Supreme Court's labeling of
a fetus as a "nonperson" that created the legal fiction.
Thus, "any parent" is capable of knowing the objective truth and
can know what to say to the teenage girl pleading to abort a pregnancy.
Her fetus is alive. Her fetus is an individual human being. The pregnancy
may be inconvenient. It may even be embarrassing, but that does not change
the fact that the fetus is a unique living being.
The fiction of nonhumanity is what creates the terrible ugliness of
partial-birth abortion. Is it any wonder, then, that both the lawmakers
and the judges struggle with enacting and interpreting laws that seek to
restrict the most outrageous procedures?
- David C. Barrett Jr., Kingstowne, Va.
ConReps and LibDems at War
James Kitfield's "Return to Isolationism" [10/9/99, p. 2872]
misses an important point. Conservatives and liberals--and, by extension,
Republicans and Democrats--have a fundamental ideological disagreement on
the extension of American power, especially military power.
Conservatives/Republicans (ConReps, hereafter) generally see the
protection of vital American interests as the only appropriate reason to
apply U.S. military force. Military force is valid only if soldiers,
sailors, and airmen can be sent truly to fight and die for their country,
or their country's vital needs. Thus, the Persian Gulf War, fought to
preserve stability in the strategic gasoline station for the West, was
championed by ConReps and either opposed or quietly tolerated by
Liberals/Democrats (LibDems).
Conversely, LibDems tend to see the preservation of strategic interests as
a crass, mercenary reason to use military force. To them, military force
is morally valid only if young men and women can be sent to fight for a
morally good purpose. LibDems lined up behind President Clinton's
prosecution of the air war in Kosovo because the stated or implied purpose
was to prevent genocide in a European nation. ConReps either criticized
the operation or repeated the tepid "We-support-the-troops" line
the LibDems were reduced to in 1991.
In short, ConReps support military force only when vital American
interests are at stake. LibDems support military force only when no vital
American interests are at stake.
- Neal Getz, Springfield, Ill.
An Unfair Swipe at Gore
I take issue with Jonathan Rauch's "Gore in the Balance"
[9/18/99, p. 2611]. His column seemed to begin in a tongue-in-cheek
manner. As Mr. Rauch continued, however, my smile faded. I should preface
my statements by saying that I am an environmentalist, and so share most
of Gore's sentiments on the direction of our society and our
world.
Mr. Rauch prefaces his statements by admitting a predisposition against
Gore's views, and promises an open mind in his perusal (but not
necessarily in his analysis). I was encouraged by his brief statements in
support of some of Gore's major propositions, but disappointed at how
quickly he moved into harsh criticisms.
Rauch plays down the need for sincere rethinking of our business practices
and consumer culture toward a system not only in greater harmony with the
natural world (i.e., not covered with concrete) but one that will allow us
to sustain the existence of all inhabitants of the planet. Easier said
than done, of course, but if we never try, how will we know if we could
have succeeded?
- Seamus Allman, Washington, D.C.
Green Goals in Seattle
To correct a statement in "A Potential Peacemaker in the Trade
Wars" [10/16/99, p. 2974]: The Sierra Club does not advocate
withdrawal from the World Trade Organization. In a rapidly globalizing
economy, everyone could benefit from a "rules-based" system of
commerce. Our concern is that the WTO and the Clinton Administration do
not encourage and enforce the right rules. Under current WTO rules,
protections for food, forests, wildlife, and air quality have been
undermined as "trade barriers." At the WTO summit in Seattle,
the Administration needs to focus on fixing trade rules that sacrifice
environmental health and safety on the altar of economic globalization.
The Sierra Club believes that the WTO can be used to both promote trade
and protect the environment.
- Daniel Seligman, Director
Responsible Trade Program
Sierra Club
Political Stereotypes: Bad
Many National Journal readers credit your publication with high-quality
analysis and effective presentation, deservedly so. Permit me one
reservation, however.
You seem to share with the general media the habit of using political
stereotypes. I refer to Carl M. Cannon's "The Right's Take on
Bush" [10/23/99, p. 3086] and its reference to a "Republican
Right" (in the absence of a "Democratic Left") and to the
frequent use of "moderate Republican" in the Politics section
(and the absence of "moderate Democrat").
It is a sad day in this two-party democracy if we conclude that there is
no "left wing" of the Democratic Party and no need to single out
any Democrats as "moderate." Further, it would seem to be of
historical significance that "liberal Democrat" has fallen into
disuse, leaving just "Democrats" or, as illustrated by Charlie
Cook's article "A Who's Who of House Democrats at Risk" [in the
same issue, p. 3088], the occasional use of the term "centrist
Democrat."
- Lincoln Landis, Locust Grove, Va.
Dignified Solutions, Not Rip-offs
As a former White House staff member accustomed to relying on National
Journal's usually insightful and responsible reporting, I was surprised to
find a number of errors throughout "Payback Time for High-Fee
Lenders" [9/11/99, p. 2564].
The story misled readers by quoting someone from the Consumer Federation
of America, who said that 19 states prohibit payday advances. In fact, not
one state prohibits them.
Payday-advance customers are charged a fixed fee rather than an interest
rate. Thus the description in the article's lead--high-interest loans--is
inaccurate. And the assertion that the fees "total hundreds of
percentage points a year" is completely irrelevant. Just as a taxicab
would be a financially inappropriate way to travel across the country, a
payday advance is not designed for long-term borrowing. Misusing either
would be financially unsound. And the overwhelming majority of
payday-advance users use the product as it was intended: as a short-term
stopgap to meet unexpected cash shortfalls. Payday-advance companies give
consumers a dignified solution to their cash-flow problems without forcing
them to incur long-term debt or declare bankruptcy.
- Billy Webster, President-elect
Community Financial
Services Association of America
A Terminally Flawed Column
Stuart Taylor Jr.'s column [7/10/99, p. 2000] on legislation affecting
asbestos litigation is terminally flawed. He chose to ignore evidence
presented at the House Judiciary Committee hearing that did not fit his
predispositions, and his basic premise that courts are logjammed with
asbestos suits is wrong.
Simply put, an asbestos crisis does not exist.
Only 55 cases went through trials last year. In dozens of jurisdictions,
from Los Angeles to southern New Jersey, assignment judges have created
consolidation mechanisms to allow the free flow of asbestos claims through
courtrooms when they cannot be settled (as most are) beforehand.
Mr. Taylor stipulates that at least 25 companies (including almost all
asbestos manufacturers) have been "driven into bankruptcy."
Contrary to this exaggeration, almost all firms that did declare
bankruptcy used this device not only to reorganize and protect profits but
also to transfer assets into trusts. Such trusts were set up to compensate
asbestos victims and operate these revamped corporations effectively so
that future victims could also be compensated. Almost all of the
"bankrupt" companies--such as the former Johns-Manville Corp.
(today a vigorous multibillion-dollar corporation), UNR Industries,
Eagle-Picher Industries, and others--emerged in subsequently healthy
form.
- Richard Middleton, President
Association of Trial Lawyers of America
National Journal
