In your recent edition Regina Holt writes a very impassioned letter in defense of Sen. Obama's vote against the partial-birth abortion bill (Letters, Sept. 25). She attacks the "right-wing, anti-choice activists" for this bill. Medical authorities have stated that there is no purpose for this barbaric, inhuman procedure other than the termination of a viable life.

At the point where it is performed, it is well beyond the point of medical concern for the mother's life. Sen. Obama's vote was nothing more than political favor to the radical women's movement.

Also, separation of "church and state" is not a Constitutional principle. The Constitution guarantees "Freedom of Religion" not freedom from religion.

J. Edward Head

Elkridge

user comments (1)

user milton says...

Perhaps the writer of this letter has never read the the Bill of Rights.

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion..."

When life begins is a very gray area. That is why the decision to terminate a pregnancy should be left to the individuals involved, and not left to the government, nor to arrogant folks like Mr. Head. I bet that Mr. Head would sing a different tune if Muslims were in charge and trying to force their religion on him. Get a clue, bro.

Posted 2:31 PM, 10.02.08

• Permalink