‘Heartbeat’ bill is hypocritical
If the “Heartbeat” bill passes, the state government will essentially seize control of a pregnant woman. Why isn’t it equally willing to seize control of the father? The bill allows the woman to pursue the father for health expenses but takes no actual action against him. If the government can force a woman to cede her body to the state, why can’t that government force a man to cede control of his assets to support her? And what about adoption? My niece and her husband are unable to conceive, saved $28,000 to adopt their daughter and are saving money to adopt a second child. Is the government willing to seize a man’s assets to pay for adoption?
This legislation is hypocritical. It’s easy to pass legislation that connects with voters on an emotional level. But when it comes to asking people for money to take care of pre-born and born children, the moral certainty dries up.
Let’s link the following to the heartbeat legislation: “A tax increase of 2 percent will be used to support all pregnancy and adoption expenses for each unintended pregnancy.”
How many members of our legislature would support that?
Lisa Erlendson Scott
Dayton, Tennessee
Confederate, lynching memorials reminders
I just read an article written by TFP staff writer Myron Madden. I found his article (March 13, North Georgia Community News) informative.
But I found one of the statements quoting Beverly Foster, president of the Walker County African American Historical & Alumni Association, about lynching memorials confusing. She said, “We need all of these memorials so we can remember what happened in our history [so it] never happens again.” What I found interesting was the same thing could be said about all of the Confederate memorials. It was a terrible time in our history, and we need to remember so that we will never let it happen again, and that is what I see when I see those memorials.
Just like it was a terrible time when lynchings occurred. Just like this memorial reminds us of that period of history, so do the Confederate memorials. If you try to remove a part of history, then it stands a chance to repeat.
Cal Lamb
Judge Jeanine is unfairly silenced
Where is Judge Jeanine?
Judge Jeanine Pirro has lost her seat at the table because she questions the obvious.
Previously, I watched her ill-treatment on “The View” when she was ushered out because she voiced that she liked the president. Then the anti-Semitic remarks made by a freshman congresswoman troubled TV viewers.
These remarks against Jews hurt. Yes, words have consequences when they hurt others!
“Others,” defined in today’s culture, means when I favor what you have to say. If I differ with what you have to say, then words matter! When a freshman congresswoman recently made anti-Semitic comments, congressional leadership helped reword her remarks and gave her a pass. She was not admonished or suspended from her seat. The suspension of Judge Jeanine from Fox News is a travesty. Fox News, you have silenced a conservative from exercising her free speech right. Her intent was not to hurt others but to evoke feedback from her talk show audience.
I support the conservative viewpoint, love America, value our democracy and uphold our Constitution. Everyone should be concerned about how social media is molding our thinking to fit its agenda.
Esther Butler Taj
Ooltewah, Tennessee