Letters to the Editor Bedford Journal

Why is town paving Joppa Hill Road?

To the Editor:

I would like to know why the town of Bedford spent so much money to pave the dirt part of Joppa Hill Road this summer.

I hope it’s not to sell the "former" Florence Tarr Wildlife Sanctuary to a developer. That would be a shame and against Ms. Tarr’s wishes to preserve the land.

Donna Blais

Bedford

Ayotte’s failing record on women’s health

To the Editor:

As a practicing obstetrician gynecologist for over 34 years I am disappointed with Kelly Ayotte’s persistent attempts to limit access by the women of New Hampshire to affordable medical services including contraception, cancer detection, breast exams and STD prevention.

She has consistently voted to limit funding of Planned Parenthood, an important provider of healthcare to many poor and uninsured women, including over 12,000 in New Hampshire alone.

She has also supported amendments and laws to allow employers to opt out of contraception and other coverage they find personally objectionable.

Voting in lock with the Republicans, she has attempted to repeal the Affordable Care Act which has enabled millions of Americans to obtain essential preventative services.

It is time for Ayotte and her fellow Republicans to stop trying to force their way into decisions that should only be made between a woman and her doctor.

Despite their continued attacks on women’s healthcare, the Guttmacher Institute recently reported that the rate of abortions in this country is plummeting, as are unintended pregnancies, while birth rates have stayed stable. These changes are almost certainly due to readily available and affordable contraception and family planning services.

When voters go to the polls next November they should hold Ayotte accountable for her repeated attempts to undermine families and women’s health and put additional economic burdens on women and families as a result of a purely partisan crusade.

Wayne L. Goldner, MD FACOG

Bedford

Planned Parenthood or 1st Amendment?

To the Editor:

Morally, murder has always been defined as the intentional taking of another human being’s life. Abortion is obviously intentional taking of another human life and there are, and always have been, alternatives of adoption.

Abortion is most often a convenience issue rather than a health issue, as indicated by the very words "planned parenthood."

Of course, when large populations discard a morality it is futile to attempt contrary legislation, but at least we should abide by the laws, especially the supreme law (Constitution) we have.

Although mental gymnastics, rationalization and legal distinctions of defining an arbitrary beginning of life may relieve some people’s consciences, it cannot relieve others, particularly multiple millions of Judeo-Christian religious adherents.

Jefferson stated in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, the basis of the First Amendment, "…to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical…" Compelling people to contribute for acts they believe abhorrent is even more tyrannical.

Although there are some basic governmental functions people may need to be compelled to contribute to (e.g., police, courts, defense), parental planning certainly is not one of them.

Free exercise of religion and speech includes use of one’s money to exercise those freedoms.

Those working in and supporting Planned Parenthood would certainly not tolerate being required to support churches that are against abortion with their tax money. Therefore, there is no rational reason the reverse can be any more just.

As churches or other health organizations are fully funded through voluntary contributions, there is no reason Planned Parenthood cannot be funded through voluntary contributions.

Eldon Rash

Bedford

Bernie represents in a way Obama didn’t

To the Editor:

Like many Americans, I’ve grown frustrated with Washington. The political dramas. The influence of Wall Street. I don’t often feel like there is a place for me at the political table.

As a wide-eyed 20-year-old in 2008, I was hopeful that Obama would speak to those concerns. So I volunteered. I made cold calls. I canvassed. I was even lucky enough to meet him along the trail. And while I do admit Obama has done a lot in the last eight years I see now how naive I had been. I genuinely believed he could turn around Washington but as the years passed I realized the political game was alive and well.

And now I’ve been introduced to Bernie Sanders. But something is different. I’m no longer naive about the realities that face us.

For example, the need for real social justice reform. I truly feel that Bernie Sanders represents me in a way that Obama never did. And while other politicians might claim they’re fighting for the "working class" they’ll often avoid naming those responsible for the wealth gap.

With so much of their campaign money wrapped up in the millionaire class it makes it difficult for candidates (including Hillary Clinton) to speak candidly and honestly about income inequality and how to fix it. But not Bernie. He isn’t beholden to those that fund his campaign; he’s beholden to the actual voters – voters like you.

Kim Paniagua

Manchester