No matter how it's rationalized, a recent Jim Davis political mailer yet again made a purposely misleading claim detailing Mr. John Snow's statements (and remarks he never made) as “attacks.”
Mr. Davis’ current letter writing defender, suggested he only “characterized this criticism as an attack.” Somehow “characterization” makes it acceptable to claim the “information” printed in the recent mailer is an “attack.” This is a disingenuous rationalization. A mistake? doubtful. Twisted rhetoric? A fib? No let's just call it what it is, - just another lie. Choosing another word, which changes the concept, intent and actual meaning, is indeed, lying.
The writer’s next statement attempts to demean and diminish Mr. Snow's valid response as “silly” and declares their choice of the descriptive word “attack” as “simply a subjective term.” Oh? Simply? How does this compute?
I, for one, am tired of the perpetual need to address women's health issues that are being minimized and “attacked” by men. I've written of this in the past. So have many others. Even more amazing, some women still produce a knee-jerk response to mis-labeled and misapplied socalled “values.” These well-intended values seem to cause acceptance of demeaning subjugation without any real thought. Thus, they go along with this and other absurdities.
Legislators who voted for the provision to de-fund Planned Parenthood are misguided if they believe their “cure” will change personal decisions to suit their prescription. A nationally syndicated editorial of the attempt to pass legislation to eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood and Title X said, “That federal program provides millions of women with birth control, lifesaving screening for breast and cervical cancer, and other preventive care. It is a highly effective way of preventing the unintended pregnancies and abortions that Republicans claim to be so worried about.”
These allocated federal dollars with certain state funds were to be used to support the above health issues - birth control, cancer screening, and preventive health care. To reduce or eliminate any of those funds detrimentally affects the efficiency of all programs, including testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections, teen pregnancy prevention, affordable contraception, education through Planned Parenthood programs, and contract with other providers.
At a recent League of Women Voters forum, I again heard Mr. Davis state a high percentage of low-income babies born in Angel Hospital were paid for by Medicaid. It seems it's Mr. Davis who can't have it both ways. Somehow, as night follows day, it would seem our electorate should applaud Mr. Snow's more rational approach to funding women's (men's and children's) health care, rather than the one advanced by Mr. Davis. Reason tells us that what Jim Davis labels as an “extreme liberal position” is actually the more “Christian,” humane, and ultimately, the most economical.
To Mr. Davis and all who insistently tout saving taxpayer dollars, the choice is clear. You need to learn and acknowledge the truth in the old adage, “a stitch in time, saves nine.”
Shirl Ches — Franklin, N.C.