Sister Pauline Kelly leads by example Re: “Credo: Sister Pauline Kelly,” Feb. 19
How comforting it is to read about someone who has dedicated her life to the service of others in a world of many people who seem most concerned with how they can increase their wealth, their comforts and their so-called rights without concern for how these activities affect others.
Sister Pauline is a member of the Little Sisters of the Poor whose mission is to care for the poor elderly and to beg for their sustenance. Her basic belief is: “I believe that all men and women are created in the image and likeness of God, and that all human life is sacred from the moment of conception to natural death.”
It would be a wonderful place if everyone adopted Sister Pauline’s credo.
Diane Hess
Damascus
Libertarians and neo-objectivists have stark differences
Re: “A call to true conservative-movement libertarians,” Feb. 17
Chris Malagisi created two distinct categories of libertarians in his article, but fails to use precise definitions in his categorizations. The author’s first mistake is incorrectly labeling followers of Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, no doubt the modern leader of the libertarian movement, “neo-Objectivists” and classifying them as radicals.
In fact, an objectivist is someone who adheres to the political philosophy of Ayn Rand, which includes five key elements — politics, of course, but also metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and aesthetics.
“Neo-Objectivists” have nothing to do with Paul followers or vice-versa. Paul’s following is so large and diverse that it would be difficult to appropriately categorize them, but it would certainly be more accurate to use phrases like advocates of constitutional government, classical liberals, or liberty activists. Modern objectivists would also object to the author’s use of the term “Neo-Objectivist” to describe Paul supporters because Rand’s supporters tend to be hawkish on foreign policy while Ron Paul and his followers are noninterventionists (not isolationists, as the author states).
Malagisi also uses the phrase “conservative-movement libertarians” to describe advocates of individual liberty and limited government who are willing to work with other conservatives to achieve fusionist goals. “Conservative-movement” implies that libertarian-minded members of a fusionist coalition with conservatives will put a movement ahead of the ideas that we know to be true.
A more accurate phrase would be “conservative-libertarian coalition” in which both conservative and libertarian ideas are contemplated, rather than just conservative ideas being implemented with libertarians along for the ride.
If the author wants to include libertarians in his coalition, he should put in more effort to understand some of the most basic definitions of the terms that define our beliefs. Further, he should not exclude the most passionate activists in modern politics.
If politicians in any conservative-libertarian coalition are simply going to use libertarian supporters to advance a liberty-crushing agenda, they will not be able to count on support from libertarians for long.
I say that as a libertarian who is more than willing to work with conservatives to advance liberty in our country.
Aaron Biterman
Vice chairman
Republican Liberty Caucus
Arlington
Planned Parenthood provides valuable services
As a community-based provider of preventative health care, Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington has provided medical care and family planning services to men, women and teens throughout the D.C. metro region for over 70 years. Last year more than 26,000 patients came to one of our five health centers to receive 19,020 sexually transmitted infection tests, 3,274 cervical cancer screenings and 3,189 breast exams. For many, our doctors and nurses are the only health care providers they see.
PPMW is on the leading edge of encouraging the use of contraception for those wanting to avoid pregnancy. Eliminating federal funding would certainly guarantee an increase in the number of unintended pregnancies. I am mystified as to why people who say they are opposed to abortion would do so much to undermine access to birth control that helps prevent the need for it.
While the amendment to prohibit Planned Parenthood from receiving federal funding does nothing to reduce the deficit or to improve the economy, it does cut off access to early cancer detection as well as other lifesaving services.
The action by the House is radically out of step with mainstream American values and it is out of line with the issues voters want Congress to focus on. We must now turn to the Senate to restore sanity.
Dr. Laura Meyers
President and CEO
Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington
Washington
