Dear Editor,

After reading the editorial in regard to the Catholic bishops we felt that we had to make some comments.

The bishops are not the Catholic Church, they are our leaders in the United States and as such are trying to protect us and our religious liberties and we appreciate it. The church is made of the individual members and the individual members are the church. The church is made of millions of individual members each trying to live by their conscience. These members are not only bishops and priests but doctors, nurses, teachers, business owners, employees and others.

This mandate is not an agreement between the president and the bishops but an infringement on the religious freedom of all members. Religious freedom is addressed in the First Amendment and is one of the reasons the country was established, going back to the Pilgrims. When a person is told they must do something that they feel is wrong it definitely is an infringement on their religious rights.

At a time when we are trying to protect our children against bullying, this is also a very good example of bullying when someone in power is trying to force people to do his will, he is bullying them.

Bob and Inez Kuestersteffen

Humboldt, Kan.

Dear Editor,

I read with interest your editorial on the bishop’s answer to Obama. There are a few things that need clarification. 

First, the editorial referred to a “compromise.” Obama and all his people very carefully avoided that word and said accommodation. An accommodation leaves in place the very heart of the issue, the mandate he is trying to enforce. One of Obama’s first acts in office was a repeal of conscience rights granted to health care employees. And this was followed by an attempt to dictate hiring practices of religious institutions. This is his third attack. Is this a pattern?

Second, this issue has been framed by the administration as an issue of contraception. That is only partly true. Of particular concern to me is the “morning after” pill. In those cases where conception has already taken place, this pill stops implantation. Why is this crucial? At the instant of fertilization, a new life comes into being. And that new being is genetically human. Preventing implantation causes that human being to abort. Until 1965 the medical definition of when pregnancy began had for centuries been accepted to be at fertilization, called conception. But at the 1959 Planned Parenthood/Population Council symposium that began to change. Dr. Bent Boving asked to change the definition of pregnancy by simply moving conception from fertilization to implantation. He argued that there was a social advantage of having birth control preventing conception rather than ending an existing pregnancy. It only took six years to convince the American College of OB and Gyns to redefine pregnancy to agree with the Planned Parenthood definition. So by this definition a woman is considered “non-pregnant” but has been carrying a live human being for six days, the average time from fertilization to implantation. That is not contraception but abortion.

Third, supposedly the insurance companies will furnish all these things for free. The ration-ale is that this would be cheaper for them than paying for a birth according to Mr. Lew, the president’s adviser. I’m over 65. Will it be cheaper one day for them to pay for one pill to end my life than to continue paying for my health care? Where does the mandating of health care options end? And who will make all those decisions? Remember Pelosi’s words that you have to pass the bill to know what is in it. No one knew this was in it — until now. What else is there in the act?

Finally, I think the bishops and other people of faith should insist on the proven, tested, and Supreme Court adjudicated First Amendment right of freedom of religion and conscience. When weighed against a newly fabricated and untested right to free contraception, sterilization and “morning after” pills, I believe the First Amendment is the much stronger and time-tested choice. What we need is a freedom of conscience bill passed by Congress and signed by the president. This would be for all people of faith, not just Catholics. Do you think Obama would sign it?

Dave Roos

Iola, Kan.

It’s hard to remember, but the health insurance mandate now being attacked by Republicans got its start in conservative circles in the days of HillaryCare.

Republicans then were looking for ways to attack the Clinton administration’s universal health care proposal and settled on requiring every American buy health insurance. That was, they argued, a better solution than a national health care program based on the English or Canadian models.

An insurance mandate, they said, would make certain no one free-loaded on the system. It was, conservatives insisted, in the tradition of individual responsibility.

My, how quickly “the truth” changes its shape.

A HISTORICAL REVIEW written by Michael Cooper for Wednesday’s New York Times tells the story:

“ . . . The concept that people should be required to buy health coverage was fleshed out more than two decades ago by a number of conservative economists, embraced by scholars at conservative research groups, including the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute and championed, for a time, by Republicans in the Senate.

“The individual mandate, as it is known, was seen then as a conservative alternative to some of the health care approaches favored by liberals — like creating a national health service or requiring employers to provide health insurance.

“ . . . It is now Republicans and conservatives who oppose the individual mandate, arguing that it is unconstitutional, while Democrats, who were long resistant to it, are its biggest defenders.

“Democratic health care analysts have been taken aback by the speed with which Republicans have made the individual mandate a symbol of socialist totalitarianism to much of their base.

“‘I noted the irony of a Republican idea being the source of Republican opposition,’” said Neera Tanden, president of the center for American Progress, a liberal research group, who served in the Obama administration and as the policy director for Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2008.

“ . . . These shifting political winds have become a major factor in the presidential campaign. Mitt Romney is often challenged by Republican rivals about the health care law he signed as governor of Massachusetts, which also contains an insurance mandate. Mr. Gingrich is often asked about his years of support for the idea. And Mr. Obama — who opposed the individual mandate four years ago as a candidate, but came to accept it as president — is now waiting to see whether the Supreme Court upholds the idea or strikes it down.

“ . . .  Some conservatives originally saw the individual mandate as a way to make certain that uninsured people who become ill or injured — but were still entitled by law to medical treatment — did not push the cost of their care onto others.”

President Bill Clinton, however, opposed it because it was “a business mandate,” which would require citizens to enrich health insurance companies. His solution was to require employers to provide health coverage for their employees. In response, a large group of Republican senators, including Bob Dole of Kansas, proposed a bill that would require individuals, not employers, to buy coverage.

AH, WELL, so the politics of health care have made a 180-degree switch all in the lifetime of a college freshman. The story is worth remembering as the campaign continues. Recalling this colossal flip-flop gives balance and perspective to the debate. The lesson is that if you are absolutely certain about any political precept, you are very likely to be absolutely wrong.

— Emerson Lynn, jr.

One of the ways the Kansas House of Representatives proposes to finance an income tax cut is to transfer money from the Department of Transportation budget to the general fund.

The transfer the House leadership has in mind is at least $159.6 million and may be as much as $180 million, depending on who does the math.

Unfortunately, there is nothing new in this tactic. Legislatures and governors have been using KDOT as a piggy bank for more than two decades. More than $1 billion has been taken from the transportation budget and spent elsewhere. 

But KDOT is no miraculous money tree. If the Legislature takes these millions away from KDOT and, in effect, hands them to the upper income Kansans who will benefit most from the governor’s income tax cuts, highway construction projects will be trimmed back or eliminated. 

This isn’t a good trade for several reasons. First, there is no economic justification for the upper bracket income tax reductions. To say the high earners will take the money and create jobs with it is unsubstantiated theory. The money would be saved or spent in as many different ways as there are beneficiaries of this soak-the-poor, coddle-the-rich theory.

Second, highway projects create jobs. Cutting the KDOT budget will increase unemployment in Kansas. This is straight-forward, one-to-one math. There is no better way to stimulate an economy than to invest money in needed public works. Conversely, reducing spending on building highways, bridges, schools and other public facilities immediately shrinks employment and reduces consumer spending.

Third, Kansas has a superior network of highways because Kansas has invested wisely in its transportation system. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why Kansas has not suffered as much from the recession as other states. It is essential to our state’s continued well-being to keep our highways superior by maintaining them well and improving them where improvement is needed. That can’t happen if the Legislature continues to rob the KDOT budget and governors continue to encourage that larceny.

Four, the transfer of money from KDOT to the general fund for ideological purposes is a legal fraud. It is fraudulent because Kansans think the tax on highway fuels goes to build and maintain highways. Using it to give tax breaks to those who don’t need them is low-level, political theft. 

STATE TRANSPORTATION departments that have budget security and can plan ahead with confidence spend less on transportation because the in-state contractors they use for construction and substantial maintenance also have security, can depend on having work every year and can assemble and maintain skilled crews and modern, adequate equipment. These at-home contractors such as Se-Kan Asphalt of Gas are an enormous asset. But it is an asset put at risk when the state treats highway funding as though it were free money that can be spent willy-nilly.

Let’s look at it for what it is: Spending KDOT funds to cut income taxes is spending it to buy votes. Period. Kansas deserves better.

—  Emerson Lynn, jr.