Regardless of how you feel about banning abortion 20 weeks after fertilization of the egg, it is curious that the senators who are spearheading this effort are fiscal conservatives (“GOP aims for national abortion restrictions; Portman joins push for new legislation,” July 28). They represent a disturbing trend.
Many of the most militant pro-life supporters oppose social programs that would support the mother and child after birth. They don’t want to fund care programs for the infants, education and job training for the mothers, or health care that would help take care of these children.
Objections to funding social programs are often hidden in talk about reducing government, or reducing taxes on the wealthy and corporations so that jobs can be created.
It is time for members of the pro-life movement to put their money where their rhetoric is, and start helping women and children after the nine months they so virtuously focus on.
An adoptee’s tale: Not a statistic
Five months after I was born in November, 1950, I was adopted. In 2008, after my adoptive parents had passed away, I decided to try to locate my birth family.
When I received a copy of my birth certificate, I discovered that my birth mother was a single girl who had turned 16 about two weeks before my birth. There was no father listed. Although I was born in Toledo Hospital, my birth mother’s legal residence was listed as Springfield, Ohio.
I found my birth family in central Ohio. My birth mother passed away in 1999, but she had several surviving siblings. They had no clue that I existed. Apparently, when my birth mother became pregnant, people were told that she had a severe case of rheumatic fever.
If the abortion laws of 1950 had been the abortion laws of today, I might easily have been an abortion statistic. Speaking on behalf of the countless souls who were conceived under similar circumstances, I encourage passage and enforcement of laws that protect the rights of any conceived human.
South Beverly Hills Drive
Huntington cut Elmore local color
I was amused by your article about Huntington Bank’s efforts to make its branches more welcoming by making free pens available (“Huntington bank aiming to pen its own success story,” July 16).
If Huntington really wanted to make itself more welcoming, it would not have removed every vestige of personality from its buildings.
The Huntington branch in Elmore is in an historic building that originally was the Bank of Elmore. Its beautiful stained glass over each entrance is now covered by ugly green signs.
Inside, there were paintings by local artists. These have been removed. Local groups are no longer welcome to advertise their activities in the lobby.
The interior is not welcoming. It is sterile and has no personality.
Elmore is a small town. Our traditions are important to us. Its bank was part of several larger banking companies before Huntington took it over. None of those other companies felt the need to erase the local flavor of the building.
Huntington wants to give the message of being more welcoming? Giving away a few pens isn’t going to do it.