The issue isn’t birth control, it’s the Bill of Rights

To the editor:

In response to Richard Mundy’s Saturday letter on the birth control controversy:

This is not about birth control but about the protection we are all afforded under the First Amendment. It is apparent that Mr. Mundy is not familiar with the First Amendment of our Bill of Rights, which says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

It amazes me that liberals such as Mr. Mundy and those in the mainstream media are quick to defend a single atheist protesting a manger depicting the baby Jesus, when placed for public viewing at Christmas, as a violation of the First Amendment. But when Christians — and, in particular Catholics — want this same guarantee applied to them, they are demonized.

Mr. Mundy also fails to address the fact that many of the Southern Baptist churches have joined together and formed their own insurance company to self-insure medical benefits for their employees, not all of whom are Baptists. Because they own their own insurance company this “Obama accommodation” does not apply to them, so they will be subject to millions of dollars in fines if they don’t provide the morning after pill, which the Obama administration considers a birth control pill all employers must include in their employee health care coverage despite the fact that many religions consider it medication that causes an abortion.

In the mind of Mr. Mundy and other liberal Democrats, the Constitution applies only when it suits their ideology. I don’t think this is what our Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote it.

Barry Perea

Las Vegas

One-way street

To the editor:

The Feb. 1 article, “Foreclosure rulings issued,” says the (state) Supreme Court will hear appeals from the state mediation program. This legislatively mandated program is yet another example of the desire to do good gone bad.

No doubt, the mortgage holders, usually banks, should be required to produce sufficient documentation to prove their claim to a property foreclosure right.

But isn’t this a two-way street? It seems that the Nevada Legislature was trying to turn the foreclosure documentation issue into a one-way street — the mortgage holders and the rest of us who are current in our mortgages be damned.

Who was helped here by this legislation? The mortgage holder who isn’t getting paid, homeowners who are current with their payments, those owning their property outright, or the estimated 8,000 homeowners in whose cases mediators said the foreclosure claimant had insufficient documentation, thereby voiding the claim? All the while most of these 8,000 occupants will continue to remain in the house, most likely paying nothing.

At mediation, if the defendant cannot prove he owns the property outright or present documentation showing that he has been making proper payments, then why is he still occupying the property? If the mortgage holder cannot produce all the required documentation and the defendant cannot prove that he owns the property outright, is making proper payments or that there is a temporary mutual agreement to pay rent while the property is in dispute, then the court needs to place the property into a receivership and evict the occupants.

At this point, the property can be rented and managed by a court-appointed property manager until the right of ownership is resolved.

Richard Rychtarik

Las Vegas

Hand out

To the editor:

On Feb. 5, the Review-Journal (Page 5B) reported that 27 U.S. congressional representatives voted in opposition to a bill prohibiting the use of welfare debit cards in strip clubs, liquor stores and casinos. They claimed as their excuse for voting ‘No’ that some of their constituents lacked convenient access to grocery stores.

This news item raises questions.

How is it that welfare debit cards became legal tender in strip clubs, liquor stores and casinos in the first place? Which congressional districts do these 27 ‘Nay’ voters represent? Why would their constituents be living in neighborhoods served by these businesses and not grocery stores?

Observed reality leads to some unpleasant assumptions and a final question. Generous welfare, offered with very modest restrictions, erupted out the Great Society programs enacted during the Johnson administration. Support for ever more easy access to government largess almost invariable comes from members of the Democratic Party, elected and re-elected by generations of constituents who have become dependent upon government policies favorable to their desires and lapsed into ambivalence toward the traditional constraints of taking personal responsibility for individual behavior.

So, considering the sad reality of life in the districts represented by these 27 jackasses, why would anyone ever vote for an incumbent Democrat?

ALLEN HAWKES

LAS VEGAS