Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: FRIDAY, March 31, 1995 TAG: 9504060002
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-10 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
I voted for my legislative representatives, and expect them to toughen our lax driving-under-the-influence laws any way possible to keep deadly drunken drivers off the road. Judges shouldn't make arbitrary rulings at the lower-court level nullifying such legislation. Appellate courts are for that, and the defendant, under the existing statute, has a right to go that route after he or she has been punished at the lower-court level. For lower-court judges to do otherwise flies in the face of the legislative process, which expresses the majority's will.
One aspect of the new law hasn't been publicized enough: For a suspect's license to be revoked for seven days at the time of arrest, either the person submits to a breath test, and the blood-alcohol content must be .08 percent or more (the lawful standard in Virginia for a presumption of intoxication), or the person refuses to submit to the test - indicating to most that the person thinks he/she is guilty of being too drunk to drive. In other words, a minimum standard of guilt is established, indicating that the arrested person has temporarily given up his/her ``privilege'' (not ``right'') to drive.
What is almost as appalling as judges' freeing those who may be dangerous to society is that some law-enforcement agencies now refuse to carry out the law. I suggest that public servants - sworn to uphold laws whether agreeing with them or not - take this tact: Follow the letter of the law, and let judges throw out cases if they so desire. Then spread the word to friends, neighbors and legislators prior to those judges being considered for reappointment by the General Assembly.
North Carolinians caught driving under the influence in Virginia say that they're thankful not to have been caught in their own state, where administrative revocation has worked well for a number of years (as it has in some 35 other states). Let's hope that not much longer will a drunken driver caught in Roanoke be relieved that he wasn't caught in Martinsville, where the law is enforced.
WILLIAM H. CRAIG
STUART
Sponsoring war on Indians
RECENTLY OUR president, against the wishes of elected representatives of the American people, extended to Mexico several billions of dollars as loans and gifts. (When dealing with Mexico, the difference between loans and gifts is very confusing.) It's a given fact that a large percentage of this money will be spent on estates, summer homes, yachts, sports cars and other ``necessities'' for Mexican bureaucrats. I don't even resent this, for graft is a fact of life when dealing with Mexico.
What I do resent is money being used by the Mexican military to suppress the Mayan Indians in Chiapas Province. These ``troublemakers'' in Chiapas are asking for such things as a voice in their government, education for their children, access to the most basic health care and some public services, such as roads and clean water. The Mexican response to the Mayan resistance has been well-publicized dialogue followed by the Mexican army using American machine guns and tanks to suppress the dissidents. I thought that our government's provision of funds for soldiers to kill Indians went out of fashion some time ago. I guess I was mistaken.
FRANK F. HILL JR.
ROANOKE
Property owners got no protection
IT'S IRONIC that state Sen. Malfourd ``Bo'' Trumbo and Del. Creigh Deeds sponsored a bill granting the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries the power to regulate enclosed hunting preserves when both men left Virginia's property owners without any legislation requiring hunters with hounds to seek written permission of the landowner before hunting on or retrieving dogs from posted property.
Pat Laudermilk, a member of the locally run Citizens, Farmers and Hunters Coalition, who is quoted in the Feb. 27 news article (``It's no game: Battle lines cross preserves"), is concerned about the ethics of hunting tamed animals, and adds that it's not a fair chase. Imagine the scenario: Hunters pull up to your property, let their dogs loose so they can run all the wildlife off your property, and then follow them using radio transmitters until the animal is treed on the National Forest where it can legally be killed.
Animals living on the Boar Walla Hunting Preserve can rest easy because they're protected from outside hunting pressures by a woven-wire fence.
Thanks to Trumbo and Deeds, anyone with a hunting license and a pack of dogs can hunt anywhere in Virginia now, including posted property, and all in the name of fair chase!
ROB BENNETT
BUCHANAN
Paying twice for pension benefits
IN RESPONSE to Ruth G. Cunningham's March 11 letter to the editor ``Federal retirees' issue still nettles'':
My husband retired from the federal government, and I receive his benefits as his widow. For many years, he stayed with the federal government for the benefits, not the pay scale. He could have made more pay outside, but I'm grateful he didn't.
We had to move several times to keep those benefits. Cunningham could have done the same, so she shouldn't be envious. I pay taxes, and also pay full taxes on his pension. He paid into that pension fund, and I feel I'm paying taxes twice on that part which goes to pay for services the federal government provides.
ELEANOR FASSETT
ROANOKE
Pro-choice women aren't all liberals
I TAKE issue with Bobby D. Jones' Feb. 27 letter to the editor ``Foster's credibility is the issue.'' He questions the credibility of Dr. Henry Foster, surgeon general nominee, as well as the terminology of labels.
Foster's accountability shouldn't be confused with poor media coverage. His record shows that he's a well-qualified candidate for the position of surgeon general. The successful ``I Have a Future'' program created by him advocates abstinence as the only foolproof plan to prevent pregnancy, and it has helped to significantly reduce teen pregnancy. Foster's role in performing abortions shouldn't be an issue, as he did so legally.
As to Jones' disagreement with labeling, he wasn't hesitant to label pro-choice advocates as liberal. We who believe in the freedom of choice come from many political factions, and cannot all be classified as liberal. You would think ``less government,'' a coined phrase of the right, would also pertain to not interfering in women's reproductive freedom.
As far as confusion over the definition of the term pro-choice that Jones has, pro-choice doesn't mean anti-life or pro-death. To say so is absurd. Choice in this case means women have the right to choose reproductive alternatives for themselves, and we have the right to have control over our own bodies.
JENNIFER NOLEN
ROANOKE
Agency's valuable contribution
I SUPPORT Kathryn B. Haynie's position in her March 18 letter to the editor (``Planned Parenthood prevents unwanted pregnancies''). Having been a supporter and a patient of Planned Parenthood for many years now, I was glad to see her set some records straight. Those who condemn the organization should take a hard, honest, objective look at what they're condemning.
One thing I appreciate most about Planned Parenthood is its ability to gracefully straddle the picket lines. People who are either ``pro-life'' or ``pro-choice'' can feel good about what the agency does for women: educating young people about their options, providing affordable reproductive-health care, and always listening and having a knowledgeable response to our many questions about birth control and sex in these confusing and dangerous times.
I think it's sad that we've drawn the lines we have. Often real issues are drowned out by a constant pro-life/pro-choice shouting match. Although personal views are certainly relevant, so are teen-age pregnancy rates, sexually transmitted diseases, AIDS and the lack of comprehensive sex education in public schools. Planned Parenthood does more than just talk about these issues. It makes an invaluable and commendable contribution.
MARA E. BRADBURN
RINER
by CNB