THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Thursday, August 11, 1994 TAG: 9408110007
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A14 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Letter
LENGTH: Short : 40 lines
Your editorial on the abortion-clinic shootings (``The law and Paul Hill,'' Aug. 3) was very disturbing. To compare members of the ``fringe element'' in the anti-choice movement, who have seen fit to murder three individuals, with animal-rights protesters, gay activists and environmentalists is absurd.
Your logic was faulty and your tone unctuous. Freeing laboratory animals, passing out condoms during a church service and shouting harsh words at an anti-war demonstration are not the same as killing people who are providing legal services.
Was it really necessary to imply that Dr. Britton was in some way at fault for turning down a police escort? Would it not have been more appropriate to just condemn the actions of the murderer rather than use this tragedy to champion the anti-choice movement?
Instead of adopting an insensitive, scolding posture, wouldn't The Virginian-Pilot and The Ledger-Star have better served readers with an editorial on how to change current laws governing abortion - change brought about by working within our legal system and not by violence?
As a longtime reader, I am unhappy with the shift in the editorial stance of The Pilot. I assume that editorial page editor John A. Barnes will continue to present his anti-choice position with great regularity. That doesn't bother me as much as the addition of unremarkable columnists who supposedly supply ``balance'' and the daily barrage of errors/typos.
I travel often and have always appreciated the fact that my local paper was one of the best in the country. It added to the quality of life and made it easier to stay in Hampton Roads. I no longer feel that way.
CAROL TAYLOR
Norfolk, Aug. 4, 1994 by CNB