How does God feel about support for abortion?
To the editor:
I am also compelled to respond to Mrs. Bricker’s article of “Yes, Christians can vote Democrat.” My question to her (and all other God fearing Christians) is how she thinks God feels about all the unborn babies that have been aborted over the years mainly due to the Democrats’ stand on abortion?
Pa. GOP actions fly in face of fair elections
To the editor:
On Sept. 28, 2020, Pa. Rep. Everett introduced PA House Resolution 1032 in the State Government Committee. The resolution was ostensibly intended to create an “Election Integrity Commission,” with powers to take testimony and subpoena documents, and to investigate the conduct of elections in the Commonwealth, including the present presidential election scheduled for Nov. 3, 2020. The resolution was voted out of committee the same day.
The resolution contained no limits on the proposed Commission’s powers, nor did it state that those powers were to be exercised after the conclusion of the pending election.
After reading the resolution myself, I came to the conclusion that many other people have reached: this proposal was and is intended to empower the Republican majority in the Pa. House to interfere with the regular process of counting votes in the Commonwealth during the period from election day, Nov. 3, to Nov. 7, the day on which official counts are to be made by each County. By granting this power to themselves, the Republicans want to control the outcome of the election, by laying the foundation for any number of scenarios that could be used to justify action by the state legislature to declare the Republican nominee for president the winner of Pennsylvania’s electoral votes. This goal seems entirely consistent with that nominee’s own delusional prediction of widespread election fraud, and the entire Republican Party’s slavish obedience to his every delusional whim.
The Pa. House majority leader, Kerry Benninghoff, has reportedly decided to not forward this Resolution for a vote by the full House until after Nov. 3. His statement is carefully crafted, and does not eliminate the threat this resolution poses to the regular completion of the ballot count for the general election on Nov. 3. Election results are not final in Pennsylvania until at least the following Friday, when the official count is conducted. That time line is of greater importance in this election, because Pennsylvania law does not permit counting ballots received from mail-in or absentee voters until after the close of the polls on election day. Although logistically a challenge, the creation, organization and initial meeting of the Commission proposed by HR1032 could be done in the week of Nov. 2, could effectively create delays in the completion of the official count and could achieve the apparent goal of the Republican majority.
Some may say “all’s fair in love and war,” or express approval of such underhanded tactics, because, after all, the majority rules in a republic. I disagree. This tactic reeks of a desire to reverse or forestall an outcome of an election that is likely to be unfavorable to the Republicans if all the ballots cast are counted, and is an open attack on the fundamental principle of the free and fair conduct of elections in this Commonwealth. Everyone of good faith who wants this Commonwealth and the United States of America to continue to be the home of liberty and justice should object to such maneuvers.
Andrew L. Winder
More must be done to stop pharmaceutical bribery
To the editor:
I am taking a “Prescription Drugs, Policy, and Public Health” class during my final semester as a Master of Public Health student at the George Washington University. During our lectures, we discussed the ethical issues surrounding prescription drug advertising. As mentioned in the “Families Hoping for Justice from Prescription Bribes Trial” article, there are several ethical dilemmas with an open market that allows for the bribing of physicians by pharmaceutical companies.
As a former college athlete, I sat through numerous National Collegiate Athletic Association meetings regarding the negative consequences of accepting monetary gifts from coaches and organizations, including loss of athletic eligibility. While this regulation may seem trivial, like in the case of receiving a free meal, these rules are in place for a reason.
With such rules put into place for college athletes, why are we not holding physicians and prescription drug representatives to the same standards? Drug representatives that are constantly bombarding physicians with advertising ploys could lead to negative impacts on treatment received by patients.
There are several pros and cons to implementing policies that limit monetary gifts and endorsements by pharmaceutical companies to physicians or their practices. As in everything that we do in public health, studies need to be conducted to further evaluate the psychological and physical impacts of such policies. For now, we need to assess what is happening in real-time and deal with instances of malpractice, such as described in the abovementioned article, to the best of our ability.