Sen. Roberts should be consistent, vote for impeachment

To the editor:

In 1998 Sen. Pat Roberts voted that either one of the following alone should result in removal of the president: perjury related to inappropriate sexual behavior, or obstruction of justice related to the same.

The first of these was a crime, though arguably not a “high crime” — i.e. one connected to the power of the office. I believe the second one should have resulted in removal of Mr. Clinton from office.

Now we have a president who refuses to testify, presumably to avoid perjury; who has obstructed congressional investigations; and who has abused his power, this time related to damaging our national security. And yes, he also violated laws. He blackmailed a foreign leader (solicitation of bribery — a specific cause for impeachment named in the Constitution), and he withheld enacted military aid from a besieged ally (violation of the Impoundment Control Act). Please insist Sen. Roberts be consistent with his previous principles and vote to remove this president from office. Call Sen. Roberts today at (202) 224-4774, and write him at 109 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510.

Richard Kasbeer,

Monterey, California

Pro-life supporters should focus on things like affordable contraception

To the editor:

There is a very important bill in Topeka that is being rushed through the legislature. It is a constitutional amendment HCR 5019/SCR 1613 that denies the right to reproductive freedom in the Kansas Constitution.

The bill calls for a statement to be added to the Kansas Constitution, which includes the words “there is no Kansas constitutional right to an abortion.”

The Kansas Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that the constitution allows personal autonomy and self-determination, which includes the right to an abortion.

This bill is a response to this ruling, and the intent is to specifically take that right out of the constitution. This would allow legislators to make any law regarding abortion, and it would be constitutional, subject to the US constitution.

I was at the joint committee hearing, and heard testimony from both sides. Supporters of the amendment (abortion opponents) often stated misinformation regarding accepted medical attitudes and practices. They seemed to lack understanding of the issues women face in domestic violence, especially in cases of rape and incest.

Their comments were a litany of restrictive laws they would like to see passed.

There were over twice as many opponents of the amendment (pro-choice). One of the most persuasive arguments to me for maintaining the right to abortion in Kansas came from several Jewish people.

They quoted the Bible and told us their ethics place the welfare of the mother first, and life only starts at birth. If anti-abortion Christians in the legislature have their way, they will take away the ability of Jewish people to practice their faith and ethics.

Who knows what other religious rights they would trample?

The best way to end abortion is to provide affordable, easily accessible contraception.

A pregnant woman would be less likely to abort an unplanned pregnancy if she had support at her job with the physical challenges, equal pay, and maternity leave.

After a child is born, a truly pro-life government would make sure that child has enough food to eat, clean air and water, a quality education through college or trade school, affordable housing, and affordable health care access from cradle to grave. Abortion should not be ended through forced childbearing.

Dawn Olney,

Prairie Village

Recommended for you