You choose, we deliver
If you are interested in this story, you might be interested in others from The Journal Gazette. Go to and pick the subjects you care most about. We'll deliver your customized daily news report at 3 a.m. Fort Wayne time, right to your email.




Letís have public vote on other controversies

There is no need to repeat the laundry list of solid arguments against HJR 6. My letter concerns recent comments from our state’s leadership.

House Speaker Brian Bosma explains, “I don’t think that one person, one university president or one person in the board room of a corporation should make this decision. It needs to be made by the elected representatives that are gathered together for the people.” Adds Gov. Mike Pence, “I think it’s important that we let Hoosiers decide. I have every confidence that the people of Indiana can take up this issue, hear all sides, respect all viewpoints.”

Why do we not allow Hoosiers decide on other bills that are of importance?

During my entire lifetime, there has been an ongoing debate concerning Sunday sales of alcohol.

Speaker Bosma, it is going nowhere because a select group of people in a boardroom and their lobbyists have stifled the debate. Gov. Pence, why do we not let Hoosiers decide?

All of us are concerned about the safety and well-being of our young children, especially when they are in a child care environment. There is a well-needed Statehouse push to raise the standards of child care oversight; however, there is a move to exempt child care centers run by religious organizations. If our children’s safety is that important, why are we exempting anyone?

Speaker Bosma, the exemption request comes from a select group of people in a boardroom and their lobbyists. Gov. Pence, why do we not let Hoosiers decide?

Let’s make the rules the same for all issues, not just the ones pushed by a small, vocal minority.

JAY GOAD Franklin

Pastors have proper view of marriage

I agree with Peter Scaer and Steve Jones (“Traditional marriage worth upholding,” Dec. 22): Marriage is designed for one man and one woman.


Obamacare intentions are becoming clear

First, the majority of Americans wanted nothing of the sort. Then, no one read it. The president said if you like your current policy, you can keep it; if you like your current doctor, you can keep them.

Then the bill was passed. The Supreme Court ruled the law constitutional because it’s ruled a tax. Then the president issued more than 1,200 waivers to companies (as well as Congress) that don’t have to participate yet.

When the government opened enrollment on line, it was a debacle. Now, we the people (about 6 million of us) have gotten notices from our insurance companies canceling our insurance because it doesn’t qualify under Obamacare. Then the government decided that maybe that wasn’t a good idea, so now we can keep our plans? But they’re more expensive than what we had?

This has been a fiasco since day one. Bottom line, you cannot continue to take from those who earn what they have and give to those who don’t – neither party receives justice.

Those who don’t earn learn not to. And those who do soon will decide not to.

If I understand the thrust of health care reform, it’s to assure no one in America is refused medical treatment. I know of no one nor have I heard of anyone who has been denied medical care. So Obamacare is not about assuring medical care for all Americans; it’s about the government running the health care industry. Personally, that sounds like a recipe for disaster.

SCOTT HABBEN Leo-Cedarville