The Journal Gazette
 
 
Monday, September 18, 2017 1:00 am

Letters

Legislator's indifference to unborn no joke

According to urbandictionary.com, “You're killing me, Smalls” is a direct quote from the 1993 film “Sandlot.” After being asked by Ham Porter if he wanted a s'more, Scotty Smalls replies several times with the question, “Some more what?” After his frustration grows with Scotty, Ham replies, “You're killing me, Smalls.”

This phrase is commonly used to express discontent or frustration toward a person. Based on that definition, I could join other pro-life advocates with the lament “You're killing me, Smaltz” to express our extreme disappointment with Republican State Rep. Ben Smaltz, who as chair of the House Public Policy Committee in 2017 refused to give the Protection at Conception bill a hearing or a vote. The bill acknowledged the scientific fact that life begins at conception and consequently should receive the protections afforded in both our Indiana and U.S. Constitutions.

It would be even more appropriate for the 8,000 Hoosier babies sacrificed each year at the altar of convenience to utter the words “You're killing me, Smaltz” – were they not silenced through abortion before they were able to speak for themselves. Sadly, their “killing” was not figurative but literal and lethal.

Consequently, I will unleash the words “You're killing me, Smaltz” to express my frustration, the frustration of pro-life Hoosiers whom Smaltz falsely claims to represent, and the 8,000 babies who will be aborted this year because Ben Smaltz killed the bill that would have saved them from being killed. You're killing me Smaltz, you're killing me.

Jim Arnold

Muncie

OK, Republicans: Your turn to provide answers

Rich Polk bashed the Democratic Party in a letter in the Sept. 13 edition of The Journal Gazette. He says Democrats have “No ideas on how to solve the huge financial debt burden just waiting to explode/implode the economy. No answer to the millions of impoverished on food stamps and other welfare programs except to toss more federal money we don't have at the problems.”

The Republican Party holds the White House as well as a majority in both the House and Senate, and is therefore in a position to answer these unresolved issues. The American public is waiting on the answers.

Butch Williams

Huntington

Criticism of background check proposal ignorant

Christopher Ingraham doesn't understand how the National Instant Criminal Background Check System works, and he clearly never listened to my testimony to the Election Integrity Commission (“Voter panel asked to link registration, gun checks,” Sept. 15).

Ingraham asserts that except for one unpublished paper, I had not done any other research “on elections or voting” and cites one person saying that I am “not credible.” But I have published 19 peer-reviewed, academic articles on the issues of elections, voting and election law. My most recent is from 2014.

I also served as a statistical expert for USA Today on the 2000 presidential election and wrote the statistical report on that election for the minority members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights for that election.

He claims that the NICS system can't work for voting because the regulations on gun ownership are “entirely different” than on voting. While there are differences, there is also a large overlap for citizenship requirements and for many states regarding felony records, and states can be provided specifically with the information that is only relevant to determining voter eligibility.

John R. Lott Jr.

president, Crime Prevention Research Center


Sign up for our Opinion newsletter

Sent daily