To the editor:

State Sen. Bob Beers and other members of the Legislature, when considering Senate Bill 151, should be aware that despite the grandiose titles of certain organizations, the anti-helmet ideologues of the Northern Nevada Coalition of Motorcyclists and Motorcyclists for Nevada do not speak for the majority of motorcyclists in Nevada.

Most Nevadan motorcyclists do not consider this state's helmet laws to be an infringement upon their liberties any more than automobile drivers consider mandatory seat belt laws to be an infringement upon theirs.

Most motorcyclists would prefer that their legislators turn their attention to the deplorable state of current laws that allow at-fault motorists to maim or kill motorcyclists and receive only token fines or jail terms as punishment, such as the 100 days served by former South Dakota Rep. Bill Janklow for speeding and killing a motorcyclist in his home state, or the $70 total fine imposed upon an automobile driver in Iowa for running head-on into a group of motorcyclists, killing three of them.

Sen. Beers, who is sponsoring this bill to remove the helmet requirement for experienced adult riders, should contact the American Motorcyclist Association for the details of its "Justice for All" legislative campaign if he is unaware of these issues.

I ride a motorcycle, and yes, I wear a helmet in 114-degree weather. But I experience little discomfort in doing so, as motorcycle helmets are made largely of expanded Styrofoam, the same material that picnic coolers are made of (there's a reason they're not called picnic "heaters").

If anti-helmet motorcyclists can't wear helmets during Nevada summers without whining, they need to rethink their transportation alternatives -- and take the bus.

K.W. Jeter

LAS VEGAS

To the editor:

On Wednesday, the Review-Journal published a story on testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee concerning Senate Bill 109 ("Senate's child custody bill debated").

I believe this bill makes much more sense than the current law, which generally "awards" the child to one parent and makes the other a visitor and a paycheck. The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution gives parents the right to raise their children. This was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1982 in Santosky v. Kramer. It was reaffirmed in 2000.

It is not just a parent's right to raise his or her children, but a child's right to be raised by its parents. Yet, in a divorce, Family Court routinely ignores these rights and deprives both parents and children of loving, caring relationships. Studies have proven that children are much better adjusted mentally, emotionally and socially when they spend equal time with both parents. That's what this bill does.

The best parent is both parents.

Tony Tharp

LAS VEGAS

To the editor:

What is the purpose of the American Civil Liberties Union? More and more, it seems that the freedoms they are purporting to protect are taking a back seat to the criminals who abuse those very freedoms.

In reading your Wednesday story about the Taxicab Authority placing blame elsewhere for the lack of cameras in taxis, authority members cite the ACLU's concerns about audio recording of conversations.

In the good old days, a person's word was their bond. If you didn't want to have your words heard, you shouldn't have said it in the first place.

If video recording is allowed, then audio should be included, because a person's actions can be taken out of context without the dialogue that goes along with it, and vice versa.

I think the ACLU has lost sight of its original mission: to protect a person's basic rights. Isn't it hypocritical to oppose display of the Ten Commandments as a symbol of religion when the commandments could be seen as a general treatise on how to interact with your fellow human beings, but then support the distribution of handbills that have sexually explicit photos? Why is my offense to that activity not taken as seriously as an atheist's offense to the posting of the Ten Commandments?

The ACLU is nothing more than an obstructionist organization that caters to thieves and murderers while ignoring the concerns of decent persons. I would write to Gary Peck, the executive director of the organization's Nevada chapter, but I'm sure he's too busy fluffing the pillows of criminals.

In the meantime, cabdrivers will remain unprotected.

D.M. Heffley

LAS VEGAS

To the editor:

I was appalled when I read your Friday editorial dealing with your concern over the apparent tendency to criminalize caretaker punishments in day care situations ("Is taping a mouth physical abuse?").

When the mouth is obstructed, breathing becomes 100 percent dependent on unobstructed nasal passages. Humans with swollen mucous membranes in the nasal passages caused by upper respiratory infections or allergies can suffer hypoxia (lack of oxygen in the blood stream), leading to brain damage or even death if too prolonged. Children, because of their small, narrow nasal passages, are more prone to obstruction in this manner than adults.

Springtime is a time of increased respiratory infections and pollen allergy reactions. This year has an especially difficult allergy season because of the overabundance of pollinating flowers and trees following the rains.

The symptoms of air hunger would be restlessness and fidgeting. This, then, could be interpreted by a controlling adult as tantrum or "uncooperative behavior." When the child settled down, it would most likely be from hypoxic coma.

Should a little girl's giggles put her life and health in danger? Was the adult who determined the punishment able to properly assess the nasal breathing capability of the child in question? Or was the action taken in a fit of pique by an adult who must prevail in the power struggle between children and adults in an out-of-home care situation?

Tragedies occur when adults aren't properly sensitized to the physical frailties of their charges. If day care centers do not have a training program in the proper treatment of preschool children and the appropriateness or safety of punishments used at the school, they need to remedy the situation at once.

The parents of every child entrusted to the care of others should demand an accounting of every method of punishment used by out-of-home care person or persons. It is the least a parent can do to assure that a choice or need to work will not bring excess harm to their children.

Shirley L. Fannin, M.D.

PAHRUMP