LETTERS: Segerblom’s legislative proposals should give pause to citizenry
To the editor:
Nevada state Sen. Tick Segerblom has submitted a bill draft to abolish term limits for elected state and local officials, and a second bill draft to repeal the two-thirds majority vote to raise taxes in the Legislature. I find it ironic that the article regarding these bill drafts appeared in the newspaper just before Independence Day (“Legislature unveils initial list of proposed resolutions,” July 2 Review-Journal).
Regarding the two-thirds majority vote to raise taxes in the Legislature, Sen. Segerblom should review his U.S. history and relearn that one of the reasons for the Declaration of Independence was the taxes imposed upon the citizenry by the government. The current requirement of a two-thirds majority at least provides some safeguards to the citizens of Nevada from overzealous legislators.
In reference to term limits, that issue was approved by the voters of Nevada — the citizenry — in 1996. The voters gave Sen. Segerblom and other elected officials 12 years to do something. If Sen. Segerblom and other politicians can’t get the job done in 12 years, they should be replaced. Being elected to office is an honor bestowed upon Sen. Segerblom and his peers by the citizens of Nevada. Term limits ensure that our elected government officials — both local and state — are citizens, not career politicians.
Sen. Segerblom, your arrogance by going against the will of the people shows your disdain for the voters and citizens of Nevada, a trait all too common in our elected officials at every level. You, sir, are a perfect example of why term limits should be retained.
TERRY CALLISON
CARSON CITY
Immigrants and homeless
To the editor:
On July 11, the Review-Journal published an editorial headlined “Bad Choices.” Also printed that day was a letter from John Bearden (“Help on home front”). Was that a coincidence, or was it meant to be ironic?
“Bad Choices” offered commentary on the Review-Journal’s three-part series about James “Bubba” Dukes and his decisions, which will possibly have an adverse effect on the rest of his life. Mr. Bearden, meanwhile, questioned the disparate treatment afforded illegal aliens when compared with the homeless.
What should be asked is: Are the illegal aliens fleeing governmental oppression or fearing an unjust society? Are they merely seeking a better life than their home country offers?
Just as relevant is the question of why the homeless are in their situation. Unfortunately, the homeless often look alike. It is impossible to tell if their plight stemmed from a bad decision, an accident, sickness or bad luck. Or if they decided not to go to school or not to get a job, or decided to use drugs, etc. Most people recognize the latter possibilities, which mitigates the feeling of empathy they have for the dire situation of the homeless.
RON GARRETT
LAS VEGAS
Hobby Lobby ruling
To the editor:
There are two significant issues that many seem to miss regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the Hobby Lobby’s case. The company sought an exemption from covering certain contraceptive drugs and devices based on religious grounds.
First, the Supreme Court seems to be asserting the right of an employer, having no medical training, to dictate which medications you can take and what is right for your body. Yes, Hobby Lobby covers 16 of the 20 forms of contraception in the Affordable Care Act, but contraception is contraception — either you favor it or you don’t. No one has the right to dictate what is right for your personal choice of contraception. Even your doctor gives you options.
If the Supreme Court allows your boss to make this decision for you, I have to ask: Can a corporation owned by a Jehovah’s Witness tell you that you need to pay for your own blood transfusion, based on religious grounds? Can a closely held corporation owned by Christian Scientists, who believe that illness is spiritual and not physical, be allowed to deny all medical care to its employees?
Equally as significant is the idea that a corporation is an entity, not a physical person. Legally, a corporation is separate from the persons who own, control and manage it. Businesses incorporate because it provides them with certain tax and personal liability advantages and financial protections. But an entity has no religion. Look at it this way: incorporating is much like buying a condominium. You may own the unit, but you agree to surrender individual rights in favor of the group in order to gain the advantages of community living. While you may own the unit and want to paint it blue, you cannot, because you agreed to abide by the group rules when you purchased the unit.
So once a corporation wants to force its majority shareholder’s religious views on its employees and override the laws, it should surrender the protections afforded a corporation.
In essence, Hobby Lobby wants to have its cake and eat it, too. The Supreme Court’s decision supporting this viewpoint is not only unconscionable, but it establishes a very slippery slope, one already being taken advantage of through recently filed lawsuits by corporations who want to discriminate against gays and lesbians based on religious views.
Civil rights? Women’s rights? Let’s all take another giant step backward. Thank you, Supreme Court.
MICHAEL OLLINS
LAS VEGAS
