Your article, Packed field chasing House seat, (People, 9/29/05), obviously had to be concise on the candidate’s positions since there were so many, but what I found disturbing was that it missed the most crucial distinction that should have been made between the two leading candidates, Marilyn Brewer and John Campbell. You told us that Marilyn Brewer was pro-choice, but failed to tell us John Campbell was pro-life.
I find it astonishing that professional journalists can neglect the core issue between two candidates and then fall in line with politically correct language, like saying, “Brewer supports a woman’s right to choose and stem-cell research” when voters deserve to know that she also supports abortion-on-demand and embryonic stem cell research; the word embryo was conspicuous by its absence, even while the use of human embryos for research is being strongly challenged as immoral.
Brewer believes that a pre-born does not have a primary right to life, and if a pregnancy is unwanted, it (he or she) can be aborted (killed). Campbell believes a pre-born has a primary right to life that should be defended, as should the embryos used for research.
Voters need to know these core specifics, especially on the abortion issue. We learned during the Judge Roberts hearings that the Roe v. Wade challenge is heating up and becoming the key issue for debate. It will intensify as soon as President Bush names the next candidate for nomination to the Supreme Court. All the media had better prepare for a long hard battle on the specifics of abortion-on-demand, and the devastating consequences it has wreaked on our country.
What is more important in today’s America than the life or death of pre-born babies? I predict that voters will be demanding more detailed information. They will want to know what each candidate believes about abortion and embryonic stem cell research, why they believe it, and more importantly, what they plan to do about it, if elected.
Charles N. Marrelli
Writers for Life