Letters policy
We welcome letters, but please include your full name, address and a daytime telephone number. We edit all letters for libel, length and clarity.
Send letters to: Letters, Illinois Times. P.O. Box 5256. Springfield, Illinois 62705. Fax: (217) 753-3958. E-mail: editor@illinoistimes.com
THE BIGGEST SHAME OF ALL
Dusty Rhodes’ recent article
“Baby Trade” [Feb. 17] implies that adoption agencies
put a price on the individual children being placed for adoption,
with the children of color at the lower end of the price scale.
This is a very complex issue and not one so simply stated. We would
like to clarify how we charge for our services. The Cradle bases
its fees for prospective adoptive parents on the program they
choose, not on the race of the baby.
If a family chooses our Sayers Center as its
program of choice — that is, indicating a preference for an
African-American baby — they will pay a lower program fee. On
occasion, circumstances are such that a Sayers Center family finds
that the baby who comes to them is not African-American. In this
case, the fee does not change. Similarly, families who plan to
adopt through our traditional domestic-adoption program and who are
not expecting to adopt an African-American baby sometimes find that
the baby who was meant for them is indeed a child of color. Once
again, the fee does not change on the basis of the race of the
baby. Those families will pay the higher program fee.
The reality is that we make pricing decisions
in our society all the time that take special factors into
consideration because we believe that the public good will
ultimately be served. Seniors receive discounts for many services.
Health-care providers are mandated to discount their charges for
services provided to Medicaid and Medicare beneficiaries. The
beauty of our country is that we are willing to make pricing decisions that will make services
available to those citizens who are most vulnerable. There are many
more African-American and special-needs children available for adoption
than there are families for them. There is no shame in removing one of
the most important barriers to finding permanent, capable, and loving
families for them.
Rather than focusing our attention on those
agencies that are working in earnest to serve all children
regardless of race, ethnicity, or special need, perhaps we should
focus on those agencies that routinely turn away pregnant
African-American women or babies born with serious medical needs.
This practice is the biggest shame of all.
Julie S. Tye
President, the Cradle
Evanston
DON’T VALUE CHILDREN BASED ON RACE
I read with great interest the article
“Baby trade.” You are to be commended for exposing a
practice among some adoption agencies and facilitators that, in the
eyes of some, subjugates children of color to second-class
citizenship. I have questioned the practice of charging reduced
adoption fees for children of color since I began my social work
career approximately 25 years ago.
We should not tolerate an industry that has
created an artificial marketplace in which the value of children is
based on the color of their skin. As a community, social work
professionals should be outraged that children are presented as a
commodity to be bought and sold based on supply and demand.
Mary J. Donley Howard
Springfield
HE ALSO PLAYS THE GUITAR! AND SINGS!
Thanks so much for the article [Tom Irwin,
“Afrobeat is alive and kicking,” Feb. 10]. You
don’t know how good it feels to have a well-written piece on
us. We have been getting lots of press wherever we go, and
there have been very few articles that I could actually use in a press
kit because of such poor writing.
Marshall Greenhouse
Chicago Afrobeat Project
A CANCER ON OUR COUNTRY
I don’t know about other liberals, but
I can’t — and won’t — agree with George W.
Bush’s privatizing Social Security [see Seth Bohlen,
“Letters,” Feb. 10]. If this happens, only rich
individuals would benefit. In fact, Bush and his administration may
use Social Security for racial and gender profiling. So, for
obvious reasons, privatizing benefits isn’t really the best
solution. Besides, Social Security only has become an issue because
funding is running short and the reason why that’s happening
is because Bush has used benefits to finance the Iraq war — a
war that shouldn’t even be.
Because of Bush, America’s national
debt is at an all-time high while low-income citizens are still
living from paycheck to paycheck — and that’s if they
even have employment. While he’s now asking for $85 million
more to finance the war, programs are being cut and people are
walking around without medical insurance. Even after 9/11, Bush
hasn’t done any real work to keep our country safe. Otherwise
he would be going after Osama bin Laden, not Saddam Hussein and
imaginary weapons of mass destruction.
The Bush administration is a cancer on this
country. To say that liberals could learn a few things from Bush is
an insult to true-hearted liberals, as well as a slap in the face.
If anything, Bush and his cheerleaders should be learning from us
liberals. Maybe they’ll learn to be more compassionate.
Shermeeka Mason
Springfield
HYPOCRITICAL DEMOCRATS STRIKE AGAIN
Let’s take a look at what Democrats who
currently oppose the privatization of Social Security were saying
when there was a Democrat in the White House:
U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev.: “Most of
us have no problem with taking a small amount of the Social
Security proceeds and putting it into the private sector” (Fox News Sunday, Feb.
14, 1999).
U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.: “Due to
the increasing number of baby boomers reaching retirement age,
Social Security will be unable to pay out full benefits. But the
sooner Congress acts to avert this crisis, the easier and less
painful it will be” (press release, “Reforming Social
Security,” Sept. 15, 1998.
U.S. Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D.: “Fixing
Social Security is an urgent priority. It ought to be at the top of
both parties’ agendas” (Byron Dorgan, “Fixing
Social Security Must Top Both Parties’ Agendas,” Roll Call, Dec. 6,
1999).
U.S. Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D.: “I was at
the Social Security summit at the White House, along with 40 of my
colleagues, Republicans and Democrats. And there was virtual unanimity
of opinion that we simply have to get a higher return from the Social
Security investments” (Fox News
Special Report, Jan. 20, 1999).
U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y.:
“It’s a way of getting more money — a higher
return on the trust fund — and is a prudent and good thing to
do” (Nadler press conference, Jan. 21, 1999).
President Bill Clinton: “[Investing]
will earn a higher return and keep Social Security sound for 55
years” (“State of the Union Address,” Jan. 19,
1999).
Hypocritical Democrats strike again.
Perhaps with Howard
“Yeeeaaaaaarrrrrggghhhh!” Dean as the new DNC chairman,
that will change. I’m not holding my breath.
Kevin Johnson
Chatham
BUSH’S WAR ON THE POOR
Where does one begin when trying to describe
a government with a cadre of men and women who seem bent on
dismantling more than 65 years of social, environmental, and
financial progress?
President George W. Bush’s proposed
budget would reduce, if not actually eliminate, funding for many
programs vital to our citizens, including law enforcement, fire
protection, environmental safety, low-income assistance, school
funding, Amtrak, Medicaid, Indian schools, health care for the poor
and disabled, and on and on. Where in our Constitution and laws
does it say we must support an illicit war on the backs of those
who are most vulnerable? Where is the compassion in
“compassionate conservatism”?
Frank Herman
Springfield
DON’T NEED NO STINKING LAW
I still cannot believe that a Illinois House
committee voted down HB 672, which would give Illinois communities
the right to ban smoking in public places. It is not the
bill’s failure that amazed me — it’s the outright
stupidity that anyone needs a state law to declare this.
I can remember a time when smoking was
allowed anywhere and everywhere, public and private, fire hazard or
not. Through the years, this has changed. Did anyone ever ask why?
Any individual business establishment has the
right to declare itself smoke-free — state law or not. [These
businesses] merely need to develop the guts to do it. If a business
is thriving with smokers, it will do so without them. If enough
businesses declare themselves smoke-free areas, then this will be a
smoke-free city — state law or not.
Linda Schrodt
Springfield
This article appears in Feb 24 – Mar 2, 2005.
