We welcome letters. Please include your full name, address and telephone number. We edit all letters.
Send them to editor@illinoistimes.com.
—-
MISJUDGMENT
While greatly acknowledging the potential value of the sports complex, the $45 million in subsidies to the for-profit enterprise is a grotesque public policy misjudgment (“Field of dreams,” April 20). Further, the opportunity costs to our city are monumental, both financially and by taking our focus from more strategic civic goals for Springfield, rooted in our history and preexisting strengths.
On the night of passage, cosponsor Ald. Kristin DiCenso offered no fiscal analysis of the sports complex, despite our city ordinances requiring her to do so. Such analysis would have also disclosed the fiscal impact of the Mattoon sports complex entering construction sooner than Springfield’s. Clearly these sports complexes cannot all eat the same lunch.
Ward 7 Ald. Joe McMenamin
Via illinoistimes.com
—-
AMAZING
I’m a baseball mom and my son’s team travels to three different states for tournaments, all to facilities like the one they are building in Springfield. Fifteen families, times 80 teams, all stay in hotels for two nights, eat every meal out and visit the local tourism sites between games.
There are softball and boys’ and girls’ soccer tournaments going on at the same scope, and this happens every weekend from March to the end of November. This will be amazing for Springfield, and I am so excited that my family will not have to travel as often.
Rachael Longman Thomson
Via Facebook.com/illinoistimes
—-
WASTE OF MONEY
More wasted tax dollars on another park. Seriously? How many do we have that the city takes care of? How about we fix our crumbling infrastructure, roads and sidewalks? There is lots to fix before spending $67 million on this nonsense.
James Hamilton
Via Facebook.com/illinoistimes
—-
RESPECT LAWS
A federal judge in Texas recently decided that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was wrong to approve mifepristone, used for abortions and miscarriages. An hour later, a federal judge in Washington State decided that FDA’s approval was right. What will be the court system’s final answer: right or wrong?
We don’t know – not yet. But we do know that the United States Supreme Court just decided (by a 7-2 vote) that the FDA approval should remain in effect while the courts struggle toward a final answer.
Here are some basic facts. The FDA reviews all medications, to ensure they’re safe and effective. In 1996 through 2000, and again in 2016, 2019 and 2021, the FDA reviewed and approved mifepristone with conditions and time limits for usage. Mifepristone can help people with an unwanted pregnancy or miscarriage. It can have side effects in some people, but it’s safer than full-term pregnancy or Tylenol or Viagra. People take it – safely and effectively.
People disagree about abortion. However, the FDA is authorized to decide about safety and effectiveness – not about abortion.
The Texas judge relied on the Comstock Act (1873), prohibiting mailings intended to produce abortions, but all three branches of our federal government have consistently interpreted the Comstock Act to apply only to unlawful abortions – not to lawful abortions. Abortion during the first six months of pregnancy was lawful from 1973 to 2022, due to Roe v. Wade (1973), and abortion is still lawful in most but not all states, with some restrictions. Mailing pills for a lawful purpose should be lawful.
For me, here’s the final answer: I hope that our courts will respect facts and laws and FDA expertise and people’s personal decisions about health care – and that courts will correct this Texas decision.
Jim Lewis
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Lewis is the former U.S. Attorney for the Central District of Illinois
This article appears in Freshman class.
