A10 THURSDAY, OCTOBER 31, 2019 LATIMES.COM/OPINION
OPINION
EDITORIALS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------LETTERS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------HOW TO WRITE TO US
Please send letters to
[email protected]. For
submission guidelines, see
latimes.com/letters or call
1-800-LA TIMES, ext. 74511.F
acebook has becomea prime out-
let for presidential campaign mes-
saging, with President Trump and
his Democratic rivals collectively
spending more than $1 million ev-
eryweekon targeted ads, according to pub-
lished reports. So it was disturbing, to say
the least, when Facebook altered its rules
recently to exempt politicians and political
parties from its ban on false advertising.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the
change amounted to a standing invitation
for politicians to lie on Facebook — some-
thing it doesn’t allow any other advertisers
to do. And this isn’t about free speech, or
politicians’ ability to bend the truth in com-
ments posted to their profile pages and seen
only by the people who follow them. It’s
about paid speech, or their ability to use the
power of Facebook’s platform to show mas-
ses of voters deceptive ads tailored to those
voters’ preferences and weaknesses.
To demonstrate the absurdity of the situ-
ation, a Democratic political strategist in
San Francisco named Adriel Hampton re-
cently ran an ad on Facebook with a wholly
made-up claim that conservative Sen. Lind-
sey Graham (R-S.C.) supported the liberal
Green New Deal bill — a stunt intended to
rankle some of Graham’s constituents. Af-
ter Facebook took the ad down, Hampton
filed papers Monday to run for governor of
California in 2022, enabling him to run false
ads like the one about Graham without in-
terference from Facebook’s fact-checkers.
Facebook and its chief executive, Mark
Zuckerberg, insist that voters deserve ac-
cess to the unfiltered words of their politi-
cians so they can decide for themselves
what to believe. “By limiting political
speech,” the company asserted, “we would
leave people less informed about what their
elected officials are saying and leave politi-
cians less accountable for their words.”
There is an enormous difference, howev-
er, between not censoring candidates’ re-
marks and handing them a bullhorn to am-
plify untruths across the electorate, which is
what Facebook is doing. By contrast, Twit-
ter announced Wednesday that the com-
pany would no longer run political ads of
any kind. “We believe political message
reach should be earned, not bought,” CEO
Jack Dorsey tweeted. In plain English, that
means candidates will still be able to post
comments that their followers will see and
possibly retweet, but they won’t be able to
pay to blast them directly to thousands or
millions of Twitter users.
Dorsey also threw some shade toward
Facebook, which has taken numerous steps
in recent years to crack down on the scourge
of fake accounts and fraudulent posts that
came to light in the 2016 election. “It‘s not
credible for us to say: ‘We’re working hard to
stop people from gaming our systems to
spread misleading info, buuut if someone
pays us to target and force people to see
their political ad ... well ... they can say what-
ever they want!’” Dorsey tweeted.
Admittedly, the problem is much easier
to identify than the solution. The 1st
Amendment bars the government from set-
ting rules for online truthfulness, and while
private platforms such as Twitter and Face-
book can set their own standards for what
they’ll allow, it’s a fraught and complicated
task for private industry to distinguish lies
from edgy opinions. Nor do we want giant
tech companies acting as gatekeepers to po-
litical speech.
Yet Facebook wants to wash its hands of
any responsibility for how its megaphone
can be abused, saying it’s the public’s job to
winnow facts from the chaff of deceptive fic-
tion. That’s a self-serving stance aimed at
keeping the campaign ad dollars flowing
while shielding the company from com-
plaints of bias, which Republicans have
been browbeating “Big Tech” with for
months. If Facebook won’t embrace the ele-
gant solution offered by Twitter, it should
set clear standards for political ads that
protect against deliberate deception and
provably false claims, and come up with a
transparent and nonpartisan way to en-
force them. Scores of media companies, in-
cluding newspapers and cable TV networks,
do this routinely. So can Facebook.Amplifying candidates’ lies
Facebook welcomes false and
misleading political ads. Twitter
goes in the opposite direction.
I
n the 46 yearssince the Supreme
Court’s decision in Roe vs. Wade af-
firmed a woman’s constitutional right
to an abortion, opponents have stead-
fastly refused to accept it, fighting a
never-ending battle to chip away at its pro-
tections or to overturn it altogether.
State legislatures, defiantly and reck-
lessly, have passed hundreds of bills in the
last decade alone to limit the access to abor-
tion that the Supreme Court has granted
and reaffirmed over the course of three
landmark decisions on abortion beginning
with Roe in 1973. The latest was the high
court’s 2016 decision overturning a Texas
law that set unnecessary and unduly bur-
densome requirements for abortion clinics
and the doctors working in them.
But that didn’t stop the state of Louisi-
ana from passing an essentially identical
law to the invalidated Texas one, clearly
hoping that the inevitable challenge would
reach the Supreme Court — and that the
court would change its mind. The court has
agreed to hear the case.
In fact, numerous legislatures in conser-
vative states have passed restrictions on
abortion that are patently unconstitutional
under Roe vs. Wade, hoping to see if the
Supreme Court’s new, more conservative
majority will permit the restrictions or, even
better from their point of view, do away with
Roe entirely.
There’s no immediate reason to believe
the court is on the verge of reversing itself,
but if it did, that would constitute an ex-
traordinary step backward. Given the pos-
sibility, it is not unreasonable to be thinking
about whether there are other ways to shore
up abortion protections.
One suggestion is that Congress should
pass a federal law guaranteeing the right to
an abortion as a fallback in case Roe vs.
Wade gets overturned.
The idea of codifying Roe into law was
mentioned by several candidates at the last
Democratic presidential debate. In fact,
nearly all the candidates have expressed
support for putting into a federal law what
Roe guarantees: that a woman has a right to
an abortion up to the time when the fetus
becomes viable. That way, if the court
backed away from Roe vs. Wade and its con-
stitutional protections, at least there would
still be a national law protecting the right to
an abortion.
Of course, if such a law is to be effective, it
should do more than guarantee women the
basic right to an abortion. It should explic-
itly state that access is part of the right to
abortion and that states cannot restrict
that access unduly.
In a separate proposal, Sen. Kamala
Harris (D-Calif.) has suggested giving the
Justice Department the authority to pre-
approve any abortion law proposed by a
state if that state had in the previous 25
years enacted abortion restrictions deemed
unconstitutional by the courts. That idea is
modeled on the “preclearance” process in
the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
A preclearance rule would presumably
stop unduly restrictive state abortion laws
before they ever become law, so defenders of
abortion rights wouldn’t have to go through
the costly and time-consuming process of
filing legal challenges to such laws, waiting
for courts to hear their cases and appealing
if necessary to higher courts.
But a law requiring preclearance or codi-
fying Roe vs. Wade would face an uphill
climb to enactment even with a Democratic
president. If the Senate remains Republi-
can, the chances of either bill being ap-
proved would be low. It’s heartening that
polls indicate that 77% of Americans sup-
port legal abortion, including majorities of
moderate and liberal Republicans and of
Republican men. But it’s not clear how
much weight that carries with GOP sena-
tors.
A bill has already been introduced that
would codify Roe. The Women’s Health Pro-
tection Act would guarantee a right to abor-
tion and forbid the onerous restrictions
placed on providers and patients by various
state bills. It has more than 200 supporters
in the House and 42 in the Senate. But with-
out more support, it will go nowhere.
Even if these laws were passed, they
would most likely be challenged in court.
No federal law would be a magic bullet.
Nor would a law be as strong a protection of
abortion rights as Roe vs. Wade has been.
But that doesn’t mean advocates and
elected officials shouldn’t fight for one as a
fallback.
Right now, state laws are so restrictive
that six states are down to only one abortion
provider. Other states have sought to ban
nearly all abortions. The battle to under-
mine Roe vs. Wade continues.
We should all hope that the Supreme
Court stands by its five decades of prece-
dent recognizing women’s rights to make
decisions about their own bodies and their
own futures. But as long as there’s worry
that the Supreme Court might not give
abortion rights its full-throated support, it’s
worth pursuing a national law as well.A backup for Roe vs. Wade
Neither the military nor
the State Department
makes foreign policy; they
implement and follow the
policies of the adminis-
tration. They provide
opinion or advice when
asked.
It is scary that House
Democrats considered
Vindman’s opinion worth
hearing. When the military
or the State Department
can publicly object to the
direction of foreign policy
and openly challenge the
administration, democ-
racy is in danger.
Vindman violated the
trust placed in him, and
the military should act on
the violation of security
standards he swore to
uphold. If he felt so
strongly about Trump’s
conversation with the
Ukrainian president, he
should have resigned his
commission.
Alan L. Strzemieczny
Riverside
The writer is a retired
Air Force lieutenant colo-
nel.::Perhaps those hinting
about Vindman’s loyalty,
both in the media and in
Congress, should have
worn their uniforms and
ribbons while smearing a
real patriot.
Oh, that’s right, they
either didn’t bother to
serve or, at least with
Trump, actively avoided it.
Martin Wauson
Westminster::I can’t help but recall
the outrage over profes-
sional football quarterback
Colin Kaepernick taking a
knee during the national
anthem and disrespecting
our military when listening
to the very same people
questioning the loyalty of
Vindman, a decorated war
veteran and patriot.
Jesse Albert
Los AngelesWhen PG&E
calls Culver City
Re “PG&E didn’t notify
23,000 customers in earlier
shut-off,” Oct. 29The L.A. Times reports
that Pacific Gas & Electric
failed to notify 23,000 cus-
tomers about precaution-
ary power outages. The
company blamed some of
the gaps in notification on
residents not having con-
tact information on file.
Well, I can personally
verify that PG&E’s analog
records are in working
order.
Here in Culver City, I
have been receiving
PG&E’s “important safety
alert” voicemails for the
past two fire seasons. They
warn me about possible
power outages in our
neighborhood and include
a special code to enter on
the website to pinpoint our
specific location’s warning
level and provide addi-tional instructions.
Why is this happening?
In the early 1980s my par-
ents retired and relocated
to El Dorado County. They
returned to Southern
California in 1990. My num-
ber must have been listed
on their old PG&E “in case
of emergency” paperwork.
Both my parents have
long since shuffled off this
mortal coil. But sometimes
I wonder about the safety
of whoever bought the
home my father so lovingly
built years ago. Hopefully
they’re getting the calls
too.
Ginny LeRossignol
Blades
Culver City::Investor-owned utilities
have been raking in our
dollars for decades while
failing in their duty to
maintain the infrastruc-
ture as they should have.
The cost of doing busi-
ness must include taking
the measures necessary to
avoid catastrophes. The
managers at these compa-
nies already know of regu-
lar high winds in parts of
the state, that the Earth is
getting hotter and much of
California is dryer, and that
the infrastructure they
built is old. But they have
spent decades hording
money and failing to up-
grade.
Instead of prioritizing
themselves and their
shareholders, they should
spend the money to ensure
that the customer is safe
and receives service. Utility
company management
and shareholders need to
be held accountable for
their negligence, and they
ought to pay for losses
incurred by customers.
Sally Rivera
Rancho Cucamonga::If your readers are
anything like me, they are
anxious to know where
PG&E’s fire safety money
went.
In a recent editorial, the
Wall Street Journal wrote,
“For years [PG&E]
skimped on safety up-
grades and repairs while
pumping billions into
green energy and electric-
car subsidies to please its
overlords in Sacramento.”
As Californians have
our lungs scorched with
fire smoke, can the L.A.
Times figure out where the
fire safety money went?
For years many people
knew we were playing a
dangerous game on this.
Elayne Taylor
Long BeachOn the ‘why’
of homelessness
Re “The why isn’t the point
— caring and help are,”
column, Oct. 26Nita Lelyveld clearly
missed the underlying
point of the readers who
expressed concern abouther blindness to the rea-
sons Loxk Calhoun and Bri
Meilbeck became homeless
shortly after arriving in Los
Angeles from Detroit. The
“why” is, in fact, the single
more important thing to
know if there are to be
solutions to the homeless
problem.
The idea that homeless-
ness will be solved by build-
ing more housing and thus
lowering costs is mis-
guided. Because the cli-
mate in California
(weather and political and
social) is appealing, lower
housing costs will simply
reverse or slow emigration
from the state.
The result: Higher
housing costs.
Also, because of mental
illness or addiction, some
prefer homelessness over
living in group housing.
They need access to treat-
ment, and no one can be
forced into treatment
except in extreme cases.
Those rendered homeless
due to loss of a job may
require retraining. Those
rendered homeless be-
cause of a physical problem
may require free or low-
cost medical care.
So, forgive me if I didn’t
take Lelyveld’s “Hollywood
dreamer” story the way she
hoped. She needs to con-
sider the “why” more in
reporting on homeless-
ness.
Stephanie Scher
Los Angeles::I can think of a good
way to show why we should
feel compassion toward
homeless people.
Solicit stories from and
write about people who
came to L.A. on the verge of
falling into homelessness,
and through a stroke of
luck or good fortune stayed
and are now thriving.
Joe Youmans
Laguna Woods::Lelyveld did not ad-
dress one issue: Why
should the residents of Los
Angeles provide for recent
arrivals who were better off
before they came to South-
ern California? Don’t we
have enough homeless
people without importing
them from other states?
N. E. Byrne
Santa BarbaraA coincidence,
councilman?
Re “D.A. to review rental by
son of Wesson,” Oct. 29I love coincidences.
Herb Wesson is presi-
dent of the Los Angeles
City Council and wants to
become a member of the
County Board of Supervi-
sors. His son lives in an L.A.
apartment building where
he has not had a rent in-
crease in five years, al-
though everyone else there
has.
At the same time,
Michael Hakim, whose
company owns the apart-
ment building, wants to
build a high-rise residen-
tial tower in Koreatown, a
project opposed by neigh-
bors and the city’s Plan-
ning Commission. Luckily
for Hakim’s company, the
City Council overrides the
Planning Commission and
grants approval while
Wesson is council presi-
dent, and while his son
pays below-market rent.
All of this occurs quietly
with no public disclosure
by Wesson or anyone else
on the City Council. I’m
trying to grasp if these
facts just coexisted acci-
dentally, or if they demand
an investigation.
Robert A. Klein
Los AngelesSeen in D.C.
Re “Uninvited guest leaves
behind a mess,” Column
One, Oct. 30Biofilm slime on Wash-
ington’s monuments: Is
this President Trump’s
legacy?
Putter Smith
South PasadenaSmear the messenger
Re “Army officer recalls concern about Ukraine,” Oct. 30President Trump has reached a new low. He and his
stalwarts have questioned the loyalty of Army Lt. Col.
Alexander Vindman, the National Security Council’s top
Ukraine expert, who gave his deposition to the House
committees conducting an impeachment inquiry.
Vindman’s incredible history of patriotism mirrors my
father’s, who like Vindman came to the U.S. from
Ukraine. He arrived here as a teenager and went on to
serve in the U.S. Army’s 3rd Infantry Division. He fought
in major battles and was temporarily blinded from
mustard gas.
My father died at age 56 from a heart condition he
acquired in the service. He didn’t get to grow old with his
wife or see his grandchildren because he gave his life for
this country.
By questioning Vindman’s loyalty, Trump offended
families like mine and once again brought shame to our
country. We will remember this when we cast our ballots.
Sylvia Takacs
EncinoManuel Balce CenetaAssociated Press
LT. COL.Alexander Vindman arrives on Capitol
Hill to testify in the impeachment inquiry.EXECUTIVECHAIRMANDr. Patrick Soon-Shiong
EXECUTIVEEDITORNorman Pearlstine
MANAGINGEDITOR
Scott Kraft
SENIORDEPUTYMANAGINGEDITOR
Kimi Yoshino
DEPUTYMANAGINGEDITORS
Sewell Chan, Shelby Grad, Shani O. Hilton,
Julia Turner
ASSISTANTMANAGINGEDITORS
Len De Groot, Stuart Emmrich,
Loree Matsui, Angel Rodriguez
Opinion
Nicholas Goldberg EDITOR OF THEEDITORIALPAGES
FOUNDED DECEMBER 4, 1881 Sue Horton OP-ED ANDSUNDAYOPINIONEDITOR