A10 THURSDAY, MARCH 5, 2020 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.A
t last, thepresidential cam-
paign is narrowing and consoli-
dating. After months of free-for-
all, Democratic voters may fi-
nally be able to move beyond
the cacophonous, multicandidate shouting
fests and, with the race down to just a cou-
ple of serious contenders, address the fun-
damental questions: Do they want to put
forward a progressive who promises radical
change or a moderate who would move
more incrementally? Which of those two
types of candidate is most likely to defeat
President Trump? And which would make
the best president?
This is indeed a battle for the soul of the
party, but it is a fight that has been obscured
as a dozen potential candidates have wres-
tled noisily for position in the early prima-
ries. Now, with Pete Buttigieg, Amy
Klobuchar, Tom Steyer and Michael R.
Bloomberg out of the race, it’s time for
Democrats to consider their options, pick a
path forward and move on to the enormous
showdown ahead in November.
That will be the most consequential
presidential election of our lifetimes, and
the choices Democrats make in the weeks
ahead could determine whether Trump
wins reelection or is rightly defeated.
The front-runners for the nomination —
former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen.
Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) — represent the two
poles of the party. They are the pragmatic
establishment candidate and the revolu-
tionary who says he will upend the status
quo. Each comes with significant strengths
and serious weaknesses.
Biden has a decades-long history of pub-
lic service and stalwart liberalism in the
Senate and the White House, but we, like
others, worry about his sharpness, his gaffes
and his ability to stand up to Trump force-
fully during a general election campaign.
Sanders comes with at least as much
baggage, and probably more. Yes, he brings
the passion, authenticity and clarity of mes-
sage that has galvanized young voters
around the country. But we worry about
whether he can beat Trump, who seems to
salivate at the thought of running against a
self-described democratic socialist, and
about how he’d govern. Can a candidate
that far left really win a general election in
the United States, and if he did, could he ac-
complish (and could we afford) even a few of
the many things he’s promised?
(Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who
is running far behind the two leaders, is tak-
ing some “time and space” to decide what to
do next. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) is
even farther behind than Warren.)
The differences between the two leading
contenders will undoubtedly come into
sharp focus in the weeks ahead, hopefully in
a manner both honest and dignified. The
candidates should be allowed to make their
best cases; no one should be hounded out of
the race. But at the same time, they should
keep their eyes on the ultimate prize: rid-
ding the country of Trump, the worst presi-
dent in modern American history.
In assessing the remaining candidates,
it’s worth remembering that the post-
Trump era, which we fervently hope will be-
gin in January 2021, will be at least as much
about leadership as about policy. We can de-
bate whether Obamacare is a smarter and
more workable foundation for improving
healthcare, or whether “Medicare for all”
would be better. But the country and the
world will be anxiously hanging on the next
president’s ability to foster respect for and
confidence in basic American norms and in-
stitutions such as fair elections, independ-
ent courts, democracy and truth, and to re-
pair them where they have been degraded.
The next president must be able to undo the
damage caused not just by Trump but also
by the movement that created him — and
which will undoubtedly outlast him. The
new president must reinvigorate the fading
perception that the U.S. is a reliable and ef-
fective partner in protecting liberty, justice
and — now — human survival and planetary
habitability.
Whichever candidate is ultimately nomi-
nated, Democrats must rally behind that
person without hesitation.
After the next election, either the United
States will return to normalcy after four
nightmarish years, or we will drive ourselves
deeper into chaos, irresponsibility and isola-
tion. Trump’s election in 2016 was a colossal
mistake, but if he were to be reelected, it
would be an unmitigated catastrophe. He
must be defeated at the ballot box on Nov. 3
— because four more years of climate denial,
race-baiting, dishonesty, divisiveness, rising
income inequality and imprudent, injudi-
cious, illegal governance could leave our
country irremediably damaged. Democrats
cannot afford to lose sight of that reality.Battle for the Democratic soul
With the huge field of presidential
candidates winnowed, the party
now must decide what it stands for.
O
pponents ofa woman’s right to
an abortion are so relentless
that nothing seems to stop
them. Even a clear Supreme
Court precedent doesn’t serve
as a deterrent.
Four years ago, the court took on one of
the favorite tropes of abortion opponents —
that to ensure women’s safety, doctors pro-
viding abortions need to have admitting
privileges at hospitals near the clinics where
they work. In that 2016 decision, Whole
Woman’s Health vs. Hellerstedt, the justices
struck down a Texas law that required abor-
tion providers to have admitting privileges,
finding that it was an unnecessary obstacle
(or “undue burden” in court parlance) to
women seeking abortions and did not en-
hance the safety of an already very safe pro-
cedure.
According to a comprehensive review of
published studies, office-based abortion
clinics reported a less than 0.5% risk of hos-
pitalization followed a first-trimester abor-
tion, the most common type. But because
many abortion providers could not obtain
such privileges, the requirement would have
shut down clinics across the state.
Yet Louisiana passed a law identical to
the unconstitutional Texas statute,
prompting a lawsuit by several abortion
providers. The Louisiana law, which re-
quired doctors to have admitting privileges
at hospitals within 30 miles of the clinics
where they provided abortions, was struck
down by a federal district court judge, but
then upheld by the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of
Appeals. On Wednesday, the Supreme
Court heard arguments in the case, June
Medical Services LLC vs. Russo.
Nothing has changed, medically, since
the Supreme Court decided the Texas case
four years ago. Abortion remains one of the
safest medical procedures — in Louisiana
and the rest of the country. As attorney Julie
Rikelman of the Center for Reproductive
Rights argued for the medical center and
doctors who filed the suit, not only is the
complication rate for abortion low, “but
when complications do occur, it’s almost al-
ways after the woman has left the clinic.” At
that point, a woman would go to the hospi-
tal nearest her home. Also, 40% of abortions
in Louisiana are medication-induced, so any
complications from those will happen when
the patient is at home, anyway.
What has changed since the Texas deci-
sion in 2016 is the makeup of the court, with
a key swing vote — Justice Anthony M. Ken-
nedy — departing. Abortion opponents
hope the new majority will decide that the
situation in Louisiana is somehow different
from Texas and uphold the Louisiana law.
But it isn’t, and they should not. Louisi-
ana has an extremely safe rate for abortion
care. The district court judge who ruled
against the law found that the Hope Medical
Group for Women — a Shreveport clinic run
by the company that brought the lawsuit —
sees over 3,000 patients a year, and in the
last 23 years, only four patients were sent to
a hospital with complications.
In fact, of the handful of doctors provid-
ing abortions at the time this case was filed,
only two had admitting privileges — one of
whom is expected to retire if the law goes
into effect. The remaining doctors tried to
get admitting privileges and could not. They
were turned down mainly because they wer-
en’t doctors who had a lot of patients to ad-
mit to hospitals — not because they were
bad doctors.
Not only does the law do nothing for the
safety of patients, it only ends up hindering
their access to abortion. Both the American
Medical Assn. and the American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists have said
there is no health reason for admitting privi-
leges. If the law were to go into effect (it is
currently stayed pending the decision of the
Supreme Court), the district court found
that Louisiana would probably be left with
only one clinic and one abortion provider.
That, in essence, would decimate abortion
care in a state that already has the most
abortion restrictions of any state: 89.
The law is unconstitutional anyway be-
cause the burdens it would place on abor-
tion rights outweigh the (nonexistent) med-
ical benefits it would provide. Like so many
laws passed in states hostile to abortion
rights, it is simply intended to thwart access
to abortion. The Supreme Court decided
that in the Texas case in 2016. It should de-
cide the exact same thing in this Louisiana
case in 2020.Louisiana’s abortion law ruse
Were you stuck in line
waiting to vote on election
day? Blame yourself.
I was a vote center poll
worker, lonely for 10 days
before Super Tuesday,
fighting to stay alert, ready
and waiting for voters.
In L.A. County, the
unnecessary crush of vot-
ers on the last day, not
surprisingly, caused the
new system to slow and
sometimes break. At some
locations, the lead staff
called in sick, leaving the
operation crippled.
However, at my center,
almost everyone loved the
new process. We had tech-
nical difficulties at times,
but voting never stopped.
Next time, vote on Sat-
urday, Sunday or Monday
before election day. Use
social media to find less
busy vote centers; where I
worked had almost no
lines. Vote early.
E. J. Parker
Long Beach::For the first time in my
life, during a grave crisis of
governance, I was pre-
vented from voting. This
not-too-able-bodied senior
citizen refused to become
the 100th person in line
outside my Westlake
polling place.
Talking to my friends
yielded similar stories,
including a three-hour wait
at UCLA.
The people who ap-
proved and implemented
this new system should
resign.
Anthony Saidy
Los Angeles::I worked at the vote
center at West Whittier
Elementary School, and
the new system worked
well until about 5 p.m. on
election day.
The machines used to
verify a voter’s registration
— the replacement for the
old paper list of voters —
slowed down, forcing us to
issue provisional ballots.
This caused lines. In con-
trast, the voting machines
had very few problems.
Having worked and
voted with the old and the
new systems, I think the
new system — more days of
walk-in voting, the ability
to vote at any vote center in
the county, and retaining
paper ballots and mail-in
voting — is a huge improve-
ment.
Owen Newcomer
WhittierNo candidate has
‘won’ California
Re “Biden in control after
big wins,” March 4More than an hour after
polls were supposed to
close on election night,
many remained open
because of long lines.Furthermore, the high
numbers of mail-in and
provisional ballots may
take days to count.
The vote is not in, and
the specific results based
on the primary rules for
California may not be
known for days, meaning
how many delegates each
candidate got will not be
known.
Nevertheless, headlines
from various sources de-
clared that Sen. Bernie
Sanders had won Cali-
fornia shortly after 8 p.m.
Tuesday. There is no speci-
fication of how the dele-
gates will be allocated. So,
as of now, no one has
“won.”
I never thought I would
use this phrase, but it
smacks of “fake news.”
What a disgrace to democ-
racy and journalism.
Michael Miller
Los Angeles::Considerable coverage
is given to the presidential
election candidates. They
claim positions on every-
thing, but laws are the
function of the legislative
branch, and the biggest
reason for our current
problems is the control
Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell (R-Ky.) exerts
on the Senate.
The focus of voters
should be on the Senate. I
wish former New York
Mayor Michael Bloomberg
and Tom Steyer, both
billionaires who dropped
out of the presidential race,
would pour their wealth
into the Senate races.
Paul McRae
Torrance::With the departure of
Bloomberg from the pri-
mary, Sanders and Sen.
Elizabeth Warren may
consider that they are the
hardest campaigners and
most ideologically compat-
ible candidates remaining
in the primary.
Running on a joint
ticket going forward might
be their best hope for se-
curing a progressive
agenda.
William T. Fidurski
Clark, N.J.A predawn
porch protest
Re “Husband of D.A. Lacey
pulls gun on protesters,”
March 3David Lacey pointing a
gun at protesters was a big
mistake, but a predawn
demonstration by 30 peo-
ple at his and his wife
Jackie Lacey’s home was
also wrong.
Are public officials like
Lacey, the Los Angeles
County district attorney,
now fair game for “house
calls” at all hours? As a
political tactic it seems theBlack Lives Matter group
got publicity for its cause,
but now other groups may
think this this is a great
idea for civic engagement.
How does it all end?
Badly, I’m afraid.
Gary K. Hart
Sacramento::Nothing illustrates the
urban-rural divide more
clearly than the reaction to
Black Lives Matter pro-
testers showing up at the
district attorney’s home at
5:30 a.m.
I can assure you that
most rural residents who
have angry folks appear on
their property before dawn
or after dusk will greet
them armed and vigilant.
In rural America, you are
responsible for yourself,
which includes being pre-
pared to defend your home,
your family and your prop-
erty.
As someone who splits
her time between subur-
ban California and rural
Montana and has handled
her fair share of difficult
situations, I can say that
the only thing I may have
done differently is use a
shotgun, keep my finger off
the trigger and loudly say,
“Get off my property now!”
Becky Davis
GoletaSanders and
Jewish voters
Re “Reveling in a moment
in history,” Opinion, March
1I’m glad that the pos-
sibility of a Jew becoming
our president is not un-
thinkable. However, I find
Rob Eshman’s views some-
what troubling.
I am sure that Eshman
would hear anti-Semitic
dog whistles if President
Trump were accusing
former New York Mayor
Michael Bloomberg of
trying to buy the election,
but he has no problem with
Sen. Bernie Sanders saying
so.
Furthermore, Eshman
is proud that Sanders can
express radical views, as
opposed to former vice
presidential nominee and
Sen. Joseph Lieberman,
whom Eshman says “had
to fit in.” Yet, Lieberman
proudly continued his
observance of Orthodox
Jewish law throughout his
political career.
In contrast, although
his views on the economy
may be radical, Sanders’
views “fit in” with the anti-
Israel tropes so popular on
American college cam-
puses today.
As a proud Jew and a
proud American, I will
support the candidate who
I think is best qualified for
the job, regardless of his or
her religion.
Toby F. Block
Atlanta::If, as Eshman suggests,
“in America, in 2020,
whether [Sanders and
Bloomberg] are loved or
reviled has everything to
do with their politics, and
little, or nothing, to do with
their faith,” then why are
they identified by Eshman
as Jewish men?
To characterize the
Sanders and Bloomberg
candidacies as “a powerful
and overdue counter-
narrative to the gloomy
story of increasing anti-
Semitism” is to ignore the
very real worldwide rise in
anti-Semitism.
Attacking Jews directly
is “counterproductive,”
and recognizing this, the
International Holocaust
Remembrance Alliance
working definition of anti-
Semitism includes these
words: “Denying the Jew-
ish people their right to
self-determination, e.g., by
claiming that the existence
of a State of Israel is a
racist endeavor.”
Does Eshman believe
that the anti-Zionism
transmutation of anti-
Semitism can be dismissed
as “a gloomy story”?
Julia Lutch
Davis, Calif.Voting ‘experience’
Re “New voting system brings hours-long waits, glitches,”
March 4While the new Los Angeles County voting machines
were easy to learn and quite accessible, the long wait
times Tuesday at the new “vote centers” were
inexcusable.
Mail-in ballots, the ability to vote in any neighborhood
and having more than a week of early voting days are
supposed to get more people to cast ballots, not act as an
excuse to limit options on election day.
The L.A. Times reports that in 2016, there were 4,
polling places in our county. On Tuesday there were just- Who made the ridiculous decision that Los Angeles
County should have 80% fewer polling locations than we
had four years ago?
Recently I watched a rebroadcast of Spectrum News’
interview with Dean C. Logan, the Los Angeles County
registrar-recorder. He touted the new voting machines
and repeatedly mentioned his desire to enhance the
voting experience.
I don’t want a voting “experience.” I want to vote
without missing work to do it.
Steve Barnett
Santa Monica
Al SeibLos Angeles Times
VOTERSat a UCLA voting center had to wait
about two hours to cast a ballot on Tuesday.EXECUTIVECHAIRMANDr. Patrick Soon-Shiong
EXECUTIVEEDITORNorman Pearlstine
MANAGINGEDITOR
Scott Kraft
SENIORDEPUTYMANAGINGEDITOR
Kimi Yoshino
DEPUTYMANAGINGEDITORS
Sewell Chan, Shelby Grad, Shani O. Hilton,
Julia Turner
EXECUTIVESPORTSEDITOR
Christian Stone
ASSISTANTMANAGINGEDITORS
John Canalis, Len De Groot, Amy King,
Loree Matsui, Angel Rodriguez
Opinion
Nicholas Goldberg EDITOR OF THEEDITORIALPAGES
FOUNDED DECEMBER 4, 1881 Sue Horton OP-ED ANDSUNDAYOPINIONEDITOR