The Washington Post - USA (2022-05-08)

A30 EZ RE THE WASHINGTON POST.SUNDAY, MAY 8 , 2022

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

[email protected]

MICHAEL DE ADDER

ABCDE

FREDERICK J. RYAN JR.

Publisher and Chief Executive Officer

NEWS

SALLY BUZBEE....................................Executive Editor

CAMERON BARR.....................Senior Managing Editor

KAT DOWNS MULDER.......Chief Product Officer & ME

STEVEN GINSBERG............................Managing Editor

KRISSAH THOMPSON.........................Managing Editor

SHARIF DURHAMS.................Deputy Managing Editor

MONICA NORTON..................Deputy Managing Editor

LIZ SEYMOUR.........................Deputy Managing Editor

MARK W. SMITH.....................Deputy Managing Editor

SCOTT VANCE.........................Deputy Managing Editor

BARBARA VOBEJDA...............Deputy Managing Editor

EDITORIAL AND OPINIONS

RUTH MARCUS................Deputy Editorial Page Editor

KAREN TUMULTY.............Deputy Editorial Page Editor

JO-ANN ARMAO............Associate Editorial Page Editor

OFFICERS

JAMES W. COLEY JR.........................................Production

L. WAYNE CONNELL............................Human Resources

KATE M. DAVEY.....................................Revenue Strategy

ELIZABETH H. DIAZ...Audience Development & Insights

GREGG J. FERNANDES.........Customer Care & Logistics

SHANI GEORGE......................................Communications

STEPHEN P. GIBSON.....................Finance & Operations

KRISTINE CORATTI KELLY....Communications & Events

JOHN B. KENNEDY...................General Counsel & Labor

MIKI TOLIVER KING..................................................Arc XP

SHAILESH PRAKASH..Digital Product Dev./Engineering

MICHAEL A. RIBERO....................................Subscriptions

JOY ROBINS..........................................................Revenue

The Washington Post

1301 K St. NW, Washington, D.C. 20071

(202) 334-6000

ABCDE

AN INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER

EDITORIALS

A

THIRD member of the extremist

Oath Keepers group pleaded

guilty Wednesday to seditious

conspiracy, admitting his role in

the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack. The pleas

provide more proof that the right-wing

campaign to whitewash Jan. 6, playing

down the extent to which the partici-

pants sought to stage an insurrection, is

not just craven but also dangerous. The

attackers did not behave like “tourists”;

they were not unarmed; Jan. 6 was not a

normal protest that got out of hand; the

attack was not staged by far-left agita-

tors posing as Trump supporters. In-

stead, it was a coordinated and concert-

ed effort on the part of pro-Trump

zealots, riled up by then-President

D onald Trump himself, to reverse a

presidential election by intimidation

and force.

William Todd Wilson led a North

Carolina cell of the Oath Keepers, a

heavily armed far-right radical group.

According to the Justice Department,

Mr. Wilson admitted that “he agreed

with others to take part in a plan to use

force to prevent, hinder, and delay the

execution of the laws of the United

States governing the transfer of presi-

dential power. He and others used

encrypted and private communications,

equipped themselves with a variety of

weapons, donned combat and tactical

gear, and were prepared to answer a call

to take up arms.” The goal was “to stop

the transfer of power by disrupting a

joint session of the U.S. Congress con-

vened to ascertain and count the elector-

al votes related to the presidential

election.”

Mr. Wilson stashed an AR-15-style

rifle, a pistol and ammunition in a

Virginia hotel, the Justice Department

stated. Teams of “quick reaction forces”

were stationed in area hotels, waiting to

join the attack, according to court rec-

ords. Mr. Wilson also brought “a large

walking stick intended for use as a

weapon, and a pocketknife.” On Jan. 6,

he was the first of the Oath Keepers

co-conspirators to force his way into the

Capitol, the Justice Department noted.

Mr. Wilson also admitted that, after

law enforcement resecured the Capitol,

he was present during a phone call

between Oath Keepers leader Stewart

Rhodes and someone apparently close to

Mr. Trump and heard “Rhodes repeated-

ly implore the individual to tell Presi-

dent Trump to call upon groups like the

Oath Keepers to forcibly oppose the

transfer of power,” according to court

records. It is bad enough that a danger-

ous fanatic such as Mr. Rhodes appar-

ently had access to someone in

Mr. Trump’s inner circle. It is chilling to

imagine what would have happened if

his message had been relayed — or if the

Oath Keepers had been able to speak

directly with Mr. Trump.

Jan. 6 should have been a turning

point in our politics. Voters must recog-

nize that where politicians stand on

democracy is more important than tax

rates, inflation, gas prices or any other

policy issue. Lawmakers who see the

threat that growing illiberal forces pose

to the nation must secure its democratic

institutions. A bipartisan group of sena-

tors has been working on updating the

1887 Electoral Count Act, misinterpreta-

tions of which served as the predicate for

the events of Jan. 6. Their window to fix

the act, clarifying that neither the vice

president nor Congress can overturn a

presidential election in the manner that

Mr. Trump and his supporters desired, is

closing. They must move faster. They

should have no higher priority.

Jan. 6 must define our politics

Another guilty plea reveals more about one of the darkest days in U.S. history.

D

URING HIS more than seven

years in office, Maryland

Gov. Larry Hogan has deployed a

deft hand in balancing his con-

servative instincts as a Republican execu-

tive in an overwhelmingly Democratic

state. But by withholding $3.5 million in

legislatively approved funds intended to

train medical professionals to provide

safe abortions, Mr. Hogan has betrayed

the wishes of many Marylanders on

grounds that appear disingenuous.

The governor’s move comes as he

weighs a campaign for the Republican

presidential nomination in primaries

whose voters are much more likely to

oppose abortion rights than most Mary-

landers. In that context, his action to

block a modest funding program to

expand access to safe abortions might

look like smart politics. But it’s not

straight-dealing for the people who

elected him to the office he holds.

Mr. Hogan, a Catholic, opposes abor-

tion, a position he has acknowledged

forthrightly. However, as a candidate for

governor he pledged to respect the right

of those pregnant to seek the procedure,

which he termed “settled law.” That

stance was intended to soothe abortion

rights advocates’ fears among swing

voters, as well as crossover Democrats,

that he would try to restrict access. In

crafting it, Mr. Hogan certainly knew

that polls show an overwhelming major-

ity of Marylanders, including Republi-

cans, support abortion access under at

least some circumstances.

Mr. Hogan defends his move with the

use of clever verbal jujitsu. He says he

promised not to change the state’s abor-

tion laws, on the books for three decades,

and says that position is consistent with

blocking easier access by training more

providers. But few Marylanders would

have guessed Mr. Hogan’s position, craft-

ed as an assurance he would not narrow

abortion access, would be used as justifi-

cation for opposing broader access. Yet

that is what the governor has done.

In fact, Mr. Hogan’s intervention will

have a short shelf life. The new law,

enacted by the Democratic-controlled

General Assembly in Annapolis, man-

dates state funding starting next year,

after he leaves office, to provide abortion

training for nurse practitioners, certified

nurse midwives and physician assis-

tants. The funding at issue now would

have gotten the program started this

summer, with the governor’s approval.

The law is not radical. Nearly one-

third of states allow nurse practitioners,

midwives and physician assistants to

provide abortions, something Mr. Hogan

ignored in insisting that only licensed

physicians should be qualified to do so. A

major six-year study led by the Univer-

sity of California at San Francisco

showed that first-trimester abortions

were just as safe when performed by the

trained medical professionals specified

in Maryland’s legislation as by doctors.

At least half the states are likely to

restrict abortion access if given the green

light by the Supreme Court, as expected.

In nearby ones, such as West Virginia,

those who want to terminate unwanted

pregnancies might seek to do so in

Maryland. They should have safe and

ready means to do so.

Et tu, Mr. Hogan?

Maryland’s governor succumbs to playing politics with abortion access.

F

EDERAL PROSECUTORS in

D.C. have brought conspiracy

charges against the kingpin of a

brutal Haitian gang that has

kidnapped and menaced the Caribbean

nation, and last year abducted 17 Chris-

tian missionaries there from a

U.S.-based charity. He has been extra-

dited to the United States. That’s an

important blow to impunity in a place

where it has become the norm, but it is

unlikely to slow Haiti’s accelerating

spiral of violence, lawlessness and cor-

ruption, to which Washington has

a cquiesced.

Since mid-September, U.S. authorities

have expelled more than 20,000 Hai-

tians, mostly on flights that have arrived

almost daily in the capital, Port-au-

Prince. There, many of them are effec-

tively fuel for the fire that has consumed

their home country: Their chances of

finding work are abysmal, but the

possibility that they will be victimized

amid the pervasive criminality is all too

real.

Haiti’s turmoil is multidimensional;

it’s no surprise so many Haitians are

desperate for haven here. In addition to

its supine economy and related hunger

and public health problems, the random

chaos of daily life delivers trauma for

many.

In recent weeks, gang warfare erupt-

ed in and around Port-au-Prince, killing

at least 39 civilians, including children,

according to Haiti’s civil protection

agency. The pandemonium, in which

dozens of houses burned, left schools,

medical clinics and markets closed and

forced well over 1,000 to flee their

homes. The unchecked mayhem has

left the capital itself in danger of

isolation from the rest of the country

because major connecting roads are in

the hands of gangs that kidnap, extort

and assault at random.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken, in

remarks before the Senate Appropria-

tions Committee, suggested that the

Biden administration is resigned to the

cauldron that has enveloped the country

of 11 million. He said Washington is

trying to strengthen Haiti’s police, who

are often outgunned by the gangs. Yet he

left the impression that the United

States, despite its considerable influ-

ence, has not mounted a concerted,

muscular diplomatic push to address

Haiti’s underlying problem — the ab-

sence of a legitimate government, or

even elected officials, with no prospect

of elections on the horizon. “We’re trying

to facilitate that,” Mr. Blinken said

tepidly, “but having said that, the prob-

lems are so deep-rooted and so challeng-

ing that I think the road is very long.”

Washington’s shrugging approach to

Haiti isn’t really an approach at all; it’s

an abdication. It is particularly indefen-

sible given that it was so predictable that

the country’s already parlous conditions

would deteriorate after the assassina-

tion last year of Haitian President

Jovenel Moïse. Mr. Moïse was no one’s

idea of a stalwart of democracy, good

governance and sound economic man-

agement. But the consequences of the

power vacuum left in his wake were not

hard to foretell.

The extradition on Tuesday from

Haiti of Germine Joly, the jailed leader of

the feared 400 Mawozo gang, is hearten-

ing; he and three others are charged

with conspiracy to smuggle firearms and

munitions from the United States to

Haiti. That’s a positive step. It is no

substitute for a vigorous U.S. policy.

The U.S.’s tepid stance in Haiti

Washington’s approach is an abdication.

ODELYN JOSEPH/ASSOCIATED PRESS

A woman and child run past burning barricades during a demonstration against

increasing violence in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, on March 29.

Federalist Society, a conservative group

that favors returning as much power as

possible to the states.

Ms. Collins claims to be pro-choice. If the

leaked draft opinion from the Supreme

Court is any indication of the final ruling,

choice will be taken from women living in

many states. Draconian trigger laws in

some states would prohibit abortion even

in the cases of rape or incest.

I hope Ms. Collins can live with herself,

although I don’t see how that’s possible.

Susan Weinmann, Rockville

Notwithstanding the eloquence of the

language that George F. Will brings to his

writing, I was gobsmacked in the third

paragraph of his May 4 op-ed regarding the

leak of the Alito draft opinion to overturn

Roe v. Wade, “Alito’s draft is less a refuta-

tion of Roe than a starting over.” I could

accept Mr. Will’s reference to the “stench in

the building” that would be left from the

leaker’s action. However, comparing the

early release of a draft document to the

horrific action of a traitorous Jan. 6 mob

was beyond the pale. Besides, to those

paying attention, this document is more

Captain Obvious than a surprise.

Historically, most improper disclosures

of documents have been quite revelatory,

of great moment and beneficial in the long

run. I think of the Pentagon Papers, Water-

gate and, most recently, the brave whistle-

blowers such as Lt. Col. Alexander Vind-

man, whose divulging of material led to the

first impeachment of President Donald

Trump. The actions of those public serv-

ants were not dangerous to others, for only

they were at risk.

Though Mr. Will might not agree,

The Post and I believe that “Democracy

Dies in Darkness.”

Greg Grapsas, Olney

George F. Will wrote that “the person...

who leaked the draft Supreme Court opin-

ion... betrayed the trust of those who gave

him or her access to Justice Samuel A. Alito

Jr.’s draft opinion overturning Roe” and

“probably got into a position to commit

this infamous betrayal by swearing never

to do such a thing.”

Supreme Court Justices Neil M. Gor-

such, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney

Barrett did essentially the same thing as

the leaker. Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh

and Barrett speciously stated in a variety of

ways under oath during their confirmation

hearings that they understood Roe to be

“settled law” or other terms to that effect.

That the legal definition of “settled law”

has since come under scrutiny makes the

statements no less specious.

Their statements resulted in them now

being in a position to commit this infa-

mous betrayal of senators who, based on

those specious statements, voted to con-

firm their nominations to the court.

There is still time for Justices Gorsuch,

Kavanaugh and Barrett to set a more hon-

est and honorable example by refusing to

betray the senators who unwittingly voted

for their confirmation, the American peo-

ple and U.S. institutions. To do so they must

allow Roe to remain law.

Teri Simpson Lojewski, Berlin, Md.

As a relinquished and adopted adult, I

can testify that adoption is no solution for

banning abortion. Adoption is painful and

complicated at best. Most of our mothers

were poor and/or single women living in

societies that abandoned and ostracized

them. Better solutions include supporting

a woman’s right to choose abortion, pro-

viding affordable child care and early-

childhood education and reinstating the

child tax credit. This would turn the “right

to life” into the “right to live.”

Nicole Burton, Riverdale Park

The irony of the Supreme Court’s dismay

over the breach of its privacy — about a

judicial opinion affecting the privacy of

millions of Americans if Roe v. Wade is

overturned [“Supreme Court will investi-

gate leaked draft of abortion opinion,”

front page, May 4] — cannot be overstated.

Emily Pegues, Alexandria

In her May 4 op-ed, “Democrats have a

message. Will they seize it?,” Karen Tumul-

ty wrote that the question for the 2022 elec-

tions is whether voters wish to give Repub-

licans the reins to outlaw abortion, restrict

voting rights, ban books and airbrush ra-

cial history.

Republicans are engaged in a misguided

effort to retreat 70 years (almost a third of

this country’s history) and return to the

1950s, when minorities knew their place.

This is decidedly not conservative; it is

reactionary.

Greg Williams, Columbia

I thought I had no words about the

leaked draft Supreme Court opinion. But I

found a few.

They want freedom of speech but only if

it’s their speech. They want freedom of

religion but only if it’s their religion. They

want government out of their lives but

want to govern women’s bodies. They want

law and order, but they think they’re above

it. They want patriotism but won’t fight

against insurrectionists. They want fami-

lies first but only their families.

All that has been gained over so many

years is being chipped away. Margaret

Atwood was prophetic back in 1985. Yes, it

could happen here and now.

Susan Pfaff, Nags Head, N.C.

Regarding the May 4 news article “Two

GOP senators are on the defensive over

their votes in support of justices”:

Like Captain Renault in the movie “Cas-

ablanca,” Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) is

shocked (shocked!) to find out that the

Trump-appointed justices whom she voted

to confirm would go back on their state-

ments that Roe v. Wade is settled prec-

edent. What did she expect? In the 2016

presidential campaign, Donald Trump

promised his supporters that the reversal

of Roe “will happen, automatically” if he

were elected and had the opportunity to

appoint justices. Furthermore, his nomi-

nees seem to have been handpicked by the

A woman’s rights

The May 1 Metro article about the

effort by Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin

(R) to shorten the terms of elected local

officials whom he views as enemies,

“Youngkin escalates Loudoun conflict,”

said his action is “likely without modern

precedent.”

There is precedent. In 1954, the Su-

preme Court’s Brown v. Board of Educa-

tion of Topeka decision ruled segregation

of schools by race unconstitutional. The

response of Arlington County’s elected

school board was that it would comply

with the law. The governor and legisla-

ture were shocked, just as Mr. Youngkin is

shocked now. They retaliated by abolish-

ing Arlington’s elected school board.

Henceforth, that board would be appoint-

ed by the county board, whose views then

were in keeping with Virginia’s policy of

Massive Resistance to racial equality.

Mr. Youngkin is also taking a page from

the 1950s segregationist handbook when

he expresses sympathy for voter suppres-

sion measures. The forces that ran the

commonwealth in the 1950s were puz-

zled at how folks in Arlington could elect

officials who did not see the wisdom of

Jim Crow laws. The reason, they conclud-

ed, must be that many Arlington voters

rented apartments and thus lacked a

long-term tie to the community. They

thought the cure would be limiting voting

rights to freeholders — folks who owned

land. That proposal failed only when it

was discovered that, under Virginia law,

when a homeowner has a mortgage, it is

the bank and not the homeowner who is

the freeholder.

So, there is precedent for Mr. Young-

kin’s actions: the tactics of segregation-

ists. If Mr. Youngkin objects to being

lumped with racists, he shouldn’t adopt

their tactics.

Ken Letzler, McLean

Historical references