The Washington Post - USA (2022-05-25)

A2 2 EZ RE THE WASHINGTON POST.WEDNESDAY, MAY 25 , 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

“H

OW MANY kids and con- gregants could have been spared horrific harm if only the Executive Committee had taken action back in 2006 when I first wrote to them, urging specific concrete steps? And how many survivors could have been spared the re-traumatizing hell of trying to report clergy sex abuse into a system that consistently turns its back?” Those questions were posed last year to the company probing the South- ern Baptist Convention’s handling of alle- gations from a woman who had been sexually assaulted by a youth minister when she was 16. The questions bear repeating now that the investigation has concluded with findings that Southern Baptist leaders stonewalled and bullied victims and resisted any attempts at reform over two decades. The SBC, the country’s largest Protes- tant denomination, on Sunday released a report by independent investigators that describes in nearly 300 pages of scathing detail how the executive committee that runs the convention’s day-to-day operations and its lawyers conspired to squelch complaints of predator pastors to avoid

legal liability. Guidepost Solutions, which interviewed about 330 people and amassed five terabytes of data over the course of its eight-month investigation, examined abuse reports from women and children against male ministers from 2000 to 2021. Among the damning revela- tions: Senior leaders, including three former presidents, protected or even sup- ported abusers; women and girls who were subjected to sexual abuse were re-victimized by a system that sought to demonize them; leaders falsely claimed they could not maintain a database of offenders to prevent abuse when a secret list of more than 700 abusive pastors had been compiled. No action was taken to ensure the accused ministers were no longer in positions to do harm. Credit the survivors of the abuse and their advocates for their persistence in seeking answers and accountability for the horrors they experienced. Credit also the pioneering journalism of the Houston Chronicle and San Antonio Express- News for their landmark investigation in 2019 that documented hundreds of abuse cases in Southern Baptist churches, including several in which accused perpe-

trators remained in the ministry. Just as the Boston Globe’s prizewinning investigation of sex abuse by Catholic priests made it impossible to ignore the problem, so the Texas newspapers put a spotlight on this same scourge in the SBC, prompt- ing delegates to last year’s national meeting to insist on an independent investigation and the disclosure of that confiden- tial church material. The thoroughness and transparency of the investigation — no cost was spared and no punches were pulled — are e n- couraging signs that the SBC might be serious about cleaning house and changing a culture that enabled molesters. The report contains nearly 30 pages of recom- mendations, including creating a perma- nent entity to oversee sexual abuse and prevention, requiring a code of conduct, issuing an apology to survivors and pro- hibiting nondisclosure agreements. SBC leaders held a public meeting Tuesday and said there would be an apology to survivors and that the organization was working on making the list of sex abusers available to the public. The convention next month will hold its annual meeting and should finish the job it started.

The SBC faces up to sex abuse

Now the convention must follow through on reforms.

I

N MARYLAND’S solidly Democratic 4th Congressional District, an- chored in Prince George’s County, the party’s primary this summer is a contest between two relatively well- known “formers.” It pits former represen- tative Donna F. Edwards, running to regain the seat she held from 2008 to 2017, against Prince George’s former top prosecutor, Glenn Ivey. Both are able, savvy, qualified candidates, but Mr. Ivey would make a more effective member of Congress. He has our endorsement. Maryland’s newly drawn voting map left the 4th District even bluer than it was before, which is saying something. Who- ever wins the party’s July 19 primary is a shoo-in to win the general election for a seat being vacated by Rep. Anthony Brown, a Democrat running for Mary- land attorney general. This contest does not turn on ideology. Both Mr. Ivey and Ms. Edwards are steadfast liberals, although there are shades of difference between them, their stances on Israel being one. (Mr. Ivey, generally supportive, has received major donations facilitated by the political action committee of the main pro-Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Ms. Edwards has at times tilted toward the Palestinians.) Both support expanded health-care coverage and

paid family leave; an array of steps to promote gun control and police accountability; and tough measures to grapple with climate change. Both are forthright advocates. In pre- vious races, we have endorsed each of them. The telling difference, based on their records, is that Mr. Ivey has a track record of advancing his agenda through pragmatic, effective head-knocking and compromise. By contrast, Ms. Edwards, her policy expertise notwithstanding, has too often insisted on a purist political approach — statements of principle untethered from getting things done. (She is also a former Post contributing columnist.) It’s useful to revisit Mr. Ivey’s highly successful tenure as the state’s attorney in Prince George’s, one of the state’s biggest prosecutor’s offices. Over eight years in the job, through 2010, Mr. Ivey overhauled an outfit left in shambles by his predecessor and turned it into an effective, reform-minded office. He made a priority of domestic abuse, seeking tough sentences for abusers and high- lighting the problem in the county; estab- lished programs to divert first offenders rather than lock them up for minor crimes, and to help ex-offenders reenter society after incarceration; and launched aggressive prosecutions against violent

gangs, police officers who used excessive force and mortgage fraudsters. Nor is Mr. Ivey a stranger to operating effectively on Capitol Hill, which he learned firsthand, before running for office, as a senior aide to key members of Congress. His breadth of experience would be an asset for the district, whose agenda includes a long-term effort to land a new campus for the FBI to replace its antiquated, crumbling downtown headquarters. No one doubts Ms. Edwards’s intelli- gence, integrity and idealism. Yet during her eight years on the Hill, she some- times antagonized colleagues in Con- gress, including by spurning hard-fought compromises that fellow Democrats had negotiated. Those included trade deals and a bill to expand financial disclosure for corporate spending on political cam- paigns. Many colleagues, including members of the Congressional Black Caucus, declined to support her in unsuc- cessful races for the U.S. Senate, in 2016, and county executive of Prince George’s, in 2018. Her congressional office was widely regarded as unresponsive to con- stituents who needed help, a problem that, to her credit, she has pledged to correct if reelected. In Mr. Ivey, the 4th District has a better choice.

The pragmatic vs. the purist

Mr. Ivey is the right choice for Maryland’s 4th District Democratic primary.

Certainly that uncompromising atti- tude was on display on July 11, 2021, when President Miguel Díaz-Canel sup- pressed a spontaneous wave of street protests with overwhelming force. Hun- dreds were arrested. Estimates vary as to how many political prisoners have been put in Cuban prisons over the past 10 months, but Cubalex, a Miami-based nongovernmental organization, puts the count at more than 700. Like his close ally and patron, President Vladimir Putin of Russia — whose Ukraine invasion Cuba has not condemned but officially attrib- uted to NATO’s alleged provocations — Díaz-Canel believes that popular protests result from U.S. meddling and must be crushed. This is what Cuban communists have always believed, in times of rapproche- ment with Washington and in times of tension. On the day before the Biden

policy changes were announced, the rubber-stamp Cuban national assembly adopted a “modernized” penal code. Among other repressive new features, it threatens three years in prison for “in- sulting” high government officials. It targets independent journalists, who often receive support from abroad, by prescribing 10 years in prison for those who accept foreign funding “with the purpose of engaging in activities against the State or its constitutional order.” Mr. Biden’s policy tweak might help Cubans who have access to foreign remittances withstand the harsh economic privation on the island, which is laudable as far as it goes. Meanwhile, the most important thing those outside the island can do for its people is to maintain unwavering, vocal solidarity with them — and moral clarity about the true source of their poverty and oppression.

A

FTER A Cuba policy review, Pres- ident Biden has announced the easing of some sanctions that his predecessor, Donald Trump, im- posed to punish the communist nation’s government for its human rights viola- tions and support of a similar dictator- ship in Venezuela. Mr. Trump’s actions had partially reversed a broader engagement initiated in the waning days of the Obama administration. Biden is now nudging policy back toward the Obama approach — very modestly. A $1,000-per- quarter cap on remittances to Cubans from family in the United States will end; nonfamily remittances will also be modi- fied to allow payments to independent small businesses. Direct flights, by both charters and scheduled airlines, will be expanded and group educational travel reinstated. The U.S. Embassy will resume issuing family reunification immigrant visa applications, to clear a backlog of 22,000 applications. This might help channel Cuban migration through legal processes rather than the risky illegal path thousands are taking across the southern border. The plan met with criticism from sup- porters of tough sanctions who — under- standably — question the wisdom of en- abling more cash to flow to Cuba, given that much of it will be siphoned off by the regime. Nor did Mr. Biden’s small-bore changes entirely please those who still believe greater engagement is the key to changing Cuba. It might help if all sides in this repetitive debate would acknowledge that U.S. policy does not have decisive influence on Cuba. The essential problem is the repressive conduct of the Havana regime, and its root cause is that regime’s unbending will to power.

The key to Cuba

In Havana, global solidarity is more important than U.S. policy.

ERNESTO MASTRASCUSA/ESTUDIO REVOLUCION/EPA-EFE/SHUTTERSTOCK Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel in Havana on Saturday.

Regarding the May 20 news article “National Zoo defends euthanizing fox”: I find the zoo’s explanation for euthanizing a wild red fox both cruel and ridiculous. The fox was merely acting naturally. It was the zoo’s fault for inade- quately maintaining the fence. Further, why do we need to have flamingos in captivity? Clipping their wings is just as cruel, as they have been deprived of their natural ability to fly. Milton Chung, Chantilly

Zoo in hot water

own funds. If travel is required, including from overseas duty stations, users of military health care must also pay for that and use their leave time, which means getting permission to take leave. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, the situation will become even more difficult. Many civilians will face the same difficulties. The military sexual assault problem continues unabated; however, Congress recently made changes to the military justice system, effective in late 2023, that will remove the decision to prosecute from the accused’s commanding officer and place that decision in the hands of a special military prosecutor. Roe should not be overturned, and the military medical system — and that of the Department of Veterans Affairs as well — should allow military women and family members to exercise their right to choose abortion. Lory Manning, Arlington The writer is a retired Navy captain and director of government operations for the Service Women’s Action Network.

Regarding the oft-debated assertion that full personhood exists at conception, consider this hypothetical situation: A healthy adult person stands before you with a fertilized ovum, a small blob of cells, cupped in one hand. You must kill him or the conceptus. Clearly, they are not of equal value; potential is not the same as full actuality, and human personhood de- velops along a spectrum. This was how my Episcopal bishop framed the question of personhood to me back in the 1980s. That some are still unwilling to accept a dis- tinction between the clump of cells and the adult human is ludicrous. Susan M. Flanders, Washington

Regarding Monica Hesse’s May 14 Style column, “Politicians kiss babies, then kiss off their mothers”: Antiabortion activists carry signs read- ing, “Adoption, Not Abortion”; Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Tex.) says, “Less abortion, more adoption”; and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., in a leaked draft opinion, writes about “safe haven” laws that “generally allow women to drop off babies anony- mously,” and that “a woman who puts her newborn up for adoption today has little reason to fear that the baby will not find a suitable home.” These represent the opinions of indi- viduals who either have no personal knowledge of the trauma of adoption or view it through a rose-colored lens. That’s not me. For 74 years, as an adoptee and as someone who surrendered her own child, I have lived with a form of post-traumatic stress disorder called relinquishment trauma. This is despite the fact that I was raised in what Justice Alito would call a “suitable home.” Consider what it means to be labeled “illegitimate” by some; or to be treated as a social pariah by your parents when you become pregnant; or to feel the grief when your newborn is taken from your arms. To those who are deter- mined to overturn Roe v. Wade, would you really consign your loved ones to a future with PTSD? Please leave these decisions in the hands of the women who must live with them. Believe me, they know what is best for themselves and their families. Leni Preston, Bethesda

It’s not clear from Allison Gill’s May 19 op-ed, “Overthrowing Roe would be dis- astrous for the military,” but the military has been post-Roe since 1979, when the Hyde amendment was applied to the military medical system, banning all abortions at military medical facilities and forbidding use of federal funding for all abortions except when the life of the mother is at risk. That prohibition was eased to allow exceptions in cases of rape and incest. For the past 40 years, military women seeking an abortion have had to obtain it at a civilian clinic and pay for it with their

The trauma of adoption

Regarding Ezekiel J. Emanuel’s May 15 Sunday Opinion piece, “It’s time to stop dismissing the risk of long covid”: I agree with Dr. Emanuel’s position on long covid. Like him, my husband and I continue to wear N95 masks, avoid air and train travel, avoid crowded events, and avoid eating indoors at restaurants. We continue to do these things because of the risk of long covid. Like Dr. Emanuel, we are both physicians. When I ask my friends and relatives whether they were doing the same, the majority said no. The ones who said yes are physicians. They also have long covid on their minds. Here’s the question: Why is it that people are ignoring long covid? Is it because information about long covid and its devastating effects is not adequately being shared? Is it because the right media, the right messages are not being used to highlight the risks of long covid and the need to still be cautious? I don’t have the answers. I want to emphasize that long covid is not rare. Covid-19 is not behind us, and long covid should no longer be an ignored complication. It should be brought to the forefront of improved public health information activities. May Post, Rockville

Stop ignoring long covid

The May 19 Politics & the Nation article “Report: Pollution responsible for 1 in 6 deaths worldwide over past five years” reported that 9 million people die because o f pollution each year. It told us that most of this takes place in poorer coun- tries. However, you needn’t go farther than Baltimore to find this kind of pollution coming from the Wheelabrator incinerator, which burns trash for energy. Most of us wouldn’t consider burning our trash in our neighbor’s backyard. My neighbors have two friendly, inquisitive little girls who love to pet our old dog. I can’t imagine my trash releasing cancer- causing formaldehyde into their little lungs as they ride their bikes. The thought mercury or sulfur dioxide giving them lifelong health problems is unthinkable. I won’t imagine the damage to their lungs, livers, hearts and immune systems. But trash from many of us is being burned in our Baltimore neighbor’s backyard. The incinerator burns trash from Baltimore City as well as Baltimore, A nne Arundel, Howard, Montgomery, St. Mary’s and Prince George’s counties. Unsurpris- ingly, Baltimore is suffering. According to the Baltimore City Health Department’s “Healthy Baltimore 2020,” the city’s mor- tality rate is “nearly 30 percent higher than the rest of the state” and it “ranks last on key health outcomes.” I believe we must stop this incinerator from poisoning our neighbors. We can start by asking our county leaders to stop sending our trash to be burned in our neighbor’s backyard, and our Maryland legislators to stop allowing ratepayer dollars to subsidize the incinerator. Birgit Sharp, Owings

We must stop burning trash

 Letters can be sent to [email protected]. Submissions must be exclusive to The Post and should include the writer’s address and day and evening telephone numbers.

The Washington Post - USA (2022-05-25)

Get our desktop app

Company

Features

Documentation

Resources