Editor,
I am responding to Elaine Sallinger’s letter (anti-choice candidate). Ms. Sallinger made disparaging comments regarding Ron Linhares (who is running for San Mateo City Council) possibly being pro-life because he works for the San Francisco Archdiocese. The Archdiocese donated $20,000 to the No on proposition 1.
I’m not going to talk about Ms. Sallinger attacking Catholics, people of faith or conservatives, but about Proposition 1. The legislator has already committed over $200 million of taxpayers’ money this year alone to expand abortion services, including tens of millions of taxpayers’ money for abortion seekers from other states. Proposition 1 is an extreme and costly proposal that does nothing to advance women’s health, and it eliminates all limits on late-term abortions in defiance of what most voters want.
Gov. Newsom has already signed a package of 12 bills for abortion so far this year (09.27.22). The California Legislature voted in June to add an initiative to the upcoming November ballot that would amend California’s constitution to ensure all abortions without limitation be protected right up to the moment of birth. If amended, it will put California in the same category as China and North Korea that permit abortion up until birth, even when the mother’s life is not in danger. Existing California law restricts abortion after the age of viability, usually 24 weeks, unless a doctor determines the abortion is necessary to protest the life and health of the mother. Please vote no.
Charles Bonnici
Burlingame
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
Only subscribers can view and post comments on articles.
Already a subscriber? Login Here
Sorry, an error occurred.
Already Subscribed!
Cancel anytime
Thank you .
Your account has been registered, and you are now logged in.
Check your email for details.
Submitting this form below will send a message to your email with a link to change your password.
An email message containing instructions on how to reset your password has been sent to the email address listed on your account.
No promotional rates found.
Secure & Encrypted
Thank you.
Your gift purchase was successful! Your purchase was successful, and you are now logged in.
| Rate: | |
| Begins: | |
| Transaction ID: |
A receipt was sent to your email.
(8) comments
"{'m not going to talk about Mr. Salinger attacking Catholics..." Someone should. Salinger's LTE was packed with guilt by association as well as Cathophobia.
Mea Culpa. Should be Ms. Sallinger, sted Mr. Salinger.
I'm a Catholic and I don't feel attacked. 47% of American Catholics believe that abortion should be legal in "all or most cases". Fact is that Archbishop Cordileone gets a lot of stuff wrong. I can assure you the Archbishop position and donations to defeat Prop 1 don't reflect the views of all Catholics. :)
Dear miebaron - Catholic Doctrine specifically prohibit abortions except in very few cases. To state that 47% of all Catholics support abortion is a generalization. Technically, you are Catholic in name only. Sorry bud, but you can't have it both ways and I would accept guidance form our Archbishop before I take it from you.
Yes, 47% of all Catholics support keeping abortion legal. Generally or specifically, still true. It matters little how you feel about it Dirk. Most probably and generally those 47% don't give a hoot who you take guidance from.
mlebaron, it sounds like 47% (assuming your number is valid) don’t give a hoot about the Catholic Doctrine. So does that make them Catholic in name only, as Mr. van Ulden has stated? One has to wonder who they give a hoot about to take their guidance from.
Well miebaron - I have never given a hoot about what people think of me. And I am not about to start now.
Why should the constitution be framed based on the doctrine of a single religion?
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.