Letters: KC readers discuss Roger Marshall versus Barbara Bollier
Bollier not extreme
A political ad takes aim at U.S. Senate candidate and Kansas state Sen. Barbara Bollier, claiming she takes an extreme position on abortion. Quite the opposite: Bollier’s position gives families, and not the government, the power to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy that threatens the life of the mother.
Does that sound extreme? Absolutely not.
What is extreme is her opponent Rep. Roger Marshall’s position that an abortion should not be allowed even in the case of rape. That, I believe, most Kansas families would find extreme.
Bollier, a voice of reason, would keep government out of the personal lives of Kansas families. She deserves your vote for the Senate this November.
- Alex Migliazzo, Leawood
Vote for Marshall
I listened to the Senate candidates from Kansas debate Saturday, as this upcoming election is the most consequential of our lifetime.
I practiced medicine for 33 years, including 11 years in western Kansas, where Rep. Roger Marshall practiced. There is a dichotomy between Kansas state Sen. Barbara Bollier and Marshall, both medical and political.
Given Bollier’s vicissitude in political parties, I wonder how her electorate feels after she was elected using the Republican name and funds, then shifted parties. According to her biography, she hasn’t practiced medicine since 1999.
Marshall continues to practice medicine. He also served seven years in the Army Reserve. While in Congress during the coronavirus pandemic, he has returned frequently to work in Kansas clinics from Liberal to Wyandotte County.
Marshall is a competent, compassionate, Christian conservative — all the qualities of a caring physician and public servant. He opposes the abhorrent act of abortion. He is a strong supporter of agriculture, serving on the House Agriculture Committee. He has also favored major trade acts that benefit our farmers and manufacturers. He has authored a health care bill that would help many of the millions of people not covered by Obamacare.
- Elbie L. Loeb, Leawood
One-sided ‘war’
Johnson County Commissioner Mike Brown is so outraged by the state of the nation, he is hearing “the war drum off in the distance from a not far away place.” (Sept. 15, 7A, “JoCo Commissioner Mike Brown’s tirade is appalling; he should apologize and step away”)
President Donald Trump has been in power for three years and eight months. He, not the ever-useful and unidentified “they,” is responsible and accountable for the state of the union. Any war drum is coming from the White House.
Fortunately, in this election year, the course of the nation can be changed by ballots — no war or bullets needed.
- Margaret E. Caswell, Prairie Village
Lifetime terms
The way the United States chooses its Supreme Court justices is grotesque and must be changed. The problem isn’t the politicized nomination hearings. It is impossible to get rid of those episodes of political theater. The problem is the macabre death watch that happens at the end of every justice’s life.
These past few years, Americans have watched to see whether an octogenarian with cancer could make it through all four years of Donald Trump’s presidency. She didn’t, and now the new court majority will probably have the votes to severely limit abortion rights.
Whether Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s legal legacy will be overturned should not be determined by her inability to live two more months, but it very well might be because of lifetime terms.
The solution to ending this macabre show that culminates with mourning on one side of the political spectrum and jubilation on the other is instituting 18-year-term limits for U.S. Supreme Court justices. Otherwise, it will continue with its eyes turned toward Justices Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer, whose ability to live long enough will determine the next change in the ideology of the Supreme Court.
- Ben Woodson, Kansas City
This story was originally published September 24, 2020 at 5:00 AM.