Doesn’t understand other opinions

    I don't understand Gene Policinski in his Guest Editorial in the November 19 edition.  While he makes a good case for the 1st Amendment right of protest, he appears to equate obstructing traffic, toppling monuments, and striking a police officer with peaceful demonstrations and therefore should not be felonies. This is ridiculous.

    Usually, people who do such things will continue doing them unless they receive enough punishment to make them regret it—or at least not want to do it again.
    To answer Mr. Policinski's opening question, "When do our First Amendment rights become 'wrongs?'” It is not the rights that become wrongs, it is the methods of expressing those rights that can be wrongs. And the three listed above clearly are seriously so and deserve serious punishment.
    Then in last week's Capital Perspectives, Phil Brooks says (Gov.) "Parsons has embraced a somewhat strident and divisive tone...That tone was demonstrated by signing into law abortion restrictions even in cases of rape or incest."
    Does Mr. Brooks think saving babies from cruel murder is "strident and divisive" just because the Democrats want to allow it and get angry when someone wants to stop it? I realize that rape and incest are very emotional issues, but is killing the baby the answer? Many of us do not think so.
    There is a Christian evangelist today on TV, James Robison, who says that he is a product of rape. Much of the good that he has done may not have happened had his mother aborted him.
    I wonder if Mr. Brooks really knows what happens in an abortion: That a three-month fetus—which was fully formed with a beating heart by two and one-half months—is cut into pieces as she/he is sucked out of its home in its mother through a vacuum tube with knives in it; or, if she/he reaches five months she/he is slowly chemically burned to death when someone injects a strong saline solution into her/his "safe" home; or, if she/he escapes that, at six months she/he is taken surgically and placed into a trash can to agonizingly die from lack of oxygen (I wonder if she/he makes any noises?); or, if she/he makes it all the way to birth, instead of being slapped on the rear to get her/him started, getting cleaned up, and being hugged, she/he is jarringly jabbed in the base of the skull to make a hole through which a vacuum tube is inserted so her/his brain can be sucked out and  skull collapsed.
    But wait! There's more! Some, like Gov. Northern of Virginia, say that instead of sucking out her/his brain at partial birth, they will give her/him full birth and make her/him comfortable until they kill her/him another more "humane" way.
    Mr. Brooks, is it really "strident and divisive" to stop this barbaric practice to our most innocent and vulnerable ones?
Rev. Norman Heironimus