To the Editor:
Re “Colorado Court Deems Trump Unfit for Ballot” (front page, Dec. 20):
As a lawyer who participated in the effort to bar Marjorie Taylor Greene from the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, I am gratified to see the Colorado Supreme Court applying that provision to Donald J. Trump.
In 1868, the people, through their state legislatures, ratified Section 3 to prevent traitors to the Constitution from regaining political power in the wake of the Civil War. Extraordinary times called for extraordinary measures — and the same is true today.
Jan. 6 was an extraordinary attack on American democracy, and the candidacy of Mr. Trump is an extension of that attack by other means. It is right, proper and entirely lawful for Colorado to act to protect our constitutional system.
Andrew G. Celli Jr.
New York
To the Editor:
Re “Report Says Jan. 6 Rally Organizers ‘Lied’ About Trump Plan to March to the Capitol” (news article, Dec. 19):
Your article about how the organizers of the Jan. 6 rally on the Ellipse lied to National Park Service officials about the planned march from the Ellipse to the Capitol — something then-President Donald Trump planned to happen — strongly supports the decision of the Colorado Supreme Court to disqualify Mr. Trump from appearing on the state’s primary ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
The violent insurrection at the Capitol wasn’t a political rally gone bad. The historical record demonstrates that Mr. Trump planned, organized and directed the attempt to delay the certification of free and fair election results that showed that he had lost the 2020 presidential election.
The Constitution is stunningly clear that anyone who swore an oath of office to defend the Constitution and then engaged in insurrection against the United States is disqualified from holding office.
I sure hope the conservative justices on the Supreme Court, who appear unable or unwilling to accurately read all four clauses of the Second Amendment, are able to understand the much more complicated wording of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
Daniel Fink
Beverly Hills, Calif.
To the Editor:
The Colorado Supreme Court ruling removing former President Donald Trump from the primary ballot, the indictments against Mr. Trump and his statement that he will be a dictator on Day 1 make me worried about the outcomes. What happens if the Supreme Court rules that Mr. Trump can run? What happens if Mr. Trump avoids jail or conviction? And what will happen if he wins in November?
Additional safeguards are needed to prevent Mr. Trump from intimidating or retaliating against his opponents and critics if he is victorious in November. We can’t depend on the federal courts anymore.
I’ve written numerous letters to the editor against Mr. Trump’s policies over the years, and I’ve participated in protests against his policies. I don’t want to change my address to a jail for speaking up.
Paul Feiner
Greenburgh, N.Y.
Making Judgments on Legalizing Abortion
To the Editor:
Re “Supreme Contempt for Women,” by Maureen Dowd (column, Dec. 17):
We want to underscore and expand on a point in Ms. Dowd’s column about the death of Savita Halappanavar in Ireland because she was denied medical completion of her miscarriage.
Her preventable death, which laid bare the disdain for women’s lives underpinning the so-called pro-life movement, enraged the Irish public and led to a referendum making first-trimester abortion legal in Ireland, where it is now publicly funded and provided in family doctors’ offices as part of primary care.
Irish law, however, has not substantively changed for those needing their pregnancies ended after 12 weeks because of serious maternal or fetal health problems, and such women are still traveling abroad for an urgently needed legal abortion.
We in the United States can take heart from the dramatic, albeit limited, Irish legal turnaround and the success of abortion-related ballot initiatives in California, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, Ohio and Vermont, which suggests that we, too, could win back this right.
But we should further learn from Ireland that the 15-week compromise being promoted by some Republican politicians would not have helped Kate Cox, the Texas woman who recently sought to terminate her pregnancy after the diagnosis of a fatal fetal defect, nor would it help the many others whose complications arise after 15 weeks. A more useful frame for abortion policy is “as early as possible, as late as is necessary.” To do otherwise risks maternal heath and maternal death, an outcome etched in the Irish collective memory.
Wendy Chavkin
Mary Favier
The writers are physicians. Dr. Chavkin is a co-founder of Global Doctors for Choice; Dr. Favier is the founder of Doctors for Choice Ireland.
To the Editor:
Yes, as Maureen Dowd states in her column, “The Supreme Court is way, way out of order.” The justices are pre-empting the physician-patient relationship from their judicial pedestal with absolutely no firsthand knowledge of the maternal or fetal medical issues in question.
How would the male justices respond if a group of legislators or judges ordained how their cardiologists cared for their hearts or their urologists for their prostates? As a practicing obstetrician and gynecologist, I believe that medical care should be mutually decided upon by patients and their physicians, not by political or judicial intervention.
Mary Lake Polan
New York
Dr. Polan is chair emerita of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the Stanford University School of Medicine.
A Global Climate Tax
To the Editor:
Re “The Rich Can Make Fighting Climate Change Affordable,” by Bill Gates (Opinion guest essay, Dec. 5):
Mr. Gates is right to urge wealthy individuals to invest in solutions to the climate emergency. He is also right that “the rich bear the greatest responsibility” to make progress because they have benefited the most from many decades of climate pollution. But the very rich should do more than make investments that, if successful, will make them even wealthier.
The time is ripe for a global climate tax on the world’s wealthiest individuals. One proposal recommends a “1.5 percent for 1.5 degrees” annual wealth tax on individuals with net assets of $100 million or more. This would be easily affordable for centi-millionaires and billionaires, and the proceeds could help close the gap in funding for international commitments to climate adaptation for the poorest and most vulnerable among us.
Eric W. Orts
Philadelphia
The writer is a professor of legal studies and business ethics at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.
Holocaust Movies
To the Editor:
Re “The Changing Face of a Tragedy,” by Esther Zuckerman (Critic’s Notebook, Dec. 13):
Of course it is important for innovative movie directors to keep the topic of the Holocaust from fading into the cold oblivion of historical remoteness. Yet we must all bear in mind that no art form can fully capture the Shoah’s personal impact on victims.
Film in particular may serve up disturbing visual imagery and dialogue. However, the horrific smells and raw visceral pain experienced by prisoners trapped in concentration camps cannot be replicated.
Donald Mender
Rhinebeck, N.Y.