Tell them to ‘just say no’

“Just say no” has long been a slogan of the conservative right. The more temperate and informed minds among us — those who fully understand the travesty and discrimination being visited upon women’s health care in the bill recently passed by the House of Representatives — need to let our elected representatives in Washington know they must “just say no” to the Stupak-Pitts amendment to the health care reform legislation.

Is Sen. Ben Nelson listening?

To serve the public interests, health care reform must prevent disparate outcomes, become readily available to everyone, cut costs overall and individually and improve outcomes nationally and our standing in comparison to the other industrialized countries (we’re No. 37).

It is clear that many of the objections to reform are based on irrelevant, untrue or discriminatory notions. To achieve a just, quality, affordable and accessible health care system, it is clear some ideas must go. I am just saying no to strangers, churches, elected officials by their votes, insurance companies, funding tricks or any other deceit getting between me and my health care team, regardless of which body system is attacked by conservatives.

Sens. Nelson and Mike Johanns need to know that invasive, discriminatory legislation is not acceptable public policy. They should just say no to the Stupak-Pitts amendment.

Virginia Wright, Lincoln

Better safe than sorry

I’m very pleased to see  the government is concerned about the health of women with its panel’s recommendations on mammograms, but now the women of America are stressing out about when to see the doctor for a mammogram. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has stated that early exams lead to false alarms and unneeded biopsies. As a woman, I would rather have a false alarm than discover I have cancer when it’s too late.

I’m going to stick with the American Cancer Society’s recommendation to begin routine mammograms at age 40. When it comes to my health, I believe it’s better to be safe than sorry.

Ashley Vlasin, Lincoln

Early education can help

In response to “Focus on early education” (letter, Nov. 15), I agree that early education may be a viable resource. My daughter benefited greatly from the Lincoln Action Program Head Start program.

I know other parents of children my daughter’s age who would have benefited from such a program but were above the income guidelines by only a few hundred dollars. To the best of my knowledge, the income guidelines are based on national poverty levels.

LAP did home visits to teach parenting skills, assess family interactions and offer program options available to us, many of which I never had heard about.

There are quite a few programs available for lower-income families, but the financial guidelines are strict. Maybe we need to look at helping more than worrying about how much money someone makes.

Many say more help in the home could possibly help more parents keep their children in the home instead of in the foster care system at a later date. Would this not be along the same lines?

Let’s teach parents how to parent effectively while children are young instead of waiting until they are juvenile delinquents and set in their ways. Maybe we can teach everyone as we go along, not just the children. Children copy what they see at home.

Maybe early education can help us keep teenagers from dropping out and causing mischief. It certainly wouldn’t hurt.

Andrea Cox, Lincoln