Komen's wrong turn

Susan G. Komen for the Cure's decision to cut funds to Planned Parenthood for breast cancer screenings is an act of utter cowardice ("Komen cuts off Planned Parenthood," Feb. 1). The Komen group wields enough clout to stand up to anti-choice groups and help provide low-income, uninsured and underinsured women breast cancer services from Planned Parenthood. As the Komen group well knows, many of these women often have no other health care alternatives.

The Komen group loosely bases its new decision on a politically charged investigation of Planned Parenthood led by the publicity-hungry Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., who just happened to lose his bid for chairmanship of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee last year. Mr. Stearns' investigation serves no purpose other than to keep Mr. Stearns in the limelight. His investigation, which purports to examine whether Planned Parenthood improperly used federal funds for abortion, has issued no findings or conclusions. It provides no basis for the Komen group to deny grants to Planned Parenthood, leaving thousands of women without potentially life-saving cancer screenings.

Come this June, I wish I could say that I will walk away from the St. Louis Race for the Cure. But I will not. I will run, walk or donate to show my support for those women who need vital health care services. The Komen Race for the Cure should do the same.

Linda L. Raclin • Clayton

Disappointed in Komen

Regarding "Komen cuts off Planned Parenthood" (Feb. 1): How sad that women's health has become the target of political interests who would restrict women's personal decisions about their reproductive health. My husband and I will not be participating this year in the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure because it has withdrawn funding to Planned Parenthood. We will not support an organization that has caved in to pressure from anti-choice groups (and possibly from its vice president, Karen Handel, who ran for governor of Georgia in 2010 on an anti-choice, anti-Planned Parenthood platform).

It is especially disappointing that Komen would stop supporting an organization that has provided millions of breast cancer screenings and other needed health services to women lacking access to affordable health care.

Judy Arnold • Kirkwood

Casinos should help support heroes

Regarding "Casinos fight Nixon proposal to jack up admission" (Jan. 25): I encourage all who patronize casinos to stay away until they come to their senses and support our heroes. The slight increase of $1 in admission should be made up with increased casino traffic based on the fact that the casinos have the ability to attract smokers, unlike local restaurants and bars. Legislators do not need to compromise with casinos on every issue.

Let's stay away until they make the right decision regarding our veterans.

Paul Witwer • St. Peters

A penny for veterans

My dad was a World War II Navy carrier fighter pilot, fighting in the South Pacific. My brother is a 10-year veteran Navy carrier pilot. I believe the veterans deserve the best. My dad received two Distinguished Flying Cross Commendations while fighting the Japanese.

Rather than collect $1 from each casino gambler as suggested by Gov. Jay Nixon, I would add a penny to every sales receipt in the state to benefit the veterans homes. If you buy fast food, a book, a BMW or a tank of gas, a penny would be added to your receipt for the veterans. This idea is not a percentage, it's only one penny on every sales receipt. I gladly would pay an extra penny on every one of my receipts for the rest of my life for the veterans homes.

If extra funds are generated above what the veterans need, different state agencies could apply for the extra funds.

Mike Delehaunty • St. Peters

Clouds on horizon for Defense Dept.

St. Louis was the first city to publicly recognize the heroic efforts of our troops involved in the recent Middle East conflicts. Congratulations and thank you. But dark clouds are on the horizon.

The Department of Defense is a ripe target for reductions following every large-scale military success. World Wars I and II, Korea, Vietnam and the Cold War are examples.

Invariably, something will occur that will require the DOD to ramp up again and fight another day. While cost savings might appear fiscally sound on the surface, this is no way to run a successful business or defend a democratic nation under constant threat.

Now, the DOD is facing another round of budget cuts. The U.S. Army and Marines will be reduced to save personnel costs. Bases may be closed; the never-ending political "not-in-my-district" battle already has begun. Ships will be decommissioned, planes moth-balled.

Despite this, service members, all of whom volunteered, will serve and defend. They will carry on without complaining, even though their future plans and quality of life will be affected, their pay hikes will be slowed and their promised retirement benefits will be ignored or reduced.

DOD's capability of fighting two regional conflicts simultaneously will be abandoned, and its ability to put boots on the ground will be curtailed.

Soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines will be there when called. It's a unique lifestyle that few understand and fewer appreciate — until the whistle is blown. We can't honor enough the few who defend the many.

Lt. Col. Joseph M. Gravish • Wildwood

U.S. Army (retired)

Expressing personal beliefs

Tim Townsend tackles the difficult issue of interreligious understanding in his column "Explaining other religions can be tricky when talking to the faithful" (Jan. 28). While Mr. Townsend deserves commendation for advocating increased engagement across religions, he missteps when he deprecates my Lindenwood University colleague Russell Dawn for approaching the world's religions from the standpoint of his Christian faith when speaking to an adult education class at St. Paul's Lutheran Church in Des Peres.

Mr. Townsend insinuates that Mr. Dawn's scholarly credentials are suspect because of this. Mr. Dawn, a Ph.D., was speaking at his own house of worship to a class populated by members of his own congregation. Mr. Townsend quotes from Mr. Dawn's class-opening prayer. Implying that a religious scholar is not entitled to personal religious beliefs or to expressing those beliefs among his own faith community is ludicrous.

My colleagues and I in the religion department at Lindenwood University make an honest, good-faith effort, day in and day out, to teach the world's great religious traditions as fairly and accurately as possible according to current academic standards. It is supremely disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

W. Travis McMaken • St. Charles

Assistant Professor of Religion, Lindenwood University