Editorial voices from elsewhere
Editorial voices from newspapers around the United States as compiled by the Associated Press:
That some governors responded to Nov. 13’s terror attacks in Paris by vowing to fight President Obama’s plan to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees into the U.S. is distasteful, populist pandering unworthy of America’s humanitarian traditions and history.
Why is it pandering? Because it is explicit in federal law and in Supreme Court rulings the federal government makes decisions about refugees and immigration, not individual states; governors can create obstacles to admitting refugees, but they can’t tell a president to take a hike. It’s also pandering because governors like Greg Abbott of Texas and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana intentionally ignore the difference between U.S. screening of refugees, which has a long history of successfully weeding out potential threats, and what we’ve seen in Europe in recent months.
A man walks into a sporting goods store to buy a gun.
No, it’s not the opening line of a joke. It’s a true story. And it happens thousands of times a day in Pennsylvania.
Only this time, the man trying to buy a gun from the Ebensburg Fishing and Hunting store lied about his criminal record.
So, too, did a customer who attempted to purchase a firearm at Sporting Goods Discounters in Richland Township.
James Michael McIntyre of Altoona was the alleged buyer in July at the Ebensburg location. According to state police, McIntyre did not disclose on his Pennsylvania Instant Check Systems that he was convicted in 1995 for a burglary in Blair County and receiving stolen property in Cambria County.
Robert A. Daniels of the Coopersdale Homes in Johnstown attempted to purchase a gun in August from Sporting Goods Discounters in Richland Township. He, also, was untruthful on his firearm application, failing to admit to convictions in 1994 and 1995 of receiving stolen property, a criminal complaint reads.
In 1998, the instant check system was implemented. It provides background information on anyone attempting to acquire a firearm. In 60 percent of the instances, approval of qualified buyers is granted within minutes.
The background checks are serving Pennsylvania.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to hear a case on abortion restrictions adopted by the Texas Legislature won’t lead to a resolution of the bitter social divide over terminating pregnancy.
Differences on that question will never be reconciled. Even the terms used to describe it are controversial – to some, abortion at any stage of pregnancy for any reason is akin to murder.
But our Constitution and the legal system built around it calls for the Supreme Court to examine such complicated controversies growing out of the laws we adopt and to decide what interpretations best fit the ideals expressed in the nation’s founding document.
The decision reached by the high court will not be perfect, but it will decide the fate of the Texas law and set national precedent. That system has worked well, in the long run, for more than two centuries.
At issue are two requirements of a bill passed by the Legislature in a July 2013 special session and signed into law by Gov. Rick Perry. One requires doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles. The other says abortion clinics must meet the standards of ambulatory surgical centers, which means stiffer requirements for their buildings, equipment and staffing.
Advocates say those requirements are needed to protect women’s health and safety. Opponents say they serve no medical need and are simply meant to make abortions as hard as possible to obtain.
By July, we’ll know whether the Supreme Court believes Texas has acted within its bounds.