I am writing today to protest the continued use of the words "adopted child" when they have no bearing on a news story. In an article on Michael Reagan's new book, the fact of his adoption would be important to the story.
In the article on Valerie Harper's victory over Lorimar, the reference to her "adopted" daughter added nothing to the central issue of the story and may in fact have hurt Harper by its presence ("Valerie Harper Savors Her Victory," by Diane Haithman, Sept. 19).
It's a sad fact of life, but there are many small-minded people in this world who still look upon adopted children as second-class children, less important and less valued than biological children. Is that your position? If not, why differentiate between adopted children and birth children, whom you do not identify as such?
Since the State of California states that adopted children legally must be treated in the same manner as biological children, please make a conscious effort to drop your discriminatory references. If you feel your story needs an adjective to describe a child, please consider "adored," "charming," or "precious."
FLORENCE L. COHEN