Prager on Baby Richard
Regarding “The Court That Cut the Baby in Half,” by Dennis Prager, Commentary, May 16: There are pretty good arguments for both litigants in this tragic case, but it seems to me that Prager’s response to this court decision raises more questions about him than it does about our judicial system.
Certainly Prager has a right to his opinion regarding the decision. But when he implies that the judges involved were Nazis because they made a ruling that he does not agree with, claims that a child custody case is more tragic than the Oklahoma City bombing, where scores of people were killed, and then implies that “forcing” a child to live with his biological father is a fate worse than being murdered, one must question whether Prager has gone over the edge.
SANFORD THIER
Palos Verdes Estates
* I am one of those fans of Prager who never calls or writes to him until I disagree with something he says. Prager denies that the natural father has any rights and justifies this by demeaning and dehumanizing him as a mere “sperm donor.” I agree that love must accompany insemination to make a man a true father. I also think that Baby Richard’s father must have much more true parental love for his son than Prager gives him credit for. He has spent four years and suffered the unspeakable scorn of millions of people for the right to raise his own child. He may not be a saint but he deserves better than to be called names by talk show hosts.
GARY P. LONG
Irvine
* Prager leaves out the fact that the biological father, who was told originally that his son was dead, upon finding out that he was alive, immediately began proceedings to regain custody--just over 30 days after the boy’s birth! The adoptive parents, rather than having compassion for the situation and returning the boy to his father, decided from the very beginning that they, more than the father, had a right to the child. Although any child that you have grown to love for however short a period of time would be painful to give up, it certainly could not compare to the excruciating situation we watched as Baby Richard was returned to his biological parents four years later.
There is no clear villain in this case, but the adoptive parents are certainly not without their responsibility for making a bad situation much, much worse.
LAURA JAY
Los Angeles
* The Illinois Supreme Court has dealt a terrible blow to the practice of adoption in this country. The U.S. today is actively engaged in a virtual civil war over the relative merits of abortion, adoption and single parenthood. Even staunch pro-choice advocates such as myself do not disagree that there are too many abortions performed. But for society to promote adoption, this alternative must be secure and permanent.
The Supreme Court of the United States has an obligation to all American children and parents, indeed to American society as a whole, to reaffirm the irrevocable permanency of adoption, overturn the Illinois decision and return Richard to the family he knows and loves.
JILL REISS
Northridge