Children’s Hospitals Need Proposition 61

I am disappointed that The Times suggested a “no” vote on Proposition 61, which is designed to ensure that the state’s sickest children are provided with the necessary hospital infrastructure to treat life-threatening conditions such as heart disease and cancer (editorial, Oct. 17).

Children, especially seriously ill children, should not have to carry the burden of underfunded mandates from state and federal agencies that are affecting the ability of the state’s children’s hospitals to maintain their exceptional track record in caring for this vulnerable population.

Proposition 61 is a modest proposal that isn’t about financing debt or restructuring debt. It utilizes the traditional state bond mechanism to finance much-needed construction, expansion and updating of hospitals that treat the state’s sickest children. The measure is strikingly similar to the school bonds that voters have approved out of necessity over the last few years. Urging a “yes” vote would be much more consistent with The Times’ admirable past advocacy for issues related to creating a better future for California’s children.

Thomas Klitzner MD

Pediatrician, Los Angeles