To the Editor:
Re “After Hearings, a Tenuous Path to Indict Trump” (front page, Jan. 12):
I know that the members of Congress who have organized these hearings mean well, and they’re doing a great job, but if there’s to be no resulting indictment of the ex-president I will look upon the hearings as a cruel tease.
Ever since Jan. 6, Americans who have been paying attention have been hit over the head time and time again with blatant evidence of Donald Trump’s criminality. We’ve seen it on our TV screens on Jan. 6, at the second impeachment trial and on the nightly news. And now the case is being made yet again, brilliantly.
But if there’s no prosecution of Mr. Trump after all this, the net effect will be that our government is saying to us: Yeah, we’ve shown that this person conspired to attempt a coup, facilitated a lethal riot and takeover of the Capitol, and stood by while the death and mayhem were happening. But nah, we’re not going to prosecute him.
If that happens, I will have zero respect for the legal system in this country.
Vicki Riba Koestler
Alexandria, Va.
To the Editor:
The Jan. 6 committee hearing may lead to a well-deserved prosecution of Donald Trump. But I am afraid that such a trial would be a cause of tremendous civil unrest and backlash.
An alternate plan would take a page out of Gerald Ford’s playbook when he pardoned Richard Nixon. This would not be as satisfying as a conviction but would be useful for several reasons. It would end the political distractions and severely embarrass Mr. Trump. And a conviction at trial is not a slam dunk.
Joel Rosenberg
Delray Beach, Fla.
To the Editor:
Re “Trump, American Monster,” by Maureen Dowd (column, June 12):
“I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters.” Donald Trump was completely serious when he uttered these words. These are the words of a man who has never faced consequences for any of his deplorable acts — whether it was stiffing a contractor, cheating on his taxes, racially discriminating against renters in his buildings, making money off his presidency or deliberately attempting to change the outcome of an election he lost.
I hope I am wrong, but I believe whether it’s Merrick Garland’s timidity or Republican obstructionism, Mr. Trump will walk away unscathed yet again. His confidence in his infallibility will be proven correct. And for those of us who believe that the bad guys eventually lose, this will break our hearts.
Kathryn Janus
Chicago
To the Editor:
Why are so many people unable or unwilling to see the monster for what he is? I thought I was good at understanding the thinking leading to the behavior in others. But so many people hitching the future they want for themselves, for their progeny and for our mutual democracy on the adoration of Donald Trump, the epitome of dishonor? I can’t get a handle on that.
Edward Hotchkiss
Roslyn Heights, N.Y.
‘I Am a Woman, Period’
To the Editor:
Re “Vanishing Word in the Abortion Debate: Women” (front page, June 9):
I am a liberal, but I find the use of phrases such as “pregnant people” a stretch too far. I am no trans hater. I respect the right of individuals to do what feels right for them. I will always call them whatever they wish to be called.
That said, most of the world population, including me, identifies as male or female, woman or man. Erasing that identity in the name of equality or fairness does just the opposite. Pushing the term “cisgender” on those of us who identify with our birth gender is also offensive. If I respect your self-identity, please respect mine. I am a woman, period.
Anne-Marie Hislop
Chicago
Postpartum Care for the ‘Lucky Few,’ and for Everyone Else
To the Editor:
“A Pricey Postpartum Retreat” (Thursday Styles, June 2) is a painful reminder that in our country new mothers are left to navigate the postpartum period with little or no support. We give no recognition to moms for the accomplishment of giving birth, becoming mothers and caring for their helpless newborns.
The subheadline, “It takes a village to care for a newborn,” is ironic. There is no “village” to help American women care for their newborns. Other countries have policies and/or cultural practices that provide assistance to the new mother. For example, the Dutch have in-home professional maternity nurses.
The “solution” to the need for postpartum assistance for a “lucky few” in this article is an expensive luxury hotel.
This makes me angry. Mothers and babies do not need expensive, private, luxury respite. This implies that the need is only for the rich who can afford this care. What we need is in-home postpartum care for all mothers and babies to get off to a good start and the time, with extended, paid maternity leave, to do it.
Marsha Matsuura
Berkeley, Calif.
The writer is a retired labor and delivery nurse.
To the Editor:
What a positively exceptional idea! Wouldn’t it be wonderful if every new mother could go to a retreat for a few days after birth to get answers to the thousand questions a new mother has, to actually get some sleep and to have help in learning baby skills?
Naomi Canaan
Beacon, N.Y.
Liability for Gun Makers
To the Editor:
Re “Rifle Maker Known for Pushing Limits” (front page, May 29):
In a normal world, a company like Daniel Defense that produces inherently dangerous products such as the military-style rifle used in Uvalde, and aggressively promotes the dangerous products to a class of consumers who have a demonstrated propensity to misuse them (such as young men who are aficionados of “Call of Duty” video games), would be sued for substantial sums of money by surviving victims or the victims’ families.
Your article makes a prima facie case for such liability, but the victims’ ability to pursue normal justice is cut off by the absurdly named Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, a federal law that protects Daniel Defense by immunizing the firearms industry from civil lawsuits.
If Congress is really serious about gun violence, the first step should be a bill repealing the act, which would allow victims to seek justice while encouraging the responsible manufacture and promotion of inherently dangerous products.
Robert C. Atkinson
Sparta, N.J.
Moral Injury and PTSD
To the Editor:
Re “Balm for Scarred Psyches” (Science Times, May 31):
Rachel Nuwer’s report about psychedelics to treat post-traumatic stress disorder underscores our need to better understand and treat a key element of her story: moral injury, a complex condition associated with PTSD.
Moral injury is a transgression of conscience. It’s what happens when a person’s core moral foundations are violated in high-stakes situations, resulting from a person’s own actions, things they witnessed or were made to do against their will, or things they couldn’t prevent.
Moral injury recasts the way people see themselves and the world and causes changes in behavior that signal a loss of trust, connection, self-worth and meaning.
Police officers in Uvalde, Texas, who were held back from pursuing a gunman will likely experience moral injury for years. Covid revealed the very real presence of moral injury among health care workers, especially as new research found that rates of potential moral injury in health care workers were similar to those among veterans with moral injury who served after 9/11.
The ubiquity of moral injury’s deleterious effects underscores the need to have effective psychotherapies that can be easily accessed. This means greater funding and collaborative efforts across disciplines to get the essential help for many who continue to suffer from it.
Michele DeMarco
San Francisco
The writer is the director of strategic communications and relations at the California Institute of Integral Studies.
