Protect children of incarcerated

Re: "Overlooked -- As women go to jail in record numbers, who's watching out for their kids? No one," June 25 news story.

This article addresses a story close to my heart and reports on issues I tackle in my work every day.

The article reports an estimated 250,000 children nationally had single mothers in jail, and I believe this is under-reported. Nearly 3 million children have a parent in prison, according to the Bureau of Justice, and mothers in fear of losing custody of their children often choose not to disclose how many children they've left behind.

For a decade, I've spoken around the country in conferences and inside prisons as an advocate for awareness about the resources needed for children with incarcerated mothers. I've met with judges, criminal lawyers, parenting experts, prison staff, social workers and child-welfare specialists. Most agree that prison doesn't serve mothers well, nor does it serve women pregnant at time of sentencing.

One solution is to reframe the issue to engage child advocates, social workers, educators, health care experts, religious leaders, the courts -- to work with legislators and policy changes that tackle how best to serve incarcerated mothers and their children.

Deborah Jiang-Stein, Minneapolis, Executive Director, unPrison Project

Eroding trust in journalism

Re: "The story of how a stat got botched -- Researchers, news outlets got it wrong on gun study, says editor Mike Wilson," Wednesday Viewpoints.

Wilson's column regarding the 4 percent figure in the gun study captures what is symptomatic of much of today's journalism. When a story is in line with what a reporter wants to be true, it seems that critical thought often goes out the window. It may not be intended to be malicious or deceitful, but instead, looking for validation of what they "know" sounds right.

This is another example of why public trust in today's journalist is low. In my opinion, activism, whether overtly aware or simply through the subconscious, is prevalent in so many of today's news sources and it erodes the confidence readers have in what we see in print.

George Potter, Keller

Apply some skepticism

This column refers to information that was published in several different publications, one of which changed wording "and for some reason the stat -- just slightly."

I wonder if Wilson honestly believes that these data errors were published unintentionally. In today's political climate, one where no one seems to let the truth get in the way of furthering an agenda, maybe a little more skepticism is in order.

John Van Delft, Flower Mound

Human nature in action

Does that make this yet another example of the news media faking the news that President Donald Trump is right now berating CNN for?

Actually, couldn't any of us have spotted the discrepancy had we stopped to think that there aren't enough real live shootings for 4.2 percent of our kids to witness? While it's certainly incumbent on journalists to get it right, this story also shows how readers must use their brains, too, and challenge the credulity of what they read, as letter writer Steve Doud did.

This seems more comparable to the grade school demonstration where students pass a story from one to another to demonstrate how it gets changed with each retelling. Everything that passes through our ears is subject to our agenda so that we hear what we want to hear. It's as though a warning should be attached that the item's accuracy is self-destructing with each retelling.

Doesn't this story show how we are mostly only skeptical of stories telling something we don't want to hear, how we tend to suspend our skepticism for stories we like, no matter how incredible? Whether it's our folly, ignorance, laziness or willfulness, it's good to be reminded of our human nature.

Brian Baldwin, Dallas/Oak Lawn

Check the time frame

The stat also misled about the time frame: in the past year vs. lifetime. Thanks.

Ray Myers, West Chester, Pa.

It's good to correct errors

Nice to see a news organization, whether it leans left or right, admit an error and correct it in writing. Thanks.

Ronald J. Antholzner Sr., Lockport, N.Y.

A gun is just one hazard

Re: "Asking about guns," by Donna Schmidt, June 25 Letters.

Schmidt says it is important to ask about guns in the home where a child may be playing. I wonder if she also inquires about locking up prescription drugs, which kill more children than do gun accidents.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, the leading cause of unintentional child death is vehicular related, followed by drowning, suffocation, poisoning, fires and falls. Gunshots cause one in 2,000 accidental injuries.

We worry too much about the wrong things. Asking only about guns, and not about other, more deadly hazards, might cause one to suspect your motive is something other than your child's safety.

Ken Ashby, Dallas

Apology goes both ways

Re: "Town mired in crisis that didn't have to be," by James Ragland, Thursday Metro & State column.

Ragland begins his reporting with a correct assessment when he states the former Commerce police chief and school board member owe Carmen Ponder an apology for the actions and words they used toward her. I agree, she should receive an apology.

However, as I continued reading, Ragland apparently gives Ponder a pass when it comes to her behavior leading up to the confrontation. Nowhere does he state she should reciprocate the men's apologies with one of her own for reckless driving.

While all three individuals have some fault in this unfortunate "traffic dispute," it will only divide the community further when a reporter asks that only two of them extend an olive branch to the other side.

David Jameson, Little Elm

Callahan advocates for seniors

Thanks to Dallas City Council member Rick Callahan for advocating for senior centers on the bond proposal. The city of Dallas needs to do more for this rapidly exploding population. Nationwide, 10,000 a day are turning 65.

Katie Dickinson, Dallas/Lake Highlands

Women not represented

Sen. Mitch McConnell selected 13 senators to overhaul our country's health care -- all men. I doubt any of them have faced down breast cancer or experienced childbirth. Pills for birth control would be the problem of their partner or spouse. As a single parent, they might have experienced the terror that accompanies a child's fever as it spikes to 104 degrees, but somehow I doubt it.

In the U.S., there is no question that most single-parent households are headed by women. Females also represent most of the unpaid caregivers to aging parents. This requires women to make more decisions about health care for more people than men. Yet, McConnell has arranged it that women have no representation among the working group of senators who are deciding about health care.

Think about that: There are 21 women senators and McConnell did not even include one. Something is very wrong with this picture.

This disrespect of the value of women's input about health care should certainly not be forgotten at the polls in 2018.

Jan Wilbanks, Plano

GOP reverses American Dream

The Republicans' health care bill, conceived in secret, is now exposed as a mean, cynical shift of Medicaid resources from needy and vulnerable Americans to enable tax reductions for the wealthy. There's nothing healthy or caring in what Republican Senate leaders are trying to serve up to the American people.

Once more, conservatives are attempting to roll back some New Deal, Great Society or progressive policy from the Bill Clinton and Barack Obama years. The outcome of such efforts in the guise of less governmental control and lower taxes has been a widening income inequality.

Income inequality strongly influences disparity of and access to economic resources like health care and education. This wealth gap is shrinking the middle class by causing downward momentum, a reverse of the American Dream. Less income and less quality of life for more Americans contributes to factors like greater illness, violence and despair within the entire country.

The country's problems require evenhanded, bipartisan leadership. Tax cuts for the most advantaged by withdrawing funding and lowering standards of already disadvantaged citizens is a deplorable act of political greed.

Mark Fitzpatrick, Dallas/Preston Hollow

Runaway cost is the culprit

I am so sick and tired of the constant back and forth between parties in what is yet another attempt to address the issues in health care as a whole and Obamacare vs. Trumpcare specifically.

Why is it that no one ever addresses the elephant in the room? Runaway health care costs and sky-rocketing drug prices are in large part the culprit here and yet Congress refuses to address those issues before they determine how best to gut the Affordable Care Act.

Rather than look at what is good about the Affordable Care Act and keeping or tweaking it, the choice is simply to ditch it and start over again forcing millions to potentially lose coverage as years go by. Those who need it, lose it, and those who don't need coverage couldn't care less.

Hasn't anyone realized yet that Harry Truman died a long time ago? What is being done now is passing the buck to states for virtually everything and we all know what that means. Even fewer services depending on the state in which you live and its financial stability. Anyone remember the states that were on the verge of default a few years ago?

God help us all because it is clear that Congress has their own agenda and we, the people, aren't on it.

Elizabeth Read, Lake Dallas

Repair our voting districts

Re: "Study: Remap buoyed GOP -- Traditional battlegrounds show Republican tilt in U.S., state races," June 25 news story.

By redrawing voting districts in 2010, states across the country created a disconnect between American voters and their elected officials. In most states, packing and cracking ensured the political party in power at that moment would have an advantage over the opposing party, manipulating the election outcome in its favor. Both parties were guilty, although one had more opportunities than the other. This is the crux of the problem and gerrymandering is the tool used to deceptively stack the cards.

We need to keep partisanship out of our voting maps by utilizing a redistricting system that puts the voter as the primary consideration. We need a nonpartisan, independent commission in Texas that draws fair districts that reflect communities of interest and are reasonably compact. This committee should not be allowed to consider voting data or incumbents when drawing maps.

Texans want to feel their votes count and their legislators listen to their concerns. Currently, the elected officials have selected their voters, not the other way around. This is egregious and needs to be fixed to restore faith in the democratic process. Please contact your legislators frequently until this is done.

Kimberlee Soldo, Irving