Recent legislative violation of First Amendment should concern us all, reader warns

‘Spot-on’ criticism

David Travis Bland’s editorial on Aug. 24 (“Thou shall not give...”) Is spot-on, and the issue at hand should concern every citizen of our state. The establishment clause of the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution clearly prohibits governmental support of any and all religions.

When Representatives Burns and McCravy pushed this bill through, they set a precedent that will be difficult to reverse in the future.

For example, if a Muslim group decides that they need assistance in funding an Islam school for needy kids, then our state leaders will have to approve it, or risk a lawsuit for favoring one religion over another.

Gov. McMaster should have vetoed the earmark donation for the Christian Learning Center of Greenville.

Clyde Waters, Columbia

Testing the limits

The opinion piece “Thou shall not give SC public money to a private school” reminds readers of the many reasons why public money should not be given to private and/or religious institutions.

Of course this is a constitutional issue, both at the state and national levels. Why this attempt to circumvent constitutional wisdom?

I suspect that, much like with the abortion issue, it is a way to push the will of the minority up to the highest court in the hope that the court will act in a political way rather than in a way that upholds settled law – much like the case that sided with coaches and players in a religious way by allowing prayer at football games.

The line between church and state is on very shaky ground. Is another edict, which we have taken for granted for so long, like abortion, about to be decimated, thanks to the willingness of this red state to test the limits?

Carol Dodson, Elgin

Know the cost

A recent column examining the economic impact new abortion restrictions will have on S.C. women did not address the overall economic impact to the state.

With greater restrictions, more children will be born, increasing the need for schools and teachers.

Also, more money will be required for Medicaid as births to teen mothers should increase – births that tend to involve more costly, low birth weight babies (National Institute of Health, 1995).

Women unable to obtain an abortion have a 61% chance of being in poverty six months later, compared to the 45% rate of women able to get an abortion (2018 Turnaway Study). Lack of access to abortion can also result in more bankruptcies and evictions (National Bureau of Economic Research in 2020).

So how much will these cascading problems cost the state?

Forbes reports that such restrictions will cost states half a percent of the GDP annually. The Institute of Women’s Policy Research writes that current restrictions cost S.C. $1.861 billion, which will rise with greater restrictions – a recurring $1.9 billion annually. That averages to some $370 per man, woman and child each year.

One wonders if legislators know this.

Warren Hix, Columbia

More to forgive?

President Biden, since you are in such a generous mood, maybe you could consider forgiving these requests: mortgages for people over 50; credit card balances for people with school-age kids; car payments for everyone without jobs; car loans for working teens buying their first cars while going to school and working nights and weekends; hospital bills for sick people without insurance.

With the National Debt already at $30 trillion and growing, you should consider these folks’ debts, too.

Thank you, Mr. President, from a South Carolina taxpayer.

Frances Allen, Columbia