Win tickets to see the smash hit musical Mamma Mia at the Roanoke Civic Center. Two winners will each receive four tickets!
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Help available to vet on benefit issues
The recent letter by Cpl. James Edward Quesenberry (“Catch-22 Snags Another Disabled Vet,” June 19 Pick of the day) resonated with me as a veteran. So I took the liberty of contacting a friend who worked for the Veterans Administration for many years for his advice as to how this fellow vet could be helped. Here is his answer:
Sometimes the VA will award a temporary 100 percent disability for the first year and then decrease it.
However, there are still several routes of addressing the situation that are available.
1. The veteran could contest the newly assigned 70 percent rating decision and offer medical or psychological evidence to support the original 100 percent rating.
2. The veteran could request a new assessment instead of challenging the recent decision. He still would need to provide recent evidence to support a return of 100 percent rating.
3. The veteran could request evaluation for Individual Unemployability. If granted, he would still be officially listed at 70 percent but paid as though he were 100 percent disabled.
If he is interested, I will work with him at no cost. It’s the least I can do for a fellow veteran.
Armed intervention should be protected
We benefit from a Good Samaritan law that lets a bystander who offers help after an accident act without fear of criminal or civil prosecution, so long as the deed was performed in good faith.
Recently, there have been several notable shooting events, followed by speculation that an armed person on the scene could have acted so as to cause an outcome with fewer casualties.
We would well benefit from a new Good Samaritan law that would allow an armed bystander to intervene without risking imprisonment and the total loss of assets should a lengthy post-event judgment decide his actions were flawed.
JAMES P. HICKS
Senate must reject abortion legislation
It is alarming to see our elected representatives stuck in a policy debate which was settled 40 years ago.
Incredibly, Arizona Rep. Trent Franks’ bill attempting to ban abortions across the nation after 20 weeks does exactly that.
H.R. 1797 is a dangerous and unnecessary intrusion into private medical decisions, and I am ashamed that the House of Representatives has passed this bill.
Twenty-week abortion bans like H.R. 1797 are blatantly unconstitutional, as they are in clear violation of more than 40 years of Supreme Court precedent, including Roe v. Wade and affirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, that protect women’s access to abortion prior to viability.
In fact, the unconstitutionality of 20-week bans was reaffirmed just last month in Franks’ own state.
Not only is the bill unconstitutional, it has no legitimate medical purpose.
Nearly 99 percent of abortions in the U.S. already occur before 21 weeks’ gestation, and fetal viability is generally considered to be at least 24 weeks into pregnancy.
For pregnant women with complications, this bill would be devastating.
It is critical that the Senate reject H.R. 1797. Our representatives need to leave 40-year-old issues alone and leave politics out of private medical decisions.
Fox penning rules don’t fix anything
I am writing regarding the new regulations passed by the Virginia Game and Inland Fisheries agency concerning fox penning.
These recent regulations are merely bandages that do absolutely nothing to address the root problems of fox penning.
Why are we even regulating a practice that promotes illegal activities and is unethical?
Fox penning is an extremely cruel way to train hounds for hunting, as its intended purpose states.
Trapping wild foxes and situating them in an enclosed area so that hounds can learn how to hunt is barbaric.
Many times these foxes are killed, which doesn’t sound like training to me.
That sounds like captive hunting, which is cruel, inhumane and immoral.
The Virginia General Assembly has an opportunity to stand up and eliminate this practice completely.
This must be done in order to save and protect Virginia’s wildlife.
Weather JournalStorm track isn't very snowy for us