By Debra Shepherd
I am writing in regards to Mr. Pisarra’s commentary (“Welfare mothers need to be spayed,” page 4, June 26). I consider myself to be an open-minded person. I applaud (Mr. Pisarra’s) decision to have his precious little dog neutered. I appreciate the fact that he and his partner are responsible pet owners. I imagine that he also takes very good care of his dog and loves him very much. I am, however, offended by some of the statements that (Pisarra) made in his commentary. First of all, human beings are not spayed. The correct term for female sterilization is tubal ligation. For a man, it is a vasectomy. He also has indicated his ignorance of the rules of the welfare system. A woman who has an additional child while receiving benefits is not entitled to any additional cash benefits if she has more children while she is receiving aid. If that woman does become pregnant while on aid, she must provide documentation of why her method of birth control failed. I am most offended that Pisarra said that people who are on public assistance are obese. If Pisarra makes these types of statements, it is customary, as a journalist, to provide some type of facts to back up your statements.
I realize that these are his opinions, but they lack validity without facts. Pisarra made a very sound argument about being a responsible pet owner, yet he lost my respect when he compared public assistance recipients to animals. Pisarra is also mistaken if he thinks that all public assistance recipients and people who receive subsidized housing are uneducated. One fact that he seems to be unaware of is that a person can work and receive section 8. I am trying to give Pisarra the benefit of the doubt concerning these opinions. I am very sad that his commentary promotes more ignorance and perpetuates myths concerning public assistance. I think there are many ways that his point could have been expressed and been considered as valid. The way that he did it was not one of them.
Before Pisarra judges anyone else on public assistance or Section 8, I highly recommend that he go to these agencies and talk to the recipients and the workers. Maybe if he showed as much compassion for people as he does for his pet, Pisarra would express yourself differently. As a former journalist, I respect his First Amendment right to free speech. As a human being, I am appalled that Pisarra was too lazy to take the time to more carefully research his topic before putting pen to paper.
As a lawyer, he should know better.
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on July 3, 2007. Read the original PDF.