"Goforth in Faith". (Letters to the Editor).

William Norman Grigg's "The Last Word" column "Goforth in Faith," in your December 16, 2002 issue, raises some interesting questions. Readers of THE NEW AMERICAN will gladly receive his point that hospital administrators and social workers were wrong in judging preemie William Goforth to be unworthy of the costs involved in keeping him alive. Indeed, young William did make significantly greater progress in five months than doctors thought possible.

However, Mr. Grigg's short piece raises a few significant questions: 1. Why was a woman six months pregnant going on a skiing vacation? 2. Why was an expectant couple (who could afford ski vacations) without health insurance? 3. What is particular about having been home-schooled and devoutly Christian that would make one refuse government aid?

I was also home-schooled and am a devout Christian, and I hate the socialist mentality in our country. However, I would accept the public assistance, rather than put my family millions of dollars in debt. To be fair to the hospital, they do deserve compensation for their services as well. If you are going to make the case so strongly that we must not be "party to the participatory larceny called the 'welfare state,' " you also need to request that your retired readers refuse their Social Security and Medicare benefits. In addition, we ought not to drive on interstate highways. Ever visited a national park? Bought food from a subsidized farmer? Clearly, these kinds of federal involvement are not constitutional. However, as much as we work to change the badly corrupt system we have inherited, we cannot completely shut ourselves off from it. To imagine that one can do so indicates a lapse of judgment.

I enjoy the good judgment and rational arguments regularly heard from Mr. Grigg and his colleagues. But please understand that the pro-infanticide social workers are not the only ones with raised eyebrows on this story.

J.B. GEORGE Valparaiso, Indiana