Animals vs. people

U.S. Rep. Dan Webster, RClermont, is “concerned” about the GOP’s proposed healthcoverage plan (“AARP warns Trumpcare cuts will hit Florida hardest,” Orlando Sentinel, Friday).

Concerned about a Republican proposal? Was he concerned when he voted in favor of H.J. Resolution 69 on Feb. 17? Was he concerned that this resolution overturns a regulation that protects predators such as bears and wolves on National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska? Regulation that prohibits baiting to make easy targets, prohibits using steel-jawed traps and prohibits using wire snares, which slowly tighten around the animal’s neck as it tries to get away? Nasty regulation, be gone.

Concerned about the gutting of the Affordable Care Act? How so? Surely, it was clear millions would lose their health coverage. Why the sudden concern? Concerned because even more Medicaid recipients will be tossed off than Webster had anticipated? Concerned about the middle-aged folks who, besides the poor, are being targeted to lose the most — the very people who voted for Webster?

Webster has to stand by the short- and long-term consequences of his vote. Will he have more concern for his constituents than he has for the animals in Alaska’s wildlife “refuges”?

I implore him to vote no on S.J. Res. 18, the Senate version of H.J. Res. 69, if or when it gets to the House. That might be a good start to express his concern and humanity.

Sandra Groeneveld Montverde