A chara, – Brian Boyd seems to think the spouse of a serving president is no more than a private citizen whose words carry no more weight than anyone else in the nation and whose intervention in matters of public controversy in no way reflects upon the holder of the highest office in land's obligation to be impartial ("Sabina Higgins and the unwritten rules for a 'first lady''', Opinion & Analysis, May 12th). Nonsense. Even if we have no official position of first lady (or first gentleman), she certainly acts in that capacity, even accepting invitations to attend events on her own that were issued for no other reason than the office held by her husband. She holds a position of privilege within our society that is irrevocably linked to the office of the presidency and her actions and utterances inevitably reflect upon it.
Brian Boyd said in his article that “the different camps fell dutifully into line to either congratulate or criticise Sabina Higgins”. This may be true of him but it is not a universal truth. A great many commentators who agree with him on the issue of abortion have spoken out against her intervention. They have a more balanced perspective of what is at stake here and realise that the momentary shot in the arm that one side or another gets from this kind interference is less important in the long term than protecting the integrity of the office of the President. – Is mise,
Rev PATRICK G BURKE,
Castlecomer,
Co Kilkenny.