A letter in the Friday, January 26, 2007, Open Forum of the Brainerd Dispatch asked the question "Isn't it time we elect candidates that are prepared to address the more demanding issues facing our nation, state, and local government?
There are millions of people in Minnesota and the nation who believe as I do that there is no issue more important than the right to life for all, including those who are unable to speak for themselves - the unborn.
Isn't it ironic that those who have been given the miraculous gift of life can so smugly deny that gift of life to others?
Pro-choicers must open their eyes
Abortion is an ugly word describing an ugly deed. No wonder pro-abortionists (excuse me, "pro-choicers") don't want to be associated with it. I wouldn't either, particularly when this country allows the destruction of innocent human life from conception to natural birth with precious few restrictions. But like it or not, if you support the right to kill an unborn child, you support abortion.
I wish pro-choicers would open their eyes and see how their whole movement is based on a lexicon that is designed to cover up what they actually support. Psychologically, this is necessary, I suppose, because what they support is evil. If abortion were truly a morally neutral act, like clipping one's toenails, there would be no need for all the linguistic subterfuge. However, deep down, pro-choicers know that the choice they are supporting is morally repugnant, which is why they need all the verbal gymnastics - it spares them thinking deeply about what they are supporting.
If you think I'm being harsh, the next time someone tells you they are pro-choice on abortion, ask them if they think a woman should be able to abort a pregnancy for any reason and at any point in their pregnancy (which is the current legal status of abortion in this country). Almost always, they will say no. Next, ask them why? Shortly after asking the question you will notice smoke pouring out of their ears as their brain goes into overdrive trying to explain why there should be a limit to this "right" if it is truly a morally acceptable choice.
Kim M. Roth
Don't forget World War II vets
I am writing to give congrats to the Minnesota Legislature on their bill to exempt military pay and retired pay from state income taxes, as it was years ago. I have a problem with the four-year phase-in provision. That provision effectively eliminates those who served during World War II and Korea (including myself). Most of us who served during those wars are now in their mid to late 80s and with a four year wait will probably be dead when and if the bill becomes effective.
A simple grandfather amendment making the bill effective upon enactment to those retirees age 75 and older would eliminate the oversight.
I can't imagine there are many (if any) members of the legislature that are old enough to remember World War II but that's not reason enough to forget those that served.
Abortion is no choice at all
It was disheartening to read the Open Forum letters by "pro-choice" writers. Those that promote abortion rights say life doesn't begin at conception, but if not conception, when? At what point in the pregnancy can we safely know that a human life will not be destroyed? If we're wrong, who wants to bear the responsibility? Obviously not women who abort.
Since 2001, 15 studies focused on the psychological affects of abortion and found an increased use of drugs and/or alcohol to deaden their pain, reoccurring insomnia and nightmares, eating disorders, suicidal feelings and attempts, loneliness, anger, self-hatred and difficulties starting and maintaining relationships. Some of the same affects were found in men. In our country, approximately two abortions occur every minute. Women are often subjected to pressure and coercion to abort by family, friends and the culture as a "quick-fix." Considering this, how many really have control over their bodies?
Thankfully, there are resources to help women and men no matter what part of this issue they are facing. A good starting point is the Web site www.silentnomoreawareness.org, or call 1-800-395-HELP. Those who value life care about preventing pregnancy outside of marriage. They care about what happens to the woman and a man before and after the birth of their baby. They care about those who are suffering after having an abortion. Many women resort to abortion, legal or illegal, because they don't feel the love, concern and support of those around them. That's where we all bear a responsibility. Equally important is our responsibility to protect children, the sick, disabled and dying. When will we learn that life begins at fertilization and is destroyed by abortions? Abortion doesn't solve problems. It just creates new ones. The choice to abort is no choice at all.
House energy bill a big step
Re: "House approves additional fees, taxes on oil companies; plans to use money for renewable fuels"
This week, the federal government took one big first step down the road towards a new energy future. The Clean Energy Act of 2007, which passed in the House on Thursday, would establish a "clean energy fund" that would create incentives for and investments in energy efficient and renewable energy technologies. These funds could spur the construction of wind and solar energy power generation facilities, save consumers money on their energy bills with incentives for energy efficient appliances, buildings, and equipment, and create more jobs.
Minnesota, in particular, will benefit from this first national shift away from fossil fuels and towards clean, renewable energy. While our state has no coal mines and no oil wells, we do have acres of cropland that can be developed for clean energy. We have taken some positive steps in recent years. But we can do much more. Minnesota has the capacity to generate approximately 75,000 megawatts of wind energy. Germany, with only 20% of our wind resource generates over 14,000 megawatts from wind and employs 40,000 people in this industry. Minnesota could go from one of the largest net importers of energy to a net exporter.
Rep. Oberstar should be applauded for supporting this legislation, and for helping to move us away from our dependence on oil and towards a cleaner, safer, more economically viable energy future.
U.S. Public Interest Research Group (U.S. PIRG)
Koering's constituents support him
In a recent letter, a doctor noted that Sen. Paul Koering plans to support MCCL and work for pro-life legislation. Then he posed this question: "Isn't it time we elect candidates that are prepared to address the demanding issues facing our nation, state and local government?"
The good doctor should know no issue is more important than life. If you don't have life, nothing else matters. Sen. Koering realizes that. That's one reason why his constituents re-elected him with an almost 4,000 vote margin. They also liked the work he did in addressing the "demanding issues" facing our state.
His constituents want him to continue this support. Therefore, this session, he's supporting legislation to ban taxpayer funding of abortions. Since the 1995 Minnesota Supreme Court Doe v. Gomez decision, Minnesota taxpayers have been forced to pay for abortions, something not required by the U.S. Supreme Court.
A majority of Minnesotans are morally opposed to abortion, yet their tax money is used for this purpose. Currently 29 percent of abortions performed in Minnesota are paid for with tax dollars. Since 1995, the more than 35 thousand abortions have cost taxpayers over $8 million. Surely that money could have been put to better use.
Another part of this legislation would require all abortionists (including those from out-of-town) to have admitting privileges at a hospital near the abortion facility. Abortion complications have risen 8 percent in recent years while the number of abortions has declined. Some complications, like a hemorrhage that requires a transfusion, are so severe that the woman needs to be taken to an emergency room because abortion facilities don't provide such services.
I assume the good doctor agrees that this legislation is needed to protect women and ensure they receive proper care when harmed by an abortionist.
Crow Wing corrections concerns
It appears to me that a man in charge would not ask his boss to make his subordinates follow him. Either a man is a leader or not or sometimes a dictator.
The previous board hired a bean counter. (Bean counters are good for counting beans). You will have to correct the mistake and hire somebody that has experience in the corrections and probation fields and good people skills.
It doesn't sound like Mr. Kafka wants any input from his staff.
Telling folks what they want to hear
I am a Maple Township supervisor. This is an elected position. According to what one county commissioner says, I am under the mistaken impression that we, as elected officials, should pay attention to the people. I always thought that we should listen to a majority voice of the people when making decisions affecting the people. This is what I thought elected should do. But, this commissioner says when a person runs for office, just tell a bunch of whatever the particular audience wants to hear, get elected, and then do whatever you think you want to. My idea of representative government is where the elected official actually listens to the people, and generally, the majority would, or could, lend a greater impact on my decision to vote a certain way. And another commissioner talked about property rights being constitutional, and not up for a majority vote. He is right, except for two things. There are laws in place that do dictate what we can and cannot do with our property, and a "majority" of concerned citizens regarding an issue, are merely telling the persons they elected, to listen, because, in many cases, the decision will also affect them. The commissioner votes the way he wants to anyway, knowing also he doesn't live there so is not affected.
This comes from an approved rezoning request that was approved by the commissioners, which was voted against by the planning commission. This particular request came before that commission several times, and each time the request was different. The people were concerned about this, and several other reasons, and the fact that any additional overly ambitions development (now possible by the blanket rezoning they got) would possibly be inconsistent with the area.
Brainerd Dispatch ©2013. All Rights Reserved.