Does abortion initiative prevent “real freedom of choice?”
Re: “Put abortion rights in the Colorado Constitution,” Jan. 28 commentary
Wait. Stop. Don’t sign ballot Initiative 89 to “Put abortion rights in the Colorado Constitution.” This is not a ballot initiative about something inanimate, such as gas exploration or gaming. It’s not a ballot initiative that warrants a casual signature as you walk out of your local grocery store.
It is imperative that registered voters give this measure a great deal of scrutiny. The abortion issue is tearing this country apart. It is an emotional issue with heart-wrenching anecdotal stories on both sides. There are well-intended people on both sides of the debate. Please listen to both sides, do your research, and take time to learn the truth for yourself.
Our state has among the most liberal abortion laws in the country. In the process of passing these laws, science has been ignored or distorted, words or their meanings have been conveniently twisted, and the concept of health care has been corrupted.
Yes, Prop 115 was defeated. However, 41% of Coloradans voted in that election in support of restricting abortion at 22 weeks. Was it the intention of the majority of voters to support abortion at all costs, for any reason, without any barriers? Stop and consider the gravity. Do not give our government an absolute green light to promote just one “choice,” preventing real freedom of choice.
Wendy Smith, Colorado Springs
If Initiative 89 passes, Colorado will have the most extreme abortion law in the U.S., becoming the premier abortion destination. It would be harder for Coloradans to enact commonsense regulations. It would force taxpayers and the government to provide health insurance to state employees and through Medicaid that covers abortion procedures, even as many Coloradans cannot afford or pay excessive out-of-pocket costs. Make no mistake: Initiative 89 protects the abortion industry, not women.
The truth is, Colorado’s current law:
1. Legislatively created a right to abortion
2. Allows for abortion to save a woman’s life (as does every state), in cases of rape and incest, and for any reason, until birth, despite some studies demonstrating the preborn baby can feel pain as early as 12 weeks.
3. Includes no new safety regulations, abortion provider credentialing, complication monitoring, or accurate data reporting but does provide special protections for abortion providers from out-of-state criminal prosecution and civil suits.
4. Excludes parental notification for minors. Imagine your 13-year-old daughter has an abortion, and you can’t help because you don’t know.
5. Strips all preborn babies of their human rights.
In the U.S., more than a third of counties have no maternity care, rural labor, and delivery closures are creating a maternity crisis, workplace and education accommodations lag behind other developed countries, and maternal mortality continues to rise, despite, or perhaps because of, liberal abortion access. Initiative 89 does nothing to combat this maternity crisis but would enshrine into our Constitution an extreme abortion law and barriers to holding the abortion industry accountable for harm to women.
Catherine J. Wheeler, Teller County
I totally disagree with Karen Middleton. The government should never have gotten involved in the abortion issue, starting with Roe v. Wade. Like so many things, when the government gets involved, it gets worse. Look at the mess we have now with states competing like they know what’s best to solve the problem. Abortion is a very personal matter. The decision to have an abortion should be up to the woman (husband if there is one), her doctor, and her god.
Marie Mullen, Highlands Ranch
Neverending cloud of concern
Re: “Suncor reported 13 malfunctions since December,” Jan. 28 news story
You know what I’m tired of reading about in the newspaper? Suncor. Here we go again, same old, same old. Polluting our air week after week, month after month, year after year. And their penalty? A slap on the wrist. EPA and our own Colorado organizations, which are meant to control this kind of pollution, have failed us over and over again. Really, just when will it end?
Mariann Storck, Wheat Ridge
Local and national environmental regulators tolerate Suncor’s malfunctions and disregard for EPA rules. Suncor pays inconsequential fines and continues to exceed even the weak emission standards presently allowed. The fines are not enough to deter, and the emission standards in place already allow for enough ongoing pollution to cause the surrounding area to remain the most polluted zip code in America. Our leaders need to demand more from the EPA.
The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 directs the EPA to use funds to ameliorate symptoms of pollution in overburdened, low-income areas, like the area surrounding Suncor. The EPA’s definition of environmental justice mentions “implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies… regardless of race, color, nationality, or income…”
Levying fines that are not sufficient to deter is not enforcement, and allowing our North Denver neighbors, who are predominantly minorities earning less than the median income of our city, to suffer a higher incidence of physical and mental illnesses than the rest of the population is contrary to the EPA’s expressed definition of environmental justice. The government’s ineffective efforts to hold Suncor accountable appear as a slight to these people. Hopefully, more people in Denver will begin to demand accountability from our agencies and representatives to improve living conditions in that part of our city.
A cleaner environment encourages infrastructure remediation and business investment – it also shows that the rest of us value all areas and residents of our city.
Lucy Pfeffer, Denver
It’s hard out here for full-time workers too
Re: “Stuck in the gig economy,” Jan. 28 commentary
I can understand some of the frustrations raised by the writer who feels our society and economy are not fair to gig workers whose part-time work allows them more face time with their children and aging parents but less financial security. Still, my primary thought is: What did you expect?
These are the same frustrations full-time workers have when they take their children to daycare at 6 a.m. or save all paid time off days for children’s illness emergencies rather than go on vacation. Or when they have to scramble to and from work to attend medical appointments for their loved ones.
It’s not helpful to compare woes, but the sacrifices made by full-time workers — especially those with children — are often much more difficult than any financial upside. Workers must make the right choice for themselves, but benefits and security are an important part of that decision.
If part-time “gig” workers are afforded the same benefits as full-time workers, there will not only be a negative impact on the economy, but I’m confident we will see a major reduction in the full-time workforce.
Meggan Macias, Parker
The Kafer disclaimer
If I had a dollar for every letter that starts, “I don’t always agree with Krista Kafer, but …, “ I could buy that Studebaker Golden Hawk I’ve always wanted.
It’s a backhanded and unnecessary slight. No one agrees with someone 100% of the time – nor should.
Just get to the point.
Craig Marshall Smith, Highlands Ranch
Protection of waters in jeopardy
Re: “Can state protect vulnerable waters?” Jan. 28 news story
Gov. Jared Polis and state officials are to be commended for their efforts to explore options to protect Colorado’s vulnerable waters following the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on the Sackett case, which greatly reduced the waters protected under the Clean Water Act. I suspect we all acknowledge the vital importance of safeguarding our precious water resources.
While what the state finally proposes remains to be seen, it is critical that it be based on well-established hydrologic science that clearly documents the connectivity of our waters. If history provides any clues, there will be opposition to anything the state puts forth. Much of that opposition will be based on misinformation. Therefore, it is essential that concerned citizens contact our state officials and stress the need for a program that fully protects our vulnerable waters.
As if the recent U.S. Supreme Court’s Sackett ruling was not damaging enough, the Court is currently considering two cases involving the Chevron Doctrine. Simply stated, the Chevron Doctrine asserts that if a Federal law is silent or ambiguous on a regulatory issue, the courts defer to the implementing agency’s reasonable interpretation of the law. Speculation is that the current rogue Supreme Court will overturn the Chevron Doctrine. If that happens, this could impact all federal agencies and greatly reduce protection of the environment, human health, public safety, and more. In turn, this would put further pressure on states to “fill in the gap.”
Gene Reetz, Denver
Ph.D., Retired EPA Senior Water Resource Scientist
Hamas was elected into power
Re: “How leaders are trying to end conflict,” Jan. 28 news story
Patrick Kingsley and Edward Wong’s article from the New York Times contains the following sentence, “The Palestinian Authority briefly controlled Gaza after Israeli troops left in 2005, but Hamas forced it from power two years later.” This is not entirely true, and I keep seeing this repeated over and over again. Hamas did not force the Palestinian Authority out; the Palestinians elected Hamas over the existing Palestinian Authority in elections held in January 2006. It was after they were legitimately elected that Hamas seized power. I was living in Jerusalem at that time, and I remember very clearly both that election and the fear of the ultimate outcome. It has been less than 20 years, and already the fact that Hamas was legitimately elected is being forgotten. It should not be.
Lynne Goldsmith, Broomfield
Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.
