Editor’s note: Star Tribune Opinion published letters by readers online and in print every day. To make a contribution, click here.
•••
When Title IX was signed by President Richard Nixon 50 years ago, I was 15 years old and ready to begin my sophomore year at Walter Johnson Senior High in Bethesda, Maryland. My twin sister Jane and I played with the WJ girls. Field hockey, volleyball, track and field and softball teams. Because of our skills in field hockey and track and field (I threw the javelin and shot put; Jane threw the discus), we played on these teams at the University of Maryland.
Title IX has spurred a great tide to improve the field for girls and women, not just in sports but in all aspects of educational efforts that have received federal funding. While my family has had a lot to do with the person I’ve become, it’s also because Title IX has opened up so many more doors for me and my teammates.
Title IX continued to open doors for my daughter and her soccer teammates in Winona. Being on a sports team has taught us all the life skills that we carry into our daily lives. The social and emotional support of being on a sports team has contributed immeasurably to our well-being, especially during those rollercoaster years of high school and college.
The Star Tribune editorial called Title IX “an example of what good government can do” (“Title IX was a US Victory,” June 21). Title IX has forever impacted every aspect of my life’s journey, as a daughter, sister, wife, mother, as the District Attorney of Winona, and as a single-minded member of my community.
Karin Leonard Sonneman, Winona, Minn.
ROE V. WADE
The dominant narrative tells us that Christians in this country witnessed the overthrow of Roe v. support Wade. However, in a pastoral way message Speaking before the churches of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) on May 17, Presiding Bishop Elizabeth Eaton made it clear that abortion is illegal in all or most circumstances and is inconsistent with ELCA doctrine. Like many faithful Christians, we recognize the complexity of this issue and believe that criminalizing abortion neither protects life nor seeks justice. We support reproductive rights because of our beliefs, not because of it.
We believe that every pregnant person has the moral agency and authority to decide what to do. We also recognize that while choice is personal, decision-making often takes place in the community—with God, family, partners, friends, health care providers, and pastors. We respect and support each person’s journey to discernment.
While we long for a future with fewer abortions, we believe that criminalizing abortion is not the right way to achieve this. We reject both the total lack of regulation of abortion and laws criminalizing abortion in most or all circumstances. As people of faith, we also oppose laws that create barriers to accessing safe and equitable reproductive health care. To that end, we will continue to work boldly with others to promote public policies that ensure reproductive rights for all.
Pastor Jeff Sartain and Pastor Anna Helgen, Edina
The authors are pastors of the Edina Community Lutheran Church.
•••
Two recent letters to the editor about abortion capture our current dilemma perfectly (Readers Write, June 17). One, by a well-spoken high school student, is brimming with certainties of adolescence: It’s blindingly obvious that abortion is wrong; Black is black, white is white and any idiot can see the difference. The other, by an eloquent pastor (probably well into middle age at least), shows what happens as you move through life—it all gets complicated. Of course, a fetus is “life,” says the pastor, but that is precisely the dilemma we face – each of us must figure out what that means on our human journey, because the life represented by this tiny collection of cells will, sometimes conflicts with the lives of undeniable people.
The point is: We humans do not have consensus on these matters; this is not science, this is moral and spiritual reckoning. So why would we want the state to make that decision for us? We wouldn’t do it if we were as honest and thoughtful as the older, wiser letter writer. As someone who thought Ayn Rand was great when I was her age, I suspect the 17-year-old writer will be surprised at what she believes in a few years. Perhaps one day she will be glad to live in a state where the views of the good pastor are (fortunately) enshrined in our state constitution.
Stephen Bubul, Minneapolis
WEAPONS
I appreciated Gregory Hestness, the deputy chief of the Minneapolis Police Department, in his statement “If only we have held America’s arms race in check” (June 17).
His 40-year police career, combined with his experience as a pistol shooter, qualifies him as someone who sees through the politically motivated objections to responsible gun safety policies. His gun history lesson (the AR-15 was intended to replace the M1, the standard WWII military rifle) was helpful and only confirmed what so many of us already suspected: guns meant for the military don’t have to be available to the military stand general public. Recreational athletes, hunters, and those who care about home security don’t need semi-automatic weapons like AR-15s; There are other firearm options that will do the trick. Why would anyone need a sporting or home security gun designed to “deal as much tissue damage as possible”, kill people quickly and in large numbers, as opposed to a gun that simply has “stopping power”?
Hestness was referring to the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, which tragically lapsed in 2004. It is significant that in 1994 he supported Senator Paul Wellstone’s support for an assault weapons ban. It is no coincidence that mass shootings decreased between 1994 and 2004 compared to before and after.
With due respect to Hestness’ belief that “the train has left the station” regarding the possibility of banning private ownership of assault weapons, I believe we cannot give up on enacting changes that reduce the risk that the presence and availability of offensive weapons in our communities constitute for our security.
Lisa Weisman, Minneapolis
•••
As the Star Tribune reported on June 13, the Senators’ tentative agreement on new gun restrictions (“Senators Strike Deal on Gun Control”) does not include raising the age for purchasing an assault rifle from 18 to 21, although it does have guns , bought by 18-year-olds, were involved in the killings of 10 people at a grocery store in Buffalo, NY and 21 people at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas. Apparently Republicans can’t tolerate making 18-year-olds wait three years to buy an AR-15.
Can someone please explain to my granddaughter why Republican senators believe that protecting an 18-year-old’s right to an assault rifle for just three years outweighs the decades-old right of schoolchildren to a better chance at a full life? I can not.
Bill Kammerer, Edina
HOMELESSNESS
I see him out of the corner of my eye, still inhabiting a small space by the chain link fence at the corner of a street and a freeway ramp. A cardboard storyboard tries to explain why he is there and not at home with loved ones or behind a desk somewhere where he is productive.
He has a plastic Menards bucket to sit on while still being exposed to the weather and judgements. A black garbage bag hangs on the fence for packaging and bottles, which some passers-by thought were better than cash.
I’ve had endless debates with friends about what’s best — a few bills that get squeezed in dirty hands, require eye contact, or impersonal credit card donations to the Salvation Army.
I think smugly of challenges I’ve encountered and been able to overcome. But I know I didn’t have to walk in his tattered shoes.
Instead of dollars, he throws doubt in his path, my hand hesitantly hovering over my wallet. But the traffic light comes on and I’m allowed to drive past, ferried to Damascus in my own lane.
Steven M. Luke, Minneapolis
Comments are closed.