Letters: Supreme Court abortion decision rocks country
Supreme Court abortion decision rocks country
Re: “Roe vs. Wade overturned,” June 25 news story
I’m sure The Denver Post is overwhelmed with letters on both sides of this argument. I think the larger question is the separation of church and state.
I believe the First Amendment should be interpreted as both freedom of religion and freedom from religion. The inherent implication is that no group of people should have any right or ability to impose their rules and belief systems on any other group of people.
This is the argument that should be brought before a truly non-partisan Supreme Court.
Amy Longworth, Lakewood
In the recent Supreme Court decision, the determination of abortion rights is returned to the individual states. It could be argued that this is on the same footing as capital punishment has been historically. If one wants a national pro-choice law, it is up to Congress to pass legislation. As a law passed by Congress, the Supreme Court must follow the law!
Paul Crumby, Loveland
So let’s review. How did we get this Extreme Court instead of the desired Supreme Court?
We elected a president who couldn’t care less about the abortion issue — what he did care about only was what made him more powerful, popular and wealthy. And those anti-abortion folks would use whatever mechanism to get their desired end result, including compromising any other principles they might have.
Watch what you ask for; you just might get it.
Jerry Witt, Commerce City
Re: “End of Roe brings answer to prayer,” June 26 news story
I am so grateful for these warriors for life. What a glorious legacy for these two people; Tanya Britton and Justice Samuel Alito. I applaud them as well as all those who have counseled, prayed and supported women and families.
Our work is not done, especially in Colorado, a destination abortion state! Let’s thank God for this ruling and keep praying and helping those who kill the unborn.
Deanna R Walworth, Brighton
It is no exaggeration that our nation is facing genuine existential threats from within more than from outside. Soon after Russia invaded Ukraine, elected officials of both parties, corporate media news outlets and their guests repeated the “democracy vs. autocracy” mantra to frame the U.S.’s and its allies’ support for Ukraine as a moral one.
It is time that we, and that includes elected officials and the media, move away from the mantra of “democracy vs. autocracy” and focus more on the domestic struggle of “democracy vs. theocracy.” We are witnessing a 21st-century crusade in our own country, and it is time to prepare to live under it or to contain and restrain it. The Christian Nationalists’ agenda is clear, targeting anyone they object to, both heretics and infidels. They have set this nation on a path that puts the expression “going backward into the future” at a biblical level.
Andrew Jarrett, Aurora
Re: “What the U.S. Supreme Court got so very wrong,” June 26 editorial
The political left apparently will stop at nothing to pursue its nefarious ends, even if it means demonizing Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch for defending the sanctity of human life. Or, as The Denver Post put it, “We were wrong to trust such a man and to trust the men who vouched for him.”
If anyone is deserving of praise for the 6-3 vote to strike down Roe vs. Wade, it is President Donald Trump, whose appointments of Justices Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett have played a vital role in what Trump had envisioned for the protection of the unborn child. Evidently, The Post has it backward.
Brian Stuckey, Denver
Women in this country now have fewer rights than a firearm. Equal rights were demolished with this reckless overturn of a guaranteed constitutional right. Forcing births is tantamount to a new form of slavery. It’s as though the justices ignored the Constitution and decided based on their religious beliefs.
Women are now considered second-class citizens by Republicans. Remember that when you vote in November.
Susan Altenhofen, Fort Collins
Re: “Clergy lead faithful in praise, lament,” June 27 news story
I appreciated the article, but I felt it was weak in describing the established religious ethics that support freedom of choice regarding abortion.
In 1971, two years before Roe, I was a delegate to the national convention of the United Church of Christ, and I was assigned to the committee that studied a proposed statement on abortion. We spent days in thoughtful and prayerful reflection and deliberation, and there was extensive debate. The delegates voted, by a greater than 90% margin, to approve the final resolution.
The opening sentence of the 1971 statement read, “A responsible position concerning abortion should be based on a consideration of the rights of the individual woman, her potential child, her family and society, as well as the rights of the fetus.” The convention called for the repeal of all legal prohibitions on physician-performed abortions. “This would take abortion out of the realm of penal law and make voluntary and medically safe abortions available to all women.”
Over 50 years ago, my denomination dealt in depth with the personal and social ethics of abortion and clearly stated that abortion must be one of the options available to all women. In keeping with that historic and ongoing commitment to reproductive justice, the national officers of the United Church of Christ issued an official statement against the Supreme Court decision.
Peter Sawtell, Denver
Conceal and carry protects the public
Re: “Court just made New York unsafe,” June 26 commentary
When I saw the headline, I burst out laughing. So here comes another liberal Democrat from Bloomberg or The New York Times, etc. Of course it was Noah Feldman, the left-wing law professor from Harvard who is affiliated with Bloomberg.
Feldman reports the Supreme Court ruling “means concealed carry is now basically an automatic right.”
Yes. Prior to the ruling, a carjacker could conceal and carry; a smash-and-grab thief could conceal and carry; a drug dealer could conceal and carry; a gang-banger could conceal and carry; etc. Any street criminal can conceal and carry. A home burglar can conceal and carry.
Feldman, in his brilliance, said, “Anyone you meet on the street or in the car ahead of you may be lawfully packing.”
Yes, professor, thank God. Now maybe you can understand. The carjacker or other criminal will think twice before victimizing a public tax-paying citizen who can now protect themselves, their family or property.
The liberal left doesn’t ever get it. Guns are also for protection. If gun laws don’t protect us, give us laws that will. Thank you, Supreme Court, for conceal-carry law.
The Supreme Court struck down New York law that said you could only carry a concealed handgun outside your home if you can show you have “proper cause.” Criminals have no cause for any gun laws.
Hank Urbanowicz, Englewood
Questioning the decisions, structure of the high court
It is time to reconsider the structure of the Supreme Court of the United States. When the Constitution was written more than two centuries ago, people didn’t live as long as they do now. Our founding fathers did not anticipate how far from public opinion any gathering of a few people could fall.
If the Supreme Court were required to face a public vote of confidence at election time with some minimal percentage of votes allowed to unseat a member, the American public could regain some say in important matters.
“We the people” pertains to many millions of Americans — not to an elite nine. Let’s start the ball rolling to restructure the Supreme Court.
Robert Rothe, Boulder
Now that the SCOTUS is no longer a judiciary, but a political tool, isn’t it time we consider term limits?
Ron Selbo, Denver
Common sense and consistency never have been a feature of our Supreme Court.
Their ruling in Dred Scott in the 1850s virtually assured the Civil War, which soon followed.
They embraced “separate but equal” to justify Jim Crow laws for decades despite its obvious absurdity.
When it came time that an injustice was too odorous to ignore any longer, they “discovered” a new right, as in Brown vs. Board of Education, regarding flagrantly unequal educational opportunities.
Even now they’re using a convoluted reading of “a well-regulated militia” phrase in the Bill of Rights to justify near-universal gun ownership.
It’s time for us to acknowledge that they are members of a privileged, purely political club who happen to wear black robes while twisting and torturing our laws.
Harry Puncec, Lakewood
Wow, the U.S. Supreme Court certainly has been busy. Recently they:
• limited citizen protections to have Miranda rights given when arrested;
• allowed public funding for private religious schools;
• curtailed the ability of individual states to enforce/create gun safety laws; and
• let states cancel a woman’s right over her own health decisions.
Busy, busy, busy.
Linda Duhon, Aurora
A mess at CU that needs to get cleaned up
Re: “Don’t conflate Benson Center with John Eastman,” June 26 commentary
University of Colorado Chancellor Philip DiStefano wishes to remove the Benson Center from blame for the selection of John Eastman as CU’s visiting conservative scholar, a position created to promote “Conservative scholarship” (and combat the “liberal” tendencies of higher education), but he makes no note of Mark Kennedy, Bruce Benson’s successor as president, another correctly dismissed University appointee whose conservative ambitions outweighed student interests and educational ethics.
Someone made those choices and provided the funding for Eastman’s salary, but a full accounting and straightforward apology for the embarrassment of Eastman’s association with the university has yet to come from anywhere on the Boulder campus.
This could be an excellent reference study for the center’s lectures on capitalism and ethics, and revealing its list of donors would signify a needed airing out of closed rooms.
Robert Porath, Boulder
I am glad that The Denver Post is finally printing in-depth articles about John Eastman. It is embarrassing and infuriating that he orchestrated his coup attempt while serving as a visiting faculty member at the University of Colorado, but it’s not a shocking surprise.
Eastman has long been involved in extremist activity, and even a cursory review of his background would have revealed this.
Still unanswered is exactly who thought it was a good idea to hire him?
Maybe the entire Benson Center should not be dissolved as Chancellor Philip DiStefano argues, but the person who exercised horrendous judgment in hiring him should be dismissed. Who is this?
Additionally, as a Colorado taxpayer and parent of a CU student, I want to know the cost of this debacle — salary, benefits, perks and costs associated with his ultimate termination.
Whether or not the person who made the decision to hire him faces consequences, the tuition-paying parents and taxpayers will certainly pay the bill. We have a right to know the cost.
Brenda Jansen, Evergreen
Until American conservatism cleanses itself of its fascist tendencies, it does not deserve a place on college campuses to influence young minds. The Benson Center should be closed.
Bob Stephenson, Englewood
Denver’s trash fee may make a mess
Re: “Denver council OKs new collection policy that begins in 2023,” June 29 news story
I predict the Denver City Council decision to charge for trash bins will result in more rubbish being discarded along roadsides and alleys, or the continuing saga we experience in my neighborhood of strangers throwing their trash into or next to my bin.
So what is my recourse when a stranger throws trash in my alley or fills my bin?
Call 311 and experience massive hold times, and then look at the garbage until (if ever) Denver sends someone out to deal with it? Or just deal with it myself? From experience, it is option B.
Don Gonzales, Denver
Honor and dishonor among two veterans
How ironic and how tragic. On Wednesday, two stories appeared in the same ABC News broadcast. One told of the death of the last World War II Medal of Honor recipient, Marine Cpl. Hershel Williams.
During an interview years ago, Williams said two Marines died protecting him during his heroic mission on Iwo Jima in 1945.
He said the Medal of Honor belonged to them, not him. He was a true, selfless hero fighting for American freedom and democracy, recognizing and honoring others during his moment of trial-by-fire.
Contrast that with the behavior of Army Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, who was shown in the same broadcast yesterday pleading the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination when asked if he believed in the peaceful transfer of power in America.
This is a former high-ranking military officer, one sworn to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, (and) that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same,” refusing to answer a question directly related to the oath he took. Despicable conduct. Dishonorable conduct.
Mike Flynn should be stripped of his military rank and privileges.
He should be retroactively dishonorably discharged from the Army.
His retirement should be transferred to the family of Williams, a true American hero with honor.
Kenneth Cook, Littleton
Look at the decline of Union Station
Re: “Blaming prosecutors for crime has no basis in fact,” June 21 commentary
In her commentary, Denver District Attorney Beth McCann wrote, “To be clear, there is zero evidence that progressive policies are what’s driving the nation’s crime increase, zero.”
To refute this statement, one needs to look only at Denver’s one-time showpiece — Union Station. What used to be the Pearl of Denver is now regarded as its Sewer of Crime.
Lenient legislators and district attorneys who refuse to prosecute to the full extent of the law are the ones responsible for the fear that passengers on the light rail have when in that area.
Rudy Mapelli, Golden
Brave actions and testimony in face of Jan. 6 threat
Re: “Aide: Trump dismissed threats,” June 29 news story
White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson testified that when Trump was alerted that some in the mob headed to the Capitol had weapons, she overheard the president say something to the effect of “I don’t f-ing care that they have weapons. They’re not here to hurt me. Take the f-ing (metal detectors) away. Let my people in; they can march to the Capitol from here. Let the people in.”
The testimony should send chills into the very souls of those Republicans in Congress that still support Trump. Trump couldn’t care less about the safety of any of the legislators, staffers or visitors — even their children — that were in the Capitol that day.
Obviously, Trump just considered them all, including his Republican supporters, collateral damage in his violent coup attempt.
Cynthia Stone, Denver
A few years ago, if the scenario that is playing out by the Jan. 6 committee investigations had been predicted, the theory would have been broadly rejected as “nonsense” — or, in the vernacular of former Attorney General William Barr, by perhaps more colorful assessments.
But now we are learning the sad validity of this “conspiracy theory.” The role of Judge J. Michael Luttig, Rep. Liz Cheney, and former Vice President Mike Pence — all of whom are indisputable conservatives with whom I usually disagree on federal policy matters — have gained my great respect for their dedication to our democracy, the Constitution and the rule of law.
Based upon the testimony of many other Republican officials, perhaps there is hope for the reemergence of their party, one that adheres to conservative values and divests itself from the worship of Donald Trump.
Vic Viola, Golden
While Game 6 was one for the history books, perhaps the most special part was not what happened during the Stanley Cup-winning game for the Avalanche. In this area of big-money pro sports, something very unique and deeply personal took place on the ice postgame, and that was the mingling of sons, daughters, wives, partners, mothers and fathers with the players — what a touching thing to watch.
After a season of being wound tight during the inevitable ups and downs of the NHL, the joy on the faces of “the boys” and their families was palpable. The fact that the players have such a love for the game was apparent all over the ice.
Of all the great moments in Denver sports history, this one is near the top for me. A close second would be that scene from 2001 when Avalanche captain Joe Sakic handed the Stanley Cup to Ray Bourque.
Ben Palen, Denver
As a former board of directors member of Colorado Rockies hockey, and from the legion of “Rocky Hockey” fans, we’re so happy for and proud of the Avalanche, the players, coaches, staff, managers and ownership for bringing the Stanley Cup to Denver.
Thank you for a memorable season. Wow!
Fred G. Jager, Laguna Niguel, Calif.
A note on opinion changes
Changes are coming to The Denver Post opinion pages in preparation for the election this fall, and the changes will mean more of what you love — in-depth opinion and analysis of the issues that Coloradans care most about.
Immediately, you’ll notice that there no longer will be opinion pages on Mondays and Tuesdays, as the department begins a transition to writing more in-house content. Longer-term, you will notice more thoroughly reported opinion pieces that bring depth and understanding to the complex issues we face as a state and a nation.
The Post has told four freelance columnists to take a break from writing regularly between now and the Nov. 8 election. I have appreciated the political commentary over the past several years from Ian Silverii, Doug Friednash, George Brauchler and Dick Wadhams. I know many readers will miss their voices on these pages, however, I hope readers will appreciate The Post’s unfettered commitment to impartiality and fairness as we head into the general election.
This Sunday you will still find the four-page Perspective section, and we hope you will enjoy in-depth looks at Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch’s ruling on religious freedom; Denver’s failure to implement housing-first policies for the homeless; Colorado’s attorney ethics or the complete lack thereof; the scramble in Adams, Douglas and Arapahoe counties to handle the end of Tri-County Health; and an editorial about the future of Empower Field at Mile High. We appreciate your continued support, both as subscribers and as contributors to the opinion page through letters and guest commentary.
Megan Schrader, Denver Post opinion editor
Justice Clarence Thomas feels the Supreme Court “should reconsider” previous decisions like Griswold vs. Connecticut, a 1965 decision involving the right to contraception, and Obergefell vs. Hodges, the 2015 case establishing the right of gay couples to marry. Would Justice Thomas “reconsider” Loving vs. Virginia, the 1967 landmark civil rights decision in which the Court ruled that laws banning interracial marriage violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment or would that decision hit too close to home?
Gary Tate, Castle Rock
Simple reaction to complexity
Hearing the news on the Supreme Court decision, my 8-year-old granddaughter asked what abortion is. When I told her, she broke into tears at the thought that a woman could intentionally end the life growing inside her. It didn’t take theology or any expounding on biology or graphic images to tell her what happens in an abortion. Abortion ends a life.
Of course, a child does not understand the challenges pregnancy can present to an adult and the need for legislation to protect a woman’s right to make safe decisions regarding her body. She does, however, see the truth that many have become callous to — the preciousness of new life and the awe and respect due it. If we could reclaim this vision, might we find ourselves coming together in abortion legislation that would truly respect the lives of both mother and child?
Frances Rossi, Denver
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.