Letters: Anti-trans hysteria nothing but a political stunt

I recently read about Lakota School Board member Darbi Boddy, who wants to implement a new board policy that would ban transgender girls from participating in organized girls' sports, and ban all trans students from using restrooms that align with their gender identity. Besides this hateful attempt to marginalize already persecuted trans kids, it's a total non-issue, because there was only one trans athlete participating in an Ohio high school varsity sport, an outfielder and catcher for a northeastern Ohio high school softball team.

And if, by a minute chance, there are a few trans students in a Lakota school, a bathroom ban on him/her is another non-issue. If a trans female enters a school's women's bathroom, I'm sure there are individual stalls with doors to prevent anyone from peering in at someone while in a state of undress. Also, a female to male trans kid won't be using a urinal in a men's bathroom.

This (always Republican) anti-trans fake hysteria is so transparent, and strictly a political stunt to whip up voters, and placate their base. The meanness of it all is so obvious, and downright denigrating. If the GOP would concentrate on fixing real problems and stop spewing hatred and spreading ludicrous conspiracy theories, that might benefit everyone.

Mel Shuller, Montgomery

Trend toward authoritarianism will only lead to chaos

We've seen movement toward a more and more authoritarian form of government. Checks and balances are being eroded. Passage of House Joint Resolution 1 and Senate Joint Resolution 2, now before Ohio's 135th General Assembly, would curtail the use of citizen-led ballot initiatives, approving House Bill 151 and Senate Bill 83 would place an outright ban on public institutions of higher learning from advancing their learned opinions when the legislature considers such views to be addressing "controversial belief or policy," and ill-considered gerrymandering are just a few examples of authoritarianism being advanced at the state level.

At the federal level, we've seen a federal judge attempt to ban a pill the Food and Drug Administration has scientifically studied and considered safer than the alternative of not making it available to women. When will a district judge rule that the Food Safety and Inspection Service of the Department of Agriculture has no authority to inspect the food we eat? Will dangerous substances soon be shipped to restaurants or grocery stores? When will a state's legislature replace the state’s legitimate electors? If this trend towards authoritarianism continues, we can well imagine the chaos that will develop as office holders are more and more willing and able to intentionally advance policies without regard to public opinion.

Actions that discourage discussion, the use of scientific evidence, and otherwise curtail or limit the ability of an informed citizenry to influence public policy will ultimately do more harm to the private sector, which includes our business community by the way, than policies developed when checks and balances are in place. And elected officials who truly believe in democracy would not see their role as being the sole arbiters of "controversial beliefs and policy."

Dan Shatzer, Forest Park

Proposed amendment would legalize abortion up to 9 months

Rabbi Meredith Lagan’s letter to the editor, "Ohio Jewish group joins fight for abortion access," leaves pertinent information out in addressing the current petition to amend the Ohio Constitution on abortion access.

If the amendment passes, there would be no restriction on abortion up and through the ninth month. It would eliminate parental rights from minors regarding abortion. It would also negate parental notification and consent before child undergoes sex change surgery. In addition, the mother’s life is and always has been the first concern for everyone. Rejecting the amendment would not affect the priority of saving the mother’s life.

Marianne Kluesener, Hyde Park

Electorate's vote requirement shouldn't be higher than legislature's

Secretary of State Frank LaRose's rationalizing for a 60% vote requirement on constitutional amendments is besieged by the fact that the amendment to codify abortion rights in Kansas passed with 59% of the vote. The pertinent question here in Ohio is why should the legislature have a lower vote requirement, a simple majority, than the statewide electorate in order to deny legal abortions to women throughout the state?

The veto power of the governor establishes an effective 66% vote requirement on the legislature only when the governor chooses to apply it. Whoever just so happens to be governor could never justify a higher vote requirement for the electorate over whom the governor holds no veto power. Given the potential of gerrymandering the vote requirement for the legislature should be higher than for the electorate. If the requirement for the electorate should rise to 60%, then the requirement for the legislature must rise to a veto-proof 66%.

LaRose does have a valid concern over powerful moneyed interests amending the constitution at will. This threat can be neutralized by campaign finance law stipulating that any amount contributed to an amendment issue must be split 50/50 between the opposing sides. And when the legislature votes to place an amendment on the ballot, it must fund the opposing side an amount commensurate with the cost of placing an issue on the ballot through signatures.

Ronald Hischak, Evanston

Vote yes on Loveland school levy on May 2

I strongly believe that Loveland is the best community in Ohio. We are fortunate to live in a place where we all feel safe, business is booming, and our kids have a chance to go to great schools. And our schools lie at the heart of our community. I have been a longtime supporter of the boosters, and I was blessed to have my children graduate from Loveland High School.

As a business owner and resident of Loveland, I wholeheartedly endorse the upcoming Loveland School District levy, and I urge my fellow community members to support it as well. Supporting our schools is essential to the strength of our community, the growth of our businesses, and the value of our properties.

I understand that there has been opposition to levies like this in the past, and I respect the concerns of those who are hesitant to support it. However, the reality is that our schools need this funding to continue providing the high-quality education that our children deserve.

By supporting our schools, we are also investing in the future of our community. When businesses are looking to set up shop in a new location, they look for strong schools that will attract employees with families. If we want Loveland to continue to thrive, it is essential that we have a strong school system.

Moreover, supporting our schools is essential to maintaining the value of our properties. Homebuyers are always looking for great schools for their children, which means that strong schools can help to attract buyers and strengthen the value of our properties.

I understand why some may be hesitant to support this levy, but I strongly believe that now is the time to come together for the benefit of our community. We owe it to our children to give them the best education possible, and we owe it to ourselves to invest in the future of our community.

Please vote "yes" on May 2 to support our children, our community, and our future.

Tony Ricci, Loveland

It's clear why Republicans want to make voting more difficult

I would like to thank Meredith Perkins for her editorial "New voter ID law a waste of time, money," (April 16). She did a very good job explaining how this law adversely affects college students and makes voting much more difficult for many people.

But I must disagree with her statement that lower voter turnout doesn't help any political party. Voter suppression has been a policy of the Republican Party for years. Several years ago, a Republican officeholder in Pennsylvania admitted this openly. They want to suppress the vote of young, Black and poor people because they tend to vote Democratic. Why do you think Republican Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose favored the voter ID bill even though he said that voter fraud is definitely not a problem in Ohio? I went to LaRose's website, and you have to click through four or five different pages before you can find out how to get a free Ohio ID. Many poor people in Ohio do not have their birth certificate, which you need to get the "free" ID. It costs $21.50 to obtain an Ohio birth certificate, so that could be considered a form of poll tax outlawed by the 24th Amendment.

Recent Ohio elections have been essentially free of fraud. So why do Republicans want to make voting more difficult for certain Ohioans? It's pretty clear.

Patricia Basler, Reading

Residency matters when voting

The April 16 Enquirer had a guest opinion from a student at Miami University who was complaining about how she needed an ID to be able to vote in Ohio. While she mentioned that she is working three jobs, which is admirable, she rambled on about how she would not be able to get a mail-in ballot, or get to the drop-off box, and even have to pay the 63 cents to mail the ballot.

A minor technical problem came up in her rambling, her driver’s license cannot be used to vote in Ohio as she has a Kentucky driver’s license. Hello!

Does this mean her principal residence is listed as being in Kentucky. Since she is a sophomore student, does she live on or off campus and go home to where she obviously was from in Kentucky during the summer break. But the main question would, of course, be, why does she think she is entitled to vote in Ohio? She has to be registered to vote in Ohio and that requires an application with details of eligibility, one can assume that since her driver’s license is from Kentucky, then she would have to prove a change of residency to be entitled to vote.

Naturally, she did not elaborate on this, just used the article as an excuse to complain.

Stan Shadwell, Pierce Township

LaRose can't have it both ways

Ohio Secretary of State LaRose's editorial supporting a 60% vote threshold to amend the state constitution is laudable, were it not so clearly timed with the parallel effort to codify abortion rights in response to state legislators' attempts to pass ever more restrictive laws out of step with mainstream voters.

You can't have it both ways. If we wish to respect the will of the voters in the way we amend our constitution, maybe our elected representatives first need to understand that they're elected to represent all Ohioans. Yes, our democracy is worth protecting. But let's do it consistently.

John Weigand, Mt. Adams

Quit whining and find a way to vote

In response to Meredith Perkins' guest column, "New voter ID law a waste of time, money," (April 16): Would you like me to tell you where my father was at your age? He had completed one semester at Xavier, attending with a football scholarship. Then, he and almost the entire student body left college and enlisted. Yes, it was 1942.

He was lucky/unlucky enough to be saved and watched his best buddy be blown up in the tank my dad had just been moved from. So, quit whining about how hard it is for you to vote and get it done. One thing that was ingrained in us growing up, was that you better darn well vote.

Martha Ekardt, Delhi Township

Comic strip that replaced "Dilbert" is crass, juvenile

I have enjoyed reading the Enquirer "fun" pages for a long time. I regret the circumstances surrounding the eventual removal of the "Dilbert" comic strip, but I (and perhaps many others) regret the picked replacement, "Crabgrass," even more. In my opinion, it is juvenile and crass with no redeeming qualities. If you're going to replace an iconic strip like "Dilbert," pick one that is at least on the same playing field. "BC," "Non Sequitur," or "Calvin and Hobbs" come to mind.

Bart Groeneveld, Park Hills

This article originally appeared on Cincinnati Enquirer: Letters: Anti-trans hysteria nothing but a political stunt