Letters: Vote for life this year

Vote for life this year

I’ve been voting for over 50 years, and never have I seen such bold attacks against the unborn and political candidates supporting the pro-life movement.

Thank God the Supreme Court decided to move the abortion issue to the states.

The Democratic Party has spent huge amounts to advertise in these elections in support of abortion.

It’s incredible that there seems to be no fear of God and His justice from the people supporting these gruesome acts.

People at Planned Parenthood, et al. should consider reading some of the biblical references to abortions. Deuteronomy 27:25-26: “Cursed be he who accepts payments for slaying an innocent man! And all the people shall answer, Amen!” Isaiah 59:7: “Their feet run to evil, and they are quick to shed innocent blood. Their thoughts are destructive thoughts, plunder and ruin are on their highways.”

The political ads on abortion are about the comfort and convenience of the mothers involved. There’s no mention of the helpless babies who will painfully lose everything. There are many who want to adopt a child, and there are organizations whose missions are to help those who are pregnant.

Please vote for life!

— Michael Keane, Dubuque

Rights of pregnant and unborn in conflict

Personhood is a social, philosophical and legal construct used historically for discrimination against women, racial and ethnic minorities and others deemed undeserving of full participation in society by the ruling class.

Personhood is currently being used to obfuscate who holds human rights. Declaring that nobody is qualified to declare when personhood begins except the mother in consultation with a health care provider is a specious argument. If universal human rights exist, they are universal and not case by case to be determined by the needs and desires of a specific moment in time.

In defining human we should maximize inclusivity, eliminate emotional appeals, and minimize ideologic bias.

I recommend a scientific definition of human. From the moment a viable human zygote develops it is a living human organism. It can continue development as a human organism or it can die. It cannot become a different type of organism. There is no biological point of differentiation from conception to death at which a human becomes objectively more human or less human, just a biological continuum of human life.

The rights of the pregnant and the unborn are in conflict. That doesn’t justify dehumanizing or devaluing either individual.

— Jason Kruse, Clive

Reynolds has compiled an impressive record

Deidre DeJear might be nice and smart, but she is unqualified to be elected Iowa’s next governor. Would an employer hire a person not qualified for a job opening? Of course not. That’s why it is really puzzling why the Des Moines Register editorial board endorsed her.

It appears to be not over qualifications but over politics. Under Kim Reynolds, Iowa has amassed a billion-dollar state surplus, cut income and corporate taxes, knocked down COVID-19, addressed bad water issues, backed our police and is pro-life.

Why wouldn’t we re-elect her?

— Tony A. Powers, West Des Moines

Let’s improve campaigning

I suggest three areas where action is needed:

First: When political candidates promise to cut taxes, it would help us public citizens for them to state which taxes they intend to reduce and the results they expect, for example, in health care, agriculture, housing, public assistance, military, transportation, or other areas.

Second: Candidates should focus their ads mostly on what they intend to do should they win to a help people and our country — not spend most of their money ads tearing down the opposing candidate.

Third: Since the political parties will not do it, perhaps the media could do much more to verify the truth in political ads. Some appear to be downright untrue, or are snippets taken out of context.

— Dale Schmitz, Clive

Registered Republican supports Franken

I am a registered Republican.

I am voting for a man who cares more about Iowa than he cares about his personal career.

I am voting for a man who has worked with presidents of both parties.

I am voting for a man who believes that diplomacy is more productive than party loyalty.

I am voting for a man who focuses on what lies ahead of him instead of on his stale record.

I am voting for a man who talks to all Iowans, not just those personally invited to his 99-county tour parties.

I am voting for a man who accepts responsibility instead of throwing blame across the aisle.

I am voting for a man who doesn't have to defend his physical fitness.

I am voting for Mike Franken.

— Bim Prichard, DeWitt

Gun vote seems to be about politics, not policy

I’m at a loss to understand why we need to add an amendment to the Iowa Constitution regarding guns when we already have the “right to bear arms” Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This proposed amendment will, with the words “strict scrutiny,” make it virtually impossible to pass any state legislation making people safer.

A question for gun owners: Why have we become so paranoid over so-called gun rights? How many guns has the government under Democratic administrations taken from you? In the past 30 years, Democrats have been in power nationally for 18 of those years. My guess is you have many more guns than you did in 1992.

It seems the country is trying to ride this crazy “red wave” to get Republicans elected, but at the overall expense of the vast majority of Americans who are sick of guns and gun violence.

Full disclosure on my part needs to be heard. I’m a former gun owner and hunter, served an extended tour of duty in South Vietnam and had a federal firearms license to sell guns and ammunition issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. I’ve owned many guns over my lifetime. I’m now older and wiser and have come to my senses and plan to use good judgment and common sense when I vote against this skewed and unnecessary proposal.

— Mike Leedom, Waverly

Passing amendment won’t make Iowa safer

My heart sank when I read the Iowa Poll that 58% of likely Iowa voters support the proposed Right to Keep and Bear Arms amendment. The “subject to strict scrutiny” language in the proposed amendment makes it highly unlikely that an Iowa court will strike down any restriction on gun ownership.

So, how does easing the purchase and ownership of guns make our state safer? Back in the 1880s, local laws in the West regulating ownership and carrying firearms were far stricter than what we have in Iowa today. Why? It was to preserve peace and stability. I guess in Iowa, we want to preserve peace and stability by ensuring that guns are everywhere. As the governor stated in her campaign ads, “Aren’t you glad you live in Iowa?”

— Kevin Pokorny, Des Moines

We can find a middle ground

Fellow Americans, politicians on both sides of the seek to divide us.

You can hear it in their campaign ads. You can see it in their actions.

The politicians blame the other side: “They” want to destroy America. Some Democrats paint all Republicans to be racists and fascists. Some Republicans paint all Democrats to be unhinged liberals who want to destroy our way of life.

There is common ground here. There is a middle way that most of us believe in. We all love our country, as imperfect as it may be. We all love and enjoy our freedoms.

Let's remember that and work together to respect others and their opinions. Vote for politicians who will work with the other party, compromise and represent all of us, not some unbending ideology.

The heart of American democracy is truth, justice and equality. Let's elect politicians who believe this. Thank you for listening. Blessings of peace, harmony and happiness to you.

— Jon Foote, Waterloo

Drug and immigration problems are linked

I just finished Rekha Basu's Oct. 23 column concerning the fentanyl epidemic threatening lives in our country.

It is sad that we have lost and our losing so many people to this horrific drug. It is a bit of a mystery to me how people who are loved and cared about and seeming do well in life can become addicted to drugs and then unknowingly have fentanyl take their life. Basu mentions the influx of the drug from Mexico, including the fact that all vehicles crossing the border can't be checked.

What she hypocritically fails to mention is the flood of people crossing our southern border daily. Of course many are just seeking a better life. However, we have no idea how may our bringing with them that drug. Immigration is fine and to a certain extent needed, but immigrants all have to come in thru the "gate." The current inflow is not sustainable and has to stop.

— Lowell Bunger, Grinnell

Women make a difference

On Nov. 8, the women of America can bend the arc of history on the issues women care about: reproductive freedom, democracy, climate change, economic inequity, homelessness, broken immigration and criminal justice systems, increasing crime and gun violence, racial injustice, inadequate education, and a failing healthcare system.

But to have a decisive influence on these issues, many of the 40 million women who are not registered must become registered and vote.

When women do show up, they alter election outcomes. Case in point: In Kansas on Aug. 2, a proposed constitutional amendment to allow legislation restricting abortion was rejected by voters. Women had an outsized influence in this outcome, because after the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 24 decision eliminating constitutional protection for abortion, 69% of newly registered voters were women.

Registering enough women to alter election outcomes is within reach. For example, in the 2000 presidential election, Florida’s popular vote, which determined the Electoral College outcome, was decided by just 537 votes. And in 2020, in three states having the narrowest margins, the presidential outcome rested on just over 20,000 votes.

Women admire the vision of leaders such as Greta Thunberg, Malala Yousafzai, and the women leaders of #MeToo, #TimesUp, Moms Demand Action, and MADD. But their vision will not be realized until women register and vote for political leaders who share women’s values. The November election creates what Dr. King called “the fierce urgency of now.” Women urgently need to register and exercise their right and duty to VOTE.

— Maya Buchanan, Waterloo

Vote out Iowa Supreme Court justices

The Iowa Supreme Court recently voted no on a woman's right to her own body. Two of those justices, Matthew McDermott and Dana Oxley, face retention votes this election. Vote no on their right to a job.

— Timothy Olson, West Des Moines

We earned Social Security and Medicare

I was not given a box to check, an option to say no, back in 1974 when I started paying what basically amounts to part of my retirement fund. My employer started taking out money from my paycheck to pay into Social Security and Medicare so that when I was ready to retire, I would have that money to help. For years, I have paid my dues and the government has played around with it. The age of retirement has been pushed and extended; I get older.

Some members of Congress want to push the retirement age back again, actually want to end Social Security and Medicare altogether. We will probably be on disability before retirement if we wait until age 70 to retire.

That money is not theirs; it is not an entitlement! We have paid into that little next egg for decades. Millions of Americans are depending on that money, have paid into that fund. Congress seems to forget they work for the American people. Social Security is not their piggy bank. Congress has made changes to it to meet their needs, not ours. We pay taxes too, but you don’t want to raise taxes on those that can afford them, you want to push most of us into the streets, into poverty.

Don’t threaten us with holding the country’s debt ceiling hostage. Republicans are using fear tactics to make people think Democrats are spending too much. It is all political. Raising the debt ceiling does nothing to increase spending but merely authorizes borrowing for debts already incurred by Congress. They have no intention of shoring up social security and Medicare. Don’t let Congress gut these programs.

— Tracy Creason, Des Moines

Credit educators, students and parents for test scores

While it is remarkable that Iowa students maintained their math and reading abilities through the pandemic, the real heroes deserve mention. Before Gov. Kim Reynolds brags about this achievement, thanks should be given to the brave teachers, administrators, and staff members who took courageous steps to keep students and their families safe.

While the governor threatened districts, educators did their jobs, whether in person or online, after pivoting to adapt to the latest challenges. Parents, too, deserve thanks for ensuring their children were able to continue learning at such a frightening time.

Remember who was most caring about Iowa students when you vote this election. Let's keep some compassion in our state!

— Susan Pundzak, Des Moines

Gun violence kills children

I write believing that the lives of all Iowans, especially our children, are far more important and far more fundamental than the unfettered gun ownership rights set forth on our November election ballot.

This proposed gun amendment to Iowa’s Constitution is very broadly stated. All arguments for having guns for any purpose would enjoy the highest deference available, strict scrutiny, under Iowa’s Constitution.

Why so much energy for guns? Why so little concern for public safety and the lives of our children?

Doctors see the effects of gun violence. The American Medical Association has declared uncontrolled ownership and use of firearms as a serious threat to the public’s health, noting that thousands of Americans die each year at the barrel of a gun … a crisis unrivaled in any other developed country. The American Academy of Pediatrics says gun violence is the leading cause of death for children and teens and has long advocated for meaningful policies that keep children safe from guns.

This proposed gun amendment to Iowa’s Constitution goes way too far in the wrong direction. Iowans are not safe.

— Jeanine Freeman, Des Moines

Social justice should be governor’s goal

I support Deidre DeJear to be our next governor. Iowa has just 4% population who are Black; 25% of our prison population is Black people. Just where have been our Republican lawmakers who have been supportive of social justice in our state? It is time that we work to bring about social justice in our state of Iowa. Vote for DeJear.

— The Rev. Darrell Mitchell, Marshalltown

As a career law enforcement officer, I’m voting no

This Election Day Iowans will be asked to vote on an amendment to our state Constitution. On its face, the amendment seems like a copy of the Second Amendment. However, what many Iowans don’t know is that the phrase “strict scrutiny” is a legal term with extreme implications.

“Strict scrutiny” requires a court to apply the highest level of scrutiny possible to decide whether a law is unconstitutional. This approach has been used to override the original intent of laws, has led to frivolous lawsuits, undermined case law, and jeopardized common-sense gun laws.

Some current gun safety laws keep felons and people convicted of certain domestic violence crimes from having firearms. Other laws prohibit guns in schools and restrict possession of machine guns and other offensive weapons.

As a retired career law enforcement official of 36 years, I know the importance of these laws. I am a gun owner. I have had many hours of weapons training during my career. Our forefathers created the Second Amendment. I would favor adding the same wording to the Iowa Constitution instead of the proposed language of “strict scrutiny.”

Gun deaths are the leading cause of death of children in America, and the second-leading cause here in Iowa. The gun death rate in Iowa is increasing faster than the national average. We owe it to ourselves, to our communities, and to our children to do better. On Election Day, vote no on the amendment.

— Rick Lincoln, retired Clinton County sheriff

Republicans would destroy Social Security and Medicare

Social Security and Medicare are the backbones of America’s commitment to our seniors. These are hard-earned benefits paid for with each and every paycheck. They give our seniors the dignity and resources to retire and receive needed care after a lifetime of work. It’s no wonder these programs remain wildly popular with the American public after nearly 60 years since passage.

But the future of your Medicare and Social Security are on the ballot. Republican U.S. Sen. Rick Scott, chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, released a plan putting Medicare and Social Security on the chopping block every five years. This is the Republican Party’s only released plan going into the midterms. Sen. Ron Johnson declared the plan does not go far enough, calling for Medicare and Social Security to be on the chopping block every year.

Last month Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks and Sen. Chuck Grassley invited Rick Scott to campaign with them here in Iowa. Scott brought his plan with him. Make no mistake, our Social Security and Medicare are at risk. Our seniors, and all Americans, deserve the confidence that these programs will remain in place. No one should live with the fear and stress that their earned benefits, the very promise our Nation made to them, could be stripped away every year.

Fortunately, Mike Franken and Christina Bohannan understand the importance of honoring the promises America makes. These are your earned benefits. Support candidates who will support you.

— Jean Pardee, Clinton

Ganske is no expert

Having experienced 50 years as a nurse, I felt I had an inside track when it came to choosing the best options for health care problems. If you want a good recommendation for the best doctor, ask a hospital nurse.

Through the years of raising a family, if I needed surgery I consulted a surgeon; for a skin problem, a dermatologist. And so on.

I'm puzzled that the Register relies on a surgeon for answers about an epidemiology problem.

Two sentences stood out in Dr. Greg Ganske's Oct. 23 essay.

One was, "We found that the vaccines are effective in protecting people from getting really sick and dying." Obviously!

He also said, "The biggest mistake our health authorities made was to politicize ‘science.’” He certainly got that one wrong. It wasn't the health authorities who made it political.

This is the first time in my lifetime, having lived through measles, mumps, scarlet fever and polio, that I saw people's response to a pandemic be turned into a political battle by certain media outlets ranting about the "leftist" government telling you what to do. Masks and vaccines were derided.

I do not go for advice on a pandemic to a surgeon. Ask most hospital nurses their reaction to being more concerned about the economic situation or the life of their patients. Thanks to them for their tireless efforts.

— Markoline Johnson, Des Moines

Naming building for Sarcone was misguided

In a 4-1 vote, Polk County supervisors voted to rename the Polk County Justice Center after John P. Sarcone, retiring Polk County attorney.

This was an item added to the agenda, with no discussion or public input, at the last moment. IT was ochestrated by Board Chairperson Angela Connolly as a "surprise" to Sarcone and his family.

Additionally, it was a surprise to Black, brown, LGBTQ and marginalized people in Polk County. No thoughtful community discussion was entertained. No input was gathered. Why?

The board is unwilling and unable to connect the dots on the consequences of renaming a justice center after a prosecuting attorney. Sarcone prosecuted our friends of color at an alarmingly high percentage when compared with our white counterparts. Sarcone also argued against same-sex marriage in 2007. Sarcone also sought to prosecute a reporter who covered the George Floyd protests.

Naming a justice center after a bigoted man will leave stain on our community. Renaming the Polk County Jail after Sarcone would be a more fitting tribute. Des Moines should have learned a lesson after Geroge Flagg Parkway and the Archie Brooks Community Center.

— Bryan Crowder, Des Moines

Republicans seem to exist only to obstruct

On issue after issue the Republican Party no longer listens to the majority opinion. It has become the party of No.

No to women’s reproductive rights. No to maintaining election access and election integrity. No to lower drug costs. No to better roads and bridges. No to sensible gun laws. No to affordable health care. No to slowing global warming. No to fully funding public education.

The Democratic Party, in contrast, follows the will of the people and strives to maintain a government that works for everyday Iowans. In order to keep a government that achieves critical and popular goals, we need to vote for Democratic candidates.

— Thomas Hill, Cedar Falls

Vote no on gun amendment

As a gun owner, a National Rife Association-certified hunter education instructor, the holder of an Iowa permit to carry weapons, and an avid hunter and shooter, I urge my fellow Iowans to vote NO on the proposed constitutional amendment that could make it virtually impossible to enforce any restrictions on firearms in the state.

Proponents say the Iowa amendment merely adds language similar to the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. “The sovereign state of Iowa affirms and recognizes the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental right. Any and all restrictions of this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny."

But those last two words, “strict scrutiny,” are the problem. Strict scrutiny is the highest standard of judicial review a court can use, and would require “a compelling state interest” to allow any gun controls.

Yes, I value my rights to own and use guns. I’m the son, grandson, parent and grandparent of individuals who were and are safe, responsible gun owners and users.

Albeit not without controversy, the Second Amendment has withstood the test of time. Iowa does not need to go beyond that.

— Larry Stone, Elkader

Not buying Cato as nonpartisan

A recent letter lauded Gov. Kim Reynolds for being named best governor by the "nonpartisan Cato Institute."

If you aren't familiar with the Cato Institute, the people there call themselves libertarian, but one of the founders is billionaire Charles Koch, who spends his billions backing Republican candidates. The institute wants to privatize Social Security and Medicare, eliminate the Affordable Care Act, eliminate regulations on fossil fuels. It’s not crazy about public schools. Cato Institute people are somewhat isolationist, are anti-union, against a minimum wage, and on and on.

Does that sound like any political party you know? Hint: it's the Republicans.

— Frank McCammond, Redfield

Don’t stop here; let’s make gun possession mandatory

I oppose the amendment to the Iowa Constitution that proposes strict scrutiny regarding any further gun regulations in Iowa.

Should the amendment pass, I recommend then the passage of legislation providing guns for everyone. The Legislature would require taxpayers to pay for guns for all adult citizens. This action would obviously make everyone safer, bring more profits to gun manufacturers, and peace to neighborhoods where the locals often have controversies. It will also help us to love our neighbors more easily. Amen

— Thomas Beck, Ankeny

This article originally appeared on Des Moines Register: Letters: Vote for life this year