[ad_1]
Federal agents coming en masse to Colorado next?
RE: “Trump plans to host governors at White House, but only Republicans,” Feb. 8 news story
President Trump’s initial ban on Democratic governors from the National Governors Association meeting at the White House was bad enough. Worse, for Colorado, Trump personally uninvited Gov. Jared Polis from the bipartisan dinner (with gubernatorial spouses) that follows. It’s obvious Trump is royally enraged at our state.
Why? Recall: Tina Peters, former Mesa County clerk and current MAGA martyr, is sitting in state prison, beyond the reach of Trump’s presidential pardon. And Congresswoman Lauren Boebert was a key Republican vote in forcing the release of the Epstein files — in revenge, Trump cancelled a big water project in her district.
But Trump is never really done with revenge, is he?
Don’t be surprised if Trump targets Colorado as the next stop on the ICE circus tour. Aside from his pre-existing grievances against us, we’re a natural target. Deep blue state. A “sanctuary city” as the state capital, run (like Minneapolis) by another young, earnest, progressive mayor. Tons of undocumented immigrants, easily swept up in the dragnet.
Coloradans need to start preparing.
Marty Rush, Salida
Political Armageddon could really be on the horizon
Re: “The problem with making every election an existential threat for the U.S.,” Feb. 8 commentary
While I appreciate David M. Drucker’s notion that we need not declare that the sky is falling before and after each election, I do believe this administration and its Republican cohorts in the House and Senate have crossed some governance red lines that contradict the basic principles this country was founded on.
Shooting and beating American citizens in the streets, demolishing history, covering up obvious crimes, threatening our allies, targeting political adversaries and using the office for personal enrichment are just a few things that have occurred and gone unchecked by powers that control Congress.
Most recently, they have been trying their absolute hardest to preserve power or at least limit the damage in the upcoming elections with their calls for gerrymandered districts, laws that will restrict voting and a needless investigation into a settled election.
While Drucker points out the pendulum frequently swings back in our politics, I fear this time the damage left behind by the lack of checks and balances will exist for many election cycles to come. For these reasons, the next election and certainly the following could be political Armageddon, resulting in the sky actually falling on this republic.
Tony Hillas, Centennial
George Washington’s fears are our realities
Re: “One of Trump’s most destructive moves,” Feb. 8 commentary
I enjoyed Martin Schram’s article, which reminded me of a passage in a Nathaniel Philbrick book about George Washington. Philbrick said what worried Washington most was what might happen if a president’s chief priority was to divide rather than unite the people. Washington said: “It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.”
Sadly, it seems we are currently experiencing much of what Washington feared.
Joseph Heard, Denver
More people preparing for less water?
Re: “The world is in water bankruptcy,” Feb. 8 commentary
As I read this, I said to myself, “Here we go again, trying to divvy up water that doesn’t exist.”
Comparing a resource necessary to sustain life to money, essentially a made-up “resource,” is laughable. So, the “solution” proposed is “plan for less water.” That might work now, but what about the two billion additional people projected in the next 20 years or so? I guess we’ll “plan” on even less water then.
It all comes down to simple math.
Greg Albrecht, Aurora
‘Wolf reintroduction ‘based on the best and current science practices’
Re: “Colorado’s reintroduction of wolverines is based on science,” Feb. 1 commentary
Krista Kafa got things wrong when comparing wolf reintroduction to wolverine reintroduction.
First, a law is a law. After Prop 114 was codified as Statute 33-2-105.8 in 2020, the reintroduction was in the “hands of the agency’s wildlife experts.” CPW convened two groups to develop the Colorado Wolf Reintroduction Management Plan. The Technical Working Group (TWG) and the Stakeholder Advisory Group (SAG) worked tirelessly for two years.
The TWG was composed of wildlife management professionals, biologists, ecologists, and other scientists who provided expertise on management strategies. The SAG group consisted of a diverse group of representatives, including those from the livestock industry, hunters, outfitters, and conservationists. All stakeholders were represented and given opportunities to express concerns. This process was not “dismissive of ranchers’ concerns,” and public meetings guaranteed transparency.
Second, what project have you initiated that didn’t run over time and over budget? Yes, $800,000 a year was estimated, but the $8 million Kafer refers to is over a 5-year period. In the beginning, depredation expenses were high because some ranchers refused to implement recommended deterrence methods. Some openly expressed that they wanted this experiment to fail.
Colorado wolf reintroduction is based on the best and current science practices. Kafer continues the bias against wolves by insinuating that the state has reintroduced lynx, elk, moose, turkeys, grouse, ferrets, and now wolverines based on science, but not wolves. CPW decisions and the works of experts tell a different story. The science of ecology and biodiversity has been the driving force in reintroducing wolves to Colorado.
Kathy Webster, Littleton
You shouldn’t dismiss the value of ballot-box biology
Whenever I read complaints about “ballot-box biology” regarding wolves in Colorado, I can be sure I’m hearing the perspective of someone trying to protect a privileged position regarding wildlife management.
Any discussion of the matter should start with the understanding that wildlife is a public resource. It belongs to all of us. Despite that, effective control over such management priorities has long rested with agriculturalists and hunters, whose interests are not always shared by the vast majority of Coloradans. In the face of what then might be called “feedlot biology” and “game-farm biology,” the ballot box can be the only method available to have their values recognized.
But the public is “uneducated” on the issues, detractors cry, as if stringing barbed wire, trapping bobcats, and poisoning prairie dogs were a litmus test of ecological literacy. While there are clearly varying degrees of understanding of wildlife among all stakeholders, I would argue that a wiser, science-based focus is more likely to come from the public sector than from those who profit from the decision-making.
Clint McKnight, Durango
The right to choose includes fighting to continue a pregnancy
Re: “Medication abortion is safe and effective, reversal efforts are untested and not recommended by doctors,” Feb. 8 commentary
As an Ob-Gyn physician who also incorporated abortion into my practice, my review of the science conflicts with Dr. Donald W. Aptekar’s opinion piece regarding the use of natural progesterone for abortion pill reversal (APR). How confusing this must be for people! Doctors should not simply parrot unsubstantiated talking points.
The legal opinion on the case, which Denver Post columnist Krista Kafer warned would cost the state millions of dollars in legal fees, reviewed the evidence. The plaintiffs prevailed because the evidence supports APR as a safe option for desperate women who change their minds after taking the first abortion pill, mifepristone. The decision noted that natural progesterone is used off-label for many conditions in women’s health, but the state outlawed only the choice of women to use it for APR.
The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) and American Medical Association (AMA) refuse to endorse APR, but not, in fact, based on the breadth of current scientific literature, but rather on ideology.
The safety of progesterone during pregnancy is not in question. The FDA and Society of Reproductive Medicine both affirm that its use is safe. Doctors have prescribed it for more than 50 years for many off-label indications, including in women with threatened miscarriage, as well as in protocols to prevent preterm birth. It is used regularly for infertility and IVF. What is different when used to prevent miscarriage versus to reverse abortion from mifepristone is that mifepristone is associated with hemorrhage. This is not a safety issue of progesterone, but of mifepristone.
Colorado’s law affirms a woman’s “right to choose,” including the choice to continue a pregnancy. This lawsuit returned that option to Colorado women.
Catherine Wheeler, Teller County
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.
[ad_2]
DP Opinion
Source link