Denver Health serves a region, not just city’s taxpayers Re: “Endorsement: Denver Ballot Issue 2Q will shore up Denver Health,” Sept. 22 editorial On Sunday, The Post editorial board endorsed Denver Ballot Issue 2Q. While it is true that this measure would shore up Denver Health’s finances, it is inherently unfair to the citizens of Denver. Your own endorsement states that Denver Health “has long been one of the best trauma hospitals in the state.” Later, you state it “benefits the entire region.” Why are the citizens of Denver being asked, almost singlehandedly, to increase their sales tax to pay for “the entire region”? It seems obvious to me that Denver Health should be assisted by the entire region and state. The Denver City Council and Post could better spend their efforts on a state-wide funding mechanism. Carl Judge, Denver We can’t rely on lawmakers to establish laws based on will of voters Re: “Veterinary Professional Associate: We elect people to make laws like Prop. 129. Vote no.” Sept. 22 commentary Krista Kafer is a pundit without practical know-how. She opposes animal welfare ballot measures – such as halting trophy hunting of native cats and allowing trained veterinary technicians to help animals – because only lawmakers are equipped to decide these matters. Kafer ignores that proponents worked for years to promote these same reforms not only through the legislature but also through executive agencies. And she doesn’t know her Colorado animal-welfare history. In 1992, 70% of Coloradans favored a ballot measure to ban hounding bears and hunting them when mothers were nursing their dependent cubs. Advocates pleaded with elected and appointed decision-makers to address the problem before they defaulted to the ballot initiative process. And let’s remember that hounding bobcats and lions is no different than hounding bears. A trophy hunter lets loose a pack of dogs, and then shoots the terrified animal off a tree limb. And because cats can breed at any time, a four-month hunting season for lions guarantees the orphaning of kittens. So, with that unambiguous prior electoral verdict as a measure of popular will, you would think that logically-minded lawmakers and commissioners would have taken action to ban the same inhumane practices sometime within the last 32 years. But no such luck. Related Articles Letters | Denver voters face two tax increase questions. Will they support both housing and the city’s safety-net hospital? Letters | Endorsement: Ballot Issue 2Q is a much needed sales tax for Denver Health Letters | Colorado Option doctor networks are supposed to look like their customers. Do they? The initiative process is the safety valve when lawmakers and commissioners don’t act responsibly. Contrary to Kafer’s dim view of voters’ intelligence, Coloradans can spot a sound animal welfare reform when they see it. Annika Paradise, Boulder Grateful for Broncos insight, reporting Re: “Broncos Journal: Nix isn’t the only rookie QB struggling in transition to NFL,” Sept. 22 sports column Congratulations to the best sports writer you have at The Denver Post, Ryan McFadden, for a wonderful article on how many really good QBs started out rough, just like Bo Nix. He provides excellent perspective and a positive outlook for the Bronco fans, which we all need. Thanks, Ryan, for your research and positive comments. Dea Coschignano, Wheat Ridge Keep the Trump circus out of Aurora Re: “Trump says he’ll visit Aurora; mayor hopes to dispel claims,” Sept. 20 news story A recent article by reporter Lauren Penington stated former President Donald Trump wants to visit Aurora. Local officials such as Mayor Mike Coffman and the police chief welcomed his visit. Remember Springfield! Speaking to CNN, the mayor of Springfield, Ohio, Rob Rue, reminded politicians to remember the “weight of their words.” Springfield recently declared a state of emergency because of the threats to the community after Trump and his running mate, JD Vance, let their false rhetoric loose on it. Aurora Mayor Mike Coffman was noted for distancing himself from Trump when he last ran for Congress. It’s time he does it again. One way to keep the Trump circus out of Aurora would be for the city to send representatives to brief him elsewhere. If Trump comes here, so will the crazies, protesters, and counter-protesters. You would probably prefer to use your limited resources to clean up local problems and not the mess that Trump leaves in his wake. Evan Freirich, Boulder Admit the mistake of wolf reintroduction now Re: “Colo. will get next batch of wolves from Canada,” Sept. 14 news story The wolf failure is no surprise, but what to do now? Now that the Colorado wolf project has been put on kind of a hold, it would be best to think about what has been done, and what the heck will we do with the promised British Columbia wolves. The project failed to produce the natural paradise of coexistence so proficiently expounded by proponents. Perhaps a diatribe about how ranchers haven’t done enough will be forthcoming. Notwithstanding the expensive efforts of Colorado Parks and Wildlife, the project in its current form has failed. Nevertheless, our governor’s husband is working the back rooms for more wolf-related laws, according to a 9News Investigates report. I didn’t know we elected him to anything but one must wonder if the initiative that brought the problem to CPW wasn’t the result of some questionable deals. What remains is the unwarranted berating of the ranchers as being unwilling to do it right and blaming them for the failure. Did anyone take a clue when the states that had wolves essentially said: No, we won’t give you any, we are trying to kill ours, and that’s a bad idea we don’t want any part of, period? The fact that Colorado has almost 10 times the population of Wyoming, which presciently planned to kill wolves from the outset, should tell you this isn’t going to work in Colorado. So, voters who lack common sense, you were sold a “pig in a poke” that turned out to be a skunk. Steven Lohr, Niwot Tragic loss doesn’t justify supporting abortion amendment Re: “Amendment 79: Protect access to the same compassionate abortion care I had,” Sept. 22 commentary In the 16th week of my last pregnancy, I experienced previable ruptured membranes, like the author, Sarah Hughes.  As an Ob-Gyn physician, I had cared for many women experiencing this rare complication and knew: my risk for sepsis was well under 5%, the risk of death minuscule, delivery available at the earliest sign of infection, and each day undelivered brought my precious daughter closer to viability – now 22 weeks. The 0.6% maternal deaths in this situation are largely preventable and due to medical negligence, not abortion bans. As a former second-trimester abortionist, I did not want my little girl to be torn apart in a D&E abortion. Preborn babies are capable of experiencing pain as early as 12 weeks. This is torture, not compassion. People have the right to know. Many states still provide three legal options in this situation: expectant observation, induced delivery with perinatal hospice, or direct abortion (D&E). A child’s death is tragic, yet perinatal hospice keeps the baby from suffering and allows the parents to hold and comfort their baby. After fetal viability, necessary delivery is legal, allowing care for both of our patients. In the end, my irreplaceable daughter survived. While not every woman gets this outcome, it was worth a very small risk to me to give her every chance for life. Policymakers, medical professional organizations, and the media must stop perpetuating harmful myths and clarify the legality of intervention, including abortion, in this situation. It is the rhetoric that is placing women at risk – not abortion bans. Catherine Wheeler, Teller County Anecdotal testimonies often help us to clarify issues and formulate how we view issues. Sarah Hughes’ personal story surrounding the difficulty and grief both she and her family experienced losing her 18-week-old baby from pre-viable preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM) is moving. We all empathize with her loss. However, using personal stories alone to justify voting in support of Amendment 79 camouflages the facts about this amendment and its impact. 1. A “no” vote leaves current liberal Colorado’s abortion access intact, including for the medical indications that Sarah Hughes describes. 2. A “yes” vote enshrines abortion at any time for any reason throughout the nine months of pregnancy into the state constitution, which is extreme by any measure. 3. A “yes” vote ensures there will be no governmental oversight of risky second- and third-trimester abortion clinics – no licensing, no regulation and no inspections, jeopardizing women’s health. 4. A “yes” vote removes the requirement for parental notification prior to a minor teen’s abortion, stripping parents of their fundamental right to counsel and support their daughters while enabling sex traffickers. It leaves uninformed parents unprepared to deal with any emotional and physical complications of the abortion procedure. 5. Voting “yes” could mean millions of our tax dollars to underwrite abortion for in-state and out-of-state women based on the experience in other states with similar measures. These facts alone justify voting “no” on Amendment 79. Wendy Smith, Colorado Springs “Hurt by religion” Re: “Religious freedom, LGBTQ rights collide,” Sept. 22 news story When have conservatives of any religious denomination ever been right about anything dealing with sex? As the Roman Catholic Church sinks back into the 14th Century as some Protestants have into the 19th Century, people are once again being hurt by religion, and in the case of seven-year-old Naomi and her family, one despairs of the lost era of Vatican II and a good pope such as John XXIII. My Roman Catholic friends say, “The fastest growing church in America is ex-Roman Catholics. Seminarians and church hierarchy have been taken over by the illness of conservatism, which is a personality problem connected with fear and the need for control. Conservatism and its weakness and hypocrisy have broken up huge portions of Christianity, which, in the end, only exists among a few who seek faith and forgiveness instead of doctrines and judgment. I think the current Pope Francis is a lover of God and people. The trend against him only sees a past that more hurt people than loving them. Not any worse than the Christian Right, who support a demagogue. Donald Marxhausen, Highlands Ranch 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.