TO THE EDITOR:
On Oct. 2, Sen. Tina Smith submitted that Texas abortion laws “take away womens’ constitutional rights”. She stated, “I believe ... the public agrees with safeguarding women’s reproductive rights”. So does ‘safeguarding women’s reproductive rights’ extend to a woman’s right to decline getting the COVID “vaccine”? The COVID “vaccine” has been noted to affect some women’s menstrual cycles. (April 19, 2021, LifeSiteNews) “Neither reproductive toxicity nor genotoxicity studies were performed, (by Pfizer) both of which are considered critical when developing a new drug or vaccine for a human.” (Dr. Joseph Mercola, June 15, 2021. Wordpress.com) No longterm studies have been completed. If a young, healthy woman had COVID, the unknown risks of the “vaccine” now outway the known risks of COVID. If she doesn’t take the “vaccine”, it could affect her health, but not the health of those around her as they have the right to get the “vaccine” if they want it. You can spread COVID whether or not you have the “vaccine”. If women choose not to get the “vaccine”, they could lose their jobs (especially in healthcare), and lose their freedom to attend public events. If they choose to get the “vaccine”, they could lose the ability to have children. I am labeled “selfish” if I choose to not get the “vaccine”, but I am labeled “a hero for women’s rights” if I support killing children. Tina, you stated that you support protecting women’s constitutional rights. Doesn’t that include my right to say what goes into my body and what doesn’t? Be careful who you vote for! Lives depend on it.
Melissa Heyne
Clearwater, MN
TO THE EDITOR:
Contrary to the words of AG Garland, who instructed the FBI to mobilize against parents opposing CRT in public schools, and gubernatorial candidate McAuliffe, who declared, if elected, he would exclude parents from education in Virginia, it is the duty of parents to choose what is best for their children—including education.It is also the right and duty of taxpayers to know their money is being invested in sound education for the next generation. In May 2021, the U.S. Census Bureau reported the national average of per pupil funding in fiscal year 2019 (most recently reported) was $13, 187, in Minnesota, $13, 387. Do the test results merit those expenditures? From 2019 to 2021 (no statewide tests in 2020), reading scores fell 11% and math, 14%. Maybe it would be better if parents were more involved in deciding what is taught within the community schools. Based on the 529 savings plans for college, many parents support financial options for PK-12 education. A poll in March 2021 revealed 69% of Minnesotans concur. Nobel-prize-winning economist Milton Friedman, in 1962, expressed his concern for education and not just schooling in this country. Not how much, rather how well spent.
Dr. Phyllis E. VanBuren
Clearwater, MN
TO THE EDITOR
In November, we will be asked to vote on yet another Becker School referendum. Meanwhile, Becker parents have expressed concerns over the efforts by advocates of radical social values who are pushing their agendas into our public schools. The school administration will likely claim that the referendum has nothing to do with what goes on in our classrooms. But if we are being asked to pay for the classrooms, shouldn’t we have a right to say what’s being taught in them? How do parents take back control over what is taught in our public schools? Apparently letters to the editor and presentations to the school board aren’t enough. If the board won’t commit to keeping these radical social values out of our classrooms, then we, as taxpayers, can refuse to pay them by voting “no” on the referendum. This may be our only opportunity to keep radical ideologies from being taught to our children.
If parents want to reassert their values and control over what goes on in our kids’ classrooms, then November 2nd is our opportunity to send a very loud massage to the school district. It might be the only way they will finally listen to us.
Chris Klippen
Clear Lake, MN
