Readers Write: Communicating with constituents, health care, Russian influence, St. Olaf 'fabrication,' circumcision

I am a senior at Chaska High School. On Monday, U.S. Rep. Erik Paulsen visited. His answers to students' questions had a prevailing and troubling theme. He was asked about not hosting town hall meetings, lack of women in Congress, actions to protect against hate speech, and the recent GOP health care bill. Paulsen would acknowledge the point, but then deflect the intent of the question to find a way to criticize the Obama administration.

When asked about the gender gap in Congress, for example, he stated that "people should be hired based on their qualifications" and that President Barack Obama's White House staff was mostly male despite the former president's promoting a more representative capital. When addressing the health care bill, he stated that "the bill is not perfect by any means" but then went into depth over how Obamacare raised premiums and how the medical industry found it difficult to work with.

As a young person who is immensely interested in politics, I found the visit to be surprisingly uninformative and extremely defensive. It did, however, bring to my attention a trend to which House members in the majority party seem to fall prey. Whether it be a Democratic or Republican majority, members of Congress need to expect tough questions from their constituents and then provide full arguments, not default to the standard ploy of simply criticizing the opposing party. The visit made me nervous for the thought processes and motivations behind passing and advancing legislation if constructive debate and discourse are lost for the easier but harmful tactic of simply discrediting the opposition.

• • •

I was glad to learn that Paulsen (my congressman) has called for an independent investigation into Russia's interference in the presidential election. Even more encouraging is the fact that he has taken a public position that is contrary to that taken by House Speaker Paul Ryan on this issue. Unfortunately, too often, Paulsen's actions are inconsistent with his stated positions, his vote for the Republican health care bill the most recent example.

In his May 11 commentary "For Republicans in Congress, a moment of truth," David Greenberg, comparing President Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey to Nixon's firing of Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox, quotes Watergate historian Stanley Kutler's analysis: "The time had come to watch congressmen's feet, not their mouths." Greenberg asks whether now, as then, Republicans will muster the courage and integrity required to put country over party.

Rep. Paulsen, will you now demonstrate the courage and integrity it takes to push for the independent investigation that you tell us you support?

Twice this week Minnesota's Republican representatives have written opinion pieces which try to brush off concerns about the loss of pre-existing condition protection in the American Health Care Act. However, let us examine the fine print. Rep. Jason Lewis (Readers Write, May 12) states "… unless they stop paying their premium." Rep. Erik Paulsen (Opinion Exchange, May 9) states "For those who maintain continuous coverage … ."

I am a CFO for a small company in town. If you leave our company, COBRA single coverage will cost you between $480 and $570 a month. This is what that coverage costs our company. Family coverage would be more than $1,600 per month. These rates are comparable to other companies our size. So if workers making $17 to $20 an hour get laid off, how are they going to maintain "continuous coverage" and still pay rent and buy food? Unemployment isn't going to cover all of that. If you change jobs and your new employer has a 60-day waiting period for benefits (very common), you need to pony up these costs to keep your coverage. If you drop coverage, the insurance company can now charge you whatever they want.

My father retired in the 1980s. At that time there were no rules on pre-existing conditions. No one would cover him for his heart condition. Thankfully he "waited" until he was covered by Medicare to have his heart attack and bypass surgery. If not, he and my mom would have been financially ruined. Is this what we want to go back to?

As many of us suspected, the racist notes planted in various locations on the St. Olaf campus appear to be a hoax with the revelation that the last note was, indeed, "fabricated" by a student (front page, May 11).

If there are not federal, state or local laws in place to prosecute individuals who perpetrate such a hoax, there ought to be. Such acts are despicable and can do a great deal of harm. It is the same thing as crying fire in a crowded theater or inciting a riot. The turmoil that was caused on campus as a result of this escapade was very disruptive to students and included, among other things, shutting down classes and the cafeteria. Moreover, the controversy has certainly unfairly tarnished the reputation of a fine institution.

The writer is a 1981 graduate of St. Olaf.

It was disturbing to see the May 12 commentary "Male circumcision: A gender double standard on genital mutilation." It uses Middle Eastern Muslim cultural heritage as a scare tactic, than offers a horrifying description: "… [B]inding the arms and feet of a newborn boy, using a metal probe to forcibly tear the normal, healthy foreskin from his glans penis, clamping that foreskin, and then cutting it off with scissors or a scalpel. In many medical settings, no pain relief is employed for this surgery. Follow-up operations to correct errors and functional impairments are common, and are the primary reason for boys to visit pediatric urologists. That's no surprise. Surely, it is hard to operate on the genitals of a bucking, screaming child."

"Forcibly tear?" A "bucking, screaming child?" The last sentence directly contradicts the procedure described above, underscoring the exaggeration of such an egregious lie. Crass, brutal, patently false. Female mutilation is performed on an older child to control sexual pleasure and promiscuity. There are no health concerns to justify it. Male circumcision is performed on a newborn infant with a medical health history to support protection from diseases. But this is the business of the ideologue, isn't it — finding false equivalency where there is none and using fear? We're awash in lies.