The opinion piece "Klobuchar slipped badly" (Oct. 17) and its alleged "critique" of the senator must be answered.
Amy Klobuchar has been an intelligent, moderate and able senator for the people of Minnesota. The opinion piece cited above was simply a rant without fact or logic, filled primarily with adverbs.
As a former English teacher, I took particular exception to the paragraph beginning, "The same was true of [Klobuchar's] characterizations of health care issues ... ." No rational description of positions taken by the senator, or, for that matter, of the laws themselves, was attempted. Instead, the writer used filler such as "wildly exaggerated," "wholly unfounded," "ruthlessly reamed out," "grossly misrepresented," "baselessly warning" and "absolutely lose." That would be six hysterical modifiers in just three sentences. Not fact, not argument. Just personal, emotional opinion.
These modifiers offer no facts and no logic but instead simply describe the writer's emotional response to a perceived threat to her own worldview. If we continue our public discourse in this vein, the republic may not survive.
Judith Koll Healey, Minneapolis
• • •
I disagree with several statements in "Klobuchar slipped badly," but at least one of them is flat-out wrong and must be corrected. The Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision did not, as the writer asserts, authorize "unrestricted access to abortion."
Instead, it prohibited restrictions on the right to choose during the first trimester, beyond requiring that the procedure be performed by a licensed doctor in medically safe conditions.
It said during the second trimester states could regulate abortion in ways reasonably related to the health of the pregnant person, and in the third trimester, that states could ban abortion unless it is necessary to save the life or health of the mother.
Further, the Supreme Court's 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision gave states more leeway to restrict abortion, and many states commenced regulating it to the point where it became a "right" in theory but not in practice. So, Senate Republicans aren't trying to rush Barrett's ascension to the court in order to "restrict" abortion rights — they are already restricted — but rather to do away with the right to choose altogether, against the will of a solid majority of the Americans public.