Readers Write (April 24): Cancer research in Minnesota, abortion and politics, Bill O'Reilly's firing, feral cats

Fourteen years ago, I was diagnosed with a rare, life-threatening cancer. Many people with the same diagnosis die from this terrible disease. Fortunately, I received care from the physicians and researchers who develop cancer treatments at the University of Minnesota Medical Center. This undoubtedly had a significant effect on my outcome; however, not all Minnesotans faced with a cancer diagnosis have access to cutting-edge therapies.

Nearly 50 percent of Minnesotans will be diagnosed with a potentially life-threatening cancer during their lifetime, and cancer is the leading cause of death in our state. Survival rates are lower in rural communities compared with the Twin Cities, due in large part to access to new treatments. However, your cancer outcome shouldn't be dictated by where you live.

A proposal from the University of Minnesota that addresses the cancer care disparity in our state is being considered by lawmakers. The Minnesota Cancer Clinical Trials Network (MCCTN) would bring scientific discoveries made at the Masonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota, Mayo Clinic Cancer Center and Hormel Institute to every Minnesota county via innovative clinical trials.

I encourage you to contact your state representative and ask them to support MCCTN. Let's ensure that more Minnesotans have access to potentially lifesaving cancer treatment and get the second chance they deserve.

The writer is a cancer survivor and a member of the Community Advisory Board of the Masonic Cancer Center and the Steering Committee of the Minnesota Cancer Alliance.

I have noticed that it is generally assumed in the media that all Democrats are pro-choice. While abortion is a political issue, it's also a moral issue, a human-rights issue, a feminist issue, and an anti-violence issue. As a female in my 20s, a feminist, a graduate student in social work, and someone who supported Bernie Sanders, I am bothered that media reports mentioning abortion automatically put me into the "pro-choice" camp. I know the Democratic Party is pro-choice, but like many other pro-life progressives I believe Democratic policies regarding families are more conducive to women choosing life for their unborn children than are Republican policies.

I am pro-life because I don't believe in deciding the worth of anybody, from refugees, to people with disabilities, to unborn babies. A feminist believes everyone has worth: A man doesn't decide my worth, and I don't decide a fetus'. Please don't feed into the stereotype that one must be religious or Republican in order to be pro-life. It's increasingly common to hear of women and men becoming pro-life after seeing what an abortion actually looks like. Seeing an abortion makes it difficult to reconcile antiwar and pro-choice views, or to practice ethical veganism while condoning the stilling of a human heart.

I'm a conservative who has wished for O'Reilly's exit for a long time. Let me present a slightly different perspective from those earlier letters. Consider:

• I view O'Reilly's success as the result of an entertainment approach to news events — not in-depth opinion and analysis.

• His rudeness and chauvinistic approach served to add interest.

• O'Reilly's style eventually made him a caricature, and his show became thinly veiled entertainment.

• With O'Reilly gone, the entertainment aspect disappears, and most of the balance of Fox News programming is solid reporting, analysis and opinion.

• I predict much greater credibility after the "housecleaning moves" that have occurred.

For those disappointed that advertising dollars spoke louder than the questionable judgment of a few executives, let me suggest they have just come face to face with the power and advantage of the "free market." They bemoan that the almighty "dollar" held such sway, but they should applaud it as the agent of positive change in this case.

Time after time, the relative intelligence of free-market forces makes much-needed corrections to flawed human decisions. Let's not deny their value.

Adding to the valuable information provided by an April 20 letter writer about feral cats, there is an educational organization called Alley Cat Allies that provides information on how to manage feral cat colonies.

Colonies that are managed do not have kittens, are fed and watered daily, have caregivers who spot new additions and give them proper care to avoid kittens, and have their older members die (frequently of old age).

Another problem is people who dump their unwanted cats. People acquire cute little kittens, do not bother to teach them manners or give them proper scratching equipment, then want to be rid of them. Since there is a mistaken belief that cats "can care for themselves" they are dumped, often in a rural area. Domestic cats (cats that have had a home and have been fed from an early age) have no idea how to care for themselves. It is heartbreaking to receive a foster cat that is terrified because it was taken from its home, left in a strange place, been hungry, dodged the dangers of cars and predators, live trapped and brought to another unfamiliar place. I sometimes work with these cats for months before they are ready to be adopted.

So, think before you adopt a cat. Do your research. A cat is a 15- to 20-year commitment. If you cannot keep your cat, surrender it to a reputable organization. The organization may ask for a donation, but that is how it survives.

If you have feral cats in your neighborhood, find out if they are part of a managed colony. If not, contact Alley Cat Allies to find out how you and your neighbors can manage a colony.