Readers Write: Daylight Saving Time, health care reform, feminism and reproductive rights, Met Council's new leader and housing, the history of early childhood education

Contrary to the July 1 letter "Don't second-guess the shift," I wish the bill introduced in the Legislature to exempt Minnesota from Daylight Saving Time (HF 2458) would have passed.

The intent of Ben Franklin's original thought is outdated at best.

Study after study indicates this time change is harmful, incurring a loss of productivity on workers and students. I worked for the airlines, and I can tell you that DST created a mess when it came to scheduling. I suspect the same is true for any business involved in transportation. DST was also supposed to save energy, and wound up doing just the opposite.

For me, working the graveyard shift for many years, that dreaded hourly change was horrible. It took several weeks to adjust, and when I finally did, it was time to fall back again. Working that extra hour seemed like an eternity.

DST has been shown to be a detriment to people's health. It's time to bid adieu to this nonsense.

• • •

The problem with Daylight Saving Time is that it is utterly devoid of science and merely reinforces the idea that we should rearrange the world of nature to fit our personal comfort. We don't "gain" or "lose" hours over the course of the year; we simply adjust the faces of our clocks to suit how we want to frame our days.

Or you can just move to the equator, where things remain, by and large, the same throughout the year.

While I would much prefer a single-payer health care system, it seems as if the plan of former Minnesota Revenue Commissioner John P. James ("A middle ground on health care reform and federalism," July 1) would at least have a breath of a possibility, since it seems to be a real compromise that would meet the most critical criterion: that everyone has adequate affordable health insurance. The reason it won't happen is probably laid out in the commentary below it on the same page critiquing the lack of accountability in the military budget at the expense of the needs of the people.

I may have my history wrong, but was not a major factor in the fall of the Soviet Union that it ignored caring for its people and instead was focused only on having the most powerful military and thus support for the government among the people just evaporated? Also, is it possible that the lack of attention to caring for the needs of the fading middle class in the U.S. is a large reason we have elected a charismatic showman who can't handle the complexities of the position he is in? The people are desperate for someone who cares, and our government is not caring.

Are we on a pathway to dissolution of our system due to lack of caring and instead prioritizing raw power, whether financial or military?

• • •

A July 2 letter writer decried Lori Sturdevant's speaking of the importance of reproductive rights to feminism. His point was that many women are anti-abortion and that therefore a concept of feminism that promotes abortion rights could not be bipartisan. (The larger question raised by Sturdevant's June 25 column was whether feminism could once again be bipartisan.)

As director of the just-eliminated Legislative Office on the Economic Status of Women, I found that often "biology is destiny." Nothing so profoundly affects a woman's economic security as having children: whether or not to have children, when to have children and how many children to have.

Therefore, a woman's right to control her reproductive role is indeed crucial to feminism.

However, I believe that those who oppose abortion can still champion a woman's reproductive rights. Stand for sex education for girls and affordable (even free), accessible birth control. Stand for workplace policies that support women who are the primary caregivers for their young children.

Those who champion abortion rights should also support sex education; affordable, accessible birth control; and workplaces that support employees who are mothers.

The writer is past director of the Legislative Office on the Economic Status of Women.

The July 3 editorial endorsing the appointment of Alene Tchourumoff as the new Metropolitan Council chair left out one important role of the council: promoting affordable housing. The council operates the largest rental assistance program in the state — helping more than 6,000 families pay rent. In addition, the council is responsible for letting cities know how many affordable homes they need to plan for in the coming decade and will be reviewing those plans next year. As the Twin Cities is experiencing the most significant loss in housing affordability seen in at least the last 50 years, Tchourumoff will be facing a challenge that, unlike transportation, her background has not prepared her for.

The writer is director of the Minnesota Housing Partnership.

Former Gov. Arne Carlson's June 26 letter about the history of early education was much appreciated, but may I add an important missing component?

The massive movement of women into the workforce was evident as of the turn of the 1970s, and the only place that offered child care starting with infants was in family day care. Centers weren't licensed here until 1973.

The five-week pilot we offered, one evening a week, had a curriculum that included infant stimulation (emphasizing singing), activities for toddlers and preschoolers, etc., along with other topics like fire safety and business practices. Eventually, requirements such as 10 training courses before licensure became customary.

Early Childhood Family Education (ECFE), primarily for families of origin, began in 1974. Some of those day-care providers were on the committees that set up ECFE at the Legislature.