•••
Editorial writer and columnist Jill Burcum lauded former President Donald Trump as he “put forward a bold new health policy proposal that’s both compassionate and family-friendly: mandating insurance coverage of in vitro fertilization” (“Close the coverage gap for infertility treatment,” Strib Voices, Sept. 6). Republicans have voted consistently against coverage for IVF treatment at both the state and national level, and she notes that Republicans as a party have a “long history of opposing coverage mandates or expansions.” Religious groups oppose IVF because of the concerns about storing embryos or destroying unused embryos, an issue that is closely tied to their abortion stance. It strikes this reader as suspect that Trump, with all his posturing about leaving abortion decisions to the states, now is in favor of mandates for government- or insurance-funded coverage for fertility treatment, instead trying to pull back some of the votes he is losing over the abortion issue.
It might be “bold” for Trump to suggest this health policy but it has a snowball’s chance in hell to come to pass with Republicans trying to outlaw those treatments in many states. I suspect he knows that but is pandering, as he is wont to do.
Paula Swiggum, Eagan
ABORTION
A life in danger is a life in danger
A Sept. 10 letter writer cited the statistic that “only” 7% of surveyed women obtained an abortion for health reasons for themselves or the fetus. Are the lives of those women inconsequential? In states where abortion is banned, those women are being handed a potential death sentence if they are denied abortion care.
I will remind the letter writer that nobody has the right to use your body, against your will, to save the life of another person. Please apply the same basic principle to pregnant women.
Heidi Christenson, Stillwater