Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

At a time when Minnesota needs more conservative voices, it was disappointing to see the prominent ones of Minnesota's Republican congressional delegation recklessly endorse Donald Trump for president. America deserves better than four more years of the current administration — but round two of the previous one would be no upgrade. An unhinged, potentially felonious and retributive lame-duck President Trump would certainly not be the kind of reassuring and fresh leader the country needs right now.

I thought being a conservative meant fighting for the Constitution. Trump supports suspending it. I was under the impression we were a party in support of traditional family values. The Donald has long scoffed at them. I believed Republicans wanted to restore competence and acuity to the White House. As infantile as he is in temperament, Mr. MAGA is well into his dotage.

Reps. Tom Emmer, Pete Stauber, Michelle Fischbach and Brad Finstad are savvy politicians, so it's hard to understand their rallying around a candidate who is political kryptonite anywhere other than the reddest regions of our state. Far-left Democrats dominate Minnesota government because toxic Trumpism has wrecked the state's once-effective Republican political apparatus. Winning statewide elections and legislative majorities — not anger-filled rallies and protest votes — are required to push back against the DFL's extreme progressive agenda and pull Minnesota out of its decline. But that just won't happen with Trump and his acolytes back on top of the ticket.

While the first Trump administration secured some solid public policy victories, a second, if one takes Trump at his word, would focus mostly on pursuing the president's personal and political vendettas. America cannot afford four years of that — or the feeble status quo. Republicans must offer the country a better choice than Trump in November.

Andy Brehm, St. Paul

I believe his concern is warranted — legalization could be a slippery slope, perhaps akin to some unintended consequences of hospice. Many see hospice as a godsend. At the same time, my experience with my parents suggests hospice may have spawned some slipperiness.

Dad had Parkinson's and entered hospice to secure a nursing home bed. Fully ambulatory, he was assured they'd walk him. But no walks — hospice prohibited any treatment. We removed him from hospice and moved him to another facility. No walks — they saw he'd been on hospice and assumed he was "just there to die."

Later, I took my 99-year-old mom to the ER when a facility's medical neglect resulted in life-threatening sepsis. The ER doc asked me, "What are your goals for your mom?" "To get well," I said, much to his chagrin. I think he assumed I'd say, "Comfort care, perhaps hospice." She still had a life, was ambulatory and attended all activities in her assisted-living facility. She got well.

This proposed legislation demands careful scrutiny and discernment about long-term implications. It may be that subtle encouragement to end one's life slips into end-of-life discussions, and our commitment to honor and value the elderly and those with disabilities unintentionally becomes compromised. And what happens to our passion for preserving life?

Jean Greenwood, Minneapolis

Although Bethke Gomez may be a "new voice" to the Star Tribune, his commentary recycles worn-out tripe. There is no question that people living with disabilities face biases and challenges in daily living from housing to employment to health care. But implying that medical-aid-in-dying laws adversely impact the disabled scares vulnerable people but has no basis in fact.

Bethke Gomez writes: "Many states where physician-assisted suicide is legal have gradually expanded their laws to include longer-term prognoses and non-terminal illnesses." This is simply not true. The same criteria have been in effect for 24 years in Oregon and have been adopted by the other 10 jurisdictions where medical aid in dying has been authorized: Patients must have a terminal disease and a six-month prognosis.

Although the author claims to feel empathy for patients whose "lives have been transformed by a terminal diagnosis" and who "now live with one or more disabilities," he simply doesn't get it. Folks who choose aid in dying are not "suicidal" and do not want to die; they are dying. They don't have the option to live because their disease is killing them. They suffer from end-stage cancers, advanced lung and neurodegenerative diseases that destroy organ systems, wracking patients with unremitting pain, vomiting, seizures and other symptoms as they progress to an ultimate, predictable demise.

Allowing terminally ill Minnesotans a peaceful way out has no "inadvertent" impact on anyone else. And it is the compassionate thing to do.

Michael Tedford, Minneapolis

Sometimes I'm a cranky old lady, especially when it comes to illogical decisions made by city and county officials. I'm referring to the redesign of Lake Street and the new transit corridor.

I've seen very little logic or understanding of human behavior in the decisions made, but I wanted to be sure, so I drove Lake Street, eastbound, from Minnehaha Avenue to the Lake Street bridge. Sure enough, once I got to 36th Street, traffic had started to slow at the stoplight. A few blocks ahead, there was a bus that no one could get around. Each stop the bus made to pick up or drop off passengers gathered more cars behind the bus. This was at 10 a.m. on a weekday with no snow buildup along the curb. I can only imagine what it would be like with large snowbanks that don't melt (in shadow of buildings) until late April. And where does a car go when an ambulance or fire truck is coming up behind them?

Humans, like water, will follow the path of least resistance. The bump-outs for transit and pedestrians take away the possibility of turning right at controlled intersections, which means people in cars will likely turn onto side streets, increasing traffic on 31st Street. The path of least resistance also consumes less fuel, lowering carbon footprint.

There are so many things wrong with this design. Its goal was to improve efficiency of transit and provide pedestrians the ability to safely cross the street. But — and this gets back to human behavior — slowing traffic to a dead stop is not the same as calming traffic. It is, in fact, the opposite. These designs, while well-intentioned, will trigger hostility and road rage.

South Minneapolis has only one street that goes all the way from St. Paul to St. Louis Park, it is simply not wide enough to accommodate the desired transit corridor design, which should be the same both eastbound and westbound. Other streets are also getting curb bump-outs, making is nearly impossible to make a right turn even in low-traffic areas. Channeling all the vehicles into a narrow corridor at each intersection makes no sense to me; it simply defies logic.