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

•••

Scott Jensen must think Minnesotans are extremely naive when he states, "In Minnesota, [abortion] is a protected constitutional right and no governor can change that" ("Ads for governor zero in on abortion," Sept. 8). We all thought abortion to be a protected constitutional right in our nation until the U.S. Supreme Court overturned what had been considered "settled law." How did that change? Simple. It was the result of steady, determined work of conservatives.

A Republican-controlled U.S. Senate refused to even consider former President Barack Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court, which opened the door for former President Donald Trump to appoint a total of three conservative justices to the court. The whirlwind confirmation of Trump's final nominee, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, was railroaded through in about a month's time. A committed Republican Minnesota governor could likewise begin to shift the makeup of Minnesota's Supreme Court with the intention of outlawing abortion.

Try as he might, Jensen cannot backpedal his restrictive views on abortion. Women's personal health care decisions, made in consultation with their physicians and families, will only remain safe from the interference of conservative Republican leaders if we keep them from gaining control of our government.

Lisa Wersal, Vadnais Heights

•••

"A woman's right to choose" is a catchy rallying cry. But it's significant that the phrase is never completed: "A woman's right to choose" ... what? Ask any of the millions of women who want to be pregnant, who are painting the nursery, buying a crib, thinking of names, what it is that they are carrying. For these women, from the moment their pregnancy is confirmed, it's a baby. It's not "tissue." If they miscarry, they've lost their baby.

There are valid discussions about protecting the life of the mother, in cases of incest, etc., but if we want an honest debate, the phrase should be, "A woman's right to choose to end the life of her baby." One side of the debate may feel that a woman should have that right. But please, be honest and open in defining what is truly at issue.

David Widdifield, Minneapolis

•••

Hooray to Laura Yuen for speaking out and speaking the truth about Matt Birk ("Birk sure shows us who he is," Sept. 14). He is a negative, toxic person who does not deserve to hold elected office. In a cowardly manner, he refused to answer WCCO Radio host Jason DeRusha's question about marriage equality, an issue of importance to voters. My advice to Birk: Keep talking. You are helping elect your opponents. My advice to Scott Jensen: Trade him. Also, contrary to Birk's misguided opinion on women and careers, it is evident that Yuen is successfully combining a career in journalism and parenting.

Cheryl M. Coulter, Bloomington

•••

I read Yuen's recent column with interest. I was disappointed to find that as usual, the focus was on abortion and feminist issues. I am in my 60s and was hoping that the younger generation of women had more dimension to their thinking when it came to electing our government leaders. Not once did she mention the increase in crime. The economy didn't seem to matter either. The Supreme Court's recent abortion ruling, in essence, sent the decision of legality to each individual state. In Minnesota, abortion is legal. That will not change, no matter who you vote for.

We aren't just women, we are people, informed, educated, rational, thinking people. We need to think about the candidates as a whole. What will they do to improve the quality of the lives of the people in our community? To focus on one issue, an issue that is a moot point in our state, appears to be voting on emotions alone.

Sheila Knoedler, Eden Prairie

•••

U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham's recent proposal for a 15-week abortion ban is a desperate political act because extremist opponents of reproductive freedom are going down in flames. Democrats and pro-choice advocates like me are giddy that the GOP is imploding over this issue. Fair enough, but what if we chose this moment to seek common ground? A right to life/right to choose federal bill modeled after legislation in most western democracies would establish a federal "right to choose" for the first 15 weeks of pregnancy while also banning abortions after 15 weeks with exceptions for the health of the mother, rape and incest. Almost 93% of abortions occur in the first 13 weeks, and most Americans would applaud such a compromise.

Can you even imagine our political parties without this wedge issue to divide us? Probably not. And neither can the interest groups, campaign donors, advocates or political strategists. And after all, it is not our democracy anymore, it is theirs.

Paul T. Ostrow, Minneapolis

•••

A recent article declared that abortion is "an issue of equity" ("Abortion is called an issue of equity," Sept. 8). I agree, but for very different reasons than the author. A disproportionate number of women who access abortion are of poor and minority backgrounds. There have been efforts to promote funding for transportation for Medicaid recipients to travel for abortions. When we are willing to pay to transport Black women to end their pregnancies, what does that say about our society? I propose spending that money on long-term solutions like affordable housing, access to education, enforcement of workplace-discrimination laws and efforts that will raise women out of poverty.

Success and parenthood are not mutually exclusive. Lack of basic resources, however, is a definite obstacle to achievement. Rather than reducing their population, let's elevate and empower minority women.

Adrienne O'Connor, Minnetrista

SOCIAL MEDIA COMMENTS

Use the moment to teach, not just fine, Wolves' Anthony Edwards

There have now been multiple articles regarding the homophobic comments Timberwolves guard Anthony Edwards posted to Instagram and his subsequent apology ("NBA looking into Edwards' homophobic remarks," Sept. 13). It has become far too easy to follow hurtful and cruel words with an apology, though I'd like to believe his words are sincere. The NBA is reportedly looking into potential discipline. Maybe the NBA or the Timberwolves will fine Edwards; I found that he is in his second year of a four-year $44 million deal, so a relatively small fine does not seem appropriate.

I have a few ideas about discipline that might actually encourage compassion and understanding rather than consequences that are simply punitive in nature. Perhaps we need a new way to address such careless language by prominent athletes: perhaps Edwards might listen and learn from a PFLAG parent of a gay child who died by suicide. Perhaps he might listen and learn from students who are bullied by their peers or young people who are homeless after simply being themselves. Surely OutFront Minnesota would welcome an opportunity to collaborate with the NBA or the Timberwolves to help create a more impactful consequence for Edwards.

Perhaps after Edwards has completed his chance to learn directly from the LGBTQ community, he could then share his learning with his team, other NBA teams and/or younger athletes. Perhaps leaders at home, at school and, yes, leaders within professional sports organizations can reinforce that we are all responsible for the effects of our words. And that we each have the capacity to learn and grow from our mistakes if we seek steps to do so.

Diane Wussow, Minneapolis