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

•••

Fifty years ago, when Title IX was signed into law by President Richard Nixon, I was 15 years old and ready to start my sophomore year at Walter Johnson Senior High in Bethesda, Md. My twin sister Jane and I played on the WJ girls' field hockey, volleyball, track and softball teams. Because of our skills in field hockey and track (I threw the javelin and shot put; Jane threw the discus), we played on those teams at the University of Maryland.

Title IX turned a huge tide to help level the field for girls and women, not just in sports, but all aspects of education endeavors that received federal funding. While my family had a lot to do with the person I became, it is also because Title IX opened so many more doors of opportunity for me and my teammates.

Title IX continued to open doors for my daughter and her soccer teammates in Winona. Being on a sports team taught us all life skills that we carry into our daily lives. The social and emotional support of being on a sports team contributed immeasurably to our well-being, particularly through those roller-coaster years of high school and college.

The Star Tribune's editorial held out Title IX as "one example of what good government can do" ("Title IX was a win for the U.S.," June 21). Title IX has affected, for good, every aspect of my life's journey, as a daughter, a sister, a wife, a mother, as Winona County Attorney and as a purposeful member of my community.

Karin Leonard Sonneman, Winona, Minn.

It is our conviction that any person who is pregnant has moral agency and authority to discern what to do. We also recognize that while the choice is personal, decisionmaking often happens in community — with God, family, partners, friends, health care providers and pastors. We respect and support each person's path to discernment.

While we long for a future with fewer abortions, we believe that criminalizing abortion is not the way to accomplish this. We oppose both the total lack of regulation of abortion as well as legislation that criminalizes abortion under most or all circumstances. As people of faith, we also oppose legislation that creates barriers to accessing safe, equitable reproductive health care. To that end, we will continue to join with others in boldly advocating for public policy that ensures reproductive rights for all.

Pastor Jeff Sartain and Pastor Anna Helgen, Edina

The writers are pastors at Edina Community Lutheran Church.

•••

The point is: We actual humans have no consensus on these matters; this is not science, it's moral and spiritual reckoning. So why would we want the state to make this decision for us? We wouldn't, if we were as honest and thoughtful as the older, wiser letter-writer. As someone who thought Ayn Rand was, like, awesome, when I was her age, I suspect the 17-year-old writer may be surprised by what she believes just a few years from now. Maybe someday she'll be glad she lives in a state where the views of the good pastor are (thankfully) embedded in our state Constitution.

Stephen Bubul, Minneapolis

I appreciated retired deputy chief of the Minneapolis Police Department Gregory Hestness' opinion piece "If only we had kept America's arms race in check" (June 17).

His 40-year police career as well as his experience as a pistol shooter qualifies him as someone who can see through the politically motivated objections to responsible gun safety policy. His gun history lesson (the AR-15 was designed to replace the M1, the World War II standard military rifle) was helpful and only confirmed what so many of us already suspected: Weapons intended for the military do not need to be available to the general public. Recreational sportspeople, hunters and persons concerned about home protection do not need semi-automatic weapons like AR-15s; there are other firearm options that will serve their purposes. Why would anyone need a firearm for sport or home protection that "causes as much tissue damage as possible," is intended to kill people quickly and in large numbers, as opposed to a firearm that simply has "stopping power"?

Hestness made reference to the assault weapons ban passed in 1994 and that tragically lapsed in 2004. It is significant that in 1994, he endorsed Sen. Paul Wellstone's support for an assault weapon ban. It is no coincidence that mass shootings were down between 1994 and 2004 as compared to before and after that time period.

Lisa Weisman, Minneapolis

•••

As reported in the Star Tribune on June 13, the tentative accord among senators on new gun restrictions ("Senators strike deal on gun control") does not include raising the age of eligibility for purchasing an assault rifle from 18 to 21, even though such weapons purchased by 18-year-olds were involved in the killing of 10 people at a grocery store in Buffalo, N.Y., and 21 people at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas. Apparently, Republicans cannot tolerate making 18-year-olds wait three years to buy an AR-15.

Can someone please explain to my granddaughter why Republican senators believe preserving just three years of the right of an 18-year-old to have an assault rifle outweighs decades of the right of schoolchildren to have a better chance at living a full life? I cannot.

Bill Kaemmerer, Edina

He has a plastic bucket from Menards to sit on while still exposed to weather and judgments. A black garbage bag hangs from the fence for wrappers and bottles that some passersby decided were better than cash.

I've engaged in endless debates with friends as to what's best — a few bills pressed into soiled hands, requiring eye contact, or impersonal credit card donations to the Salvation Army.

I smugly think of challenges I've faced and been able to overcome. Yet I know I've not had to walk in his tattered shoes.

Casting doubts his way instead of dollars, my hand hesitantly hovers over my wallet. But the light changes and I get to pass by, ferried along in my own lane of traffic to Damascus.