Readers Write: U of M and Essentia partnership, immigration, presidential pardons

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

According to the recent article about the proposed $1 billion partnership between the University of Minnesota and Essentia Health on academic medicine, “The proposal left a number of open questions, such as exactly how patients might eventually be affected” (“U, Essentia Health propose $1B partnership on academic medicine,” front page, Jan. 25).

This is a question that merits consideration. Essentia is the successor to St. Mary’s Hospital, founded by the Benedictine Sisters. It remains Catholic, despite its rebranding, as witnessed by the presence of four Benedictine Sisters on the Essentia board of directors.

Catholic hospitals are obliged to follow the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services. These forbid “abortion,” which often means that women do not receive appropriate care when experiencing complications of pregnancy.

Less understood is the possibility that the directives might restrict end-of-life care. According to the directives, the hospital cannot honor an advance directive that is “contrary to Catholic teaching.” This may mean forcing patients to accept unwanted care — such as feeding tubes — and withholding other legal care that would ease the process of dying.

The University trains the majority of Minnesota’s health care workforce. If Essentia Health becomes a clinical training site for the University, this could limit training for and exacerbate shortages of reproductive health providers and hospice/end-of-life specialists. It would also mean that taxpayer money would support a religious institution that refuses to offer standard medical care.

Nancy Giguere, Grand Marais

I am so angry right now. My wife is an attorney, and she represents unaccompanied children in their asylum claims. The kids are texting her, terrified because ICE was in their school today. Children, who have been through all sorts of unspeakable hell just to get here, and now my government is terrorizing them. My religion teaches me that God forgives all of us, but I do wonder if there should be an exception for these people who are terrorizing children. All this so that some of my fellow white people can feel powerful over people who have no power.

What do I tell her? More importantly, what does she tell these children? How do we ever overcome our shame as a nation for allowing this? There is always evil in the world, and right now that evil is upon us.

I am in this for as long as necessary. I know this is a long fight. But I won’t stand back and let this evil win out. I hope you all feel the same.

Tim Wegener, Woodbury

While I agree with Andy Brehm that presidential pardons have reached an absurd level of abuse and the power should be curtailed or eliminated (how about they get just one pardon on their way out the door?), his level of false equivalency in his article is astounding (“Pardon who? The dangerous and disgraceful use of pardons by Biden and Trump,” Strib Voices, Jan. 28). It galls me whenever Jan. 6 is discussed and MAGA fans say “Well, what about the Minneapolis riots?” Of course Brehm invokes the unrest here, even though pardons for Minneapolis rioters were never even in the equation.

But the manner in which he discusses each incident is particularly dishonest. Jan. 6 “was wrong” he says, and “those that trespassed at the Capitol that day and disrupted the procedures of our democracy deserved to be punished.” They only trespassed and were disruptive huh? In the Minneapolis unrest, he states there was “violence, arson, vandalism and looting.” There sure was, but he failed to mention that these things took place on Jan. 6 as well and scores of police were injured, five officers died from health complications or suicide following the attack and an attempt was made to overthrow our democracy. In Minneapolis two people were killed. The two incidents are so far apart in scope and significance, why even bring up the Minneapolis unrest?

Scott McGlasson, Minneapolis

•••

I thought for a second I agreed with Brehm. The pardon power the Constitution gives to presidents is easily abused. But after reading his full column about the recent use of the presidential pardon power by former President Joe Biden and current President Donald Trump, I can’t agree with him. His article used the “both sides” argument as if the previous president and the current one are equally at fault over the pardon power. They are not at all equally at fault. If Trump had not been campaigning on fiery promises of revenge and retribution, promises of pardons of Jan. 6 lawbreakers and threats of prosecution of his political enemies, Biden would not have given pardons to most of the people he pardoned, including Liz Cheney, who was not guilty of anything but being woman who stood up to him and his lust for power.

I also disagree with Brehm’s support for Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon. Presidents should not be above the law or there is no equal justice. Had Ford not pardoned Nixon and instead let the law take its course, Nixon likely would have been convicted. Trump would then have the legal consequences of presidents breaking the law to consider before his frantic and sometimes illegal efforts to overthrow the 2020 election. But Trump had seen that presidents would be given preferential treatment and, with guardrails off, his efforts to reverse and overthrow the 2020 election and the national chaos of Jan. 6 ensued.

Paul Rozycki, Minneapolis

•••

I take exception to Brehm’s piece about the use and misuse of presidential pardons. It’s not that he’s 100% wrong; it’s just that he used false equivalencies to prove his point. Brehm was right in saying both presidents overshot the purpose of the pardon power, but Trump’s were far more egregious. Trump pardoned convicted criminals who violently attacked the Capitol, our democracy and our representatives at his request. Trump implored his supporters to show up because it would be “wild.” It was! And it was on video. Since then, the Republicans have protected the rioters and lied to the American people about what really happened and the congressional representatives who willingly cooperated in the plot. Trump was able to sidestep any legal problems by delaying and tying up the court system. A compliant Supreme Court gave him immunity after months of delay. It’s not hard to believe they were in cahoots with it too. It seems suspicious to me. Trump let out the Jan. 6 criminals so he has his own “army” of gangsters in case he needs them later or decides to hold on to power after his four-year term. Trump still claims that he never lost the 2020 election to this day.

Yes, Biden did say he wouldn’t pardon his son and then wound up doing just that. In addition, he pardoned his other family members and the Jan. 6 committee members and others. He pardoned them because Trump has been threatening retribution for years. It was proper for Biden to do so given these threats. The Republicans tried to destroy Hunter Biden through their congressional investigations — even showing nude pictures of him. I am not a Hunter Biden fan. He was very reckless in his personal affairs and led a privileged life that he did not deserve. In other words, he is a jerk, but what point is there to keep going after him beside treating him differently than others in his shoes?

The other false equivalence is the riots in the Twin Cities versus Jan. 6. Yes, both were horrific and damaging events, but one was a planned coup versus a protest that got out of hand because of several antagonizers (reportedly with some right-wing involvement) who were angry about a Black man’s murder by the police. One of many. Both events are unjustified, but these are not equal events.

Casey Zimmerman, Plymouth