FEEDBACK | Dems for life push back; animal-rights groups draw flak
Author: Colorado Politics - August 8, 2018 - Updated: August 7, 2018
Democrats for Life speaks for the voiceless
In recent political advertisements and a letter to the editor from Ashlin Cross (“Being a Democrat means being pro-choice,” July 25), we are told that ensuring access to abortion is “progressive” and that to be a Democrat means being “pro-choice.” I beg to differ.
There is nothing progressive about taking another human’s life. Killing is always a regressive approach to personal/societal problems. The progressive stance is to make family planning widely available; ensure a living wage; provide alternative educational opportunities for pregnant women; maintain safe housing options for homeless and abused pregnant women; streamline adoption services; increase the adoption tax credit; guarantee paid family/medical leave, and provide universal health care.
According to a recent 2018 Gallup poll on abortion, 68 percent of Americans feel that abortion should be illegal or legal in only certain circumstances. Among Democrats the figure was 52 percent in 2017. Democrats for Life speaks for those 25-30 percent of Democrats who are prol-ife and who embrace the Democratic Party’s historic role as the champion of human rights, especially for those who are marginalized or voiceless.
We feel that every human being has inherent dignity regardless of their abilities. Their life should be respected and protected from conception to natural death.
Thomas Perille, MD
President, Democrats for Life of Colorado
Animal-rights groups dupe public on pig farms
Colorado Politics recently ran a story detailing an animal-rights group’s attack on maternity pens, which misses the mark (“Undercover video shows pig abuse, calls attention to industry practices, state bans,” July 31.). Maternity pens are a standard practice for housing pregnant pigs. Individual maternity pens are approved of by veterinarians because they provide for animal welfare.
Pregnant sows are housed in individual pens so they don’t get attacked by other pigs that can weigh up to 500 pounds. Sows will often attack and bite each other for more food and to establish dominance, which causes nasty injuries. Studies have shown that sows in individual pens are less stressed than sows that have to compete in group housing.
So why do animal-rights groups like PETA and the Humane Society of the United States oppose maternity pens? They want everybody to be vegan, and since few Americans are familiar with agriculture, this is an easy way to make farmers look bad. Americans shouldn’t be duped: Caring for animals is critical for farmers, and maternity pens provide for animal welfare.
Research director, Center for Consumer Freedom
Fossil fuels = ‘toxic technologies of the past’
I’ve been considering the question of whether Colorado Politics was owned by corporate interests since first subscribing to your newsletter; a guest column in reaction to the ballot initiative the author calls “the oil-and-gas-killing Initiative 97” decided that question very clearly (“By backing anti-oil-and-gas initiative, Dems send chilling message to Coloradans,” Aug. 6).
As long as Colorado depends on fossil fuels, we will never be able to protect our public health, our fresh water supplies or our abilities as local communities to make our own decisions in our own best interests. We will be shackled to ill health, dirty water and air, and poisoned land. You guys are so transparent. When you could have made the case for increased renewables, you blew it and opted to keep supporting toxic technologies of the past.
Well, at least you clearly showed your true colors. Sad.
Send us your feedback: opinion@ColoradoPolitics.com
- Please include your full name, city and phone number.
- We give priority to comments under 200 words.
- We reserve the right to edit for length, taste and clarity.