One sure sign that the election season is in full force is the frequency with which I am hearing from congressional representatives. It’s not fair to mention specific names, but the list is inclusive.
I have pursued the frustrating course over the past several years of writing each of Kansas’ four U.S. representatives. Months later, in several cases, I have received a form letter reply usually indicating my request was out of their jurisdiction.
I just wish our representatives and senators were as energetic while legislating as they are when politicking.
Never miss a local story.
At what cost does the recent Supreme Court ruling on abortion help women (6-28, A1, “Abortion ruling resonates for Missouri, Kansas”)?
For those celebrating the 5-3 decision that found the Texas law governing the safety standards of abortion clinics was an undue burden on women seeking abortions, whatever happened to areas of agreement by both sides of the debate?
I am referring to the laws that required abortion clinics to meet the same federally mandated requirements that are demanded of outpatient surgical centers.
The case of Kermit Gosnell, an abortion doctor now serving a life prison term for the murder of three infants and a woman who died in his clinic, was cited in both the majority opinion and the dissent. It was just this kind of exploitation of vulnerable women that the Texas law sought to end.
If high safety standards of medical care are sacrificed as a result of this ruling, is this really removing the undue burden that women supposedly will suffer? How is this beneficial for women?
Mary Kay Clune
I have heard and read volumes about Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton’s emails. The diatribe against her increases and becomes more vitriolic.
I have yet to hear the answer to one simple question concerning her emails: “What harm was done?”
With all the real problems facing this country, why is so much energy consumed with this one issue where no real harm seems to have been done?
Could it be the only issue her detractors think would harm her?
My answer to them: Get over it.
Needs of KCI
The Star’s June 26 front-page coverage, “KC rethinks flight path to single-terminal airport,” did an excellent job of telling readers about the importance of informing voters about the importance of communicating the reason for a new terminal.
Unfortunately, the space could have been better used to actually tell readers why a new terminal is needed.
I read the whole article hoping to be educated about the need. Unfortunately, the only thing I was educated on was the need to educate the public on the reason for a new airport.
Great reporting. Another opportunity lost.
Presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump’s recent speeches have indicated his lack of respect for anyone who believes differently than he does.
At times it was evident that even he didn’t believe the bovine waste that was being cast from his increasingly large mouth. With Trump, who rambles from one subject to another, name-calling and outright lying is the norm.
He rants and raves and spouts things he knows nothing about while insisting they are true, if even in the most obscure sense of the word.
Trump is an expert at belittling and degrading anyone who is debating or in competition with him. His demeanor is different from any other presidential candidate in recent history.
Can Trump actually win the presidential election? Scary isn’t it?
The answer is yes. If Trump wins this election, where will the country be headed then?
Rising water cost
I don’t like paying more for water. However, we were warned some time ago that this would happen.
When the Environmental Protection Agency required Kansas City to design a system to handle storm drainage citywide at a cost reaching the billions of dollars, the city did warn us that the rates would go much higher on a graduated scale over several years.
It is now happening.
If you are going to blame anyone for these high rates, blame the EPA.