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

•••

Last Monday's editorial claims that the Protect Reproductive Options Act is not "extreme" ("Codify abortion rights with 'PRO Act,' " Jan. 9). Really? The PRO Act would enshrine in Minnesota law a right to abort any baby for any reason at any time up to birth.

Under the PRO Act, it's legal, for any reason, to tear off the arms and legs of a 20-week-old unborn human being who can feel excruciating pain (a "dilation and evacuation" abortion). Under the PRO Act, it's legal, for any reason, to inject lethal poison into the heart of a 35-week-old unborn child (an induction abortion). Under the PRO Act, parents don't have a right to know when their minor daughter is taken to have an abortion, and women could be subjected to riskier later abortions in facilities that aren't even licensed by the state.

How many countries around the world have policies like this? According to a Washington Post analysis, just seven countries permit elective abortion after 20 weeks, among them North Korea and China.

In recent comments opposing the bill, state Rep. Anne Neu Brindley, R-North Branch, noted, "The entire civilized world recognizes that there are some reasonable restrictions that should take place." The PRO Act recognizes no limits whatsoever. It denies to young members of our species the most basic protections against brutal violence — and it puts the health and well-being of women and girls at greater risk, too.

Our elected officials should firmly reject this extreme and inhumane legislation.

Cathy Blaeser, Minneapolis

The writer is co-executive director, Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life.

•••

We must pass the PRO Act. We must pass this bill because our rights, and our lives, depend on it.

We saw abortion and contraceptive rights stripped away during Donald Trump's presidency. We watched, horrified, as Roe v. Wade was overturned, and states banned abortion one by one. We have seen our friends, family members and neighbors struggle to make intimate health care decisions in the face of barriers, abortion restrictions and political attacks. We can no longer count on federal protections or empty political promises. That's why Minnesotans must pass the PRO Act.

Passing the PRO Act would be an unprecedented victory for abortion and reproductive care protections in the Upper Midwest. This act would solidify Minnesotan's fundamental right to make personal health care decisions without anti-abortion political interference. Most importantly, the PRO Act would ensure all Minnesotans have access to safe, nondiscriminatory, barrier-free reproductive care regardless of gender identity, class or other demographic identifiers.

All of us should be free to make our own bodily decisions without the influence of politicians or judges. Passing the PRO Act is crucial to making this freedom a reality for all Minnesotans.

Jessica Clem, Minneapolis

•••

As a girl, I visited the Dachau Concentration Camp Memorial Site. It left an indelible impression. I saw concretely the horrific evil humans are capable of inflicting on fellow human beings. The propaganda against our Jewish, Black or Indigenous brothers and sisters started subtly but led to the legal destruction of their most basic, inalienable right, the right to life. The methods varied from gas chambers, executions, lynchings and starvation, but the result was the same — genocide. It belies logic that some people from those same groups are advocating for another genocide. It's a scientific fact: Human life begins the moment of conception. Right then, the mother and baby have different DNA. They are two separate human beings. The right to life of both deserves legal protection. Nothing could be more violent than intentionally killing your very own preborn child. The method can vary from taking an over-the-counter pill, two-part chemical abortion, suction, dismemberment or poison. How did the common understanding throughout civilization that women being fertile and having children were positive disappear? Ancient people worshiped fertility goddesses. Barrenness had a negative connotation. This understanding is echoed in Hebrew and Christian Bibles.

I don't doubt that women can do most men's jobs. Some make very meaningful contributions apart from being mothers. But I am deeply concerned that women have been deceived and manipulated to casually dismiss their exalted role as mothers. First-world countries are already below replacement-rate fertility. Without women being appreciated for their unique role as mothers, civilization will cease.

In Minnesota, the government is fast-tracking the self destruction our own species. The Star Tribune's Jan. 9 editorial suggested that a mother's legal right to kill her own preborn child should be enshrined in Minnesota law. One person's right to life should never supersede another's. It's time to wake up and understand pro-abortion propaganda for what it is, genocide. Instead of that, let's increase support for pregnant women and their children before and after birth.

Anne Brandrud, St. Paul

•••

I was distressed to read that the Star Tribune supports the DFL's efforts to fast-track codification of abortion rights for women, now moving at "a blistering pace." What's the hurry? Can we not have a balanced discussion around this? A simple Google search reveals that in 2021 in Minnesota, there were 524 abortions for gestational periods 16 weeks and beyond. Applying that rate nationally, using data from the Guttmacher Institute, that would mean more than 47,000 abortions from 16 weeks on in 2019. (Some of these would have been for health reasons.)

The editorial decries new extremes in some conservative states since repeal of Roe v. Wade, impacting a handful of people. Why isn't the other end of the spectrum considered extreme as well? With such a controversial issue, why can't we have a measured approach considering the gestation period of viable fetuses? Can we not at least compromise when so many lives are at stake?

It goes without saying that if they were the ones who had a choice, all 16-week infants would choose life!

D.P. Cornelius, Brooklyn Park

Period poverty: Tell me about it ("Menstruators deserve equity at school," Opinion Exchange, Jan. 12). I was an immigrant girl in the late 1950s who did odd jobs for neighbors to earn some money so that I could take the city bus from the East Side of St. Paul to the Walgreens in downtown St. Paul to purchase two huge boxes of sanitary napkins and schlepp them home on the bus. Was I embarrassed? Mortified, as the bags covered only half the box and at that time the word "period" was rarely used but rather "a visit from my little friend." Don't even get me started on that.

What it developed in me at a young age was independence and resourcefulness rather than expectation. Also, creativity. If you ever have a need to juggle two huge sanitary napkin boxes while riding the city bus, I can give you some tips.

Ursula Krawczyk, St. Paul

•••

A Jan. 12 opinion piece discussed menstrual equity, and I read the piece twice. I still can't form a thoughtful opinion about the topic because of the offensive language that the authors used to refer to girls and women. Those concerned with equity on female issues cannot be taken seriously if they use jargon that pretends that some men are women and some women are men.

Women and girls menstruate. Men and boys do not menstruate. Therefore, when talking about the subject of menstruation, one can be perfectly clear by referring to the people involved as "women and girls."

Can we please stop using the dehumanizing terms "menstruators," "birthing persons" "people with a cervix" and any other nonsense phrases someone might think up to obfuscate the unique experiences of actual women? To refer to female biological functions while refusing to recognize that females have a distinct biology from males is not only ludicrous, but insulting.

Catherine Walker, Minneapolis