We are former United States Attorneys for the District of Minnesota, nominated by presidents of different political parties. The recent article on Andrew Luger, the nominee to return to the U.S. attorney's office, suggesting that he has an "ethical bind," was seriously incomplete in two respects ("U.S. Attorney nominee caught in a catch-22," front page, Dec. 13).

First, the article fails to note that investigations into the "pattern and practice" of police departments are not run by local U.S. attorneys' offices, but by the civil rights division of the Department of Justice in Washington. Such "Main Justice" investigations are not rare, and their protocols minimize the involvement of local prosecutors, such as the U.S. Attorney, who necessarily work often with local law enforcers. Therefore, Luger would not be in a position to "block" or "denature" a Main Justice civil rights investigation — not that he would, anyway — as one critic irresponsibly asserts.

Second, it is not in the least unusual for an incoming U.S. Attorney to recuse from matters involving clients represented by the attorney's former firm. Each of us did so. We followed — and undoubtedly Luger is well into — the long-established vetting process by which the incoming official, working with ethics professionals in the department, identifies all such ethical issues and resolves them as professional responsibility rules require.

We have worked closely with Luger, and we know him well. He is a gifted, ethical lawyer who has again passed a stringent check of his background, qualifications and professional responsibility. Minnesota is fortunate that he has chosen to return to public service.

This letter was signed by Thomas Heffelfinger, U.S. Attorney, 1991-93 and 2001-06, and David Lillehaug, U.S. Attorney, 1994-98.

•••

In debate, as in law, it is the participant's job to defend their assigned position and present the best argument to defend it every time. There should be no inclusion of personal bias. The real question is, can a judge or attorney do their job competently — and the answer does not depend on whether they have been a defender or prosecutor in the past. The lack of understanding this principle is leading to the decline in respect for the law, even up to our highest court.

David J. Anderson, Richfield

There seems to be a great disparity in the damage awards granted throughout our country, likely one of the highest litigation countries on earth. The George Floyd family and legal team was awarded $27 million, and an Army veteran was awarded $22.5 for faulty 3M earplugs which caused hearing impairment ("$22.5M awarded in earplug lawsuit," Dec. 14). These individual lawsuits are quite different from class-action lawsuits dealing with much larger numbers of plaintiffs.

Unfortunately, victims of sexual abuse, by comparison, have been awarded far less generously and still face much disparity. For example, some 500 women athlete sexual abuse victims will receive around $760,000 from a recent settlement ("Nassar abuse survivors reach $380M settlement," Dec. 14), while 82,000 sexually abused Boy Scouts will only receive average awards of about $31,600 ("$800M deal in Scouts bankruptcy," Dec. 14) from a $2.6 billion trust fund as the largest sexual abuse settlement in U.S. history. Many sexually abused children and adults in the numerous Catholic Church scandals likely received even less.

Of course, subtracting substantial lawyer fees and court costs will render lower awards, but it is easy to see the unfairness of these significant differences. Deep pockets with substantial resources make a big difference in potential for awards, but should that be the sole determinate for aid to victims? Perhaps our country should create a victim compensation fund with minimum and maximum awards tailored to crime severity. Capping lawsuits would also serve to create more equity in the application of the laws of our land. As awards rise, we cannot afford to strive to a "sky is the limit" attitude, as we all ultimately pay for these awards in one way or another.

Michael Tillemans, Minneapolis

As a physician who has been on the front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic for nearly 20 months, the fact that former state Sen. and Dr. Scott Jensen, a gubernatorial candidate, is unvaccinated against COVID-19 and has no plans to get vaccinated is at once saddening, frustrating and infuriating. The choice to be unvaccinated is limiting access to health care for all Minnesotans. As a physician, Dr. Jensen should know this.

Just as smoking and driving drunk are personal decisions that affect the health and safety of others, the decision not to get vaccinated against COVID-19 is affecting all Minnesotans. Our hospitals are stretched beyond their capacity. Patients from across the state are waiting for a hospital bed that may never come. Surgeries are being delayed, and routine health checks are being postponed. Difficult decisions on who should get an ICU bed are being made multiple times a day. Minnesotans are dying. The vast majority of the COVID-19 patients in our hospitals are unvaccinated. These are hospital beds that should be given to your loved one with a stroke, heart attack, cancer or any number of diagnoses but simply are not available.

We need physicians, and leaders, who not only care for Minnesotans but care about Minnesotans. Dr. Jensen cannot represent our state or the science and art of medicine that I love. If Dr. Jensen decides he actually cares about Minnesotans, I would be happy to shoot him in the arm ... with a vaccine.

Dr. Justin Kirven, Medicine Lake

•••

Disqualifying COVID-exposed children from child care is helping no one and hurting everyone. The current Minnesota Department of Health decision tree states that people who are a close contact with someone who tested positive for COVID-19 must stay home from all activities for a minimum of seven days, and that a 14-day quarantine is the "safest option." Even if the child receives a negative test result, they need to complete the minimum seven-day quarantine before returning to school or program. Somehow, MDH has decided that a rolling ineligibility of child care based more upon false logic than science is our "safest" approach. The impact of this decision tree is as profound as it is dangerous.

I will use my family as an example: Since Oct. 1, between our two children, we have maintained only two uninterrupted weeks of school and child care. Putting aside the strain between two working parents scrambling to negotiate whose meetings can be rearranged at the last minute yet again, there is school momentum lost and weeks of unquestioned funds transferred to our child care institution for zero child care. In our family, we are fortunate that our "vulnerable" grandparents and immunocompromised family members volunteer to help us during these regular quarantines. Our daughter (6) became fully vaccinated last week and will hopefully no longer be subject to quarantines based on exposure going forward. Our son (4) will not be vaccine eligible until August under current guidelines. This means that each time a child in his class tests positive for COVID, he is ineligible to receive child care under current MDH guidelines.

More menacing than dual-parent households arguing over rearranging work meetings, or thousands of dollars spent on unrendered services, is the real impact that disqualified parents have on our health care workforce. As a nurse manager at a large Twin Cities hospital, I see daily how a ghosted workforce is killing the very thing our MDH decision tree is attempting to protect: COVID patients. Hospitals are crippled in a daily scramble of shuffling inadequate staffing resources from one crisis to the next. Our "safest option" involves paying nursing staff mind-blowing bonuses above and beyond overtime to, in many cases, work unsafe shift lengths or suboptimal staffing ratios. Our "safest option" means unsustainable labor costs and substandard patient care. Staffing saves lives, not quarantines.

Because day cares and child care providers are obligated to follow MDH guidelines, it is essential that MDH change these draconian parameters to give parents the choice whether to keep their child in school or day care after a COVID exposure.

Andrea Gleckner, St. Paul

We want to hear from you. Send us your thoughts here.