I couldn't agree with Amelia Rayno more ("The unhoused ought not be left unheard," Opinion Exchange, Feb. 6) that the unhoused should be given a say in the kind of housing in which they could live with dignity. They need to be brought into the conversation because, living in a homeless community, they would know best what would and wouldn't work. They have some very good ideas, and their need for community and support is greater than most. Our lawmakers need to make an effort to rid our society of homelessness a top priority, and start with listening.

With that said, I noticed a glaring omission in Rayno's article, and that what has the biggest role in why many living in encampments refuse to leave them: opioid addiction.

My neighborhood has been the victim of no less than eight encampments within the last two years. In every case, drug dealing/using, trafficking, guns and violent crime has followed, making living around encampments a living hell. The hard-core users are not going to leave the streets until there are spaces created for them to live and get clean. With the proper support and medication, it can be done. Our lawmakers on every level — state, county and city — need to work toward those solutions or face ever-lasting encampments and the anger of neighborhoods. And they should not hesitate to invite the addicted to work with them on those solutions.

Donna Pususta Neste, Minneapolis

The Feb. 6 Associated Press article "Millions in tax dollars flow to anti-abortion centers" reveals that much of the nation is mired in an unholy marriage of state and church. According to the article, states have allocated nearly $89 million to anti-abortion centers that are "typically religiously affiliated," "don't provide medical care," provide "misleading information about abortion and contraception," and do not report any metrics other than number of clients.

The Republican-led legislatures that fund these centers have conducted political warfare against reproductive rights since the Supreme Court found abortion to be a constitutionally protected right nearly a half-century ago. For the centers themselves, and the churches that created them, they are a religious mission. Their goal is to impose church dogma on the population of the states with the force of law. This religious mission should not be funded by tax dollars collected from those who oppose it, and who instead support the human right to reproductive self-determination. According to the most recent Pew poll, 59% of U.S. adults say abortion should be legal in all or most cases.

Rejection of government funding of religion is rooted in early American history, as shown in this passage by James Madison explaining opposition to another religious funding bill, in his "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments":

Because the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation.

If the opponents of abortion find that it offends their religion, an obvious remedy is open to them. Do not have abortions. If politicians wish to impose anti-abortion dogma, they should be reminded that they were not elected to employ religion as an engine of civil policy.

George Francis Kane, St. Paul

•••

The Associated Press article, with a note of alarm, gave an independent estimation that government funding to crisis pregnancy centers across "about a dozen states" had risen to $89 million in the most recent fiscal year. There was no comparable alarm that Planned Parenthood received more than $500 million in government funding last year.

Neither expenditure should be cause for alarm. Our concern should rather be to provide more and better support services to women who find themselves in the crisis of an unplanned pregnancy. Their crises are real, and their decisions and self-care have momentous importance for themselves and for a new life beginning within them.

We ought to be glad rather than lament that a woman can find someone outside of her immediate situation who with gentleness can validate the powerful feelings she is having. And listen without judgment to her story. And help her to uncover the meaning of the present crisis in the context of her whole life. More services to reach women of diverse beliefs and all levels of socioeconomic status is a benefit.

The possibility is real that some counselors may have biases to "talk women out of ending their pregnancies" and others may accept the decision to abort unquestioningly. The woman in crisis chooses whom she will talk to and how she will decide. But it is important that she not be alone with her burden.

Richard W. Podvin, Roseville

•••

I was appalled to read the article about crisis pregnancy centers and not because of the news that they are receiving tax dollars. If they qualify for them, they should get them. If you don't like who gets your tax dollars, write your member of Congress.

What I'm concerned about are the behaviors/practices the article attributes to them. Most of the things they describe seem like stuff out of the dark ages. This is an AP article focused on centers in Texas. The practices it referred to were complained about in the early 2000s there. Old news.

So here we are in Minnesota in 2022. It looks like the Star Tribune doesn't care if we all think that crisis pregnancy centers in Minneapolis are like those in Texas in the dark ages.

And really, I don't trust the Strib to do a balanced, honest reporting of the extremely competent, well-trained, licensed staff at many of the centers in Minnesota, especially here in Minneapolis. I wouldn't if I were them. If you want to write about Minnesotans, interview Minnesotans. And when you do, get the story right.

Jennifer Naglak, Minneapolis

Thanks, Star Tribune editors, for the juxtaposition of the two articles in the Feb. 6 Minnesota section of the paper ("Legislators tackle state's historic workforce shortage" and "Seeking status quo").

The first article laments the lack of workers to fuel the rebounding economic recovery. "It's really universal. There's not a business that I talk to in the state that is not facing a workforce challenge," states state Department of Employment and Economic Development Commissioner Steve Grove.

The second article tells compelling stories of "mixed-status" families in which one partner is a "legal" citizen of the U.S. and their spouse is "unauthorized." These families are living on the risky edge of deportation, separation, lack of career advancement, lack of the ability to plan their futures, and constant stress. Their employers lose the valuable resources these employees provide.

Can't Congress see that solving the immigration crisis can help solve the workforce crisis? As a first step, it is time to pass the American Families United Act and the American Dream and Promise Act of 2021. Just imagine how many happy, dedicated, employable people would be available to businesses countrywide.

Catherine V. Jordan, Minneapolis

I found interesting this one sentence from the Feb. 6 article "Family's gravel road saga could affect 55,000 miles of state lanes": "[T]ownship roads make up nearly 40% of the road mileage in Minnesota but carry only 2% of the traffic."

The same could probably be said of Minneapolis' new penchant for eliminating traffic lanes to construct bike lanes, especially during our six months of winter weather.

Patricia Taylor, Minneapolis

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