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

•••

Jeff Potts, executive director of the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association, told a Star Tribune staff writer that sometimes, when police arrive at the scene of a confrontation and find one student already on the ground, an officer might keep that student on the ground by applying pressure to the torso ("School cops question new restraint limits," Aug. 17).

If we've learned anything from George Floyd's murder, it's that the individual on the ground is the one most vulnerable, not those standing up, be they bystanders, other students or police officers. Given that painful lesson, why, according to Potts, would such use of force, no matter how minimal, be considered appropriate as an initial response to a student found on the ground by police arriving on the scene? Parents, educators and ordinary citizens deserve an answer.

JUDITH MONSON, St. Paul

The line items in the National Policing Institute's recommendations to the Brooklyn Center Police Department seemed woefully incomplete (" 'Blueprint' for Brooklyn Center police," Aug. 15).

I didn't read officers should "recognize their right hip area from their left," "differentiate bright yellow from gunmetal blue," or "understand the difference between two pounds and a half pound."

Unless maybe that void simply falls in the report under an all-encompassing "officers should be honest and competent" section?

NICK DOLPHIN, Minneapolis

Lyft and Uber users who pleaded with the Minneapolis City Council to vote against a minimum wage for drivers should have been asking themselves if they are willing to participate in the exploitation of the drivers they find so charming. (Readers Write, Aug. 16 and 17. Latest news on this subject: "Minneapolis City Council approves pay hikes for rideshare drivers," StarTribune.com, Aug. 17.)

The owners of Lyft and Uber make massive profits, and their threat to terminate coverage in Minneapolis is an effort to protect those profits. Providing drivers with better wages will cut into profits, but owners will no doubt pass those costs onto passengers. The calls for a "no" vote put those people squarely on the side of exploitation. If you want the service to continue, offer to pay more for the ride.

TIM MUNGAVAN, Minneapolis

The recent article "38,000 lose Medicaid coverage in state" (Aug. 10) was complicated and hard to understand. The bottom line seems to be that Medicaid-eligible families need to re-enroll now that pandemic-based coverage has ended. The first month's cohort was expected to number about 98,000, but only around 50,000 re-enrolled, while 10,000 were diverted for disability coverage.

Despite extensive outreach efforts, that left 38,000 unaccounted for in the first renewal month alone. Although Department of Human Services Commissioner Jodi Harpstead feels optimistic that many have found other insurance coverage, the article notes that federal estimates show 80% of Medicaid enrollees continue to be eligible. Some studies show that more than 90% maintain eligibility year-to-year. That leaves about 30,000 previous Medicaid enrollees — mostly new mothers and their children — without coverage in September alone.

Without insurance coverage for prescriptions, immunizations and well child exams, some of our highest-risk families will delay or fail to receive needed care. Although the Legislature adopted a future policy of continuous coverage for any child enrolled in Medicaid from birth to age 6, coverage will not be continuous if barriers to the enrollment process prevent families from staying current. Also, some states have obtained a federal waiver allowing continuous Medicaid coverage for these children to begin immediately.

As the Department of Human Services uses the new $36 million allotted for training purposes, it will be essential to hire and train navigators — "decomplicators" — to assist families in the complexity of obtaining the services for which they are eligible. Continued efforts to widely and repeatedly publicize the need to re-enroll will also be needed. Failure to do so will add many thousands to the list of uninsured children in the coming months, resulting in higher costs and much preventable death and disability.

MARY MELAND, ROGER SHELDON, DALE DOBRIN and ADA ALDEN

The writers are members of Doctors for Early Childhood.

Why does the media continuously tarnish the reputation of Minneapolis' award-winning park system by using a park as a reference point to a serious crime, when the park had no nexus to the crime? An Aug. 15 headline in the Star Tribune read, "1 dead, 2 injured in shooting near Loring Park in Mpls." TV stations said the same thing. The shooting occurred at the 1500 block of Nicollet Avenue S., a good three blocks away from Loring Park. You know what major landmark was a lot closer to the scene of the shooting? The Minneapolis Convention Center, which was only one block away. A more accurate headline would have been, "1 dead, 2 injured in shooting near Mpls. Convention Center." I guess it's better to trash the park system than annoy the tourism bureau.

JOEL BRAND, Minneapolis

In "Mpls. streets are becoming unsafe, undriveable" (Opinion Exchange, Aug. 4), Tim Keane asks how many people can get to a grocery store and walk, bike or roll home with multiple bags of groceries. ''ve done it multiple times on my bike with panniers or a day pack. And I'm in my 70s.

In "Can't balance that on a bike" (Readers Write, Aug. 11), a letter writer asks when the last time was that we saw someone biking out of Home Depot with a load of Sheetrock. I wish he'd been sitting on my front porch with me on the evening that I spotted a cargo bike cruising down my street pulling a trailer with a full-size sofa balanced on it. If memory serves, a passenger was sitting on the sofa.

Keane's statistics indicating an increase in fatal and severe crashes don't prove that infrastructure changes designed to protect all users make them less safe. Rather, they're a testimony to the destructive impact of people buying more vehicles with greater weight. Numerous national studies have found that higher fatality rates result.

STEVE BRANDT, Minneapolis

The writer is a former Star Tribune reporter and current member of the Minneapolis Board of Estimate and Taxation.

In her Aug. 15 counterpoint "In response to Matt Birk's request that pro-choice people 'come clean,' " state Sen. Erin Maye Quade, DFL-Apple Valley, made an argument so breathtakingly ridiculous that it cannot be overlooked.

After a couple of paragraphs of chest-thumping about the most recent legislative session, she did exactly what Birk said the pro-choice left always do: She began promoting abortion. It was here that she put forth an argument that is mind-numbingly devoid of logic and reason: "Abortion bans across the country are causing immense harm. Look no further than Texas, the first state to ban abortion, where the infant mortality rate has increased by 11.5% ... ."

The obvious answer to this feigned outrage is to remind the senator that the mortality rate for aborted children is just south of 100%. But let's look at the numbers: According to the Texas Tribune, around 50,000 to 55,000 Texans obtained abortions each year from 2014 to 2021. Let's assume that half of these abortions were prohibited under the new Texas law. In 2019, there were 2,073 total infant deaths in Texas. An 11.5% increase brings that total to 2,311. By any measure, there are thousands of children alive in Texas today who would have been aborted under Roe v. Wade. This is the type of outcome that pro-lifers celebrate and seek to achieve. Yet, Maye Quade would have us believe that this is a terrible tragedy. The only tragedy here is for Maye Quade, as she mourns the exposure and demolition of her fraudulent and insulting argument that she is the true pro-lifer in the room.

TIMOTHY MAERTENS, Mankato