A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
The Durango Herald, Aug. 20, on Rep. Todd Akin’s “legitimate rape” remarks:
U.S. Rep. Todd Akin, a Republican seeking to unseat Missouri’s U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill, is now famous for implying, on television, that women who say they become pregnant from being raped actually may have consented to the experience or even enjoyed it.
In commenting about whether abortion for rape victims should be legal, he told an interviewer, “From what I understand from doctors … if it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”
Ugh. Just, ugh.
Fellow Republicans recoiled instantly. GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney said, “Congressman Akin’s comments on rape are insulting, inexcusable and, frankly, wrong.” Quite so, although “wrong” should perhaps have been first in the list.
Some Republican strategists, immediately seeing how Democrats could make use of Akin’s astounding error, began working to push him from the race, which is a key part of gaining a Republican majority in the Senate. Whether Akin will go willingly remains to be seen. He has since said, on Facebook, that he “misspoke.”
That’s understating the problem to an amazing degree.
As offensive as Akin’s pronouncement was, even more alarming is the fact that Missouri elected to Congress a man with such a poor grasp of science and law and such an appalling attitude toward women, and that the Republican Party was willing to provide strong support because of Missouri’s strategic importance.
How is it that, in 2012, anyone can believe that pregnancy is evidence of consensual sex?
How can it be that, in 2012, a man elected to one of the nation’s highest offices and seeking another believes that stringing together the words “legitimate” and “rape” is anything but an insult to sexual assault victims. “No” must still, and always, mean “no.”
Restricting abortion is a popular topic among Republicans. According to The Washington Post, a draft of platform language circulating among GOP convention delegates calls for a constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion. Regardless of whether this year’s platform includes that push, abortion rights will be a topic of contention for years to come.
Discussions of human reproduction cannot be disconnected from discussions of human dignity. The topic must be debated honestly and fairly, with great value placed on facts. Those who oppose abortion must acknowledge all the circumstances that drive women to terminate pregnancies—including rape—and must never assume that unwanted pregnancies are less problematic than women say they are. Those who seek to preserve abortion rights must acknowledge that some of the reasons for seeking abortions are unpalatable or unacceptable for many Americans.
Comments such as Akin’s have no place in carefully reasoned discussions. Inflammatory rhetoric may produce wins, but it cannot produce consensus. It also cannot help create long-term policies that will not swing back and forth with every change in national leadership.
Far more importantly, such rhetoric is not a morally defensible way to treat human beings, which surely is the purpose of the anti-abortion movement.
Editorial:
———
Loveland Reporter-Herald, Aug. 18, on mistruths being said by both presidential campaigns:
In 1858, as the question of slavery, the most contentious issue in the history of American politics, was fueling fierce argument in the country’s ruling class, an Illinois lawyer and candidate for the U.S. Senate named Abraham Lincoln challenged the incumbent, Stephen Douglas, to a series of debates. The format allowed for extraordinarily in-depth discussions of the issues. The first candidate had one hour to address the audience, the opposing candidate then had an hour and a half to speak, and a closing slot of half an hour went back to the first speaker. The substance of the debates and the very quality of the language made them suitable for publication in book form and study by generations of scholars. They’re a paragon of American political discourse.
How far we’ve come and how low we’ve stooped.
The quality of discourse in the 2012 presidential election is culturally embarrassing and politically hazardous.
The camps of President Obama and GOP candidate Mitt Romney trade lies in a manner that reveals a brazen calculation that truth simply does not matter. An Obama-supporting group has run ads that imply a woman died of cancer because she lost her health insurance after her husband’s factory was closed by Romney’s firm Bain Capital. The ad, as many pointed out, is garbage, but it has run anyway. Romney asserts that Obama wants to remove the work requirement from former President Clinton’s welfare reform act. Partisans on both sides of the aisle agree that pretty much the opposite is true. But Romney has continued to say it anyway.
Then came the forehead-slapping demagoguery of Vice President Biden when this week he told a largely black crowd in Virginia that Republicans would “put y’all back in chains.” What kind of government can we expect to rule the country when this is the sort of oratory that gets officials elected?
Needless to say, none of it is worthy of publication in a book, and it’s a shame even to see it reported in the news.
The candidates will have a chance to face off in debates. But such a format in the modern era promises little more of substance. The upshot of televised debates is zingers like “There you go again” and unhelpful sound bites that leave the electorate mostly devoid of useful information.
The candidates obviously aren’t interested in concentrating on the issues. It’s up to American voters to do it themselves.
Editorial:
———
STATE:
The Pueblo Chieftain, Aug. 20, on lawsuits involving listeria outbreak traced to Colorado farm:
The lawyers have been circling over Jensen Farms near Holly in the aftermath of last year’s listeria outbreak.
Even as federal investigators have yet to finish their work into the outbreak, dozens of civil lawsuits have been filed but await bankruptcy proceedings before they move forward. The federal probe, and criminal charges that might result, could bring only a small fine, one legal expert says.
The listeria outbreak was traced to a shipping shed near Granada operated by Jensen Farms. An independent safety auditor found no cause for alarm, but it became apparent that audit was faulty.
The Centers for Disease Control reported 147 people around the nation were sickened by the pathogen, while 37 people died.
Jensen Farms filed for bankruptcy in May, as did Texas-based Bio Food Safety two months later. The two operations, plus Pepper Equipment, have agreed to a settlement and have established a $4.5 million pool for those settlements.
Nevertheless, it never ceases to amaze that the legal beagles are so quick to hop into a tragedy so they can get their cut. Some justice.
Editorial:
———
The Denver Post, Aug. 21, on state’s Senior Homestead Exemption:
The already strange saga of Colorado’s Senior Homestead Exemption recently became even odder, confirming our view that the state would be better off without it.
After all, what other program originally sold to voters as a way to benefit seniors who need extra cash would inspire AARP of Colorado to lobby for what amounts to a voluntary waiver for individual recipients?
Not only did AARP push last spring for a bill allowing homestead-exemption recipients to forgo their benefit in order to help seniors who actually are poor, but the legislature complied. The result is that any money unclaimed for the homestead exemption—which applies to 50 percent of the first $200,000 of a home’s assessed value—will go into the Older Coloradans Cash Fund for in-home meals, transportation and other senior services.
The latest twist to the story is that Jefferson County Assessor Jim Everson insists he doesn’t have the authority to allow seniors qualified for the tax break to give it up.
“Neither the county assessor nor the senior property owner can waive the Senior Homestead Exemption on a property once it is in place,” Everson told The Denver Post’s Tim Hoover. “Property-tax exemptions are all set forth in the Colorado Constitution, and the Senior Homestead Exemption is no exception.”
Other county assessors don’t seem to share Everson’s view—and neither, apparently, did staffers who vet the legality of bills for the legislature. But our point is not to quarrel with Everson. In the first place, Jeffco seniors slated to receive the tax break who wish to help those in need can still donate directly to programs that assist the elderly—and even qualify for a charitable deduction in the process.
More to the point, the waiver plan will always be a clunky way to deal with the fact that the nearly $100 million tax break mainly helps the middle class and well-to-do who’ve lived in their homes for at least 10 years.
Unfortunately, repealing the homestead exemption may be a non-starter since it requires a statewide vote. Politicians aren’t likely to push for repeal, and yet what public interest or citizens group would want to take on such a thankless task? That’s one reason we’ve advocated the legislature place the tax break on hold until funding has been restored to critical programs that have suffered budget cuts in recent years—including some that provide a safety net for the poor.
Lawmakers on several previous occasions suspended the homestead exemption, but this year they cited improving revenue forecasts to justify reactivating it. Truth be told, they were looking for an excuse to pander to senior voters.
Still, lawmakers obviously recognized they were providing a special benefit to many taxpayers who didn’t need it. After all, why else would they have approved an opt-out, too?
Editorial:
