Gestation crate laws shouldn’t impede interstate commerce for agriculture
Re: “Colorado led the way against farm animal cruelty. Now Congress will take us backward,” May 17 commentary
Krista Kafer’s column misstates the issue before Congress. Colorado remains free to regulate farms physically operating in Colorado. The question is whether one state may impose requirements on farmers in other states as a condition of access to a national market.
That distinction matters.
The U.S. House language under debate does not and would not prohibit Colorado from banning gestation crates on Colorado farms. It addresses something different: whether California, or any single state, can use its market access to regulate production practices occurring thousands of miles beyond its borders.
Denver voters themselves recently showed that these debates are more complicated than activists often suggest. In 2024, voters overwhelmingly rejected the ballot measures seeking to ban slaughterhouses and prohibit the sale of fur products in the city.
Even in a city with strong support for animal welfare, voters understand that proposals can go too far. Veterinarians do as well, and the American Veterinary Medical Association has said California’s approach on Prop 12 is unscientific and has no demonstrable benefit to animals.
Reasonable people can disagree about housing systems and animal welfare. But the current debate is not whether states may govern themselves. It is whether states may govern one another through interstate commerce.
States’ rights remain important. So do functioning national markets that keep food affordable and available at scale. Congress exists, supported by the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution, precisely to manage these conflicts.
Andy Curliss, Des Moines, Iowa
Editor’s note: Curliss is chairman of the Carver Center for Agriculture & Nutrition.
‘Leave cruelty in the past’
Congress should not be nationalizing cruelty.
Colorado got this right: gestation crates, veal crates and battery cages are indefensible confinement systems designed to strip animals of movement, comfort and dignity while maximizing profit.
The current push in Washington is a blunt message to states and voters: your standards don’t count if they inconvenience Big Ag. That should offend anyone who believes in democracy, basic decency or the idea that sentient beings deserve more than a lifetime of confinement.
The real momentum is not toward a slightly roomier cage. It is toward food systems that don’t depend on misery at all. Vegan eating offers a practical, compassionate way forward that is better for animals, and better for the planet and public health.
Congress should leave cruelty in the past where it belongs.
Ben Williamson, Torrance, Calif.
‘Concrete solutions’ necessary to combat shootings
Re: “Delusional thinking on gun laws,” May 17 letter to the editor
The letter writer complains that Colorado gun laws do nothing to prevent shootings and he blames mental health and single parents. He does a disservice to people with diagnosable mental illness by casting suspicion on them. Most of them are no more dangerous than the rest of us.
He’s right that we should reach out to “isolated” kids. But you can’t force someone to get mental health counseling, and besides, being isolated or “radicalized” is not a diagnosable, treatable mental illness.
If these kids that the letter writer is concerned about are 18 and want to buy an assault rifle, they can’t: Colorado raised the for rifles from 18 to 21. And anyone with a specific violent misdemeanor on their record can’t purchase for five years. And Colorado has a popular “red flag” law that can address people identified as dangerous to themselves or others. And we have a safe storage law that requires gun owners to responsibly keep firearms away from kids.
Coloradans have those reasonable tools, among others, to help prevent shootings. And yet the gun lobby opposed them all. These laws can’t prevent all shootings, but they certainly offer more than simply blaming mental health, blaming single parents and offering no concrete solutions.
Tom Mauser, Littleton
Editor’s note: Mauser is the father of Columbine victim Daniel Mauser.
Hopefully Democrats won’t regain power for ‘a long, long time’
Re: “Which Democrat could repair the damage Trump did?” May 17 commentary
The Democrats are so out of touch with the American people and what they want, it’s incredible to me. And what the Democrats want says it all.
President Barack Obama said he wanted to fundamentally change our country. Could you love something you fundamentally wanted to change? Kamala Harris summed it up the other night when she said we must be open to all crazy ideas.
Columnist Jill Lawrence implies that Marco Rubio and JD Vance would be horrible candidates for president. She also mentions the need for “checks on presidential pardon power.” Where was she when Joe Biden misused his power and weaponized the government, the justice department, and the IRS, etc.? She mentions the need for independent commissions on redistricting, but does not mention how the Democrats have been leading efforts to gain one-party rule via their own redistricting efforts nationwide.
Lawrence mentions the need for expanding (packing) the Supreme Court. She mentions “stopping the Iran war” but offers no plan to do so. She mentions reopening the Strait of Hormuz with no plan to do so. And she mentions restoring the failed Obama-era agreement that has led to Iran being within two weeks of processing weapons-grade uranium. This is the very reason most experts say President Trump had no choice but to go to war against Iran. The Democrats have old, worn-out ideas to move toward one-party rule like in California. How has that worked out? How will it work out for the country? If this is all the democrats have to offer, hopefully they will not be in power for a long, long time.
Steve Gehrke, Aurora
‘Shocked and saddened’ by list of GOP contenders
Re: ” ‘Trump 2028’ Could it be a vote for Ivanka, Eric or Don Jr.?” May 17 commentary
I read Mark K. Lewis’ column, “Could it be a vote for Ivanka, Eric or Don Jr?” and was immediately shocked and saddened that this could even be a remote possibility.
The fact that Donald Trump still has an 85% approval rating among Republicans is astonishing. What alternate universe are they living in? This administration is the most corrupt in the history of our country, affordability is at an all-time low, and we are in a senseless war in Iran where no clear objectives have been put forth. Despite the relentless assault on our Constitution and deficits exploding, the Republican Party considering Trump’s children as potential candidates in 2028 just shows how uneducated and morally bankrupt they are.
The damage that has been done to our country will take years to undo and yet the Republican Party still doesn’t get it.
Trump has said he loves uneducated voters, and he has got his wish. What continues to amaze me is that they keep on voting against their own self-interests. These are the same people who rely on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and all the other safety nets that allow people to escape poverty. I can’t imagine what they are thinking as all these programs are under attack.
Wake up, America, and put an end to unnecessary $500 billion dollar ballrooms paid for now by taxpayers’ money, and come to your senses. Trump and his family don’t care about you but only how they can enrich themselves.
Pray that Democrats are once again running this country starting in the 2026 midterms and then in 2028.
Then maybe we can restore sanity to our country and repair relationships with our allies that, through NATO, have kept dictators at bay.
David Shaw, Highlands Ranch
Let’s move on from COVID-driven restaurant fees
Re: “Service charges remain controversial, confusing,” May 17 news story
Prior to March 2020 and the COVID effect on restaurants, enjoying a meal out was a simple, non-political thing. If the food and service were really good, diners added 15% to the bill. As a result of COVID, an altruistic and noble program was initiated to protect restaurant staff who were suffering. While a great idea at the time, diners, since then, have been bombarded with new expectations — changing of tip standards, never-before-seen service charges, etc. As a result, dining experiences now require a reading of the fine print on the menu and social/political considerations when tipping.
Now, itap time to go back to the sacred 15% tipping rule and let the restaurateur deal internally with the staff without involving the poor diner. Remembering that “all boats rise with the tide,” a 15% tip in today’s inflated dining costs is quite a pay boost compared to that 15% tip on the same meal charge six years ago.
Letap declare victory over COVID dining ideas and move on.
Curt Anderson, Broomfield
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.
