Letters to the editor: Hudson Backpack Program; Appeals Court St. Croix Co. election ruling
Hudson Backpack Program
TO THE EDITOR
There is still time to sign up for The Hudson Backpack Program for the summer for all families with children in the Hudson School District. If there are families who have not as yet registered, a form can be found on the backpack website at www.Hudsonbackpack.com.
To accommodate more families, a few changes have been made from last year's program. The program will be offered mostly at Prairie Elementary but we will have two days for picking up food instead of just the one during the five weeks the program is offered. The dates at Prairie Elementary are Wednesdays, June 26, July 10, July 24, and Aug. 4 from 4-6:30 p.m. On Thursdays, June 27, July 11, July 25, and Aug. 5 pick up can also be made from 11-1 p.m., if they are unable to make the Wednesday time slot. On Aug. 28, because of teacher in-services at Prairie, the program will move to St. Patrick's Catholic Church from 4-6:30 p.m. There will be no Thursday pickup this week.
The program will continue to offer fresh fruits and vegetables, a variety of meats, breads and baked goods, snacks, canned goods and personal care/household products but we will also offer a "Pop Up Pantry" with choices for over 50 percent of the food offered. There will be several tables set up so that families will have a chance to choose foods that are family favorites rather than having to take foods they don't want.
Volunteers will be needed for the Summer Backpack Program. A link can be found on the website for those who want to help with the program. Round trip taxi vouchers will be available through the Hudson Youth Resource Committee for those who need transportation on any of these days. The Hudson Kiwanis Club will also be giving away books to children in the program.
This past year over 160 families have participated in the program. Not only were backpacks given out twice a month but the program was able to offer cinch bags on the other two weekends. The Hudson Backpack Program thanks all who support the program by their generous gifts and volunteer hours.
Appeals Court St. Croix Co. election ruling
TO THE EDITOR
Here we are around 1.5 years after the election without the voters of District 13 having any representative on the St. Croix County Board.
Because a partisan District Judge chose to impose his opinion in place of the Board of Canvassers, retroactively on issues no one had raised during the recount/drawdown process.
Regarding the supposed miscast ballot, the judge decided that this ballot was miscast because someone (not the voter) had marked the bottom of the ballot with a number 4, which he ruled denoted was a mark by a poll worker to show the Ward in which the voter lived. However, it is clear that according to the poll worker policy manual that the only authorized marks (ie number) to be placed on a ballot by a poll worker are to indicate cases of a spoiled ballot so the spoiled ballot can be matched to the reissued one. Further, this ballot with the number 4 mark was not noted by anyone during the Canvassing Board process nor was it noted by the Chief Election poll worker in her election day report, therefore the mark cannot be proven to be from election day.
I understand the number 4 is in pencil but pencils are not used or available at election day polling locations.
Further, if this ballot was marked with the number to denote the Ward, there should be a number of other ballots that would have been marked with Ward numbers but I don't believe any were noted.
God already decided
TO THE EDITOR
As one who is "devoutly" prolife, a response must be written to a column last week by Keith Rodli, "Abortion: Who decides?" The 60's brought us "sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll" and "make love not war." This was the cultural climate that preceded the 1973 ruling legalizing abortion on demand. One could have unlimited sex [usually outside of marriage] because of birth control. Women mistakenly thought they had achieved equality and freedom, but unwanted pregnancies, abortions, STDs, AIDS and drug addiction would prove them wrong.
I agree with Mr. Rodli that Roe vs. Wade should never have been taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court. It should have fallen under the states' jurisdiction then and it should be returned to them now.
Many constitutional scholars believe that Roe vs. Wade was based on a right (to privacy) not found in the Bill of Rights. Only because an activist judiciary believed it was within their province to protect abortion did they rule as they did.
The justices deliberately sought interpretation that would support (sloppily at best) a predetermined ruling. Original intent be damned. According to Federalist #81, "There is not a syllable in the plan [Constitution] which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution."
When the judiciary believes that the Constitution is a living and breathing document, any manner of opinions will flow from the courts. It would be imprudent to suggest that we amend it every time a court would stray so far from original intent that the opinion is barely recognizable as flowing from our constitution. We must appoint justices who uphold their oath to follow the Constitution as originally intended. While it is deemed unthinkable to legislate morality, for many decades the courts have bestowed their blessing on the legislation of immorality.
God has already answered the question of who decides. He did. A baby is a new life from conception. Freedom and liberty demand responsibility, not a green light to murder unborn children.
TO THE EDITOR
I got a call from a person working for an adoption agency. She said she had a young pregnant woman fleeing an abusive situation. The young mom was not sure whether she wanted to give her baby up for adoption or try to raise her as both options lead back to the abuser. If she places the baby up for adoption, abuser dad can intervene and get the child. If she raises the baby on her own, the local family courts will predictably send her innocent baby to a man who has nearly killed her and the baby more times than she can count.
Many of us read about the man recently charged with crimes after trying to kill his pregnant girlfriend, where she had to jump out of a window to survive getting chased by a sociopath with a knife.
He has rights that baby too. As the law currently stands, how District Attorney Nieskes charges, or rather doesn't charge for felony offenses like felony child abuse or attempted murder, survivors of terrorizing abuse and their children are left hanging and abusers have a wide open door to these innocent children.
In another case, the local family court system told an abuse survivor she can't move to be with her family and a strong church family. Even though she endured monthly threats of the abuser threatening to drive the car full of the survivor and their children off a cliff; even though the abuser was found to be in contempt for purposefully making her and their children homeless; even though the abuser can't keep a job and doesn't pay child support; even though the law is on her side to let her and the children go, live, heal; even though the abuser admitted to the abuse and strangled her throughout the marriage, the local system tethered the children to the abuser and forced her to stay.
Never in my life have I heard of or encountered a woman who got pregnant, carried the baby to second or third trimester and flippantly decided it's time for an abortion. What I do hear about and or encounter are women pushed into a corner of desperation; women who can't bear to bring a child into a world of abuse, instability, constant fear; women who would love to love their child as a mother or love him or her enough to give their baby to a loving home, but for whom the law leads back to the abuser. We can't be pro-life and pro-abuser. To some extent, laws need to improve, but more so we need local leaders in the justice system and guardians ad litem to honor them. We have laws to protect children and pregnant women, they just don't do much good getting ignored.
100th anniversary of 19th Amendment
TO THE EDITOR
We would like to thank Mayor Dan Toland for issuing a proclamation honoring the 100th anniversary of Wisconsin Ratifying the 19th Amendment to the United States Constitution: Granting national suffrage to women. At the River Falls Council meeting on May 28, he proclaimed June 10, 2019 as a celebration of that event 100 years ago.
In doing so, he joins others in the state. The Wisconsin 2019 Assembly issued a joint resolution to celebrate June 10 and reaffirmed "Wisconsin's commitment to empowering and uplifting voices of women across our great state." On April 11, Gov. Tony Evers in Executive Order #19, created a committee to celebrate, educate and engage Wisconsin citizens with the efforts made toward securing women's full participation in democracy.
Wisconsin was the first state in the Union to ratify the 19th Amendment to the Constitution after it passed the U.S. Congress on June 4, 1919. This came after years of dedication by women's rights groups working even before Wisconsin's statehood. The Amendment became part of the U.S. Constitution after ratification by two-thirds of the states on Aug. 20, 1920.
A local committee has been planning the 100th anniversary event.
Committee members include representatives from the UWRF Library and Archives, River Falls Historical Preservation Commission, Pierce County Historical Association, St. Croix County Historical Society, River Falls Public Library, Tuesday Club and AAUW.
A community program will begin on Wednesday, June 19 at 6:30 p.m. at the River Falls Public Library with a speaker, a tea, activities including button making, exhibits and displays. We will have period hats and "Votes for Women" sashes for participants to wear.
Again, the planning group would like to thank Mayor Toland and the Council for recognizing this significant historical event. Also special thanks to Jennifer Nelson who created and provided amazing period hats for the presentation.
Committee Members: Heidi Heinze, River Falls Historical Preservation Committee, St. Croix County Historical Society; Mary Baumgartner, Tuesday Club; Maureen Olle-LaJoie, RFUWS- Library and Archives; Lorraine Davis, AAUW; Julie Huebel, Pierce County Historical Association