I have questions. We are in a time of drastic changes in so many aspects of our country, but nothing is more important than the idea of whether individual rights are more important than the rights of the whole. And who decides whose rights are the most important? Are my rights more important than my neighbor’s? Are my needs more important than the needs of the community? Do my religious beliefs supersede the beliefs or needs of others?
As a Christian, I believe that the rights of others are as important, if not more than my own. And that I am not the judge of my neighbor; I am the helper of my neighbor. Why are we now looking to be judge and jury of a woman who takes the personal responsibility to end a pregnancy? Do I have that right? Where are we going from here when vigilante justice is considered Christian?
No public-lands grazing
The New Mexican has published many informative articles over the years on climate change: the demise of wild species, their habitats, increasing droughts, more severe fires and water shortages. Thanks to brave organizations, like the Center for Biological Diversity, the American Wild Horse Campaign, Western Watersheds Project and others, the evidence is clear: Public-lands grazing is responsible for the destruction of public lands and species, exacerbating climate change.
Unless we stop grazing on state/federal lands, the result is: domestic feed lots instead of nature. According to the Center for Biological Diversity, most endangered species live around riparian areas, so it is critical to protect such lands immediately. Federal and state agencies have appeased the public lands grazing industry for far too long. It is not enough to “restrict livestock” in the West. Ranchers should use their private lands to graze. Public-lands grazing must end ASAP to save nature and wildlife. Time is short.
Enough is enough
Our hospitals and ICUs are filling up with unvaccinated patients, leaving those of us who had the foresight to get the vaccine at risk of not being able to get treatment for health issues unrelated to COVID-19. It’s time for people who made the questionable choice not to get vaccinated to face the consequences of that decision. They should go to the back of the line when it comes to taking up an ICU bed that a more prudent person may need. Perhaps this might convince more people to make a better choice.
A too-broad rule
Regarding the article (“Trump water rule thrown out,” Sept. 1) on the court striking down the “waters of the United States rule” or the “navigable waters rule” adopted by the Trump administration to define areas subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act. In the first few paragraphs, it contained these two statements: “A federal judge has struck down a Trump-era rule that removed federal protections from nearly all of New Mexico’s waters” and, “Known as the navigable waters rule, it only protected waterways that flow year-round or seasonally and connect to another body of water.” If the rule “protected waterways that flow year-round or seasonally,” how in the world can striking it down remove “protection from nearly all New Mexico’s waters”? To make the rule broader than the one struck down is to subject vast areas of dry land to regulation, resulting in harassment to family farmers, family vacation properties and others. The broader rule is not about waters, it is about control. And it is wrong.