The humane choice: Assisted suicide was a blessing for brother

Re: “Disabled people in the state need support, not a prescription to die,” July 6 commentary

I’ve always been a proponent of assisted suicide, but after reading Krista Kafer’s opinion on it, I can’t help but wonder if she’s ever actually had any real-life experience with it.

My 75-year-old brother was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer in September of 2024. After many weeks of appointments, MRIs, ultrasounds, scans, etc., his doctors determined that even after daily chemotherapy and radiation, he would only have a couple of months to live. He bravely decided to forego all treatment and take advantage of assisted suicide offered in California.

This decision was not easily made between him and his wife of 43 years. It was heartbreaking. But what was particularly devastating was watching the disease rob him, on a daily basis, of his faculties. In a matter of weeks he was completely paralyzed and bedridden, blind and not able even to feed himself. The assisted suicide law in California is strict. You are seen by more than one doctor, you must have an incurable disease, and you must be able to administer the cocktail of drugs to yourself.

I’m so grateful that this choice was available to him. Watching him robbed of his dignity was hard enough, but knowing that without this option, he could still be lingering in a nursing home in a vegetative state is cruel and inhumane.

If you don’t agree with assisted suicide, don’t do it, but don’t judge others and rob them of this option just because you disagree with it.

Ellen Haverl, Denver

Education opt-out: Rules for me, but not for thee?

Re: “U.S. Supreme Court got it right on parental rights and education,” July 6 commentary

“We want our daughter to grow up knowing that God made her wonderfully and perfectly in His image as a little girl.” Hmmm, sounds like gender dysphoria to me — a girl in His image, that would confuse me!

This family feels their religious liberty is being infringed upon because their daughter is being exposed to a reality that is different from the one presented in their bible. In that context, should my child get an exemption from Christian doctrine being foisted upon them, say, like the Ten Commandments being posted in their classroom? There’s a little hypocrisy here; you don’t want your child exposed to different ways of thinking, yet my child can be confronted with your way of thinking?

I’m sorry that those parents are subjected to harassment, which I don’t condone. However, education is all about learning about the world around you, and it doesn’t always conform to belief systems. Whether conservative Christians like it or not, in the real world there are people who aren’t comfortable fitting into conventional lifestyles. In science, which doesn’t care what you believe, there are few hard and fast definitions. Sexuality and gender, like most everything in life, lie along a spectrum which includes physical variation.

I’d like to see conservative Christians (including those on the Supreme Court) practice what Jesus preached, which is to love and accept your fellow humans for who they are, not what you think they should be. As well, I think he would have had you strive to understand rather than ignore the fact that people see and experience the world differently than you do.

Dan Eberhart, Denver

The very premise of this article is that the daughter is just how God made her. Therefore, her gender is the correct one for her, they maintain. However, they fail to recognize that the rest of her is “how God made her.” That would include her brain and her thoughts and feelings, and the way she decides important things in her life.

Transgender individuals are born the same way that their daughter is born. Given that some people are born “differently,” such as those with physical disabilities, blue eyes, or who are atheists, they are still how God made them.

Transgender people are made by God with thoughts and feelings that are real and tough, questioning their gender identity from within themselves. I understand it’s a tough battle because in the end, if you choose to be who you know you really are (another gender), you will be attacked for this just as the parents attack all transgender people by refusing to learn about them or let their children learn about them. Like others who are gay or shy or blue-eyed, etc., transgender people do not choose to be disliked for being who they really are.

The authors complain about hurtful pushbacks from others; they lack any insight into their own inability to empathize. Transgender people have built-in strong internal signals and struggles from birth about their gender, as God made them! Empathize and accept them, as Jesus would do.

Adoree Blair, Highlands Ranch

I think the Supreme Court got it wrong. The Court, it appears, like Trump and other Republicans, doesn’t like the nationwide injunctions issued against so many of Trump’s executive orders. Yet this ruling was heard and ruled on under the Supreme Court’s emergency “shadow docket,” which they use almost exclusively for Trump’s appeals from his lower court losses.

How fair is that? Trump is using the Supreme Court as his own court. And they’re letting him do it. The only duty of the Supreme Court and lower federal courts is to determine if the case before them meets constitutional muster. And, like the birthright citizenship portion of the Constitution, which is unambiguous, lower courts have a duty to protect people from an unconstitutional law that tries to abridge a right established in the Constitution. Making one protected plaintiff at a time challenge such a law is crazy and unreasonable. Putting the onus on the protected party is not right. Once the challenged law is shown to be in violation of the Constitution, the court has the obligation to rule as such and protect everyone who is affected by such an unconstitutional law.

Thus, a nationwide ban is necessary, especially when the portion of the Constitution protecting people can only be read one way! Making people in the protected class have to file multiple lawsuits is just supporting those who wrote the illegal law in the first place.

J. Linden Hagans, Lakewood

An executive order cannot supersede the Constitution

Re: “Birthright citizenship: A stunning and tragic Supreme Court decision,” July 6 commentary

I’m not a constitutional scholar, but I can read, and according to the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 of the Constitution, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

That’s all persons, with no mention of immigration status, ethnic origin, race, or gender. An executive order from the president cannot supersede the Constitution. A constitutional amendment can only be altered or revoked by another constitutional amendment. Amendments can be proposed by Congress or by a Constitutional Convention, adopted by a two-thirds majority of both Houses, and then ratified by the affirmative vote of three-fourths of the states.

The Supreme Court is tasked with the interpretation of these amendments. If the current court removes the right of birthright citizenship, the justices will be betraying the Constitution and creating an avenue for President Trump and any future presidents to interpret the laws however they want. This is not how a constitutional republic is supposed to function.

Cindy Clearman, Arvada

Side with the welfare of the children

First, columnist Krista Kafer got this spot on. Doctors should do no harm. Suicide assistants? Some of these countries are encouraging children to commit suicide?! What have we come to? Protect your children. Pray for them. Teach and encourage them.

And second, thanks be unto God that the Supreme Court got it right on parental rights. Parents are in charge of the education of their children. The government needs to mind the education of children and respect the parents’ rights to opt their children out of social education that they do not agree with.

Dee Walworth, Brighton

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

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.