In matters of rights, who decides? | Letters to the Editor

I have questions. We live in a time of radical change in 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 which rights are most important? Are my rights more important than those of my neighbor? Are my needs more important than the needs of the community? Do my religious beliefs replace the beliefs or needs of others?

As a Christian, I believe that the rights of others are as important, if not more than mine. And that I am not the judge of my neighbor; I am my neighbor’s helper. Why are we now seeking to be judge and jury of a woman who takes personal responsibility for terminating a pregnancy? Do I have this right? Where do we go from here when self-defense justice is considered Christian?

The New Mexican has published numerous informative articles over the years on climate change: the disappearance of wildlife, their habitats, increased droughts, more severe fires and water shortages. Thanks to courageous organizations like the Center for Biological Diversity, the American Wild Horse Campaign, the Western Watersheds Project and others, the evidence is clear: Grazing on public lands is responsible for the destruction of public lands and species, exacerbating climate change.

Unless we stop grazing on Crown / Federal land, the result is: domestic feedlots instead of nature. According to the Center for Biological Diversity, most endangered species live around riparian areas, so protecting these lands immediately is critical. Federal and state agencies have placated the grazing industry on public land for far too long. It is not enough to “restrict the cattle” in the West. Pastoralists should use their private land for grazing. Grazing on public lands must stop as soon as possible to save nature and wildlife. Hurry up.

Our hospitals and intensive care units are filling up with unvaccinated patients, leaving those of us who have had the foresight to get vaccinated at the risk of not being able to seek treatment for health issues unrelated to COVID-19 . It is time for those who have made the questionable choice not to be vaccinated to face the consequences of that decision. They should be at the back of the pack when it comes to occupying an intensive care bed that a more careful person may need. Perhaps that could convince more people to make a better choice.

Regarding the article (“Trump water rule throw out,” September 1) on the court’s overturning of the “United States waters rule” or the “navigable waters rule” adopted by the Trump administration to define areas subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act. In the opening paragraphs, it contained these two statements: “A federal judge struck down a Trump-era rule that removed federal protections from nearly all of New Mexico’s waters” and, “Known as the Waters Rule navigable, it only protected the waterways. that flow year round or seasonally and connect to another body of water. If the “protected waterways that flow year-round or seasonally” rule, how on earth can she abolish it remove “the protection of almost all of New Mexico’s waters”? Making the rule broader than the one repealed is tantamount to subjecting large areas of dryland to regulation, resulting in harassment for family farmers, family vacation properties and others. The general rule is not about the waters, but about the control. And it is wrong.

About Edward Fries

Avatar

Check Also

Q&A: Interview with Tess Gillham, Senior Design Director, Water

At Jacobs, we think differently about the future as today’s challenges demand innovative approaches to …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *