Guest Editorial, The Petoskey News-Review
May 13, 2023
My Take: Our health versus their politics
Presented with the prospect of getting up to $500,000 in non-tax money, politicians on the Board of the Department of Health of Northwest Michigan rejected the opportunity. To be clear, the board is made up of selected county commissioners, two each from Emmet, Charlevoix, Antrim and Otsego.
Why did some decide to ignore their responsibility to promote well-being and prevent disease? Was it their incompetence? Was it a case of political ideology riding roughshod over considerations of illness and health, life and death?
Here’s the story: The Public Health Department’s professional staff, not the board, received a request for a grant proposal for up to $500,000 from the non-govern- ment, private Michigan Health Endowment Fund. Not from taxes.
The grant’s purpose: to educate our students and help them and their families to consume more fruit and vegetables and less fatty, sugary food. The health department staff fulfilled their duty to write the proposal. Of the $500,000, up to half would go to schools ($20,000 each) with $161,604 to the Health Department and $75,000 to the Groundwork Center for Resilient Communities, a Traverse City nonprofit, that would help put the grant to work.
What happened next? A political faction on the Board of Health (two of eight members) used procedural issues to silence discussion. In the past, submitting such grants was routine, with no board interference. Now, a group of newly appointed members has decided a committee of four board members must review all proposals and rec- ommend whether the full board should approve them.
In this case, the committee’s vote was a 2-2 tie, and the committee chair, Jarris Rubingh, attempted to prevent the issue going to the full board. However, board Chair Scott Hankins put the committee’s recommendation on Tuesday’s board meeting agenda.
The full board then voted 4-4 against Rubingh’s motion to act on the proposal off the agenda. In response, four members of the board voted not to approve the agenda. No agenda means no meeting. So, there was no discussion or vote on the grant proposal. The deadline was May 3. It was not submitted.
Those voting to keep the grant proposal on the agenda and to approve the agenda were LaVanway (Antrim), Mapes (Emmet), and Hankins and Chamberlain (both Charlevoix). Those against were Rubingh (Antrim), Ginop (Emmet), and Mason and Turnbull (both Otsego).
The result: the grant money is lost. The nutrition and long-term health of our families is likely to suffer. Obesity and diabetes won’t be addressed. The burden on our doctors and hospitals will probably increase. The costs of Medicaid and Medicare — and the taxes to support them — will grow.
How much will the loss affect us? Earlier deaths for some. More individual suffering, potential heartbreak and sorrow for sufferers and their families. Imagine if this sabotage of public health funding spread to future grants and across the state and country. Treating more disease and caring for the disabled would become ever more expensive, a fiscal disaster. But even more, ignoring the consequences of poor nutrition would be a moral dereliction.
This issue represents an even more important problem. Where will it all end? Will every grant proposal be denied by a minority of two board members? Is the board undermining our long-term health to implement a political agenda?
In the end, what really matters is what the community needs and what the schools need to teach and to provide healthy food. After all, the schools know more about students and about teaching than the Board members who haven’t taught could possibly know. Seven local school districts have expressed interest in implementing the grant proposal’s program. The Superintendent and the Food Service Director of Boyne Falls Schools conclude their letter to the board:
“Funding for these efforts should be increased and sustained. We are duty-bound to improve these children’s odds of success. Any impediment of these efforts will be looked at as a failure of leadership and should be examined critically before it is implemented.”
Sadly, it looks as if half the Board of Health prefers its allegiance to a political ideology rather than improving “these children’s odds of success.” These board members seem to prefer to block programs that would improve our health and well-being for reasons that have nothing to do with health and everything to do with a political agenda that attacks expertise, blocks attempts to ensure our safety and well-being, thwarts democracy, and puts its ideology above practical measures to im- prove the public good.
— James Rodgers is a resident of Charlevoix. May 13, 2023 3:24 pm (GMT -4:00)
Letter to the Editor, Northern Express
May 15, 2023
At a meeting last week, politicians on the Northwest Michigan Health Department Board rejected the chance to get up to $500,000 of private, non-tax money to promote better health for our children. Why?
The money available was from the Michigan Health Endowment Fund to help students and their families see the benefits of eating more fruits and vegetables and less fatty, sugary food. But a group of Board members—Rubingh (Antrim), Ginop (Emmet), and Mason and Turnbull (both Otsego)—silenced discussion and blocked the application from being submitted.
As a result, the grant money is lost, and the nutrition and long-term health of our families will likely suffer. Obesity and diabetes won’t be addressed. The burden on doctors and hospitals will probably increase. Medicaid and Medicare costs—and the taxes that support them—will grow. Worse, some people will die prematurely.
The schools have a duty to teach good nutrition and provide healthy food. They know more about students and teaching than Health Board members. Seven local districts showed support for the grant application. The Superintendent and the Food Service Director of Boyne Falls Schools wrote that “funding for these efforts should be increased and sustained. We are duty-bound to improve these children’s odds of success.”
Sadly, it looks as if some Health Board members are less interested in programs to improve our health than in promoting a political agenda that attacks expertise (including our own Health Department staff) and weakens all public health measures however funded.
Where will it end? Will this political agenda continue to undermine the long-term health of families? Will these Board members block every grant proposal? If that happens, medical costs and taxes would inevitably rise. Is that what we want?
Jim Rodgers,
Charlevoix
__________________________________________
Letter to the Editor, Petoskey News-Review
May 2, 2023
We deserve a board of health that values public health
Some members of the Health Department of NW Michigan’s Board of Health (BOH), once again, are putting individual grievances ahead of improving and protecting public health.
The BOH’s Program & Evaluation Committee recently failed to approve an HDNW staff proposal to seek a two-year Nutrition & Healthy Lifestyles Grant worth up to $500,000 to address critical nutrition and lifestyle challenges that negatively impact children in Emmet, Charlevoix and Antrim County public schools.
No state or local tax dollars would be involved because funding would come from the Michigan Health Endowment Fund. So it should be an unpleasant surprise that two of the four committee members voted against approving the proposal, and the committee chair reportedly wants to block full BOH consideration at its next public BOH meeting on Tuesday, May 2.
Please contact all eight HDNW BOH members and ask them to consider and approve this grant application on May 2, and attend this meeting in person if you can. Time is running out — the deadline for the grant application submission is 5 p.m. May 4!
Beth Freeman,
Boyne City
_____________________________________
Letter to the Editor, Petoskey News-Review
February 16, 2023
State Senator John Damoose recently emailed asking constituents to contact legislators telling them to vote NO on action by our Governor or Legislature that prevents triggering the automatic income tax rollback from 4.25% to 4.05%. He will VOTE “NO” on bills removing the income tax on Michigan public employee pensions, restoring larger deductions for private pensions and EITC which lifts families and children above poverty. His rationale: Michigan has a 9 billion dollar surplus, roughly $5 billion in the general fund and $4 billion in the school aid fund. About two-thirds came from the CARES Act signed by President Trump, as relief from inflationary prices from the COVID pandemic, Avian flu, etc.
Michigan has 40 years of backlogs, disengagement in services and budget cuts by legislators. State departments need huge funding to update software systems, facilities, staffing. The prison system is a mess. Child social services and foster care are disasters. State parks desperately need updated infrastructure. Large rural areas have no internet access. The State has only begun to repair a small percentage of the Michigan roads, bridges, infrastructure and municipal water systems with crumbling, unsafe lead pipes. Private power companies could use financial assistance to update and harden our electrical grid and gas supply lines against domestic and foreign terrorism.
The automatic income tax rollback from 4.25% to 4.05% would give a permanent tax cut dependent upon your income. A wealthy person, making ten times more, would get a ten times greater reduction in state taxes.
Inflationary pressures have raised many prices such as eggs and gasoline. However, the wealthy family probably bought about the same amount of eggs and gallons of gasoline. Certainly not ten times as much. The one-time rebate of $180 to all taxpayers that Governor Whitmer proposed is much more equitable and economically justifiable.
JoEllen Rudolph,
Petoskey
___________________________________________
Letter to the Editor, Petoskey News-Review
November 1, 2022
Women should be allowed to make decisions about their own bodies
Dana Nessel trusts Michigan women to make our own reproductive healthcare decisions, including those regarding abortion and birth control. Her GOP opponent does not, and wants government to have a say in these very personal healthcare decisions.Show you trust, Michigan women. Vote for Dana Nessel for Michigan attorney general and “yes” on Prop 3.
Beth Freeman, Boyne City
_____________________________________
Letter to the Editor, The Petoskey News-Review
1 November 2022
Protect women’s reproductive health
When the Supreme Court overturned a woman’s right to an abortion last summer, it introduced potential chaos for women’s reproductive health.
Suddenly not only was the right to control having children taken away, but EVERY aspect of women’s reproductive health was potentially restricted, including medical treatment for problem pregnancies, which happen to as many as 25% of U.S. women.
Gov. Whitmer has challenged the legality of a 1931 law banning abortion for any reason except to save the life of the mother. She also supports Proposal 3, which would basically codify Roe v. Wade in the Michigan Constitution. State Attorney General Dana Nessel also defends women’s rights. She has vowed NOT to enforce the 1931 ban on abortion and supports Prop 3.
Her Republican opponent, Matthew DePerno supports the 1931 abortion ban, and would enforce it if it goes into effect. He opposes Proposal 3 and has suggested that Plan B, the “morning after pill,” is as bad as fentanyl. DePerno says both should be banned in Michigan and has suggested that women’s right to use contraception should be prohibited.
The contrast could not be greater. Support women; support Dana Nessel for Michigan state attorney general on Nov. 8!
Marilyn Morehead, Charlevoix
________________________________________
Letter to the Editor, The Petoskey News-Review
29 October 2022
Prop 2 a commonsense measure that would enshrine voting rights
Proposal 2, or “Promote the Vote,” on the November ballot increases access to voting. Just as important, it ensures secure public oversight of the casting, counting, and certifying of ballots in Michigan elections.
This proposed amendment to the state constitution preserves the power of the vote, so central to the U.S. Constitution.
Vote “yes” on Proposal 2 so that you and all Michigan citizens can continue to vote free from harassment and intimidation. Proposal 2 removes obstacles that could prevent your vote from being counted. For instance, our men and women in the military overseas will have the right to cast votes right up to election day.
State funding will back secure ballot drop boxes and absentee ballot tracking. This proposal requires audits to be conducted by local election officials in public. Only votes cast will determine the outcome of elections. Proposal 2 ensures that your vote will be counted regardless of where you live or what political party you support. Voters’ identities will be verified by a photo ID or signed statement, a requirement comparable to or stricter than 37 other states. You will also have nine days for in-person, early voting.
Voting for Proposal 2 provides a winning outcome for all Michigan voters.
James Rodgers, Charlevoix
(A version of this letter titled “Referenda Common Sense” also appeared in The Northern Express, Oct. 31.)
__________________________________
Letter to the Editor, The Northern Express
31 October 2022
Setting the Record Straight
This letter is in response to the recent article that was published by Stephen Tuttle in the October 15, 2022, edition of the Northern Express.
Stephen wrote that Jack Bergman is the only visible presence on air and in the mail in the race and that he will likely win the election.
I would like to set the record straight by sharing a current update of Jack Bergman’s opponent Democrat Dr. Bob Lorinser of Marquette running for Congress in MI1 district. This information was shared with me from Dr. Bob’s campaign manager with permission to share in this letter.
Fundraising from individual contributions for Dr. Lorinser, if he had the same amount of time to raise funds as Bergman, would surpass him. Still, Lorinser’s campaign has made twice as many voter contacts as the Bergman campaign on phones and doors. He has held town halls and meet and greets in every county at least twice, many as often as three or four times. Lorinser has hosted nearly 300 events in the past year. Dr. Bob’s event attendance doubles the attendance of Bergman’s rare appearances and includes 20 to 30 percent non-Democrat voters.
Lorinser has participated in every candidate forum and accepted every invitation to debate and meet with constituents. Their phone banking survey reached hundreds of thousands of voters, from Democrats to Independents and Republicans. The results of which have him within reach of Jack Bergman.
Lorinser is well received across the political spectrum, and the Bergman campaign appears to be concerned enough to spend over $500,000 of PAC, corporate and dark money on completely false attack ads.
TV presence is not an indicator of winnability, and this election will be full of surprises.
Hilary Sontag, Charlevoix County Democratic Party/Charlevoix
_______________________________________
Letter to the Editor, Petoskey New Review
27 October 2022
The GOP is not the Party of Milliken, Eisenhower
Voters should recognize the Republican Party has changed. It is not the party of Bill Milliken nor Dwight Eisenhower. The 1956 Republican Platform listed:
1. Provide federal assistance to low -income communities.
2. Protect Social Security.
3. Provide asylum for refugees.
4. Extend minimum wage.
5. Improve unemployment benefit system so it covers more people.
6. Strengthen labor laws so workers can easily join a union.
7. Assure equal pay for equal work regardless of sex.
This is far from what Republicans in both Congress and Michigan are proposing.
Republican U.S. Senators propose voting whether to approve Social Security funding every year, every five years or end the program and rewrite it entirely. Medicare is on the chopping block. They plan on gutting the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) which lowered medicine and insulin prices for seniors. Benefits for workers and families include extending Affordable Care Act subsidies, creating jobs and more, will take two years to fully show an impact. All Republicans voted against the IRA and have no plan to fight inflation.
Michigan legislators, candidates for Governor, Attorney General, and Secretary of State marginalize individuals who are not white heterosexual males and attack educators for teaching factual history. Both Congress and Michigan politicians want to gut environmental protections for your family. Too many candidates are unqualified for office and promote disproven conspiracy theories. They want the power to overturn the vote of the people and install who they want to win. All are endangering our democratic system of government.
This is NOT the time to vote Republican “because I have always voted for Republicans”. If you support any of the 1956 Platform statements, you should vote for Democrats. Until Republican office holders and candidates start working for all Americans, they have not earned your vote nor deserve your vote.
JoEllen Rudolph, Petoskey
__________________________________________________
Letter to the Editor, The Northern Express
24 October, 2022
A Reader Thank-You
The Charlevoix County Democratic Party Political Organizing Committee is sending a big thank you to the anonymous Northern Express reader who alerted us that our Oct. 10 ad—supporting Proposition 3 in Michigan’s Nov. 8 election—was defaced in an entire stack of papers at a store in East Bay Township.
We very much appreciate the understanding staff at Northern Express who delivered a fresh stack of papers to the store that same day! We won’t let a little magic marker stop us.
The Political Organizing Committee of the Charlevoix County Democratic Party
[Tracy Ward]
_______________________________________
_____________________________________
Letter to the Editor, Petoskey News-Review
20 October 2022
Debate over abortion more about power over women
When examining abortion rates in numerous countries, there is a glaring finding.
Countries in which abortion is legal, have a lower abortion rate than countries where it is illegal. In statistics, this is referred to as the effects from confounding variable(s). Abortion being legal is not the reason for the lower abortion rate. It is because countries where abortion is legal also have sex education and easy access to affordable contraception.
Countries that have sex education and contraception have noticeably fewer unwanted pregnancies, which then result in a lower abortion rate. Conversely, countries where abortion is illegal not only have more abortions, but are guilty of the heinous act of forcing women and girls to bear children who are unwanted and/or whom the mothers cannot take care of nor financially support.
If there was true concern over abortion, there are simple steps to take. Namely, provide accurate and comprehensive sex education and easily available contraception. Unfortunately, it appears those who spout that they are anti-abortion are more anti-sex education and anti-contraception than they are anti-abortion. It is analogous to drivers demanding smooth running car engines but being vehemently opposed to changing the oil and filter.
The debate over abortion in the U.S. is more about having power over women. Too many legislators believe that women’s bodies are community property to regulate however they please. I would fight to stop someone passing laws to assume control over my power to decide my medical decisions. I can’t imagine any woman not doing the same. I strongly urge voting for legislators who acknowledge and support women having control over all their medical decisions.
If Proposal 3 passes, I expect those legislators who deny women their rights will immediately start trying to weaken, or even nullify the women’s health protections specified in Proposal 3.
Jim Rudolph, Petoskey
Letter to the Editor, The Petoskey News-Review
18 August 2022
We have serious choices to make now that abortion isn’t accessible
The Supreme Court approved recriminalization of abortion. We have three actions we can take. The first two are expensive — probably very expensive.
- We must provide the necessary medical and financial support of these unwanted children. Currently, there are over 400,000 children in foster care. About 20,000 a year turn 18 never being adopted. With the recriminalization of abortion, approximately 100,000 more unwanted children could be added to foster care yearly. The social safety net and other related costs will be enormous. Some of the fetuses, that were to be aborted because medical expertise determined, would only live a short time, and some would die a painful death. Now with forced birth, they will take up severely limited pediatric bed space until they die. Unfortunately for wanted children, born with correctable medical conditions, there will be a shortage of available pediatric beds for them, unless more are constructed quickly.
- If we do not provide costly necessary medical and financial social safety net supports, we will have to amp up our police forces, courtrooms, prisons and improved security devices for our homes, autos and businesses. A best-selling book, “Freakonomics,” documented that the drastic drop in crime which started about 20 years after abortion was decriminalized, occurred because abortion was decriminalized. Many of those unwanted children who never received necessary medical and financial social safety net supports were become non-law-abiding citizens.
- We can elect a Congress that will enact a law protecting every woman’s right to safe medical abortion. This would overrule the onerous Supreme Court decision by returning to the original 50-year-old abortion rights law supported by about two-thirds of the U.S. Namely, that before the fetus is viable, abortion is the difficult decision of the woman, with consultation with her doctor and possibly her minister.
Jim Rudolph, Petoskey
____________________________________
15 August 2022
Barbara Conley’s Statement on Abortion
One of the most personal choices we make is when or if to bring a child into the world. Ideally, this decision should be made thoughtfully and with full understanding of the potential joys and hardships becoming a parent entails.
Those who become pregnant through rape or incest have already been denied this choice and have additionally suffered significant trauma. Young women and girls often lack understanding of the consequences of pregnancy, or of the changes pregnancy causes in their bodies. Unfortunately, children as young as 8 years old have been abused and can become pregnant.
Families must be able to decide what is best for them – as a fundamental human right. Nearly 99% of abortions occur early in pregnancy – before 21 weeks (at this point the fetus cannot survive outside the womb). The Supreme Court cases Roe v Wade and Casey v Planned Parenthood restricted elective abortion to the time prior to viability of the fetus. After that time, efforts to save the fetus are appropriate.
When abortions occur later in pregnancy, it is often because of complicated issues with the health of the mother or fetus. We cannot know the situations of these families, who need our compassion and support, not shaming and criminalization. Nearly 60% of women who seek abortions are already mothers – they already have a family to care for. The issue of when life begins is personal. Some decide this by their faith, others with science. Politicians are not experts; the majority of Americans do not want this issue legislated.
Abortion is safe, with 1% or less experiencing complications. Abortion is health care. Abortion is essential for women experiencing fetal death or hemorrhage. Health care providers need to be able to treat these women without delay. Criminalizing the provision of abortion risks their lives, as well as the livelihood of their medical providers.
I believe we, as a society, must invest in our children and families. Families need a safe and affordable place to live, they need excellent childcare, they need food security and a good education. Parents need jobs that can support their families, and they need support to the best parents they can be for their children. Children need to be loved and nurtured. I believe we must promote age-appropriate education of how our bodies function, as well as preserve reproductive health care for all women, including being able to see a provider for advice, safe and effective birth control, and safe and effective abortion.
Barbara A. Conley, MD
Democratic Candidate for State Senate in Charlevoix County
____________________________________________
Letter to the Editor, The Northern Express
13 August 2022
Cost of Outlawing Abortion
The Supreme Court approved recriminalization of abortion. We have three actions we can take. The first two are expensive, probably very expensive.
1.) We must provide the necessary medical and financial support of these unwanted children. Currently, there are over 400,000 children in foster care. About 20,000 a year turn 18 never being adopted. With the recriminalization of abortion, approximately 100,000 more unwanted children could be added to foster care yearly. The social safety net and other related costs will be enormous. Some of the fetuses, that were to be aborted because medical expertise determined, would only live a short time, and some would die a painful death. Now with forced birth, they will take up severely limited pediatric bed space until they die. Unfortunately for wanted children, born with correctable medical conditions, there will be a shortage of available pediatric beds for them, unless more are constructed quickly.
2.) If we do not provide costly necessary medical and financial social safety net supports, we will have to amp up our police forces, courtrooms, prisons and improved security devices for our homes, autos and businesses. A best-selling book, Freakonomics, documented that the drastic drop in crime which started about twenty years after abortion was decriminalized, occurred because abortion was decriminalized. Many of those unwanted children who never received necessary medical and financial social safety net supports were documented not to be law-abiding citizens.
3.) We can elect a Congress that will enact a law protecting every woman’s right to safe medical abortion. This would overrule the onerous Supreme Court decision by returning to the original 50-year-old abortion rights law supported by about 2/3 of the US. Namely, that before the fetus is viable, abortion is the difficult decision of the woman, with consultation with her doctor and possibly her minister.
Jim Rudolph, Petoskey
___________________________________________
BRING BACK AMERICAN VALUES
Democracy
- Defend Our Freedom to Vote
- Ensure Our Votes Count
Life
- Limit and License the Sale of Weapons Designed to Kill People
- Restore the Authority of Congress to Protect Our Air and Water and Safeguard Public Health
Liberty
- Restore a Woman’s Right to Make Decisions about Her Own Body
- Restore the Separation of Church and State Proclaimed by our Founders—No Tax Dollars for Religious Education
Pursuit of Happiness
- Keep Government Out of Our Private Lives
- Reinstate Justice for All—Not just Billionaires and Giant Corporations
Join Your Neighbors in the Democratic Party
Jim Rodgers, Charlevoix
________________________________________
Letter to the Editor, Petoskey News-Review
16 June, 2022
The Second Amendment
When our forefathers wrote the Second Amendment, they wanted to protect the right of the citizen soldiers to be armed. At the time our Constitution was written, a skilled musketeer could fire up to three shots a minute. Our forefathers wanted to protect the right of those citizen soldiers to bear arms, but with conditions to protect against mayhem.
If the founding fathers wanted free access to firearms, they could have composed the Second Amendment to be “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. But they didn’t.
They could have put in minor restrictions such as “A Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. But they didn’t.
And even more interesting, they didn’t write “A regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
No. They wrote “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
How does just an average citizen differ from a militia? How does a militia differ from a regulated militia? How does a regulated militia differ from a well-regulated militia?
When many states allow anyone 18 years of age unfettered access to 100 round military weapons, how can that in any way be construed to be a well-regulated militia?
The U.S. keeps granting more and more firearm access to more and more people. As the numbers of mass shootings increase, they fail Logic 101 and grant even more access.
Think of Albert Einstein’s quote “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”
Jim Rudolph, Petoskey
________________________________________
Letter to the Editor, Petoskey News-Review
15 June 2022
Finally, a rational approach to the Capitol attack
The Jan. 6 committee hearings gave me hope.
Nothing mean was said. No person was personally attacked or denigrated or vilified. Actions were shown, actors identified, evidence presented.
We can have a civil discussion about serious matters.
We saw a two-hour session about serious matters — and it was totally free of ad hominem attacks, partisan sniping, “what about” diversions, or conspiratorial nonsense.
Because I’m an Old Relic born before World War II, this helped lower the tension I’ve felt since the 1980s as our dialogue became increasingly partisan, mean-spirited, irrational and angry. Today the reality is — I carefully avoid saying toxic words or expressing taboo ideas.
I hope to live long enough to have comfortable conversations over coffee or dinner without fear of ruining the occasion or losing a friend.
Walt Cherry, Boyne City
Charlevoix Democrats 