(LETTERS) Far-right bills are determined to dismantle choice; Appeal to eliminate seed oils; Rebuild Gaza: The right solution

Oil City News publishes letters, cartoons and opinions as a public service. The content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of Oil City News or its employees. Letters to the editor can be submitted by following the link at our opinion section.

Dear Casper,

Growing up in Wyoming and dedicating nearly two decades to the public service sector has equipped me with a deep understanding of our community’s diverse perspectives. My role has always been to listen and support individuals, regardless of their differing views on life, family, politics and government.

As a proud mother of two exceptional children, I know firsthand the transformative power of motherhood. It defines who I am and shapes my priorities in profound ways. I embrace the challenges and responsibilities that come with being a parent, and I recognize the importance of advising others to reflect seriously on whether parenthood is the right path for them. My commitment to both my family and my community drives me to advocate for thoughtful considerations in this critical aspect of life.

As lawmakers, you have taken an oath to uphold the rights and will of Wyoming citizens, not merely your personal beliefs. Women seeking reproductive health services, regardless of their views on abortion, find themselves caught in a conflict that the state government has irresponsibly overlooked. The far-right faction within the Wyoming legislature has shamefully painted women seeking abortions and their providers as socially deficient, wicked, and unvirtuous, working to criminalize both those who seek help and those who provide it.

Let’s be clear: you each know women who have faced the heartbreaking decision to terminate a pregnancy, even when that pregnancy was not viable, putting their lives at risk. These proposed bills only serve to further punish these women and the compassionate individuals who assist them. The alarming disregard from this governmental body for the anticipated suffering and potential loss of life among women in Wyoming is unacceptable. It is critical that lawmakers recognize and act upon the reality shaped by credible, evidence-based testimonies from physicians, parents, and community members who participated in the January Labor, Health and Social Services meetings, rather than bowing to a dangerous agenda driven by religious extremism.

The punitive measures introduced, including hefty fines and undue burdens such as required admitting privileges, demonstrate a clear bias against this facility. Meanwhile, these conditions do not apply to other surgical centers, highlighting a stark disparity in treatment. Moreover, the testimony provided during legislative hearings overwhelmingly came from a small group advocating against the constitutional protections for abortion care. We must remember that the right to make healthcare decisions is fundamental, and this should remain with the citizens of Wyoming.

The legislation in question is fundamentally flawed and testimony that this shall uphold the necessary standards of care needed to protect women’s health services is also false. Despite the sponsors’ claims that these “regulations” are not intended to close Wyoming’s sole clinic providing essential women’s healthcare, including abortion services, this assertion is unequivocally false.

A detailed examination of the Department of Health regulations, particularly Chapter 5 concerning ambulatory surgical centers, highlights serious deficiencies. The Wyoming Department of Health is the authoritative body responsible for establishing rules regarding the licensure and regulation of these centers. However, the proposed legislation explicitly undermines this authority, particularly in relation to the women’s clinic in Casper. This legislation introduces new regulatory language and a punitive framework, such as $1,000 per day fines under section 35-6-203(e), which is not applied to any other ambulatory surgical centers, thereby illustrating a targeted approach to regulation. Additionally, another contentious provision under section 35-6-203(c) mandates that this clinic obtain admitting privileges within ten miles—an undue burden unlikely to apply to other facilities with similar services.

In analyzing the excessively restrictive and discriminatory legislative measures proposed in HB0064, it is essential to address several critical aspects with clarity and conviction. In testimony delivered on January 22, Rep. Guggenmos outlined a troubling plan to tackle maternal mortality associated with “chemical abortion” medications.

The implications of such legislation extend far beyond maternal health, as the representative’s public statements would be rendered ineffective should these laws be enacted. A crucial point of concern is the regulatory body’s blatant disregard for accurate information, which undermines a pregnant woman’s right to privacy.

The proposals in HB0064 raise significant legal challenges and impose unreasonable compliance burdens on healthcare providers. It is important to note that fetal heartbeat detection is technically unfeasible before 20 weeks gestation due to the incomplete development of the cardiac anatomy, specifically the four heart chambers. Healthcare providers could face felony charges for failing to report heartbeat data, highlighting a serious misunderstanding of medical science.

Furthermore, the testimony lacked acknowledgment from pharmacists who would be compelled, if these bills pass, to collect HIPAA-protected medical information, thereby infringing upon patient confidentiality. No other demographic is subjected to such invasive legal measures with severe penalties for accessing essential medical care, raising significant ethical concerns and evoking parallels to repressive legal frameworks.

Transparency in government requires that lawmakers do not mislead committees, the public or the Senate regarding the justifications or the public support for legislation. Bill 0064 Sponsor Neiman later confirmed that his intention with HB0064 was to minimize safe and legal abortions (https://wyofile.com/house-speaker-senate-bound-abortion-restrictions-are-about-more-than-safety/.)

The claim that this bill establishes a safety standard for women has been thoroughly debunked, as highlighted by WyoFile. The intent behind this legislation is clear: to dehumanize the process and publicly shame women contemplating abortion, effectively pressuring them to rethink their choices. This bill represents the State of Wyoming’s attempt to coerce women into motherhood, ignoring the medical, emotional, financial, and health implications involved. By distorting these citations, we see an imposition of personal and religious beliefs that contradict the wishes of the constituents.

If these legislative measures truly had widespread support, there would be no need for such coercive tactics These misrepresentations which diminishes the integrity of the legislative oath.

Women and mothers need to know they are cared for and supported and not made to feel less than because they question motherhood. If anything, lawmakers should spend money on building resources that actually help families — mothers who have real resources in our small communities where help is desperately out of reach.

The owner of this clinic is facing a significant challenge as the state government actively targets her operations. This effort goes beyond simply undermining the legal services she provides; it imposes ideological constraints on medical privacy, women’s safety, and comprehensive education surrounding maternal healthcare. It is clear that Wyoming lawmakers have crafted legislation in retaliation against her political beliefs and her unwavering commitment to healthcare education and services for women.

We must stand firmly in advocating for the healthcare rights of women in Wyoming, ensuring they have access to safe and compassionate care without the threat of unjust repercussions. The state’s constitutional provisions assert that the right to make healthcare decisions is reserved for the citizens of Wyoming, even when lawmakers don’t like it.

There is so much more to address regarding the discriminatory, ineffective and unlawful nature of these legislative measures. Yet, it’s evident that the rule-making body chooses to waste taxpayer resources on litigation to assert what the majority of women in Wyoming have long known: that constitutional provisions safeguarding the right to make healthcare decisions belong to the citizens of Wyoming, not the legislature.

Kindra Moore
Casper

Dear Casper,

Many of us in Casper and around the country have watched this week and applauded as President Donald Trump has nominated Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to lead the Department of Health and Human Services.  His confirmation this week has enabled the Make America Healthy Again movement with the leader who has the mandate and the moxie required to take on the root causes of the chronic disease crisis that is plaguing our country, and if we’re honest, is plaguing our community here in Casper. 

An executive order has been drafted that establishes a mandate to get to the bottom of this issue and take action to reverse these trends.  

Those of us who are applauding RFK’s nomination have been researching these root cause issues for some time now, one of which is the prevalence of “seed oils” that are a staple within many, if not all, of the restaurants in our town.  

This has not always been the case.  

Prior to “science” funded by big business interests that don’t share our Wyoming values, most restaurants used beef tallow as the staple for frying and food preparation. Food, especially fried food such as french fries, were much tastier using this naturally derived oil for cooking. Many of us who are older remember how good McDonald’s fries were when beef tallow was the frying oil used to make them.

However, a combination of farm policies that favored corn-derived products and paid for “science” that claimed that that “vegetable oil” was “heart healthy,” demonized saturated fats, and for cost and public relations purposes motivated chain restaurants to shift to using corn, soybean, cottonseed, safflower, grapeseed, sunflower, or canola oil (otherwise known as “seed oils”).  

Have we gotten healthier with this move?  

If we look at the health statistics: the large costs outlaid for drugs and hospitalizations, the staggering increased prevalence of all forms of chronic diseases and the alarming obesity statistics, we have to conclude that this move (and a number of moves shifting us to a higher percentage of ultra-processed food with hundreds of chemical additives of questionable or negative health value) has not benefited us at all. 

Part of the reason may be that the marketing of “vegetable oil” is very misleading. The complex process used for extracting the oil from these farm products is very intense and requires a number of toxic chemicals to be used for their extraction and the heating/reheating of these unstable oils with double-carbon bonds can cause a number of health issues.  

I believe the American consumer is waking up, and starting to demand seed oil free options. A few proof points include the popularity of Seed Oil Scout, an app that identifies restaurants that have reduced or eliminated seed oils from their menu. Additionally, the celebration of chains like Steak and Shake and True Food Kitchen eliminating seed oils from their menus, with most of these chains and restaurants shifting to beef tallow or other oils that are Seed Oil Safe, is a reason to be very optimistic.  

Unfortunately, according to Seed Oil Scout, Casper does not have any (to my knowledge) seed oil free restaurants in town. Buffalo Wild Wings fries their wings and fries in beef shortening, but aside from them I believe we can assume that they may be the only option in town (and not a great one, they use “beef shortening” which has some chemical components as opposed to pure tallow, but this is far better than seed oils). You have to be careful even there with consuming their sauces.  

I hope that with this shift in consumer awareness, which I expect more to come once the MAHA report comes out, more restaurants and grocery products will move to eliminate these harmful ingredients from their offerings. However, avoiding (or at least drastically limiting) food cooked in fryers may be our best option for now until we see Casper restaurants realize that these moves are good both for consumers as well as their bottom lines. 

If you want to make more informed purchases in this area, here are some tips I have found on my own health journey.

First, be sure to promote awareness with those in your circle and with the establishments you frequent. Let them know with your choices and with your voices that this is a priority for you. Also, patronize restaurants that choose to eliminate seed oils and choose better options. I am hopeful that current trends and awareness will convince some establishments in this town to make the switch. We vote with our dollars when we choose to dine out, and we should vote as wisely with the restaurants we buy from and the menu items we choose as we do when we go to the political ballot box.  

Second, start to look for the Seed Oil Safe badge on products at the grocery store. This label is starting to be used and I hope that we will see it on products sold at Natural Grocers here in town soon. Sprouts, who just opened shop in Cheyenne, and Costco are carrying these products now, and I hope it’s only a matter of time that we see them make an appearance in our local stores. 

We can’t wait for RFK Jr. and government policy to make changes for us. We need to make these changes now for the sake of our health and well-being.

This letter is my attempt at raising this awareness, and I hope that it causes each of us to do our research and for those restaurants in town that are health-conscious to take a look at their use of seed oils, join in the move away from them, and proudly promote themselves as seed oil free in their quest to serve their community. 

Chris Willis
Casper

Dear Casper,

It is so easy for some to criticize President Donald Trump’s idea to remove the population from Gaza and then revitalized the destroyed area when the war ends. But what is the alternative solution that critics have? Is it just the same regurgitated solutions that have not worked in the past?

Is it compassionate for the current conditions to remain the same and have people live in burned out, damaged buildings? Are children safe among hazardous rubble, unexploded bombs and terrorists still hiding in tunnels?

Is it acceptable for Hamas terrorists to steal the food that Israel sends into Gaza every day; tons of thousands of it since the Oct. 7, 2023, massacre and the start of the war?

If your home had been burnt in a fire, would it make more sense to live somewhere else and maybe come back after it was leveled and rebuilt?

Should Jordan and Egypt step up and take in Gazans while reconstruction takes place? Why did these countries not do so in the first place?

Afterall, Gaza was part of Egypt until the 1967 Six-Day war. Then in 2005 Israel forced all Jews to leave Gaza in a failed attempt to make peace with its neighbors. All Israel got in return was a terrorist army on its borders firing rockets into their communities for years followed by the horrific massacre in Israeli villages and at a concert filled with young people.

The nations of the world need to accept the truth about the history of the region if real peace will ever be achieved.

Ross Schriftman
Casper