Letter to the Editor: Vote Pro-Choice
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
To the Editor:
Pro-choice means that reproductive decisions are the choice of the woman.
Here’s a quick run-down on the anti-choice positions of some of the candidates running for the state legislature in the 32nd district.
David Baker: conservative candidate for the State Senate.
it is pretty clear from the company he keeps that we cannot trust him to be a vote for women’s rights and health as a State Senator. He has been endorsed by anti-choice elected officials (like Rep. Dave Reichert) and he is supported by local Tea Party activists.
Art Coday: anti-choice, anti-evolution candidate for State House, position 1.
Art Coday has been endorsed by the Human Life PAC, a right-wing anti-choice organization that opposes access to abortion care even in cases of rape or incest. Not only that, he told voters at a forum last week that he thinks creationism should be taught in our public schools. Art Coday would be a threat to women’s rights and health in Olympia!
Gary Gagliardi: anti-choice conservative candidate for State House position 2.
Gary Gagliardi’s staunchly anti-choice beliefs have also earned him the endorsement of Human Life PAC. Gagliardi would be a vote against reproductive health care for Washington women!
Luckily, there is a pro-choice champion in each of these races. Here are two important ways to make sure we keep these seats pro-choice and stop right-wing conservatives like Baker, Coday and Gagliardi from getting to Olympia:
Vote for 32nd District pro-choice candidates by November 2.
• Maralyn Chase for State Senate,
• Cindy Ryu for State House (position 1)
• Ruth Kagi for State House (position 2)
Forward this to voting friends in the 32nd district and urge them to vote in support of women’s health!
Thank you for standing up for a pro-choice future!
Elaine Phelps
Shoreline
Posts
17 comments:
Thank you for this. I agree, and hope that Shoreline citizens will consider these issues and remain progressive and thoughtful in their voting.
Everytime some pro abortion Democrat spouts off I remember why I usually wind up voting Republican. Although the Democrats reflect most of my political views they always seem to sabotage themselves by reminding me that they hold a morally repugnant position. Although I was supporting Patty Murray 100% she just released a pro abortion ad that now has me wanting her to lose the election. Everyone knows that Democratic politicians are sheep which blindly follow the party on this issue. They aren't going to gain a single vote by airing those ads but they will lose at least one. Gues I'm forced to plug my nose and vote Republican this time.
Signed:
(Still) A faithful Obama supporter
The most "morally repugnant position" is held by those who want to impose their personal beliefs on others by governmental edicts.
When it comes to abortion, they close their eyes to reality. They have an ideology and they would deny any female the right to do other than carry a pregnancy to term, no matter the consequences - including death - for millions of already-born women
There's an old bumper-sticker that sums it up for me: Against abortion? Don't have one.
"There's an old bumper-sticker that sums it up for me: Against abortion? Don't have one."
Well if you're inclined to form your positions based on bumber stickers then you probably aren't someone I'd wish to engage in a discussion with. You bumper sticker suggests that everyone turn a blind eye to any actions that doesn't directly invole themselves. What a neighborly concept? How about these ones:
Against child abuse? Don't have do it
Against rape? Don't have do it
Against arson? Don't have do it
Against parking in handicapped stalls? Don't do it
Against murder? Don't do it
I'm sure you thought your zinger was very clever but it simply shows how shallow that premise is. We are a community and we do have an obligation to stand up for what we all think is wrong. Expand your reading selection and try again.
Francis, those are false parallels. But that's beside the point. Is this really the place for this argument, which comes down essentially to this: do we, or do we not, consider a fetus to be a human which has rights equal to that of the mother carrying it? I suspect that whatever side you tend to fall on, you will not be swayed. However, at this time abortion IS legal. If the voters feel that they will only base their vote on a single of a candidate's opinions, and this is it, then they will have to follow their consciences. Personally, I find Rossi's failure to support equal rights for gay people to be repugnant. That, combined with his lack of experience and social conservatism, will keep me form voting for him. We all have to decide what's important to us.
This is really a non-issue brought out by desperate tax and spend Democrats that see the writing on the wall.
Obamacare pays for abortions...go ahead and tout that triumph while you're at it.
The issue this election is the economy.
Women's health? I'm all about the unborn baby's health and right to live. I am not "anti choice" as that lable is an attempt to maniupulate the matter. Basically, I am not an proponent of killing babies.
And I apologize for my typos in the previous post, but I'm exhausted as I've been helping my daughter care for her newborn that she chose not to kill.
I would like to applaud Elaine Phelps for her helpful analysis on the comparison of the three women candidates with the anti-choice male candidates on the ballot.
Unfortunately, the discussion here has further devolved into a grammatically pathetic level and mostly off the point.
Fact: Abortion is legal in WA State.
Fact: It has been settled law in the US for what, 40 years now?
Fact: A woman has the right to protect her health, by choosing whether or not to carry a child to term.
Fact: Reasonable people of both parties have a reasonable right to disagree on this point, and voters have the right to overlook this matter when choosing a candidate, OR NOT.
Women and voters in the 32nd District have been overwhelmingly supportive of progressive candidates who want to protect women's rights and civil rights for over 20 years.
The economic problems brought about, mostly by the Bush administration's policies and Wall Street greed, should not be a reason to reject 40 years of settled law and rational protection of women's rights.
I hope voters will make rational choices in this election season that don't send us backwards in the protection of women's health.
"Women's health? I'm all about the unborn baby's health and right to live. I am not "anti choice" as that lable is an attempt to maniupulate the matter. Basically, I am not an proponent of killing babies."
Best if one doesn't comment on political matters when overly tired, perhaps. By the way, babies are not aborted, teeny tiny fetuses are legal to abort.
And, thank you, Janet, for getting this discussion back to the here and now with a reality check.
Don't be confused -- this is not a political issue with me. I'm simply commenting on my beliefs. Also, "teeny tiny fetuses" have heartbeats = life.
I realize it's legal, but that doesn't make it right and I refuse to support any candidate who thinks it's okay to kill babies.
I think you should specify "human life" unless you're a buddhist or vegan who doesn't wear leather or eat meat (which is quite fine with me).
Me, I refuse to support any candidate who thinks it's ok to force women to carry an unwanted child to term. So I suppose we'll always end up canceling out each other's vote.
Francis - sorry that you and others cannot detect the difference between the rights that already-born persons have regarding their own bodies versus attacking other already-born persons.
You may choose to believe that a non-viable embryo or fetus is the equivalent of a born human being. Others disagree, and I'm among the latter. I know the difference between an apple seed and an apple, between an acorn and an oak tree, and between a fetus and a woman.
I also know and care very much about the horrible physical consequences when women are denied the right and ability to make these most personal choices for themselves.
You apparently do not care about the real-world impact upon families and individual women when safe, legal, accessible and affordable abortions are denied. Your opinion is not based on agreed-upon facts but is simply the product of your own personal and unprovable beliefs.
This is what is summed up by "Against abortion? Don't have one!" It says you are entitled to your own choice, but you are not entitled to interfere with anyone else's in this most intimate personal matter.
I've been following this from the sidelines, but wanted to pop in and thank you, wolf, for that very well-stated comment. This country is not a theocracy, as much as the right wishes it would be.
Hey Wolf, how about a viable fetus? Are you willing to offer "rights" to he or she?
I exercised my right to choose in my early 20’s and I did it because I could do what I want, when I want, who I wanted and how I wanted it. It was recklessness without consequences. I made this choice knowing it was a dirty and wrong.
The choice to carry a pregnancy to term and give life to a child is always one to be made seriously.
But, it is a choice that is settled law in this state, and federally. It is a woman's right. Women can choose to have a baby or not.
But, women in difficult circumstances of health, or rape and incest victims
should always have that right. It is not up to Republican extremists to tell women what to do with their bodies.
Post a Comment