Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

FAMILY PLANNING: Senate’s bill is common sense

Letter by Hannah Britt, Tacoma on April 29, 2011 at 1:03 pm with 25 Comments »
April 29, 2011 1:11 pm

Re: “Bill would aid state’s family planning services” (TNT, 4-27).

Senate Bill 5912 would increase the number of people who qualify for Take Charge, the Medicaid waiver program that allows women access to free birth control and annual exams.

It is important that state legislators recognize funding family planning as an investment. An average pregnancy costs our state more than $8,000, but a year of contraception costs only about $30 in state funds under Medicaid. Today there is a gap in eligibility between state Medicaid coverage for family planning services and coverage for pregnancy through Medicaid. This means for some women, the state pays for pregnancy costs but will not cover family planning services to help them avoid pregnancy.

The House’s budget included the increase in eligibility, but the Senate decided to create a separate bill. I attended the bill hearing on Tuesday. Public support for the bill was overwhelming, but several legislators’ opposition was clear.

I urge readers to tell their senators to support SB 5912. Increasing access to contraception means fewer unintended pregnancies, and therefore healthier pregnancies and fewer abortions. I believe legislators on both sides of the aisle should come together to support SB 5912 to support women and save our state money.

 

Leave a comment Comments → 25
  1. Why would anyone, with at least half a brain, think otherwise? Great letter.

  2. slasmith says:

    Why should the state be involved for paying for either a pregnancy or birth control? It would seem to me that any individual making the choice in a free society to engage in sexual activity should be personally responsible for the consequences of their actions.

  3. walkineasy says:

    slasmith, you are correct. People should be responsible for their own actions. But this is the real world, like it or not. So since your suggestion really isn’t an option for so many in the real world, guess the choice is $8,000 (just for the pregnancy, not for the welfare, food stamps, medical insurance for another 18 years) or $30 a year. And I would think that the anti-abortion groups would love the option.

    Yup, it’s a no-brainer for those of us in the real world.

  4. “Yup, it’s a no-brainer for those of us in the real world.”

    You mean fantasyland don’t you? Where everyone can afford medical care without help.

  5. Don’t you know, that they just want us gals to remain barefoot and pregnant?

  6. walkineasy says:

    Publico, you mean a fantasyland like those terrible European countries? Like Australia? Funny, US medical care costs are the highest in the world, but our actual health care ranking is 36th. Now, why would that be? Maybe cuz’ the insurance companies are charging outlandish amounts without giving back any care????? Did anybody read about the billion-dollar bonuses given to the insurance top execs while raising insurance premiums on everybody else?

    Don’t forget Publico, maybe your son or daughter or grandchild, or maybe even your parents, could be without medical insurance in the future – it’s just a job layoff away.

    So those of us with good jobs with good insurance, let’s not be grateful. Let’s just say, “Well, I’ve got mine” and not worry about the less fortunate. Healthcare should not be class war.

    But the issue with this letter is what is the best bang for the buck. Let’s see, $8,000 vs. $30. Why is that such a hard decision for soooo many people?

  7. MadTaxpayer says:

    Medicaid? I thought that was for you old people. Since when do old people need birth control? Heck, they can’t even get it up!

    More money for the people too stupid to think for themselves. The MAMA govt takes over again!

  8. walkineasy, I misunderstood your first comment. We are on the same page.
    I hope the courts force Indiana to fund Planned Parenthood if the Gov. signs the latest legislation out of that home for wingnuts.
    What are those people thinking?

  9. walkineasy says:

    Madtaxpayer. Perhaps you would be wiser to spend your time looking up the difference between Medicare and Medicaid instead of making CRUDE, stupid comments.

    Then come back and make an informed comment.

  10. blakeshouse says:

    Add a few thousand more to the cradle to grave govt dole and help insure a socialist nation in the future

  11. NWflyfisher says:

    “Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”
    –James Madison

    “When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”
    — French economist, statesman and author Frederic Bastiast (1801-1850)

  12. beerBoy says:

    Who is Frederic Bastiast? What major schools of economic thought have been influenced by him?

  13. Olemag says:

    Reply to madtaxpyaer: Where did you get your data that “old people can’t get it up?” It doesn’t seem to be problme with my geriatric friends. Only hate and anger makes it shrink so yours probably will.

  14. sue1234 says:

    The republican letter writers show us their rank sociopathy, again. We also see their profound lack of education. Their lack of empathy for our citizens makes each and every republican a parasite on humanity.

  15. walkineasy says:

    NW, you quote James Madison that charity isn’t a part of legislation by government. You are probably correct on that.

    However, quoting somebody who is probably more influential than James Madison, charity is a part of a good human being. Or at least Jesus thought so.

    I’ll take Jesus over James Madison any time. So much for the far right being the party of moral values.

  16. NWflyfisher says:

    walkineasy: As a devout Christian I tithe to the charities of my choosing. Do you understand the difference between Christian charity and government welfare? James Madison was quoted regarding charity by THE GOVERNMENT. Jesus spoke of charity by the INDIVIDUAL.

    “If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the “general welfare,” and are the sole and supreme judges of the “general welfare,” then they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the United States; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, everything from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police would be thrown under the power of Congress, for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the “general welfare.” — James Madison

  17. walkineasy says:

    And you, Mr. Fly, don’t seem to understand empathy and compassion. Yeah, party of moral values. Yeah, right!

  18. NWflyfisher says:

    walkineasy:

    “I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit.”
    — President Grover Cleveland (DEMOCRAT) vetoing a bill for charity relief (18 Congressional Record 1875 [1877]

    “I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. [To approve the measure] would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded.”
    — President Franklin Pierce’s (DEMOCRATt) 1854 veto of a measure to help the mentally ill.

    You were saying something about the “party of moral values” and understanding “empathy, compassion”?

  19. walkineasy says:

    Is your entire life quoting other people? How sad to not have an original thought! Bet you’re a hoot to live with.

  20. NWflyfisher says:

    walkineasy: Typical. Attack me in a lame attempt to change the subject. See if this original thought rings a bell: “As a devout Christian I tithe to the charities of my choosing. Do you understand the difference between Christian charity and government welfare? James Madison was quoted regarding charity by THE GOVERNMENT. Jesus spoke of charity by the INDIVIDUAL. “

  21. walkineasy says:

    See, you just proved my point, more quotations. Talk about changing the subject, the original letter was about a $30 expenditure vs. an $8,000 expenditure. It wasn’t about whether the expenditure should be provided – it will be provided. The question was which amount do we, as taxpayers, want to spend since we will be spending one or the other.

    Of course, people like you want to make it into the fear-generating topic of “Oh, no, we might turn into a socialistic country.” The sky is falling…..

    That wasn’t the topic of the original letter. Read it again if you can stop yourself from spewing quotations from others. Oops! Of course you can’t. How silly of me to think YOU are the one changing the subject. My bad!

  22. NWflyfisher says:

    walkineasy: I’m done playing your silly little game. Oh, and I really don’t care what you think or say. You’re beginning to sound like someone with multiple persona syndrome that I refuse to engage in a dialog with. Ooh, another original thought.

  23. walkineasy says:

    What? No quotation. I’m disappointed. You are such fun…??? Naaaah.

  24. spotted1 says:

    How about we pay for neither. You decide to engage in activities that lead to a child, yet you want the taxpayer to pay for your mistakes? Such ignorance. And we end up in a co-dependent relationship because we pay for those mistakes blindly.

    How about this, if you get pregnant, and you have to get state support for the child, you are sterilized? Both the male and female because they are both involved. You get one mistake, but that is it?

    Oh, but that is to offensive to some. Instead, those bleeding hearts would rather a world populated by children that are supported by the taxpayer than consequences for actions.

    Or better yet, how about you put forth your own money to pay for it rather than telling the legislature it is okay to spend mine. You want it, donate and make it happen.

  25. walkineasy says:

    spotted1, I agree completely. Our government paying for people to have multiple kids, all on assistance, is absolutely ridiculous and is bringing our country into 3rd world status. I also agree with the sterilization of the repeat offenders, IF they are on assistance. However, even with this solution there still may be the rare occasion where birth control advice and assistance may be required or beneficial for the individuals as well as society.

    For those voters who believe there should be no birth control and no abortions as well as no sterilizations, how about they live what they preach and adopt those children. They can step up and put their dollars where their beliefs are.

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0