Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

Tag: abortion

May
2nd

FRANCISCAN: Hospitals’ staffs value human life

Re: “Decisions about bottom lines” (letter, 5-1).

When the writer complains that the Franciscan Health System does not provide “needed reproductive and end-of-life services” in its hospitals, she is speaking in euphemism. She means that the hospitals’ staff will not provide abortions, nor will they help dying people kill themselves.

These Catholic hospitals supply life-giving and life-saving treatments, refusing to deal out death to the very young and the very ill. Many of us find it reassuring to have hospitals available which insist on the value of human life and which provide only real health care – the kind

Read more »

March
31st

HOBBY LOBBY: Issue is abortion, not birth control

Re: “Hobby Lobby case: Discrimination in guise of freedom” (Viewpoint, 3-28).

Hobby Lobby is not “opposed to contraceptive coverage” and is not “discriminating against women.” Hobby Lobby has a history of providing excellent employee medical coverage that includes contraception.

The Affordable Care Act mandate requires that the company provide all 20 FDA-approved drugs or devices. Hobby Lobby objects to the four that are potentially life-ending. The issue is abortion, not contraception.

This is not about “a license to avoid complying with otherwise neutral laws that apply to everyone equally,” as the authors suggest. In reality, 93 percent of employers

Read more »

March
27th

ACA: It’s hard to make lemonade out of this lemon

The gist I got from the Viewpoint by Sens. Patty Murray and Barbara Boxer (TNT, 3-25) is that the so-called Affordable Health Act (ACA) is good because it forces all employers to provide full abortion services and birth control coverage.

Never mind that under the metastasizing implementation of the ACA, health-care costs continue to escalate for those who are not subsidized, more people have been dropped from their previous coverage than have signed up for the new, and coverage choices themselves have been excessively reduced at the expense of added bureaucracy and red tape.

Under their tunnel-vision logic, it

Read more »

Feb.
18th

AMERICA: It’s OK for minority to bully majority?

Why is it that if you believe marriage is defined as between one man and one woman you are labeled a bigot? If you disagree with the president’s damaging policies they call you a racist? Or if you believe that abortion is morally wrong you are said to hate women? If you are a devout believer in God and attend a church, you are somehow less intelligent and misled.

What happened to an America where people were allowed freedom and liberty and didn’t have a statist agenda forced upon them? When did the minority bully the majority?

I say it

Read more »

Feb.
6th

HEALTH: All deserve freedom of choice

The state House is way out of line in requiring insurers to cover elective abortions (TNT, 2-6). This isn’t just about morality or freedom of conscience. It’s about cost.

The primary purpose of insurance is to protect income and assets in case of a traumatic event, like getting cancer or being in a car wreck. Insurance isn’t supposed to cover “elective” anything.

When we use health insurance, we aren’t just paying doctors, nurses or hospitals. We’re basically hiring a team of secretaries, accountants, agents, lawyers and administrators to negotiate and pay our bills for us. This makes insurance incredibly

Read more »

Jan.
29th

ABORTION: Only the news that’s politically correct

On Jan. 21 there were pro-life marches in Olympia; San Francisco; a freezing Washington, D.C.; and many other place. They were widely reported locally and nationally. You ignored them all because you only print pro-choice news.

You did print a front-page article about priest abuse (anything bad about the Catholic Church, you mention).

In 2001, 13 percent of people got their news from the Internet. Today 41 percent do. In 2002, 41 percent read a daily paper; today, 23 percent do. Your readers have learned not to trust you.

 

Jan.
16th

ABORTION: Don’t let employers interfere

I recently attended the public hearing in Olympia for House Bill 2148, the Reproductive Parity Act. This bill would ensure that, under the new health-care legislation, private insurance plans covering maternity care couldn’t deny coverage for pregnancy termination.

Listening to both sides of the argument, I got a better grasp at how our incomprehensible health-care system works.

Many of those against the RPA claim that employers shouldn’t have to provide all health options available to women if they are morally against them. They don’t want anything to do with increasing safe access to abortions – a fundamental health procedure in

Read more »

Oct.
24th

ELECTION: Schlicher supports women’s reproductive rights

Elections matter, and 2013 is no exception. Voters in Gig Harbor and Kitsap County face a decision between state Sen. Nathan Schlicher and state Rep. Jan Angel. It’s a clear choice between living up to or abandoning our values.

Angel co-sponsored a bill that would criminalize abortion, even in cases of rape, incest and when the life of the woman is in danger. HB 1656 also would have made most forms of birth control illegal and could have made it a crime for emergency contraception to be administered to rape victims in the hospital.

Additionally, Angel opposes the Reproductive Parity

Read more »