Online only letters to the editor

Women know best

Editor, The Times:

The Supreme Court's decision to ban late-term abortions is an outrage and should cause concern for all Americans. ["Partial births: limiting choice by 5 to 4," Times, editorial, April 25.]

We cannot passively sit back and allow the government to take medical rights away from the individual and place them in the hands of the state.

Clearly, politicians should have no authority in deciding what is best for our bodies.

Only a government that bases its political decisions on religious ideology could justify such an obvious disrespect for a women's right to control her own body.

If we allow this decision to pass without a fight, we are disregarding all the previous struggles fought to ensure us protection from an overzealous government.

While anti-abortion groups are viewing this decision as a victory, I have confidence that the majority of Americans will view this for what it really is -- the government's blatant abuse of power.

Action has to be taken!

The current regime must be stopped from making decisions best left in the hands of women and their doctors. If we allow this judgment to pass without a fight, who's to say what individual rights will be ripped from us next. Lets not sit around waiting to find out!

-- Marika Judi Graham, Shoreline

The recent decision by the Supreme Court upholding the ban on the so-called partial-birth abortions is not surprising when you consider the religious makeup of the justices.

The five justices that voted for the ban are all Catholic. Of the other four, two are Jewish, one is Episcopalian and one is Protestant.

The two new justices are both catholic and both said at their confirmation hearings that they would rely on precedent set by prior court decisions.

The Supreme Court is now under the control of a religious majority. What has happened to the separation of church and state?

-- Don Kindred, Redmond

According to "Partial births: limiting choice by 5 to 4," [editorial, April 25] the Supreme Court's ruling against partial-birth abortion "is the beginning of the slippery slope of challenges to a woman's very personal decision." It is true that the court's decision makes it possible for states to limit abortions if they choose to. However, abortion is not in any real danger. Women will most likely always have access to them.

Even those who believe abortion is a woman's right cannot believe she should be allowed to end a pregnancy however and whenever. It makes sense to place limits on mid- and late-term abortions, where life has clearly begun.

Long before the halfway point in a pregnancy, a fetus moves and reacts to its environment. Soon thereafter, many babies can live outside the womb with the help of modern medicine. These are powerful signs of life. At the least, states should be allowed to restrict the most graphic forms of mid- and late-term abortion.

We should not fear "slippery slopes" so much that we cling to opposite sides of every issue. Does the court's action represent "a striking step backward for women's rights"? Not really. It is a small, logical step toward compromise.

-- Julianne Pack, Kirkland

Vestments are not scrubs

I have two words for the Rev. Alex J. Brunett and Rev. Ed White concerning pharmacists and Plan B: Butt out. [See "If confused, don't preach," Reader's View, April 21, and "Plan B," Northwest Voices, April 21.]

I find it insulting when the Catholic clergy presume to lecture anybody about sexual or reproductive morality. I can think of no more uniquely unqualified people on the subject.

Rev. White, being neither female, nor apparently any more informed as to the science involved than Brunett, has nothing of value to add.

Plan B does not, in fact, cause an abortion, and even if it did, last time I checked, abortions are legal, particularly early in a pregnancy. Pregnancy, in fact, cannot even begin after taking Plan B.

I have the same two words for all the holier-than-thou pharmacists who are trying to turn this medical issue between a doctor and patient into a matter of conscience on the part of the pharmacists who object to something that's none of their business: Butt out. It's not about you. Since when did pharmacists get to be the surrogate conscience of doctors and their patients?

The hubris here is astounding. If you don't like a correctly written and fully intended prescription, too bad. If that bothers you, perhaps you're in the wrong line of work. The reality-based community does not need your meddling.

-- Jason Spicer, Mercer Island

The most Rev. Alex J. Brunett's defends the church's support of the right of pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for Plan B.

Burnett states " the church does not seek to impose its views in the public square, but it does insist on the right of conscience."

Not really. The Catholic Church supports the right of conscience only when it coincides with its own point of view. Otherwise, the church would not defend efforts to prevent women whose consciences permit them to use Plan B from doing so.

-- Kathie Moritis, Bellevue

Carbon dioxide catastrophe

The world's oil, coal and gas deposits were formed from decaying vegetation during the Carboniferous and Permian Periods, about 250 to 350 million years ago. In the past 100-150 years, humans have converted more than half of these fossil fuels back into carbon dioxide at a rate that is a million times greater than they were deposited.

The imbalance of this rapid influx of carbon dioxide to the Earth's atmosphere, ocean and soils, which adjust very slowly to changes, certainly must be related to the massive and detrimental changes detected in ocean life that is described in "Sea life at risk as acid levels rise in oceans" [Local News, April 24]..

How many more catastrophic changes in the ocean and the climate, some we cannot now even imagine, are in store for us in the future?

-- Wendell Tangborn, Vashon Island

Safeco's views may vanish

Most stadiums are sold to the taxpayers by citing impressive figures on economic development. Where this money goes is a mystery, as most stadiums in our country are surrounded by blighted areas.

Maybe one bar or restaurant sits adjacent to most stadiums, and it is too crowded on the few game days and cavernous and empty every other day.

Not a model for culinary or economic success.

Developer Greg Smith plans to build new buildings in the stadium district with restaurants and shops at street level, and residential space for hundreds above ["Safeco Field views: Going going gone?," News, April 28].

This real economic development could help create a bustling neighborhood to surround the stadiums. Is this the impressive economic development that the stadium backers were promising us? Maybe not.

The Public Facilities District that oversees Safeco Field is fighting Smith's plans. I suppose they prefer empty lots for parking. Better views.

Some say the view of the water is the best reason to go to Safeco Field. Probably right. But that is no reason the whole neighborhood has to suffer.

-- Paul Zarkowski, Seattle