Guest Editorial: 38 Years Is Too Long to Wait—Seattle Must Defend Every Woman’s Right to Health Care

Comments

1
Probably doesn't affect anything in the long run, but fine by me. I totally agree with the sentiment.
2
Its not so much that it affects anything in the here and now, but adds weight to a national movement, which can take time to build and get momentum. I also completely agree with the sentiment.
3
Hooray for meaningless political gestures!

I'm sure the Obama Admin will be shocked to learn that the City of Seattle is pro choice.

4
Do it. We'll take any help we can get.
5
Meanwhile Seattle gets it's first Hobby Lobby store on October 3. Too bad the council can't do something about that.
6
You preferred the old KMart and the shootings ? Did you check with Sears Holdings on the religious views of KMart ?

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattle911/201…
7
I saw that store on Aurora and was sorely tempted towards a paint ball gun. The only other time I've felt that is when I'm in downtown Salt Lake, those nice clean temple walls and grounds with the hidden speakers (and cameras) everywhere, where undesirables (gays, Gentiles, the slovenly, the smokers, the homeless, people of color) are quietly but forcefully removed from the premises, so as not to disturb the pious faithful in their rapturous visit to such a sterile place.
8
Public school curriculum via the Hobby Lobby owners.
http://www.religionnews.com/2014/07/16/h…
9
Women make seven percent less than men in income, too. If women want to see change, they need to vote. Just seven percent more women voters can create a sea change. Seven percent more!
10
What should we do? If there is a way to support you personally, please specifically cite it. Should we email our council representative?
11
I fully support this. Great work, guys!
12
@9, in total population of the US there's 95 men for every 100 women, skewed heavily by elderly women. Maybe men should get higher social security payout rates than women because they're less likely to receive benefits ?
13
So even the city council of Seattle doesn't understand the difference between a "right" and an "entitlement"?

Jesus fucking Christ while fisting the virgin Mary, my lease can't run up soon enough!

Yes, people (women AND MEN) have the right to their own bodies. But that does NOT MEAN they are entitled to any particular kind of medical coverage, either by the government or any private entity. If someone was standing in the way of a person and their right to their body, government should step in. However, should the government step in and use my money (taxation) to fund any medical procedure, be it abortion or anything else.

Just as we have the Second Amendment right to bear arms but government isn't handing out free guns and ammo, we should have the right to do with our own body's what we want, but government has no obligation to provide it for us.

Oh, and I purchased a pack of condoms last week. Where the hell is my government handout to buy condoms with?
14
@13 - It's completely easy to get free condoms, both supplied by the public and private sectors. Just because you're too lazy to get them doesn't mean it's not available.

Also, your condoms don't require a doctors visit and/or prescription so the mechanism for providing the most widely used birth control to females is completely different.

We can't wait until your lease is up either.
15
@14
I was making a point: NO ONE should is entitled to government provided birth control. Trust me, you don't want the government running birth control, because last time it happened it wasn't too rosy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in…

And men have been asking for a birth control pill for years, but feminists keep blocking it.
16
@15 - Yes, you were making a point with a completely flawed analogy, I know. But hey, thanks for pointing it out again.
18
@16
So you admit my point is correct and that government is not responsible for giving anyone birth control? Thanks.

19
@17
Sigh...
The gender pay gap is an old, tired myth that has been refuted a thousand times over. The reason women make less is because they are more likely to have occupations that pay less. No one is stopping women from no longer becoming social workers and teachers in such higher proportion then men, and no one is stopping women from becoming a brick layer, oil rig worker, engineer or mechanic.
Those skilled blue collar jobs pay surprising well: http://www.businessinsider.com/surprisin…
And yet women rarely go for them: http://www.university.com/jobs_that_are_…

When more women become haz-mat truck drivers and lab techs and fewer become pre-school teachers and visiting nurse aids, the so called "pay gap" will close.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/f…
20
@18 - How did you come up with that? I said nothing remotely close to what you're saying I did.

By all means, go get your government subsidized free condoms - I fully support you doing that. Hell, I support anyone doing that and a lot of people who aren't as lazy as you do so. I also think women should be able to enjoy sex without the risk of pregnancy via access to birth control. Just so we're clear, although I doubt anyone but you was confused.

Why are you so confused all the time? Is that a Libertarian thing?
21
@19: Read the Wikipedia article, numbnuts. RIGHT THERE IN THE THIRD GRAF:
"It is estimated that around 40% of the wage gap is caused by discrimination"

And really? The link you posted is titled "Five myths about the gender pay gap". The sentence "Women earn less because they work in industries that pay less." IS THE SECOND MYTH ON THAT LIST. You made a claim and then posted a link to an article that EXPLICITLY REFUTES YOUR POINT. It would be like claiming that hydrogen-filled zeppelins are the safest way to travel and then linking to this article as evidence.
You're wholly wrong in your claim, too. When controlled for seniority, hours, and other such legitimate factors, men and women working in the same professions at the same levels of expertise STILL earn differently, and women STILL earn substantially less for reasons that correlate ONLY to their gender.
22
Thanks Venomlash. I wasn't even making a claim about "why" there IS a pay gap, just stating the numbers correctly. Geez!
23
@21
Wow, congrats, you caught me copying and pasting the wrong article. One slip of the mouse means the argument is wrong and you can go home to the liberal utopia where unicorns prance around farting rainbows all thanks to high taxes and bans on large sodas.
Here is what I meant to link to:
"So, women aren't starting off behind their male counterparts, so much as they're choosing different jobs and losing ground later in their careers."
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arch…
It is a clear sign of desperation that you pick one little mistake and call it a win..well, I can't blame you, considering feminism is dying and you are forced to pull at straws: http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/wate…
24
@23: It's not "[o]ne slip of the mouse". It's a recurring pattern of posting links that you claim support your opinions when, in actuality, they CONTRADICT your argument.

The article you CLAIM you meant to link to gets its number from PayScale, which relies on people submitting their own information to a survey. That's a self-selecting sample right there, measuring only people who use the PayScale service and feel like submitting their information. That methodology would get laughed out of any peer-reviewed journal, which is why it's in a magazine opinion column instead. This study, by Harvard economist Dr. Claudia Goldin, draws its information from the US Census and other nationwide surveys. You'll clearly see that EVEN WHEN job choice, seniority, and other factors are accounted for, women still earn substantially less than men. What exactly do you say to THAT?
Please stop posting links to opinion pieces and start posting links to peer-reviewed journals if you want to be taken seriously.

"feminism is dying and you are forced to pull at straws"
"Feminist" has become a snarl word. The actual tenets of feminism have wide support.
From the article you linked as proof of feminism's decline:
"What with man-bashing and the erosion of the traditional masculine and feminine roles or family structure, Americans also apparently associate feminism with things other than, say, equal rights - and it is problematic.
'When given a neutral dictionary definition of feminism, as ‘someone who believes in the social, political and economic equality of the sexes,’ 57 percent of Americans proudly proclaim themselves feminists,' the poll concludes."
It's like when you posted a link to a poll where 54% of Americans valued "protecting gun rights" over "expanding gun control" (paraphrasing), and ignored the polls showing 90%+ support for universal background checks and bans on gun ownership by felons.

Again, you just post articles that you think support you based on skimming them. If you actually read the stuff you post, you might realize that the facts are frequently not on your side.