Nope. We donât need a right-to-life bullseye on a revenue source that is actually working. There is also no nexus between unwanted pregnancies and high wage workers the same way there is to wage inequity/housing instability. This is some color outside the lines issue. It doesnât sit well with actual voters to keep dreaming up new expenditures and taxes with so many unresolved problems already on the table.
âRather than dump all that money on the Northwest Abortion Access Fund, Sawantâs proposal stands up a new program that would likely run out of Public Health - Seattle & King County, according to her staff.â
So, instead of simply adding funding to a long-established program which actually works well right now, weâre going to spend money to create an entirely new, competing program which may or may not work as well someday? How many patronage positions does CM Sawant intend to create for her fellow Socialist Alternative members this time?
@1: â Surely those majority of those capable of pregnancy can come up with the cash or insurance coverage to pay for a termination, though they might need to forego a few craft cocktails or an airplane ticket somewhere?â
Youâre not being condescending enough. Tell those poor rape victims to get the money from their assailants. (In time for a FIRST-trimester abortion, preferably.)
â Plan B is much less.â
Indeed, this should cover contraception as well. Much safer, more effective, and less expensive.
@1 56% of Americans cannot afford a $1000 emergency expense with their savings. It's mostly because the price of every basic life expense has gone up dramatically (rent for example) rather than because of cocktails and luxury vacations.
@4: âWhy would the city pay for someone to have an abortion?â
Ideologically, Seattle is overwhelmingly pro-choice. Financially, paying for abortion (and, even more so, contraception!) is â by orders of magnitude â the most cost-effective long-term government program in the history of ever. See Chapter 5 of âFreakonomicsâ for details.
This seems like the wrong approach. First, many people (not all, but i bet it is half) in Seattle have insurance to cover this or could cover the cost themselves. A program targeted at reimbursing those who can't pay for it would make more sense. Also, I agree that this would whip up a whole ton of right-wing energy that we don't need. Frankly, the money might be better spent helping to make sure that abortion rights are not further restricted.
Finally, I don't believe that this is really a Sawant proposal. She would obviously want to require landlords to pay for their tenants' abortions.
I think its very nice of all of you to believe Sawant did any research or put thought into this proposal beyond how can she can use this issue to get her name back into the headlines. This line says everything you need to know "Sawantâs office glommed onto abortion rights as its latest issue after the Supreme Court leak earlier this year, hence this request." Its never about the issue with her, it's about the brand and the brand is Kshama. Whether it be the natural gas facility down in Tacoma, BLM, the carpenters strike, rent control you name it, Sawant simply goes where the wind is blowing to stick her imprint upon it and hopefully take credit for something. Speaking of which, where is the rent control legislation she has been harping about since she was elected to office over 10 years ago. Anyone, anyone? Bueller? I hope whoever is throwing poo at her house gives her another big dookie tonight.
@13: So, are you actually going to do the work? Otherwise, how do you know this is an outlier? (We should just expect Seattle to be just like Florida on this, because lazy.)
A public policy should cover all cases, yes; thank you for mentioning that. (I did give other reasons in these comments, but again, that would be just more work for you, now wouldnât it?)
This is a solution in search of a problem. Virtually all health insurance plans in WA are required to cover abortion, and for people without health insurance the State of WA provides funding for abortion care via state programs. The City of Seattle should focus its limited funds on problems that only it can/will address - I have a fague feeling we have a lingering, semi-serious housing affordabilty problem.
Expanding on @17, Washington's Apple Health program already covers abortion for residents (including undocumented immigrants) with an income at or below 193% of the Federal Poverty Level. See https://nwaafund.org/info/washington/
Accordingly, Sawant's proposal would not meaningfully affect Washington residents unable to afford abortion services, because that benefit was already being provided at the state level.
The only people Sawant's proposal would help are low-income non-residents who do not intend to stay in Washington. I'm honestly not sure why we need to spend $3.5 million to assist transitory visitors, especially in light of Seattle's budget shortfall and ongoing homelessness emergency. I mean, I fully understand this gives Sawant an opportunity to say she is fighting for abortion access, but it's not actually doing anything to benefit her constituency.
I can't stand Sawant, so everything she does is tainted in my view. This may be a good cause (though as someone else pointed out, why a new agency rather than the existing) but the fact she is behind it, makes me think she is somehow serving herself first. And then the condescending remarks from her about plane tickets and cocktails. Why must she always play class warfare? Really turns middle class Democrats like myself off. When she said everyone funding her recall was a right-winger, IN THIS CITY, was especially ludicrous.
Lastly, a note to the author of the article, your prose comes across amateurish when you use "like" in a phrase: "which amounts to abortions for like 27 Seattles" ...can't help but hear Vally Girl by Moon Unit Zappa in my head...yes, I'm old.
If only Sawant had consistently supported Democratic candidates for president, we may not be in this mess now. Always, always, always performance over substance with her. Especially when the stakes are incredibly high.
Bax dear, I think you are overestimating CM Sawant's influence. She only won the recall in her district by about 300 votes. If that were a citywide vote, she'd have been put out.
As far as this abortion proposal goes, I'm confused. I'm all for abortion (Abort early and abort often! When it doubt, cut it out!) but wouldn't making us the free abortion center of the nation bring all sorts of non-Seattlites in to get an abortion? Where would we house them during the process? Is there money in abortion tourism?
I am fine with the proposal on a micro level, but I fear that it might turn into a real mess on the macro level.
@24; The Northwest Abortion Access Fund has, for decades, paid women to travel to Seattle for abortions, and even paid for many of those abortions, so in that sense, âabortion tourismâ has been happening in Seattle for at least that long. Is there money in it? No, which is why itâs not called the Northwest Abortion Access Travel Agency. ;-) (Remember those?)
By definition, anyone who travels to Seattle for an abortion is not a local, so this Fund has been bringing many different women here. (Not âall sorts,â but the âsortsâ without money or connections to get abortions back in their red-state or red-county shitholes.)
Spending more money would allow more such women to travel to Seattle for subsidized abortions. Why not? No amount of Bible-banging or slut-shaming in those places ever seems to reduce the number of women there who want abortions.
Thank you tensora dear. I must admit that I had no idea. Another reason to love Seattle.
But if we are already doing it, why are talking about doing it? :-)
It occured to me the other day that there is an argument to be made that an abortion is an act of Christian Mercy: If one believes that we have immortal souls that live on after we leave this mortal coil, isn't rescuing that soul from a life of misery or neglect an act of mercy?
I'm going to try that one on my sister at Christmas. She's both devoutly Catholic and adamantly pro-choice. I have a feeling it will make for a lively conversation at Christmas Dinner.
Anthropromise Me dear, we're talking about Christianity. That's a logic-free zone. Shame on you!
Now, go eat a wafter that is Jesus, and then recite a set of words ten times to the lady who got pregnant without having sex while kneeling in front of a statue of her son who was nailed to a cross, somehow lasted three hours before he died, came back three days later, and then physically ascended to heaven with his mommy. You'll be absolved of your sin.
@9: âI agree that this would whip up a whole ton of right-wing energy that we don't need.â
Feature, not bug. Recall Master Sun Tzuâs teaching: force your enemy to battle in the time and place which will most disfavor him. Seattle right now provides a perfect place to defeat the medical misogynists.
Anthropromise Me dear, if I remember my bible stories correctly (never a sure bet) they nailed him to a cross instead of just tying him there like the other ones. One would think that that would make one bleed out rather quickly, don't you think? And didn't they also stab him at one point?
Nope. We donât need a right-to-life bullseye on a revenue source that is actually working. There is also no nexus between unwanted pregnancies and high wage workers the same way there is to wage inequity/housing instability. This is some color outside the lines issue. It doesnât sit well with actual voters to keep dreaming up new expenditures and taxes with so many unresolved problems already on the table.
âRather than dump all that money on the Northwest Abortion Access Fund, Sawantâs proposal stands up a new program that would likely run out of Public Health - Seattle & King County, according to her staff.â
So, instead of simply adding funding to a long-established program which actually works well right now, weâre going to spend money to create an entirely new, competing program which may or may not work as well someday? How many patronage positions does CM Sawant intend to create for her fellow Socialist Alternative members this time?
@1: â Surely those majority of those capable of pregnancy can come up with the cash or insurance coverage to pay for a termination, though they might need to forego a few craft cocktails or an airplane ticket somewhere?â
Youâre not being condescending enough. Tell those poor rape victims to get the money from their assailants. (In time for a FIRST-trimester abortion, preferably.)
â Plan B is much less.â
Indeed, this should cover contraception as well. Much safer, more effective, and less expensive.
@1 56% of Americans cannot afford a $1000 emergency expense with their savings. It's mostly because the price of every basic life expense has gone up dramatically (rent for example) rather than because of cocktails and luxury vacations.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/19/56percent-of-americans-cant-cover-a-1000-emergency-expense-with-savings.html
@4: âWhy would the city pay for someone to have an abortion?â
Ideologically, Seattle is overwhelmingly pro-choice. Financially, paying for abortion (and, even more so, contraception!) is â by orders of magnitude â the most cost-effective long-term government program in the history of ever. See Chapter 5 of âFreakonomicsâ for details.
This seems like the wrong approach. First, many people (not all, but i bet it is half) in Seattle have insurance to cover this or could cover the cost themselves. A program targeted at reimbursing those who can't pay for it would make more sense. Also, I agree that this would whip up a whole ton of right-wing energy that we don't need. Frankly, the money might be better spent helping to make sure that abortion rights are not further restricted.
Finally, I don't believe that this is really a Sawant proposal. She would obviously want to require landlords to pay for their tenants' abortions.
I think its very nice of all of you to believe Sawant did any research or put thought into this proposal beyond how can she can use this issue to get her name back into the headlines. This line says everything you need to know "Sawantâs office glommed onto abortion rights as its latest issue after the Supreme Court leak earlier this year, hence this request." Its never about the issue with her, it's about the brand and the brand is Kshama. Whether it be the natural gas facility down in Tacoma, BLM, the carpenters strike, rent control you name it, Sawant simply goes where the wind is blowing to stick her imprint upon it and hopefully take credit for something. Speaking of which, where is the rent control legislation she has been harping about since she was elected to office over 10 years ago. Anyone, anyone? Bueller? I hope whoever is throwing poo at her house gives her another big dookie tonight.
@3 - can Sawant agree to go first? Retroactively?
@13: So, are you actually going to do the work? Otherwise, how do you know this is an outlier? (We should just expect Seattle to be just like Florida on this, because lazy.)
A public policy should cover all cases, yes; thank you for mentioning that. (I did give other reasons in these comments, but again, that would be just more work for you, now wouldnât it?)
This is a solution in search of a problem. Virtually all health insurance plans in WA are required to cover abortion, and for people without health insurance the State of WA provides funding for abortion care via state programs. The City of Seattle should focus its limited funds on problems that only it can/will address - I have a fague feeling we have a lingering, semi-serious housing affordabilty problem.
Expanding on @17, Washington's Apple Health program already covers abortion for residents (including undocumented immigrants) with an income at or below 193% of the Federal Poverty Level. See https://nwaafund.org/info/washington/
Accordingly, Sawant's proposal would not meaningfully affect Washington residents unable to afford abortion services, because that benefit was already being provided at the state level.
The only people Sawant's proposal would help are low-income non-residents who do not intend to stay in Washington. I'm honestly not sure why we need to spend $3.5 million to assist transitory visitors, especially in light of Seattle's budget shortfall and ongoing homelessness emergency. I mean, I fully understand this gives Sawant an opportunity to say she is fighting for abortion access, but it's not actually doing anything to benefit her constituency.
I can't stand Sawant, so everything she does is tainted in my view. This may be a good cause (though as someone else pointed out, why a new agency rather than the existing) but the fact she is behind it, makes me think she is somehow serving herself first. And then the condescending remarks from her about plane tickets and cocktails. Why must she always play class warfare? Really turns middle class Democrats like myself off. When she said everyone funding her recall was a right-winger, IN THIS CITY, was especially ludicrous.
Lastly, a note to the author of the article, your prose comes across amateurish when you use "like" in a phrase: "which amounts to abortions for like 27 Seattles" ...can't help but hear Vally Girl by Moon Unit Zappa in my head...yes, I'm old.
If only Sawant had consistently supported Democratic candidates for president, we may not be in this mess now. Always, always, always performance over substance with her. Especially when the stakes are incredibly high.
Bax dear, I think you are overestimating CM Sawant's influence. She only won the recall in her district by about 300 votes. If that were a citywide vote, she'd have been put out.
As far as this abortion proposal goes, I'm confused. I'm all for abortion (Abort early and abort often! When it doubt, cut it out!) but wouldn't making us the free abortion center of the nation bring all sorts of non-Seattlites in to get an abortion? Where would we house them during the process? Is there money in abortion tourism?
I am fine with the proposal on a micro level, but I fear that it might turn into a real mess on the macro level.
@24; The Northwest Abortion Access Fund has, for decades, paid women to travel to Seattle for abortions, and even paid for many of those abortions, so in that sense, âabortion tourismâ has been happening in Seattle for at least that long. Is there money in it? No, which is why itâs not called the Northwest Abortion Access Travel Agency. ;-) (Remember those?)
By definition, anyone who travels to Seattle for an abortion is not a local, so this Fund has been bringing many different women here. (Not âall sorts,â but the âsortsâ without money or connections to get abortions back in their red-state or red-county shitholes.)
Spending more money would allow more such women to travel to Seattle for subsidized abortions. Why not? No amount of Bible-banging or slut-shaming in those places ever seems to reduce the number of women there who want abortions.
Thank you tensora dear. I must admit that I had no idea. Another reason to love Seattle.
But if we are already doing it, why are talking about doing it? :-)
It occured to me the other day that there is an argument to be made that an abortion is an act of Christian Mercy: If one believes that we have immortal souls that live on after we leave this mortal coil, isn't rescuing that soul from a life of misery or neglect an act of mercy?
I'm going to try that one on my sister at Christmas. She's both devoutly Catholic and adamantly pro-choice. I have a feeling it will make for a lively conversation at Christmas Dinner.
@24 - abortion tourism is a brilliant plan. We can re-open the Cinerama as the Belltown Abortionplex.
Anthropromise Me dear, we're talking about Christianity. That's a logic-free zone. Shame on you!
Now, go eat a wafter that is Jesus, and then recite a set of words ten times to the lady who got pregnant without having sex while kneeling in front of a statue of her son who was nailed to a cross, somehow lasted three hours before he died, came back three days later, and then physically ascended to heaven with his mommy. You'll be absolved of your sin.
@29- I think the people you are hoping for already exist. Theyâre called Protestants. They did not turn out to be any better.
@9: âI agree that this would whip up a whole ton of right-wing energy that we don't need.â
Feature, not bug. Recall Master Sun Tzuâs teaching: force your enemy to battle in the time and place which will most disfavor him. Seattle right now provides a perfect place to defeat the medical misogynists.
Anthropromise Me dear, if I remember my bible stories correctly (never a sure bet) they nailed him to a cross instead of just tying him there like the other ones. One would think that that would make one bleed out rather quickly, don't you think? And didn't they also stab him at one point?