When a public utility has to charge more because the consumer is using less it's time to privatize it so that competition can add more options and value.


@2, And red states can enjoy higher maternal mortality rates, birth defects, children on welfare, and even more poverty and social decay than they already suffer. Not sure why you guys see any of this as a perk, except may the part where women die.


@2 It's all worth it to them because "librul tears! Librul heads are exploding!"

At this point I think they're well beyond collusion with nazis because they're just following orders. They're worse than 1939 Germany because they actually love all this evil shit.


@1 We pay some of the lowest rates in the nation - but yes. Let's privatize so 3rd party, cronies can get their paws on some more public money.


@1 Unless every competitor is going to build their own distribution network, the only competition you're going to get is in the contract phase. "Competition" over phat government contracts is the acme of modern Republican free market philosophy. Why should public money go to well-paid and secure public employees when it could be crammed down the gullet of corrupt corporate jackals, right?

What its time for is some political accountability to be applied to the executives at City Light.


@4, it's not a question of "killing babies" to save money. Conservatives are staunchly opposed to proactive measures to make it so fewer women need abortion: unrestricted health care access that includes birth control, pre-natal care, health care for children and people with disabilities, welfare, subsidized maternity leave.

Making it easier for women to avoid unintended pregnancy or care for an unplanned child is the only way to reduce the abortion rate. Making it illegal does not make it go away, it only makes it more dangerous. Also calling bullshit on saving the life of the mother; good for you for at least having some respect for women's dignity but you do not speak for all conservatives, not to mention that putting legal restrictions on a life-saving medical procedure is going to result in procedural delays that end with people dying or suffering physical disfigurement for no reason. When you add it all up, punishing women for having sex without wanting to have children is the simplest explanation for the conservative approach to reproductive health.


RIP Tab Hunter


@9 - Thank you blip - I was trying to gather some points together but you do a better job.


You're welcome, Phoebe.


See Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby for how conservatives feel about birth control access. See Republican opposition to health care reform and welfare for how much they care about struggling families or people with disabilities. See the cuts to Medicaid in the proposed budget for 2019. If you gave a single shit about any of these things you wouldn't need to ask where to look for them. You also wouldn't be caught dead voting republican.


I think what really chaps conservative hides' when it comes to the assertion that birth control/prenatal care, etc. is restricted, is the fact that people mean it's economically restrictive. Many poor young black women in rural mississippi, for example, cannot afford birth control and reproductive health care in general. And to a conservative, giving away something for free or something that is taxpayer funded..... to brown people.... is just not right.

And to counter this, conservatives get back to policing everyone's morality and say that if brown people can't afford birth control then they shouldn't be having sex. "Just trust in the lord, he'll make sure you don't get preggers"


Illinois, Missouri, Arizona, Delaware, Hawaii, Nevada, New Mexico, Connecticut, and West Virginia, and the District of Columbia all have expansive or even unlimited refusal clauses, letting insurers and hospitals deny providing contraception for any reason they want.

There ya go! Now get up off your ass and get to lobbying to have those laws changed like you wrote.


The State should not have the ability to force anyone to use their body against their will to save another person's life. That's why nobody's forcing you to donate a kidney, nor should women be forced to give birth.

Forced kidney donation would save the lives of thousands of already productive citizens, yet nobody is jumping on that bandwagon. You only need one kidney, and the procedure is safer than being pregnant and giving birth. The long-term health consequences are the same (1) as never having had the procedure (you can't say that about pregnancy). So why not force people to donate kidneys to save other lives?

@9 is exactly correct - limiting access to abortion is not about saving lives or being "pro life", it's about punishing women for having sex.



Abortions do not cost “thousands” - PP has a sliding scale and will give them for free to women who can’t afford it, even still it’s not “thousands” - but they are much cheaper than raising a child and worth the risk in the moment because people like fucking and pregnancy is a relatively rare event anyway.

You can keep twisting and turning all you like but point is very simple. If you want fewer abortions make it easier for women to make other choices. Keep birth control accessible and affordable (it should be free, accessible and uncontroversial) and support welfare and subsidized maternal leave. Make it easier for families to care for a lifetime dependent if you think terminating a child with a disability is “eugenics”. If you are against any of these things - ie if you support the republican party’s platform for the past 4 decades - in practical terms you support policies that result in more abortions.


Birth control with no insurance can cost up to $600/year, roughly the cost of an abortion. If you’re poor, the choice between a fixed expense and a theoretical one can be worth the risk. Support making it easier for women to make the choice you prefer (or better yet stop obsessing over other people’s personal business).


You hit the nail on the head dude, abortion costs thousands of dollars more than birth control. So why not focus on providing cheap birth control?

And I'm not not a woman, but condoms are cheaper than woman's birth control, right? Birth control pills require a prescription I think? And other pills and woman's contraception cost a lot more than condoms, like $20 for one pill? And it's a behind the counter thing I think? And if you're in the rural south where god rules everything, you have to negotiate with an older white male pharmacist(has a wwjd bumper sticker on his chrysler imperial) behind that counter who is going to do everything they can not to give it to you? Or make you feel bad or shame you for needing it?

The only intellectual dishonesty being shoveled around here is by conservatives who think 1) every person in this country fits into one nice neat little model(that looks and acts exactly like themselves) and 2) this a world that is easy to explain with simple yes or no questions and answers.


David @18: cute bit of misdirection there with that “intellectual dishonesty” phrase. You clearly have a degree from the Trump school of “how to turn your own shortcomings into a weapon via bullshit counter-accusations.”


@2, 4: Fetuses are not babies. They can't feel pain. They can't live outside the womb (even with a respirator). They aren't self-aware. These are facts.

More facts: The world is overpopulated. There is no baby shortage. We don't need more babies, especially ones not wanted or planned.

Don't worry, there will never be a shortage of dumb Americans to mindlessly pay taxes that mainly benefit the rich, mindlessly join the army and get killed in wars that benefit the rich, and even mindlessly vote for candidates that don't care about them and only want to continue helping the rich. So there is no real need to wage war on abortion. The rich are going to stay rich.


In those states, yes, people can attempt to buy birth control and if the salesperson objects to it, they can refuse to do the transaction.

Sure, they can just go to another store, or another salesperson, but if any of them are allowed to refuse to provide contraception then that is RESTRICTING ACCESS TO BIRTH CONTROL.

By the way, interesting that you said "a WOMAN can't buy birth control" and "women can't afford to pay for birth control." Are you suggesting contraception is entirely the woman's responsibility?

Of course you are, you conservatives are all the same: Misogynist deplorables.


The utilities are the city’s cash cows. Private utilities would mean not only higher rates but higher taxes, and the end to many programs that are funded by the utilities - including the discount program.

City Light and SPU should be removed from council oversight and placed under a local public utility commission, and run like a business.


I am surprised that when it comes to abortion vs cost of birth control, the ever-sex positive publication The Stranger is too prudish to point out the plethora of ways straight couples can get it on that DO NOT result in pregnancy. You "birth control needs to be free" advocates are the biggest prudes out there, 100% focused on penis ejaculating into pussy.


Hey, guys... check this out...

It's actually really pretty unnerving.


I'm late to the party, but lots of great stuff to read, both in the post and in the comments. It's always amusing watching one of the few remaining conservative trolls (Shoreline) get intellectually pummeled until he slinks away with his tail between his legs.

@27: Not according to the sex survey of the Stranger's readers that they just published.

@28: That seems like real important reading, with the upcoming employee review in Sweden. I'll have to wait until I'm no longer ostensibly working, since that goes on for miles.


When the Republicans nightmare tax plan was released, maybe a dozen or so public utilities across the country released statements that they would be either reducing costs to consumers or sending one time refunds, because they were going to save unexpected hundreds of millions between the reduced 20% rate, and the massive savings on capital expenses.
At the time, I emailed all Seattle city Council members and the newly elected Mayor Durkan, asking how City Light would adjust their budget or if they would pass the savings on to customers. I got only 2 responses total. Both blew off my questions and provided no information and no intention to follow up, and I have seen nothing from them since in the media, in public announcements or on their budget links online.

This should be addressed before they raise rates.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.