Glad to see Roe v. Wade likely reversed
I was 10 years old in 1973 when SCOTUS’s Roe v. Wade opinion opened the floodgates and legalized abortion in the U.S. Just a few years earlier in 1968, my mother, who was single, broke and struggling with two kids already, had in 1968, carried an unwanted pregnancy to term, a baby girl adopted by a married couple who could well care for her (and did, as I came to find out later).
In 1977, I was molested by a neighbor and ended up pregnant at 14. Because of legalized abortion, my mother marched me into her OB-GYN and my baby was aborted — certainly no choice available on my part. Apparently, her baby was given the chance at life because abortion was illegal, and mine, because the law said it was OK, was trash to be terminated and thrown away “to make my future better,” as she would tell me.
I am still devastated by this event, suffer flashbacks along with depression and anxiety, and will forever miss the child that never had a chance at life, whether with me as parent or not. There are grandchildren missing from this earth whose absence I feel acutely.
I am glad to see Roe v. Wade likely to be reversed and hope it will save millions of babies from slaughter of convenience or undue influence, and their mothers from years of emotional trauma. Babies, over 60 million so far, have never deserved the death penalty. We must celebrate their protection.
Freedom of choice for now
The GOP has never viewed Roe v. Wade as the compromise it was intended to be, but rather as a challenge to overcome.
And finally, after five decades, and Mitch McConnell stripping away any impartiality about Supreme Court nominations — ending the 60-plus majority requirement (the last two confirmations were along party lines); delaying one nomination (under a Democrat) for so long (nearly a year) that it fell to the next president (a Republican) to fill that position, while rushing that Republican’s nomination for the next position through in a matter of weeks — the Republican leadership appears to have the Supreme Court ruling they desire (despite popular U.S. opinion).
Four men and one woman will apparently soon rule that being an American woman today doesn’t guarantee control over one’s own procreation, because a bunch of men didn’t specifically mention it in 1787 — so such decisions should be left up to individual states, not actual individuals.
But to the modern GOP, freedom of choice and deference to local government only apply when you make the choices they already want you to make. If you or your community/state insist on making other choices, there will soon be laws banning those choices.
Gov. Inslee might like to reassure Washingtonians that women will always have that personal autonomy here, but if there is no longer a national right to it, how would he take it to the Supreme Court? Our state “sanctuary” could soon become in violation of national laws.
Here we are
Here we are! Here we are, facing three world-wide potential disasters; Russian nuclear threats, a climate-based catastrophe, and a deadly pandemic that may or may not have begun to decline, and what do the “true believers” on the Supreme Court do? They unleash a firestorm on our country by leaking their intent to abolish women’s rights by overturning Roe v. Wade! For what purpose? For what purpose? Why now?
Dr. Janet Norby
Nearest blue to you
“Near Nature, near perfect” needs to quickly be retired as our city motto and replaced with “Spokane, Nearest Blue to You.” As a Spokane Valley liberal I’m a glass half full kind of guy and now feel we need to capitalize on the once in generation tourist opportunity created by the inevitable overturning of Roe v. Wade.
Trigger laws In Idaho, Montana, Utah and the Dakotas completely banning abortion regardless of circumstances go into effect as soon as the decision is released. Giving our Convention and Visitors bureau little time to prepare an advertising campaign. I suggest targeting the poorest women forced into pregnancy and women horrified by their loss to make medical decisions regarding their own bodies.
This tourist draw could fill in the winter gap after Hoopfest and Bloomsday.
Discounted lodging and subsidized travel for the poorest. First class: Davenport, Churchill’s, crisp linen and white table cloth packages for the wealthiest. And of course, a rapid Washington resident package for these states smartest and most entrepreneurial women wishing relocate. We could call this the “To hell with you idiots, I’m moving to Washington package.” It is urgent that the bureau get on this pronto. There is money to be made and we are competing with California and Oregon.
Long-term housing provides long-term solutions
Mayor Woodward aims to “make homelessness less comfortable.” There is nothing comfortable about being homeless or temporarily sheltered, and House of Charity 2.0 won’t “move people out of homelessness.” Temporary shelters are like offering a Band-Aid for a severed artery — a real solution is long-term housing, first. Providing housing without barriers reduces costs by 60% per person after one year. It costs more to leave the homeless unhoused than it does to provide permanent housing.
The homelessness crisis is linked to the affordable housing crisis. The majority of the employed population can’t afford to buy a home, rental vacancy is nearly zero, low-income renters are priced out, and there is an inadequate supply of diverse housing. One out of every six families in Spokane are living at or below the federal poverty line - miss two days of work or have a car break down and you could be knocked into homelessness. For most, homelessness is not a choice.
Trauma, mental health and substance abuse disorders are often the result of homelessness; unsheltered individuals are more likely to be disabled, to have been abused as a child, and are disproportionately people of color. We did not get to this level of crisis because of individual choices alone, but because the system we all take part in has led us here. Housing-first initiatives are an effective and sustainable solution to homelessness, making homelessness “less comfortable,” is not.