Difference between revisions of "User:RahalMccall69"

From eplmediawiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Construction begins on new college campus in Lacey_1)
(Seattle City Councilman Bruce Harrell wants you to pay for abortions)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
+
@@@
Construction is underway on South Puget Sound Community College s new Lacey campus, an $11 million project that Lacey officials expect to be a shot in the arm for the neighborhood and possibly fill long-vacant buildings.Work began last month and the project is expected to be finished in summer 2015, college spokeswoman Kellie Purce Braseth said.The college paid $4 million for the complex of five buildings on Sixth Avenue across from the Intercity Transit station, formerly known as Rowe Six.The plan is to transform the 50,000-square-foot Building 1, which faces Sixth Avenue, into an entrepreneurial center. It will combine the college s Small Business Development Center and the Thurston County Economic Development Council in a single destination to support entrepreneurs and business start-ups.The EDC, its staff and services will move into the new building, EDC Executive Director Michael Cade said.The organization <a href=http://www.alportico.net/page.php?sale=Size-44-True-Religion-Jeans>Size 44 True Religion Jeans</a>  also plans to work with several community partners such as chambers of commerce, the city of Lacey, The Evergreen State College and Saint Martin s University, Joint Base Lewis-McChord and Enterprise for Equity.But Building 1 also will be home to corporate and continuing education staff and classes, as well as other classrooms, computer labs and student services, Purce Braseth said.The college also will occupy Buildings 2 and 3. Building No. 3 will be home to an advanced manufacturing program. Meanwhile, Buildings 4 and 5 likely will be demolished to make way for either parking or a new building, she said.In all, about 11,000 people will use the campus. The estimate combines students taking credit classes and others, such as state workers, participating in training.City officials hope that influx of people will inject some life into the Woodland District and <a href=http://www.alportico.net/page.php?sale=True-Religion-Petite-Jeans>True Religion Mens Jeans</a>  specifically, Woodland Square Loop. Woodland Square Loop surrounds Huntamer Park, and many nearby office buildings have significant vacancies, the result of the recession and downsizing. Several of those buildings have a new owner: MJR Development of Kirkland.The city of Lacey also recently announced a plan to sublease from the college about 1,000 square feet in Building 2 to create a military service <a href=http://www.avanttravel.com/page.php?sale=Michael-Kors-Watch-Bands>Michael Kors Watch Bands</a>  center.The city has a memorandum of understanding with veterans centers in Tacoma and Federal Way to provide services in Lacey, with an emphasis on behavioral health. The center is expected to open in October.Meanwhile, SPSCC s existing Lacey campus is on Hawks Prairie between Marvin Road and Galaxy Drive. The college has leased the space since 1995, but in 2005 it purchased property off Marvin Road and set out to build a new campus. Since then, economic changes have taken the college in a new direction.The Marvin Road property, for which the college paid $6.2 million, is for sale, Purce Braseth said.  
+
Taken from Monday's edition of  
Rolf Boone: 360-754-5403
+
Seattle City Councilman Bruce Harrell wants you all to pay for women's abortions.  
 +
He <a href=http://www.alportico.net/gosoc.php> true religion sale</a>  , along with a couple co-authors, that they are  asking Obama and Congress to overturn all federal bans on public coverage of abortion.
 +
They write...
 +
"Over 41 years ago, the US Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that every woman has a constitutionally protected right to make her own personal medical decisions about when and if to become a mother. For almost as long 锟?nearly 38 years 锟?the Hyde Amendment has undermined Roe v. Wade by barring public funds from covering abortion care, effectively cutting off access for most women enrolled in public government insurance. Many of those most affected are low-income women, women of color, and immigrant women, who already face significant challenges to accessing safe, respectful, timely health care. This isn't just a matter of reproductive freedom 锟?it's an issue of racial and economic justice."
 +
This is apparently another social justice cause. Everything is about social justice, racial justice, economic justice. Not paying for a voluntary medical procedure when the vast majority of people who want the procedure are only getting it as a result of behavior they consensually engaged in, well, that's another racial and economic justice cause.
 +
Now, I want to frame this conversation in a way it's almost never framed in, certainly not from people in the same ideological camp as Harrell.  
 +
Let's talk about it from the perspective of someone who doesn't support funds going to abortions. A lot of people don't want to pay for abortions, myself included, because we think life starts at conception. Now, people have varying degrees of passion on this. Here's my take: I'm not 100 percent positive life starts at conception. I've got no idea. I do believe in God, and I believe in science, and science can't answer this question, only God can, and God isn't giving us an answer. So until I have that answer, I have to err on the side of life, just to be safe.
 +
I <a href=http://www.alportico.net/prodotti/christianlouboutin-sale.jkmsw.php>Christian Louboutin Replica</a>  understand where the other side comes from, where they either don't think life begins at conception or don't care. I understand that position and I respectfully disagree. And since this is my money we're talking about, I hope you'll recognize my position.
 +
The Stranger article continues:
 +
"If we pass this resolution, Seattle will become the first jurisdiction in the Northwest 锟?and the sixth nationally 锟?to declare its support for overturning the Hyde Amendment and restoring access to reproductive health care for every woman, regardless of her income or what kind of insurance she has."
 +
But wait. No one's reproductive health care is limited under the Hyde Amendment. Abortions aren't banned. You just have to pay for them yourselves or go through a service that is subsidized via donations. You can still get your abortion. You just have to pay for it, just like if I want an elective procedure of some kind, I can get it, I just have to pay for it.
 +
Harrell's piece continues:
 +
"As women's reproductive rights are deliberately and strategically eroded in other states, passing the resolution shows that the Hyde Amendment and attacks on women's health do not reflect Seattle's values."
 +
Can we stop referring to this having to do with reproductive rights? This is not an attack on women's health. You're not unhealthy if you can't get an abortion done. And the problem here, which is why I wanted to frame it with a clear understanding of why people are in favor of the Hyde Amendment, is because Harrell and other activists treat this like you just hate women if you don't pay for services they want.
 +
You often hear the slogan "my body, my choice!" Ok fine, your body your choice, but it's not your choice when you're using my money. It ceases to be your choice. <a href=http://www.museosangennaro.com/Public/anel.php> Christian Louboutin  Shoes Sale</a>  If you want me to pay for it, I get a say in it.  
 +
What they really mean is "MY BODY, MY CHOICE, YOU PAY FOR IT!" It doesn't work that way. If you want an abortion and you're morally okay with it, go for it. I won't stop you. I won't try to close down a clinic and I won't prevent you from getting one, but I'm not paying for it because I find it in the morally ambiguous zone to say the least. We shouldn't have to violate our religious beliefs because you can't pay for something that is an elective medical procedure.
 +
Taken from Monday's edition of

Revision as of 06:55, 2 October 2014

@@@ Taken from Monday's edition of Seattle City Councilman Bruce Harrell wants you all to pay for women's abortions. He <a href=http://www.alportico.net/gosoc.php> true religion sale</a> , along with a couple co-authors, that they are asking Obama and Congress to overturn all federal bans on public coverage of abortion. They write... "Over 41 years ago, the US Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that every woman has a constitutionally protected right to make her own personal medical decisions about when and if to become a mother. For almost as long 锟?nearly 38 years 锟?the Hyde Amendment has undermined Roe v. Wade by barring public funds from covering abortion care, effectively cutting off access for most women enrolled in public government insurance. Many of those most affected are low-income women, women of color, and immigrant women, who already face significant challenges to accessing safe, respectful, timely health care. This isn't just a matter of reproductive freedom 锟?it's an issue of racial and economic justice." This is apparently another social justice cause. Everything is about social justice, racial justice, economic justice. Not paying for a voluntary medical procedure when the vast majority of people who want the procedure are only getting it as a result of behavior they consensually engaged in, well, that's another racial and economic justice cause. Now, I want to frame this conversation in a way it's almost never framed in, certainly not from people in the same ideological camp as Harrell. Let's talk about it from the perspective of someone who doesn't support funds going to abortions. A lot of people don't want to pay for abortions, myself included, because we think life starts at conception. Now, people have varying degrees of passion on this. Here's my take: I'm not 100 percent positive life starts at conception. I've got no idea. I do believe in God, and I believe in science, and science can't answer this question, only God can, and God isn't giving us an answer. So until I have that answer, I have to err on the side of life, just to be safe. I <a href=http://www.alportico.net/prodotti/christianlouboutin-sale.jkmsw.php>Christian Louboutin Replica</a> understand where the other side comes from, where they either don't think life begins at conception or don't care. I understand that position and I respectfully disagree. And since this is my money we're talking about, I hope you'll recognize my position. The Stranger article continues: "If we pass this resolution, Seattle will become the first jurisdiction in the Northwest 锟?and the sixth nationally 锟?to declare its support for overturning the Hyde Amendment and restoring access to reproductive health care for every woman, regardless of her income or what kind of insurance she has." But wait. No one's reproductive health care is limited under the Hyde Amendment. Abortions aren't banned. You just have to pay for them yourselves or go through a service that is subsidized via donations. You can still get your abortion. You just have to pay for it, just like if I want an elective procedure of some kind, I can get it, I just have to pay for it. Harrell's piece continues: "As women's reproductive rights are deliberately and strategically eroded in other states, passing the resolution shows that the Hyde Amendment and attacks on women's health do not reflect Seattle's values." Can we stop referring to this having to do with reproductive rights? This is not an attack on women's health. You're not unhealthy if you can't get an abortion done. And the problem here, which is why I wanted to frame it with a clear understanding of why people are in favor of the Hyde Amendment, is because Harrell and other activists treat this like you just hate women if you don't pay for services they want. You often hear the slogan "my body, my choice!" Ok fine, your body your choice, but it's not your choice when you're using my money. It ceases to be your choice. <a href=http://www.museosangennaro.com/Public/anel.php> Christian Louboutin Shoes Sale</a> If you want me to pay for it, I get a say in it. What they really mean is "MY BODY, MY CHOICE, YOU PAY FOR IT!" It doesn't work that way. If you want an abortion and you're morally okay with it, go for it. I won't stop you. I won't try to close down a clinic and I won't prevent you from getting one, but I'm not paying for it because I find it in the morally ambiguous zone to say the least. We shouldn't have to violate our religious beliefs because you can't pay for something that is an elective medical procedure. Taken from Monday's edition of

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
extras
Toolbox