County made right decision about Planned Parenthood
Editor:
Your “Our View” opinion piece on the County Commissioners’ decision to end charitable payroll deductions to United Way consequent to their donation to Planned Parenthood is well intended, but naive.
What is wrong with giving employees the “right to choose?” Isn’t that democracy?
Numbers are fungible. You noted that only 37 percent of Planned Parenthood’s visits are about abortion. That number does not distinguish between surgical and medical abortions. If medical (abortion pills) were included, the number would be much higher.
As remarked by a Planned Parenthood CEO in the movie “Unplanned,” McDonald’s doesn’t make its money on burgers; it’s made on sodas and fries. Abortion, not birth control, is Planned Parenthood’s “sodas and fries.”
As a sidewalk counselor for many years, I have witnessed unmitigated abuse. Only newly opened, a Planned Parenthood doctor used so much suction on a young mom that he pulled her intestines through her bowel, necessitating a colostomy.
His license was not suspended. Several times, I have seen an ambulance pull up to take their “collateral damage” to an ER. A young mom was once denied service because she was carrying twins and had money only for one abortion.
You questioned the humanity of an embryo. “Snowflakes” are post natal humans gestated as an embryo in an adoptive parent’s womb and born to non-biological parents.
Kudos to the commissioners! Abortion is definitely “incompatible with the values of Sarasota County.”
Margaret Yerman
Venice
Look at Trump’s record. He was awful
Editor:
A number of your contributors have submitted pro-Donald Trump letters that have touted his great accomplishments during his first term. I find that astonishing.
If you consider Trump’s own promises, his tenure has to be considered a failure.
He promised he’d provide an amazing, new, vastly improved and vastly less costly healthcare plan. What did he deliver, despite controlling Congress? Nothing.
He promised he’d build a wall and Mexico would pay for it. He built very little new wall. You’d have to live to about 150 if you want to see it completed. Mexico paid nothing for it. Again a failure.
He promised he’d correct our trade deficit and turn America into an exporter again. He didn’t. In fact, our trade deficit increased under Trump.
He promised he’d balance the budget, “genius” businessman that he claimed to be. Not only did he not move towards a balanced budget, he went the other direction in a big, big way.
His $9 trillion deficit is one of the largest by any American president ever. That’s $30 thousand for each and every one of us, including our kids. An absolutely awful job.
So much for promises made, promises kept. He failed on all of his main campaign pledges. If his fiery rhetoric is what moves you, you need to come to your senses.
Talk is only that, talk. He was, by any objective evaluation, an awful president. Why would anybody want to give him the job again?
Don Brown
Venice
What are motives behind changing Venice elections?
Editor:
Would it be rude to start a letter with, “Whadda you doin’?” I am at a loss of Venice City Council’s rush to change 100 years of how voters of Venice elect their government officials.
It’s taken them five months to decide if they’ll accept a sculpture and where to place it. But, in no time, they propose cutting Venice elections by 50% without input by the Charter Commission or engaging in public outreach.
This all smacks of backdoor secret dealings and hidden motives.
What are the motives, you ask? Well, let’s see who would benefit the most from gutting our annual City Council elections:
1) The three councilors that wouldn’t have to run next year. Nick Pachota, Rachel Frank and Rick Howard. They would get an extra year on their current terms.
2) The county Republican bosses. Aligning all Venice elections with national elections helps them bury local issues and rely on straight-ticket voters to get their hand-picked candidates elected.
No more Mitzie Fielder-type losses. And no more local independent-minded candidates.
3) Big-money real estate developers that fund those chosen candidates.
Gee, maybe those motives aren’t so hidden after all.
Tommye Whittaker
Venice
Venice should know that dictators extend their terms
Editor:
This is in reference to the “Heat on Council Dais” editorial on 5/4/24.
I disagree with the editorial finding fault with the word “corrupt” in describing a plan to extend two Venice City Council members terms by a year without them being elected.
Our constitutional democracy requires elections. We see in nations we consider totalitarian, e.g. Russia, dictators extend their terms, essentially what the Council and staff propose.
Why does violating democracy by granting non-elected terms of office not qualify as “corrupt” or unconstitutional, or malfeasance, etc.?
It is true that the voters will get a chance to reject this plan in November, but why does a constitutional government not reject unelected terms of office.
A number of strong words come to mind.
Ed Martin
Venice
Venice should continue with annual elections
Editor:
Venice Mayor Nick Pachota argues that Venice should follow the election cycle of Sarasota County Commissioners by eliminating our 98-year-old tradition of annual elections for City Council.
Anyone paying attention to how the County Commission routinely ignores its constituents and instead does the bidding of developers will agree that there is very little about the Commission that Venice government ought to emulate.
Our mayor should be the principal standard bearer for Venice as its own entity with its own way of operating. Let’s focus on what works best for Venice, and that includes the ability to vote new people onto Council each year.
Debbie Gericke
Venice
Why are we trying to change Venice’s election cycle?
Editor:
I am so proud to live in Venice, our “Hallmark Town.” All our amenities are just a short distance away. We know the shopkeepers and run into all kinds of acquaintances while walking West Venice Avenue. We all love to share our discovering Venice stories.
The stories are a big part of what makes our little town so special. We all share in the remarkable “Discovery.”
Recently, something has been presented to residents regarding the extension of at least three of the City Council members’ terms and eliminating annual elections! This caught me off guard and feels so anti-Venice, as I know it.
I understand there was a suggested change, with several confusing & different options. But where in the world did this idea surface? And why are several Council members in favor of it?
The City Council Election Cycle has worked for 98 years! What justification is there for this recommendation? Please tell us.
I encourage you to listen to your constituents. When you ran for office, we donated to your campaigns. You indicated you were hearing us. What happened?
New blood on Council is a good thing. New ideas. More energy. Is this to be denied in favor of many of you getting additional terms without a vote from the people?
Voting is a right we all take very seriously. Yet, with this change, certain people will stay on Council, their terms merely extended if you vote yes on the referendum question in November. This is designed to change city council terms to four years.
It will eliminate off-year campaigns and elections and instead be on the last page of a lengthy ballot that includes state, county and local elections. The importance of City Council elections is lost as many won’t even get to the last page of items. Is this what you, the voters, want?
You refer often to the writings of conduct that hang on the wall behind your seating. Perhaps you may need to read them again.
Judy Cross
Venice
Most Popular
Comments / 0