Letters to the editor: Birth control, polluters, stadium
Birth control
As a voter and taxpayer here in Idaho, I am both hopeful and fearful about what actions our legislators will take during the 2020 legislative session. This week, the Senate Commerce and Human Resources committee will have the opportunity to send a bill to print that would expand folks’ access to birth control by requiring insurance companies to provide the ability to pick up a six-month supply of birth control at one time. This is a measure that could greatly benefit folks, and in particular those in rural areas who have limited access to pharmacies, by reducing the number of pharmacy trips required each year. Juggling work and family is complicated enough; this is one way the Legislature could make life a little easier for their busy constituents.
But then we have Heather Scott proposing a dangerous, cruel and if passed, very costly to defend, bill to ban abortion. I don’t want more money wasted in our state with yet another lengthy legal battle when it could be going to education, infrastructure or services that actually benefit Idahoans.
I urge those in the statehouse act to help Idahoans access needed health care, not needlessly prohibit a safe and needed medical procedure.
Sara Goldstein, Boise
Polluters
The Wall Street Journal published a statement by 3,500 economists supporting Carbon Fee and Dividend. Surely, Simpson and Fulcher would sign onto bipartisan HR 763 and Risch and Crapo would favor a similar bill in the Senate. HR763 uses a market-approach making fossil fuel polluters pay per ton of emissions and NO regulations. Dividends are returned equally to Americans. But Risch called carbon pollution fees “artificial.” Simpson said, “it was playing favorites.”
In 2015–2016, Congress subsidized $14 billion to fossil fuel polluters. States added $5-plus billion of state-level incentives. Idaho duplicates the federal tax code contributing Idaho taxpayer dollars to the polluters.
Oil Change International stated, “2015-2016 election cycle climate change polluters spent $354 million in campaign contributions and lobbying. They received $29.4 billion in federal subsidies”... resulting in 8,200% return on investment. Republican politicians took 88% of fossil fuel political contributions. “As a result, 97% of House Republicans oppose taxing carbon pollution, and the Trump administration… The GOP might as well rebrand itself as the Grand Oil Party.” The Republican servitude to the fossil fuel industry is the reason for its opposition to positive changes for climate change, sustainability and human health for future generations.
Ed Wardwell, Boise
Stadium
I was appalled to see that a former city councilman; Ludwig was going to appeal our new stadium ordinance to the Supreme Court. Our citizens approved that ordinance by a seventy-five per cent majority, As you pointed out, this councilman was not even elected but was appointed by Mayor Bieter.Thank goodness he chose not to run again. I used to like Mayor Bieter. I voted for him three times before he came out with his grandiose stadium and library proposals. But no more. Ludwig’s concern is about private property rights but what about the private property rights of the 75% of us who voted for the ordinance? We didn’t forbid stadium development, we just refused to pay for it with our tax money without a referendum. I agree wholeheartedly with Boise Working Together’s statement that “no private developer has an inherent right to a city subsidy for a private project.” This seems to be a general trend in this country that those who have should be able to have more at the expense of the rest of us.
Clarence Bolin, Boise