O'Brien vs. Rosencrantz

“O’Brien [interrupting]: Do you believe there should be [a requirement that parents] consent for a minor [to get an abortion]?

Rosencrantz: No, and here’s why. The laws are designed to proctect those who constitute a small minority and young women who feel they don’t have another option are a small minority.”

Rosencrantz said at metro dems that he did not support current state law regarding parental notification. Was questioned directly (no mistakes or misunderstandings) and stood his ground.

Does Robert believe that abortion should be legal?

Does he believe that a pharmacist should be able to deny emergency contraceptives based on religion?

Robert refers to the “conscious clause” hastily insserted by Bush. Here it is:

Under the rule, workers in health-care settings — from doctors to janitors — can refuse to provide services, information or advice to patients on subjects such as contraception, family planning, blood transfusions and even vaccine counseling if they are morally against it.

Rosencrantz says: ” fully support public health clinic funding for the full range of services, but I do believe nurses and doctors should have a conscience exemption. I agree with President Obama on that.” He agrees with Obama on what?

Obama wanted to rescind the entire conscious clause and ended up narrowing it to only abortions. Does robert apply it narrowly or would he allow a doctor to deny administration of a vaccine or blood transfusion or contraception?

“O’Brien [interrupting]: Do you believe there should be [a requirement that parents] consent for a minor [to get an abortion]?

Rosencrantz: No, and here’s why. The laws are designed to proctect those who constitute a small minority and young women who feel they don’t have another option are a small minority.”

Rosencrantz said at metro dems that he did not support current state law regarding parental notification. Was questioned directly (no mistakes or misunderstandings) and stood his ground.

Does Robert believe that abortion should be legal?

Does he believe that a pharmacist should be able to deny emergency contraceptives based on religion?

Robert refers to the “conscious clause” hastily insserted by Bush. Here it is:

Under the rule, workers in health-care settings — from doctors to janitors — can refuse to provide services, information or advice to patients on subjects such as contraception, family planning, blood transfusions and even vaccine counseling if they are morally against it.

Rosencrantz says: ” fully support public health clinic funding for the full range of services, but I do believe nurses and doctors should have a conscience exemption. I agree with President Obama on that.” He agrees with Obama on what?

Obama wanted to rescind the entire conscious clause and ended up narrowing it to only abortions. Does robert apply it narrowly or would he allow a doctor to deny administration of a vaccine or blood transfusion or contraception?

“O’Brien [interrupting]: Do you believe there should be [a requirement that parents] consent for a minor [to get an abortion]?

Rosencrantz: No, and here’s why. The laws are designed to proctect those who constitute a small minority and young women who feel they don’t have another option are a small minority.”

Rosencrantz said at metro dems that he did not support current state law regarding parental notification. Was questioned directly (no mistakes or misunderstandings) and stood his ground.

Does Robert believe that abortion should be legal?

Does he believe that a pharmacist should be able to deny emergency contraceptives based on religion?

Robert refers to the “conscious clause” hastily insserted by Bush. Here it is:

Under the rule, workers in health-care settings — from doctors to janitors — can refuse to provide services, information or advice to patients on subjects such as contraception, family planning, blood transfusions and even vaccine counseling if they are morally against it.

Rosencrantz says: ” fully support public health clinic funding for the full range of services, but I do believe nurses and doctors should have a conscience exemption. I agree with President Obama on that.” He agrees with Obama on what?

Obama wanted to rescind the entire conscious clause and ended up narrowing it to only abortions. Does robert apply it narrowly or would he allow a doctor to deny administration of a vaccine or blood transfusion or contraception?

Christi:

I’ve spoken at length with Mr. Rosencrantz about this. He specifically is referring to forcing people to provide or assist on elective abortions. He thinks that the best way the government can be involved is through funding of health clinics that focus on prevention of unintended pregnancy.

Now, last I checked, nobody in the pro-choice movement has ever advocated for more abortions. In my years at Planned Parenthood, our focus was always on prevention, but when that failed, then elective abortion was available as an option. Mr. Rosencrantz has stated that he 100% agrees with this.

If that’s not on the right side of choice, then 99% of people who are pro-choice are, according to some people’s definition, pro-life.

Christi:

I’ve spoken at length with Mr. Rosencrantz about this. He specifically is referring to forcing people to provide or assist on elective abortions. He thinks that the best way the government can be involved is through funding of health clinics that focus on prevention of unintended pregnancy.

Now, last I checked, nobody in the pro-choice movement has ever advocated for more abortions. In my years at Planned Parenthood, our focus was always on prevention, but when that failed, then elective abortion was available as an option. Mr. Rosencrantz has stated that he 100% agrees with this.

If that’s not on the right side of choice, then 99% of people who are pro-choice are, according to some people’s definition, pro-life.

Christi:

I’ve spoken at length with Mr. Rosencrantz about this. He specifically is referring to forcing people to provide or assist on elective abortions. He thinks that the best way the government can be involved is through funding of health clinics that focus on prevention of unintended pregnancy.

Now, last I checked, nobody in the pro-choice movement has ever advocated for more abortions. In my years at Planned Parenthood, our focus was always on prevention, but when that failed, then elective abortion was available as an option. Mr. Rosencrantz has stated that he 100% agrees with this.

If that’s not on the right side of choice, then 99% of people who are pro-choice are, according to some people’s definition, pro-life.

That’s funny how you gave O’Brien a giant, lofty byline and you just labeled Rosencrantz ‘real-estate investor’.

C’mon, Erica. You’ve been doing such a good job of keeping your biases at bay when reporting for the blog. I know it’s election time and there’s a lot of issues and candidates you’re hard-up to support, but just hold on a little longer while reporting these news items.

That’s funny how you gave O’Brien a giant, lofty byline and you just labeled Rosencrantz ‘real-estate investor’.

C’mon, Erica. You’ve been doing such a good job of keeping your biases at bay when reporting for the blog. I know it’s election time and there’s a lot of issues and candidates you’re hard-up to support, but just hold on a little longer while reporting these news items.

That’s funny how you gave O’Brien a giant, lofty byline and you just labeled Rosencrantz ‘real-estate investor’.

C’mon, Erica. You’ve been doing such a good job of keeping your biases at bay when reporting for the blog. I know it’s election time and there’s a lot of issues and candidates you’re hard-up to support, but just hold on a little longer while reporting these news items.

Looks like there’s a typo… or rosencrantz is repeating the same answer to any question!

PubliCola: Robert, do you support any tolling plan?

Rosencrantz: I support as little tolling as possible. If it’s necessary to pay for direct construction of something, I could accept it. But I don’t agree with this idea that we should price people out of their cars.

I would prefer to toll neither (SR-520 nor I-90). If [tolling is] necessary to pay for construction of 520, I would be open to it. I’m not a “let’s put a user fee on it to force people out of their cars” person. We already pay for our roads through the gas tax.

PubliCola: Robert, do you support light rail? It seems, from what you’re saying about tolls, that you’re not a fan of congestion relief that doesn’t consist of new highway construction.

Rosencrantz: As little as possible. If it’s necessaray to pay for direct construction of something, I could accept it. But I don’t agree with this idea that we should price people out of their cars.

I would prefer to toll neither (520 nor 90) if its’ necessary to pay for construction of 520 I would be open to it. Itm not a “let’s put a user fee on it to force people out of their cars. We already pay for our roads through the gas tax.

Looks like there’s a typo… or rosencrantz is repeating the same answer to any question!

PubliCola: Robert, do you support any tolling plan?

Rosencrantz: I support as little tolling as possible. If it’s necessary to pay for direct construction of something, I could accept it. But I don’t agree with this idea that we should price people out of their cars.

I would prefer to toll neither (SR-520 nor I-90). If [tolling is] necessary to pay for construction of 520, I would be open to it. I’m not a “let’s put a user fee on it to force people out of their cars” person. We already pay for our roads through the gas tax.

PubliCola: Robert, do you support light rail? It seems, from what you’re saying about tolls, that you’re not a fan of congestion relief that doesn’t consist of new highway construction.

Rosencrantz: As little as possible. If it’s necessaray to pay for direct construction of something, I could accept it. But I don’t agree with this idea that we should price people out of their cars.

I would prefer to toll neither (520 nor 90) if its’ necessary to pay for construction of 520 I would be open to it. Itm not a “let’s put a user fee on it to force people out of their cars. We already pay for our roads through the gas tax.

Looks like there’s a typo… or rosencrantz is repeating the same answer to any question!

PubliCola: Robert, do you support any tolling plan?

Rosencrantz: I support as little tolling as possible. If it’s necessary to pay for direct construction of something, I could accept it. But I don’t agree with this idea that we should price people out of their cars.

I would prefer to toll neither (SR-520 nor I-90). If [tolling is] necessary to pay for construction of 520, I would be open to it. I’m not a “let’s put a user fee on it to force people out of their cars” person. We already pay for our roads through the gas tax.

PubliCola: Robert, do you support light rail? It seems, from what you’re saying about tolls, that you’re not a fan of congestion relief that doesn’t consist of new highway construction.

Rosencrantz: As little as possible. If it’s necessaray to pay for direct construction of something, I could accept it. But I don’t agree with this idea that we should price people out of their cars.

I would prefer to toll neither (520 nor 90) if its’ necessary to pay for construction of 520 I would be open to it. Itm not a “let’s put a user fee on it to force people out of their cars. We already pay for our roads through the gas tax.

Michael:

The conscious clause is not much about abortion, as it is about Plan B.

It’s a bit of a smoke screen to try and include Plan B as an abortificant.

This is emergency contraception and is often denied by pharmacists and doctors under the guise of religion.

So, for full clarity on Robert’s position, we’d have to know what specific exceptions he takes to state law and the democratic platform.

Christi: I know it’s important to most of us that our officials are pro-choice, especially the officials who carry out the law or have direct impact on provision of services or funding for services. But: 1) City Councilmembers don’t do any of that, and 2) Rosencrantz said he fully supports public health clinic funding (which are County, not City) for all services, even those he disagrees with.

Give it a rest. There are more relevant things to be questioning City Council candidates about. Question Susan Hutchison about her views on choice.

And it’s conscience clause, not conscious clause.

Christi: I know it’s important to most of us that our officials are pro-choice, especially the officials who carry out the law or have direct impact on provision of services or funding for services. But: 1) City Councilmembers don’t do any of that, and 2) Rosencrantz said he fully supports public health clinic funding (which are County, not City) for all services, even those he disagrees with.

Give it a rest. There are more relevant things to be questioning City Council candidates about. Question Susan Hutchison about her views on choice.

And it’s conscience clause, not conscious clause.

Christi: I know it’s important to most of us that our officials are pro-choice, especially the officials who carry out the law or have direct impact on provision of services or funding for services. But: 1) City Councilmembers don’t do any of that, and 2) Rosencrantz said he fully supports public health clinic funding (which are County, not City) for all services, even those he disagrees with.

Give it a rest. There are more relevant things to be questioning City Council candidates about. Question Susan Hutchison about her views on choice.

And it’s conscience clause, not conscious clause.

There’s a kazillion reasons not to like Rosencrantz, what bugs me is that we allow politicians to be coy and not tell the truth – especially on issues that are important.

Fully funding contraception through the health clinics isn’t enough if emergency contraception is in stock but cannot be dispensed through the religious exception.

These clinics are jointly funded by Seattle and King county, so it’s very germaine.

Furthermore, with so many clinics reducing services because of funding, it’s doubly critical that the one clinic you can find will ACTUALLY dispense the prescription.

This conversation becomes very important with the application of Families and Education Levy funds – which should fund many important facets of family planning.

And, if this thread were about Hutchison, I’d be sure to ask the same questions.

There’s a kazillion reasons not to like Rosencrantz, what bugs me is that we allow politicians to be coy and not tell the truth – especially on issues that are important.

Fully funding contraception through the health clinics isn’t enough if emergency contraception is in stock but cannot be dispensed through the religious exception.

These clinics are jointly funded by Seattle and King county, so it’s very germaine.

Furthermore, with so many clinics reducing services because of funding, it’s doubly critical that the one clinic you can find will ACTUALLY dispense the prescription.

This conversation becomes very important with the application of Families and Education Levy funds – which should fund many important facets of family planning.

And, if this thread were about Hutchison, I’d be sure to ask the same questions.

Christi:

You do bring an excellent point! AND, because I have excessive respect for you (and, FTR, I’m not bullshitting, I am very fond of Christi), I will bring this question up next time I see Robert.

Of course, I’m defending Mr. Rosencrantz because I don’t believe in unfair attacks. I constantly make fun of Robert and Mike for having such a boring race, but in reality, the civility in this race has been a very refreshing change of pace from the Mayor’s race, the County Executive’s race, Position 6, Position 2, and the City Attorney’s race.

Both Robert and Mike should be commended, above all else, for their staunch support of neighborhoods, and their refusal to engage in personal attacks or unfair attacks on each other. They have had a campaign focused on the issues, and I haven’t really seen either one go too negative. They have drawn distinct contrasts in their opinion, but still are civil, and both deserve applause.

Christi:

You do bring an excellent point! AND, because I have excessive respect for you (and, FTR, I’m not bullshitting, I am very fond of Christi), I will bring this question up next time I see Robert.

Of course, I’m defending Mr. Rosencrantz because I don’t believe in unfair attacks. I constantly make fun of Robert and Mike for having such a boring race, but in reality, the civility in this race has been a very refreshing change of pace from the Mayor’s race, the County Executive’s race, Position 6, Position 2, and the City Attorney’s race.

Both Robert and Mike should be commended, above all else, for their staunch support of neighborhoods, and their refusal to engage in personal attacks or unfair attacks on each other. They have had a campaign focused on the issues, and I haven’t really seen either one go too negative. They have drawn distinct contrasts in their opinion, but still are civil, and both deserve applause.

There’s a kazillion reasons not to like Rosencrantz, what bugs me is that we allow politicians to be coy and not tell the truth – especially on issues that are important.

Fully funding contraception through the health clinics isn’t enough if emergency contraception is in stock but cannot be dispensed through the religious exception.

These clinics are jointly funded by Seattle and King county, so it’s very germaine.

Furthermore, with so many clinics reducing services because of funding, it’s doubly critical that the one clinic you can find will ACTUALLY dispense the prescription.

This conversation becomes very important with the application of Families and Education Levy funds – which should fund many important facets of family planning.

And, if this thread were about Hutchison, I’d be sure to ask the same questions.

Christi:

You do bring an excellent point! AND, because I have excessive respect for you (and, FTR, I’m not bullshitting, I am very fond of Christi), I will bring this question up next time I see Robert.

Of course, I’m defending Mr. Rosencrantz because I don’t believe in unfair attacks. I constantly make fun of Robert and Mike for having such a boring race, but in reality, the civility in this race has been a very refreshing change of pace from the Mayor’s race, the County Executive’s race, Position 6, Position 2, and the City Attorney’s race.

Both Robert and Mike should be commended, above all else, for their staunch support of neighborhoods, and their refusal to engage in personal attacks or unfair attacks on each other. They have had a campaign focused on the issues, and I haven’t really seen either one go too negative. They have drawn distinct contrasts in their opinion, but still are civil, and both deserve applause.

It is a pretty boring race!

Just a clarification though, there’s no attacks here, just questions.

The whole exception thing has been a smokescreen for a while now – and centers around the attempts to class contraceptives as abortificants and thereby deny them to women in emergency situations.

It’s pretty much a “red flag” for the pro-choice community and it’s not something that’s taken lightly.

There’s too many stories of a woman trodding miles and miles (sometimes over state lines) from pharmacy to pharmacy to get emergency contraception and being refused the prescription. That means that by denying the prescription, a abortion is made more likely.

It is a pretty boring race!

Just a clarification though, there’s no attacks here, just questions.

The whole exception thing has been a smokescreen for a while now – and centers around the attempts to class contraceptives as abortificants and thereby deny them to women in emergency situations.

It’s pretty much a “red flag” for the pro-choice community and it’s not something that’s taken lightly.

There’s too many stories of a woman trodding miles and miles (sometimes over state lines) from pharmacy to pharmacy to get emergency contraception and being refused the prescription. That means that by denying the prescription, a abortion is made more likely.

It is a pretty boring race!

Just a clarification though, there’s no attacks here, just questions.

The whole exception thing has been a smokescreen for a while now – and centers around the attempts to class contraceptives as abortificants and thereby deny them to women in emergency situations.

It’s pretty much a “red flag” for the pro-choice community and it’s not something that’s taken lightly.

There’s too many stories of a woman trodding miles and miles (sometimes over state lines) from pharmacy to pharmacy to get emergency contraception and being refused the prescription. That means that by denying the prescription, a abortion is made more likely.

Christi:

I love that we’re engaging in a conversation, not just attacking each other!!!

And I 100% agree with you! Access has always been a major deal for me. One of the ways we can prevent abortion is by ensuring access to EC (Plan B). The only reason why I have even brought this up with Mr. Rosencrantz is because the choice issue was brought to my attention by…well, by you, and I cannot thank you enough.

While most gays vote gay rights first, I vote choice first. I don’t know why, but it’s much more important to me. It’s going to be important to my daughter. And making sure that our elected officials are there with us on this is also important.

And, just for fun -

I was at the Eastlake forum (my neighborhood, after all), and after Positions 2, 4 and 6 all had their bit (and stood far apart from each other), it seemed that Mike and Robert were trying to share a chair!!! At the very end of their segment, Mike even pointed out that theirs is a race of ideas and not personal attacks, and they continued their friendliness!!!

The only race I love more is MAX VEKICH’s, and that’s because I have a total man-crush on Max.

Christi:

I love that we’re engaging in a conversation, not just attacking each other!!!

And I 100% agree with you! Access has always been a major deal for me. One of the ways we can prevent abortion is by ensuring access to EC (Plan B). The only reason why I have even brought this up with Mr. Rosencrantz is because the choice issue was brought to my attention by…well, by you, and I cannot thank you enough.

While most gays vote gay rights first, I vote choice first. I don’t know why, but it’s much more important to me. It’s going to be important to my daughter. And making sure that our elected officials are there with us on this is also important.

And, just for fun -

I was at the Eastlake forum (my neighborhood, after all), and after Positions 2, 4 and 6 all had their bit (and stood far apart from each other), it seemed that Mike and Robert were trying to share a chair!!! At the very end of their segment, Mike even pointed out that theirs is a race of ideas and not personal attacks, and they continued their friendliness!!!

The only race I love more is MAX VEKICH’s, and that’s because I have a total man-crush on Max.

Christi:

I love that we’re engaging in a conversation, not just attacking each other!!!

And I 100% agree with you! Access has always been a major deal for me. One of the ways we can prevent abortion is by ensuring access to EC (Plan B). The only reason why I have even brought this up with Mr. Rosencrantz is because the choice issue was brought to my attention by…well, by you, and I cannot thank you enough.

While most gays vote gay rights first, I vote choice first. I don’t know why, but it’s much more important to me. It’s going to be important to my daughter. And making sure that our elected officials are there with us on this is also important.

And, just for fun -

I was at the Eastlake forum (my neighborhood, after all), and after Positions 2, 4 and 6 all had their bit (and stood far apart from each other), it seemed that Mike and Robert were trying to share a chair!!! At the very end of their segment, Mike even pointed out that theirs is a race of ideas and not personal attacks, and they continued their friendliness!!!

The only race I love more is MAX VEKICH’s, and that’s because I have a total man-crush on Max.

Well, Michael, to tell you the truth, after the races we’ve seen this season, boring is good. Mike’s a cutie-patootie boy next door type and he and Robert are both “boring” as hell (meant in the nicest way). =)

Robert gives mikes rides all the time – they are both very gracious and congenial.

All this roundy round about choice does make me wonder, though – if Robert is pro-choice, would fully fund and support family planning clinics (abortions, contraception, whatever) and supports existing state law on parental notification, then why all the exceptions to the democratic platform on choice issues at all? After all, it takes on “X” to say yes and it took Robert a whole page to say everything but yes.

Well, Michael, to tell you the truth, after the races we’ve seen this season, boring is good. Mike’s a cutie-patootie boy next door type and he and Robert are both “boring” as hell (meant in the nicest way). =)

Robert gives mikes rides all the time – they are both very gracious and congenial.

All this roundy round about choice does make me wonder, though – if Robert is pro-choice, would fully fund and support family planning clinics (abortions, contraception, whatever) and supports existing state law on parental notification, then why all the exceptions to the democratic platform on choice issues at all? After all, it takes on “X” to say yes and it took Robert a whole page to say everything but yes.

Well, Michael, to tell you the truth, after the races we’ve seen this season, boring is good. Mike’s a cutie-patootie boy next door type and he and Robert are both “boring” as hell (meant in the nicest way). =)

Robert gives mikes rides all the time – they are both very gracious and congenial.

All this roundy round about choice does make me wonder, though – if Robert is pro-choice, would fully fund and support family planning clinics (abortions, contraception, whatever) and supports existing state law on parental notification, then why all the exceptions to the democratic platform on choice issues at all? After all, it takes on “X” to say yes and it took Robert a whole page to say everything but yes.

I didn’t vote for Robert R. for what I consider to be some very important reasons. However, he made his position as clear as he could about clinic funding:

“I fully support public health clinic funding for the full range of services”

He’s not really pro-choice (and he’s been frank about that), but he favors funding. I’ve been pro-choice for 40 years–way before it was even legal–but I think it’s as dangerous to be a voter who concentrates on one-issue as a candidate who is one-issue.

I didn’t vote for Robert R. for what I consider to be some very important reasons. However, he made his position as clear as he could about clinic funding:

“I fully support public health clinic funding for the full range of services”

He’s not really pro-choice (and he’s been frank about that), but he favors funding. I’ve been pro-choice for 40 years–way before it was even legal–but I think it’s as dangerous to be a voter who concentrates on one-issue as a candidate who is one-issue.

I didn’t vote for Robert R. for what I consider to be some very important reasons. However, he made his position as clear as he could about clinic funding:

“I fully support public health clinic funding for the full range of services”

He’s not really pro-choice (and he’s been frank about that), but he favors funding. I’ve been pro-choice for 40 years–way before it was even legal–but I think it’s as dangerous to be a voter who concentrates on one-issue as a candidate who is one-issue.

I think that because every elected seat can be a step up to a higher office, it always matters whether or not a candidate is pro-choice.

I think that because every elected seat can be a step up to a higher office, it always matters whether or not a candidate is pro-choice.

I think that because every elected seat can be a step up to a higher office, it always matters whether or not a candidate is pro-choice.

@13 I agree for that reason, but I also believe that it’s a basic test for me….if a candiate takes all the facts and sifts them over personal values and comes up with the wrong answer, then I question their ability to make the right choices on other issues.

I’m still unclear whether he supports freedom of choice in contraception, abortion and
sterilization and public funding for abortions for poor women as every answer is couched and qualified.

If the answers are yes, as is portrayed by supporters, why not just say yes on questions 1, 4 and 5 on the KCDCC questionnaire?

http://wa-demchairs.org/kcdems/2009/rrosencrantz.q1.pdf

@13 I agree for that reason, but I also believe that it’s a basic test for me….if a candiate takes all the facts and sifts them over personal values and comes up with the wrong answer, then I question their ability to make the right choices on other issues.

I’m still unclear whether he supports freedom of choice in contraception, abortion and
sterilization and public funding for abortions for poor women as every answer is couched and qualified.

If the answers are yes, as is portrayed by supporters, why not just say yes on questions 1, 4 and 5 on the KCDCC questionnaire?

http://wa-demchairs.org/kcdems/2009/rrosencrantz.q1.pdf

@13 I agree for that reason, but I also believe that it’s a basic test for me….if a candiate takes all the facts and sifts them over personal values and comes up with the wrong answer, then I question their ability to make the right choices on other issues.

I’m still unclear whether he supports freedom of choice in contraception, abortion and
sterilization and public funding for abortions for poor women as every answer is couched and qualified.

If the answers are yes, as is portrayed by supporters, why not just say yes on questions 1, 4 and 5 on the KCDCC questionnaire?

http://wa-demchairs.org/kcdems/2009/rrosencrantz.q1.pdf

On November 3, 1970, Washington voters approved Referendum 20, which legalized abortion in the early months of pregnancy. Fifteen other states had liberalized their abortion laws by that time, but Washington was the first — and so far the only — state to do so through a vote of the people.

@12 maybe not way before it was legal.

On November 3, 1970, Washington voters approved Referendum 20, which legalized abortion in the early months of pregnancy. Fifteen other states had liberalized their abortion laws by that time, but Washington was the first — and so far the only — state to do so through a vote of the people.

@12 maybe not way before it was legal.

On November 3, 1970, Washington voters approved Referendum 20, which legalized abortion in the early months of pregnancy. Fifteen other states had liberalized their abortion laws by that time, but Washington was the first — and so far the only — state to do so through a vote of the people.

@12 maybe not way before it was legal.

Being a city council member has nothing to do with a woman’s right to control her reproductivity. This whole line of questioning is a red herring. O’Brien is trying to tar Rosencrantz with a non-existent brush. It’s an irrelevant question for a city council candidate. I think it has more to do with O’Brien trying to smear Rosencrantz, because O’brien has nothing to offer but tolls and taxes, and no real plans regarding those.

O’Brien in fact, has very little concrete to offer. Rosencratz seems to be laying out actual ideas on how to procede in Seattle. He realizes that increasing taxation in Seattle only makes this city less livable for working and middle class people. O’Brien seems happy to tax people like me out of here.

I like Rosencrantz’s notions that the developers who will benefit from a tunnel replacement should pay all cost over runs. they are the ones who will profit in the short and mid term.

And for Barnett to suggest that Rosencrantz is a “conservative” is crazy. If you compared Rosencrantz to Texas conservatives, Rosencrantz would be denounced as a bleeding heart liberal in Texas.

I think this race comes down to; who has concrete ideas on what Seattle needs to make it more livable and prosperous for all the citizens; not just the software yuppies O’Brien seems to represent.

Being a city council member has nothing to do with a woman’s right to control her reproductivity. This whole line of questioning is a red herring. O’Brien is trying to tar Rosencrantz with a non-existent brush. It’s an irrelevant question for a city council candidate. I think it has more to do with O’Brien trying to smear Rosencrantz, because O’brien has nothing to offer but tolls and taxes, and no real plans regarding those.

O’Brien in fact, has very little concrete to offer. Rosencratz seems to be laying out actual ideas on how to procede in Seattle. He realizes that increasing taxation in Seattle only makes this city less livable for working and middle class people. O’Brien seems happy to tax people like me out of here.

I like Rosencrantz’s notions that the developers who will benefit from a tunnel replacement should pay all cost over runs. they are the ones who will profit in the short and mid term.

And for Barnett to suggest that Rosencrantz is a “conservative” is crazy. If you compared Rosencrantz to Texas conservatives, Rosencrantz would be denounced as a bleeding heart liberal in Texas.

I think this race comes down to; who has concrete ideas on what Seattle needs to make it more livable and prosperous for all the citizens; not just the software yuppies O’Brien seems to represent.

Being a city council member has nothing to do with a woman’s right to control her reproductivity. This whole line of questioning is a red herring. O’Brien is trying to tar Rosencrantz with a non-existent brush. It’s an irrelevant question for a city council candidate. I think it has more to do with O’Brien trying to smear Rosencrantz, because O’brien has nothing to offer but tolls and taxes, and no real plans regarding those.

O’Brien in fact, has very little concrete to offer. Rosencratz seems to be laying out actual ideas on how to procede in Seattle. He realizes that increasing taxation in Seattle only makes this city less livable for working and middle class people. O’Brien seems happy to tax people like me out of here.

I like Rosencrantz’s notions that the developers who will benefit from a tunnel replacement should pay all cost over runs. they are the ones who will profit in the short and mid term.

And for Barnett to suggest that Rosencrantz is a “conservative” is crazy. If you compared Rosencrantz to Texas conservatives, Rosencrantz would be denounced as a bleeding heart liberal in Texas.

I think this race comes down to; who has concrete ideas on what Seattle needs to make it more livable and prosperous for all the citizens; not just the software yuppies O’Brien seems to represent.

Christi: Ask Rosencrantz. That’s the only way you’ll get your answer; speculating and asking rhetorical questions on a blog won’t help. What you call the wrong answer for you may be the right answer for many others. When we view everything through that lens, we have to remember others use other lenses. Lecturing them doesn’t help.

ABC: I should have said I was pro-choice (except we didn’t call it that then) since 1961, when I was unable to get an abortion because it was neither legal nor safe.

Robert is definitely more conservative than some, in many ways. I didn’t vote for him because of that. But he’s a good person and will do his best for the city if he wins.

Christi: Ask Rosencrantz. That’s the only way you’ll get your answer; speculating and asking rhetorical questions on a blog won’t help. What you call the wrong answer for you may be the right answer for many others. When we view everything through that lens, we have to remember others use other lenses. Lecturing them doesn’t help.

ABC: I should have said I was pro-choice (except we didn’t call it that then) since 1961, when I was unable to get an abortion because it was neither legal nor safe.

Robert is definitely more conservative than some, in many ways. I didn’t vote for him because of that. But he’s a good person and will do his best for the city if he wins.

Christi: Ask Rosencrantz. That’s the only way you’ll get your answer; speculating and asking rhetorical questions on a blog won’t help. What you call the wrong answer for you may be the right answer for many others. When we view everything through that lens, we have to remember others use other lenses. Lecturing them doesn’t help.

ABC: I should have said I was pro-choice (except we didn’t call it that then) since 1961, when I was unable to get an abortion because it was neither legal nor safe.

Robert is definitely more conservative than some, in many ways. I didn’t vote for him because of that. But he’s a good person and will do his best for the city if he wins.

This has been an unusually good comment thread, in addition to a good race. Here are some of my thoughts.

I have heard some criticisms of Mr. Rosencrantz for being negative, referring in particular to his claim that Mr. O’Brien wants to tax all roads. I don’t like that; I think it is a distortion of the record. However, it’s been mostly civil and whatever attacks and distortions we have seen in Position 8 are par for the course.

For city and county races, transportation is my most important issue, though not the only thing that matters. I am deeply concerned about global warming and peak oil, though there are two distinct philosophies from concerned citizens on how to approach these issues with regard to transportation. One philosophy is to make driving more expensive via taxes or congestion. The second is to build a world class public transit system. I fully support the second approach. The first approach is a tricky one. I can go along with using gas taxes and tolls to pay for transit, though not excessive taxes and tolls. I cannot go along with using congestion as a means of forcing people to public transit, which I fear would be the result of the McGinn/O’Brien approach on the Viaduct replacement. I feel that, like it or not, cars are the main mode of transportation in the US for at least the next two decades, and trying to change this reality prematurely would cripple the city’s economy and, among other things, prevent us from building the world class public transit system.

My overall view is that Mike O’Brien goes too far in trying to reduce car usage. Perhaps Robert Rosencrantz doesn’t go far enough. And the idea that we should have patched up the Viaduct worries me quite a bit. The structure needs to go, and trying to prolong its life is a costly postponement of an issue that needs to be addressed now.

I also think that Seattle needs to pay close attention to the needs of the business community and not take economic strength for granted. The head tax issue, though minor in and of itself, is emblematic. I think that the tax should be repealed and replaced with something more sensible.

I like Rosencrantz’ approach on panhandling as well. Restrictions are needed in order to protect the city’s quality of life and sense of public safety, and the Tim Burgess proposal is reasonable. I like Rosencrantz’ eagerness to find a more proactive solution for homeless needs, though I’m not convinced his ideas are realistic.

And I do consider myself a pro-life Democrat. That’s not something I mention at parties very often. I don’t know if Rosencrantz is actually pro-life as some of his critics claim. Either he is masking a pro-life view, knowing that it wouldn’t fly in Seattle, or he has a nuanced pro-choice view and he wants to communicate the nuances. At any rate, it’s not something I generally vote on.

In the end I voted for Rosencrantz, though with some reluctance.

This has been an unusually good comment thread, in addition to a good race. Here are some of my thoughts.

I have heard some criticisms of Mr. Rosencrantz for being negative, referring in particular to his claim that Mr. O’Brien wants to tax all roads. I don’t like that; I think it is a distortion of the record. However, it’s been mostly civil and whatever attacks and distortions we have seen in Position 8 are par for the course.

For city and county races, transportation is my most important issue, though not the only thing that matters. I am deeply concerned about global warming and peak oil, though there are two distinct philosophies from concerned citizens on how to approach these issues with regard to transportation. One philosophy is to make driving more expensive via taxes or congestion. The second is to build a world class public transit system. I fully support the second approach. The first approach is a tricky one. I can go along with using gas taxes and tolls to pay for transit, though not excessive taxes and tolls. I cannot go along with using congestion as a means of forcing people to public transit, which I fear would be the result of the McGinn/O’Brien approach on the Viaduct replacement. I feel that, like it or not, cars are the main mode of transportation in the US for at least the next two decades, and trying to change this reality prematurely would cripple the city’s economy and, among other things, prevent us from building the world class public transit system.

My overall view is that Mike O’Brien goes too far in trying to reduce car usage. Perhaps Robert Rosencrantz doesn’t go far enough. And the idea that we should have patched up the Viaduct worries me quite a bit. The structure needs to go, and trying to prolong its life is a costly postponement of an issue that needs to be addressed now.

I also think that Seattle needs to pay close attention to the needs of the business community and not take economic strength for granted. The head tax issue, though minor in and of itself, is emblematic. I think that the tax should be repealed and replaced with something more sensible.

I like Rosencrantz’ approach on panhandling as well. Restrictions are needed in order to protect the city’s quality of life and sense of public safety, and the Tim Burgess proposal is reasonable. I like Rosencrantz’ eagerness to find a more proactive solution for homeless needs, though I’m not convinced his ideas are realistic.

And I do consider myself a pro-life Democrat. That’s not something I mention at parties very often. I don’t know if Rosencrantz is actually pro-life as some of his critics claim. Either he is masking a pro-life view, knowing that it wouldn’t fly in Seattle, or he has a nuanced pro-choice view and he wants to communicate the nuances. At any rate, it’s not something I generally vote on.

In the end I voted for Rosencrantz, though with some reluctance.

This has been an unusually good comment thread, in addition to a good race. Here are some of my thoughts.

I have heard some criticisms of Mr. Rosencrantz for being negative, referring in particular to his claim that Mr. O’Brien wants to tax all roads. I don’t like that; I think it is a distortion of the record. However, it’s been mostly civil and whatever attacks and distortions we have seen in Position 8 are par for the course.

For city and county races, transportation is my most important issue, though not the only thing that matters. I am deeply concerned about global warming and peak oil, though there are two distinct philosophies from concerned citizens on how to approach these issues with regard to transportation. One philosophy is to make driving more expensive via taxes or congestion. The second is to build a world class public transit system. I fully support the second approach. The first approach is a tricky one. I can go along with using gas taxes and tolls to pay for transit, though not excessive taxes and tolls. I cannot go along with using congestion as a means of forcing people to public transit, which I fear would be the result of the McGinn/O’Brien approach on the Viaduct replacement. I feel that, like it or not, cars are the main mode of transportation in the US for at least the next two decades, and trying to change this reality prematurely would cripple the city’s economy and, among other things, prevent us from building the world class public transit system.

My overall view is that Mike O’Brien goes too far in trying to reduce car usage. Perhaps Robert Rosencrantz doesn’t go far enough. And the idea that we should have patched up the Viaduct worries me quite a bit. The structure needs to go, and trying to prolong its life is a costly postponement of an issue that needs to be addressed now.

I also think that Seattle needs to pay close attention to the needs of the business community and not take economic strength for granted. The head tax issue, though minor in and of itself, is emblematic. I think that the tax should be repealed and replaced with something more sensible.

I like Rosencrantz’ approach on panhandling as well. Restrictions are needed in order to protect the city’s quality of life and sense of public safety, and the Tim Burgess proposal is reasonable. I like Rosencrantz’ eagerness to find a more proactive solution for homeless needs, though I’m not convinced his ideas are realistic.

And I do consider myself a pro-life Democrat. That’s not something I mention at parties very often. I don’t know if Rosencrantz is actually pro-life as some of his critics claim. Either he is masking a pro-life view, knowing that it wouldn’t fly in Seattle, or he has a nuanced pro-choice view and he wants to communicate the nuances. At any rate, it’s not something I generally vote on.

In the end I voted for Rosencrantz, though with some reluctance.

“Seattle’s progressive agenda”

I love how you assume the city has your agenda, all the time.

“Seattle’s progressive agenda”

I love how you assume the city has your agenda, all the time.

“Seattle’s progressive agenda”

I love how you assume the city has your agenda, all the time.

I had an opportunity to seek clarification from Mr. Rosencrantz, and on the question of emergency contraception and the “conscience clause” was answered very directly – Mr. Rosencrantz supports the law as it currently is in Washington State. He says that, ultimately, the Courts will decide, but he supports what it is now. And that means dispensing of EC when it is necessary.

This whole choice debate reminds me of a time when I worked at Planned Parenthood in the education department. We had a retreat (as we liked to do), and we did an exercise where we took a wall of a room, and on one end put up a sign that said “No Abortion in Any Circumstances”, and the other “No Restrictions on Abortion at all”. We all then staked out locations, if you will, and all got to see how “pro-choice” we really were.

I was closer to the “No Restrictions” side, by a lot, then the one person I regularly worked with. There were people in the middle, one person all the way on the side of “No Restrictions”, and a couple people uncomfortably close to “No Abortion”.

I bring this up because the idea of flatly saying that one is “pro choice” oftentimes isn’t the whole story. It all depends on the definition of being “Pro-Choice”. I consider myself pro-choice because I feel there should be as few impediments as possible for a woman to obtain an elective procedure…to a point.

I think one of the most interesting things that I heard during the work exercise was the person all the way on “No Restrictions” state that she meant all they way up to the end. If a woman is 35 weeks along, and loses her job, and makes the choice that she can no longer financially care for a child, she should be able to have an elective abortion. And to that woman, that is the definition of being Pro Choice.

I don’t think we should go that far. That’s a bit extreme. Elective abortion at 35 weeks is completely unnecessary. At 35 weeks, you’re in it to win it, and it’s too late to make up your mind.

And I would venture a guess that the vast majority of people who are pro-choice would share that opinion. I guess the question is whether Mike supports elective abortion at 35 weeks.

But, I digress. The reason all of us, this broad spectrum of people, were working in the education department of Planned Parenthood was that we wanted to see less abortions. Not through legislation or restriction, but through prevention. Our jobs were to education people about birth control, proper condom use, and mix in some STD prevention in the process.

Any public clinics that receive any funding from the city should maintain that funding. Mr. Rosencrantz believes in this. He believes in providing the tools necessary to prevent unintended pregnancy. This is what I have heard him say on this topic. The only reason I get so passionate about it is that completely unfair attacks on people, especially in this race, isn’t cool. I’ve heard people say that Robert started it with the tolling of city streets issue – that was fair. Mike said it. There’s video. He has since clarified his position, but has not backed away from the idea. Robert says that he wants to make sure funding is secure for clinics that help prevent abortion through providing contraceptives and education, and he’s suddenly slandered as being “pro life”.

Now, on to the issues, and why I think this even coming up -

I was at the Eastlake forum, and aside from the gushfest between Robert and Mike, they primarily focused on keeping neighborhoods, through their community councils, very involved in decisions being made downtown for them.

Two specifics that came up involved parking meters, and that grassy spot between a sidewalk and a street (there’s a name, and I can’t for the life of me, recall it).

On parking meters, the example was brought up of SDOT going into Freemont, asking if they wanted meters, them saying no, the City Council asking SDOT, SDOT saying they said no, and that SDOT would continue to look into it, and then SDOT putting in meters.

They both agreed that the neighborhood’s wishes should have been respected, and that SDOT should have worked more with the community. Robert expanded, stating that if there’s a real need that SDOT sees, then maybe splitting a deal of sorts with neighborhoods, and having a portion of the revenue from meters go back into projects in the neighborhood that the neighborhood wants to see.

On the grassy areas, they both agreed that they’re good for the environment, they’re good for storm drainage, but neither seemed willing to say the city should force them on homeowners (again, this is an area that I’m not all that clear on – the how these things work and relate to homeowners). Robert stated that he thinks some sort of incentive (ie: a credit in the sewer bill) would be a good way to get more of these grassy areas, and Mike seemed to agree.

So, on the issues that actually matter, they seem to be pretty close. Their big difference – the tolling issue, and the tunnel.

Although, and this is just me being snarky (kind of), Mike says that he wants roads to be more “user fee” oriented – does this mean we are going to start charging cyclists a tab tax, or a toll, in order to paint more bike lanes?

I had an opportunity to seek clarification from Mr. Rosencrantz, and on the question of emergency contraception and the “conscience clause” was answered very directly – Mr. Rosencrantz supports the law as it currently is in Washington State. He says that, ultimately, the Courts will decide, but he supports what it is now. And that means dispensing of EC when it is necessary.

This whole choice debate reminds me of a time when I worked at Planned Parenthood in the education department. We had a retreat (as we liked to do), and we did an exercise where we took a wall of a room, and on one end put up a sign that said “No Abortion in Any Circumstances”, and the other “No Restrictions on Abortion at all”. We all then staked out locations, if you will, and all got to see how “pro-choice” we really were.

I was closer to the “No Restrictions” side, by a lot, then the one person I regularly worked with. There were people in the middle, one person all the way on the side of “No Restrictions”, and a couple people uncomfortably close to “No Abortion”.

I bring this up because the idea of flatly saying that one is “pro choice” oftentimes isn’t the whole story. It all depends on the definition of being “Pro-Choice”. I consider myself pro-choice because I feel there should be as few impediments as possible for a woman to obtain an elective procedure…to a point.

I think one of the most interesting things that I heard during the work exercise was the person all the way on “No Restrictions” state that she meant all they way up to the end. If a woman is 35 weeks along, and loses her job, and makes the choice that she can no longer financially care for a child, she should be able to have an elective abortion. And to that woman, that is the definition of being Pro Choice.

I don’t think we should go that far. That’s a bit extreme. Elective abortion at 35 weeks is completely unnecessary. At 35 weeks, you’re in it to win it, and it’s too late to make up your mind.

And I would venture a guess that the vast majority of people who are pro-choice would share that opinion. I guess the question is whether Mike supports elective abortion at 35 weeks.

But, I digress. The reason all of us, this broad spectrum of people, were working in the education department of Planned Parenthood was that we wanted to see less abortions. Not through legislation or restriction, but through prevention. Our jobs were to education people about birth control, proper condom use, and mix in some STD prevention in the process.

Any public clinics that receive any funding from the city should maintain that funding. Mr. Rosencrantz believes in this. He believes in providing the tools necessary to prevent unintended pregnancy. This is what I have heard him say on this topic. The only reason I get so passionate about it is that completely unfair attacks on people, especially in this race, isn’t cool. I’ve heard people say that Robert started it with the tolling of city streets issue – that was fair. Mike said it. There’s video. He has since clarified his position, but has not backed away from the idea. Robert says that he wants to make sure funding is secure for clinics that help prevent abortion through providing contraceptives and education, and he’s suddenly slandered as being “pro life”.

Now, on to the issues, and why I think this even coming up -

I was at the Eastlake forum, and aside from the gushfest between Robert and Mike, they primarily focused on keeping neighborhoods, through their community councils, very involved in decisions being made downtown for them.

Two specifics that came up involved parking meters, and that grassy spot between a sidewalk and a street (there’s a name, and I can’t for the life of me, recall it).

On parking meters, the example was brought up of SDOT going into Freemont, asking if they wanted meters, them saying no, the City Council asking SDOT, SDOT saying they said no, and that SDOT would continue to look into it, and then SDOT putting in meters.

They both agreed that the neighborhood’s wishes should have been respected, and that SDOT should have worked more with the community. Robert expanded, stating that if there’s a real need that SDOT sees, then maybe splitting a deal of sorts with neighborhoods, and having a portion of the revenue from meters go back into projects in the neighborhood that the neighborhood wants to see.

On the grassy areas, they both agreed that they’re good for the environment, they’re good for storm drainage, but neither seemed willing to say the city should force them on homeowners (again, this is an area that I’m not all that clear on – the how these things work and relate to homeowners). Robert stated that he thinks some sort of incentive (ie: a credit in the sewer bill) would be a good way to get more of these grassy areas, and Mike seemed to agree.

So, on the issues that actually matter, they seem to be pretty close. Their big difference – the tolling issue, and the tunnel.

Although, and this is just me being snarky (kind of), Mike says that he wants roads to be more “user fee” oriented – does this mean we are going to start charging cyclists a tab tax, or a toll, in order to paint more bike lanes?

I had an opportunity to seek clarification from Mr. Rosencrantz, and on the question of emergency contraception and the “conscience clause” was answered very directly – Mr. Rosencrantz supports the law as it currently is in Washington State. He says that, ultimately, the Courts will decide, but he supports what it is now. And that means dispensing of EC when it is necessary.

This whole choice debate reminds me of a time when I worked at Planned Parenthood in the education department. We had a retreat (as we liked to do), and we did an exercise where we took a wall of a room, and on one end put up a sign that said “No Abortion in Any Circumstances”, and the other “No Restrictions on Abortion at all”. We all then staked out locations, if you will, and all got to see how “pro-choice” we really were.

I was closer to the “No Restrictions” side, by a lot, then the one person I regularly worked with. There were people in the middle, one person all the way on the side of “No Restrictions”, and a couple people uncomfortably close to “No Abortion”.

I bring this up because the idea of flatly saying that one is “pro choice” oftentimes isn’t the whole story. It all depends on the definition of being “Pro-Choice”. I consider myself pro-choice because I feel there should be as few impediments as possible for a woman to obtain an elective procedure…to a point.

I think one of the most interesting things that I heard during the work exercise was the person all the way on “No Restrictions” state that she meant all they way up to the end. If a woman is 35 weeks along, and loses her job, and makes the choice that she can no longer financially care for a child, she should be able to have an elective abortion. And to that woman, that is the definition of being Pro Choice.

I don’t think we should go that far. That’s a bit extreme. Elective abortion at 35 weeks is completely unnecessary. At 35 weeks, you’re in it to win it, and it’s too late to make up your mind.

And I would venture a guess that the vast majority of people who are pro-choice would share that opinion. I guess the question is whether Mike supports elective abortion at 35 weeks.

But, I digress. The reason all of us, this broad spectrum of people, were working in the education department of Planned Parenthood was that we wanted to see less abortions. Not through legislation or restriction, but through prevention. Our jobs were to education people about birth control, proper condom use, and mix in some STD prevention in the process.

Any public clinics that receive any funding from the city should maintain that funding. Mr. Rosencrantz believes in this. He believes in providing the tools necessary to prevent unintended pregnancy. This is what I have heard him say on this topic. The only reason I get so passionate about it is that completely unfair attacks on people, especially in this race, isn’t cool. I’ve heard people say that Robert started it with the tolling of city streets issue – that was fair. Mike said it. There’s video. He has since clarified his position, but has not backed away from the idea. Robert says that he wants to make sure funding is secure for clinics that help prevent abortion through providing contraceptives and education, and he’s suddenly slandered as being “pro life”.

Now, on to the issues, and why I think this even coming up -

I was at the Eastlake forum, and aside from the gushfest between Robert and Mike, they primarily focused on keeping neighborhoods, through their community councils, very involved in decisions being made downtown for them.

Two specifics that came up involved parking meters, and that grassy spot between a sidewalk and a street (there’s a name, and I can’t for the life of me, recall it).

On parking meters, the example was brought up of SDOT going into Freemont, asking if they wanted meters, them saying no, the City Council asking SDOT, SDOT saying they said no, and that SDOT would continue to look into it, and then SDOT putting in meters.

They both agreed that the neighborhood’s wishes should have been respected, and that SDOT should have worked more with the community. Robert expanded, stating that if there’s a real need that SDOT sees, then maybe splitting a deal of sorts with neighborhoods, and having a portion of the revenue from meters go back into projects in the neighborhood that the neighborhood wants to see.

On the grassy areas, they both agreed that they’re good for the environment, they’re good for storm drainage, but neither seemed willing to say the city should force them on homeowners (again, this is an area that I’m not all that clear on – the how these things work and relate to homeowners). Robert stated that he thinks some sort of incentive (ie: a credit in the sewer bill) would be a good way to get more of these grassy areas, and Mike seemed to agree.

So, on the issues that actually matter, they seem to be pretty close. Their big difference – the tolling issue, and the tunnel.

Although, and this is just me being snarky (kind of), Mike says that he wants roads to be more “user fee” oriented – does this mean we are going to start charging cyclists a tab tax, or a toll, in order to paint more bike lanes?

Michael:

The conscious clause is not much about abortion, as it is about Plan B.

It's a bit of a smoke screen to try and include Plan B as an abortificant.

This is emergency contraception and is often denied by pharmacists and doctors under the guise of religion.

So, for full clarity on Robert's position, we'd have to know what specific exceptions he takes to state law and the democratic platform.