Research shows that roughly 40 percent of abortions are driven by economic reasons. Women make these decisions when they don’t have a clear way to raise their children. To significantly reduce abortions, we need to rally behind positions that give hope and economic purpose to women who choose to live.
Last year, I pushed a workforce bill that I hoped would help single mothers specifically. The bill would have made community college training in high-demand fields like nursing free as long as participants worked in that profession for five years in Virginia. Another proposal I introduced would have given tax credits to employers who voluntarily pay for child care costs for their employees. Both proposals died in the House.
That would be a shame. We absolutely need policies like this to create a strong workforce in Virginia and lift people out of poverty without lifelong assistance. And if women considering abortion knew that they could get help while they trained to be a nurse if they were single mothers, and that their employers could help with child care costs, more women might choose life. Demand for abortions would decrease. And we would have changed the debate about how to be a truly “pro-life” party.
Republicans need to abandon their philosophy of telling women they can’t have an abortion. It doesn’t work, and Republicans’ refusal to change their mind on abortion is driving many voters to the Democrats.
When I say the Republican Party needs to evolve, I’m not saying we should abandon our core values, but rather find other ways to achieve our goals. Be pro-life by being pro-mother. and Pro-baby people. They are a set, after all. We pro-lifers should think outside the box.
Proposals like mine would save more babies from abortion than a 15-week ban, and if we rallied around positive solutions like this, we would have Republican control of the Virginia General Assembly today.
Tim Anderson, Virginia Beach
The author is a Republican and a former member of the Virginia House of Representatives.
Regarding John Sanders’ May 25 letter to the editor opposing efforts on the part of the DC Council to reinstate the Connecticut Avenue bike lane project, I’m sure I bike every day as he claims, but I wish he had considered the needs and experiences of the more than 30% of DC households who don’t own cars, many of whom use bicycles as their primary mode of transportation. I think he might have come to a different conclusion about the wisdom of the project.
Many people who bike along this road will not do so because they want a detour, as Sanders suggested, but rather to get to destinations along the road, whether that be a few blocks, a mile or two, or the entire length of the road. The proposed bike lane would serve hundreds of destinations along the thoroughfare, something the Rock Creek Trail cannot do.
Might I suggest that Sanders, for example, bike from Nebraska Avenue NW and Connecticut Avenue NW to the Target in Cleveland Park and return via Rock Creek Park? Oh, and don’t forget to pack groceries in pannier bags and carry your kids on the bike seat or in a trailer. Instead of a relatively easy three-mile round trip, his “parallel route” alternative is nine miles and involves 800 vertical feet of climbing.
This is just one example, but in fact, it’s virtually impossible to identify a destination along Connecticut Avenue that’s even remotely convenient to the Rock Creek Trail. One of the reasons so many families in DC can get by without owning a car is because the city is investing in a better, more connected, and more convenient bike network. This project represents a continuation of that progress, and one we hope will be revived.
The author is a member of the Arlington County Bicycle Advisory Committee.
Regarding the May 25 front page article, “Boy Scouts love this beautiful river. Locals say Boy Scouts are ruining it,” and the June 1 letter to the editor in response:
I was in the Boy Scouts for seven years and achieved the rank of Eagle Scout. I strive to live the Scout Law, Oath, Motto (Be Prepared), and Slogan (Do Good Daily) and have developed a code of ethics and moral behavior that will serve me well in life. As a longtime Scout, I was intrigued by a front page article about the current conflict between local Virginia residents who have a special attachment to the Maury River.
As a lover of fast-flowing, clear streams where trout fishing may be enjoyed, I can understand to some extent their feelings. However, I believe that no ill intent is intended when Scout leaders or individual Scouts occasionally pollute streams with sediment. I hope that this issue can be resolved by following the principles that Scouting teaches, and by Scouts and local people coming together to discuss what can be done to meet the needs and interests of both parties.
The Scouts care deeply about environmental issues, and there is no doubt that protecting the Maury River should be a top priority in this case. It is also conceivable that if the area had been developed in a different way, the Scouts would likely be more accommodating than the residents of the upscale developments around the lake.
Mike Robinson, Montgomery Village
Regarding the May 23rd sports article “Washington DC’s football stadium is favored”:
The two previous owners of the Washington NFL franchise brought major changes to our Sunday football experience: one moved the stadium outside the city in 1997 after a dispute with the DC mayor at the time, and the other micromanaged the team, leading to a losing streak, a hostile fanbase and a work environment that was an embarrassment to our city.
Both actions created a massive feeling of defeat among fans. It was especially hard on Washington DC. We lost our stadium, our team, and our pride as Washingtonians. We were in shock. We were used to winning football games. We had won three Super Bowls. We had the Hogs, the stylish superfans known as Hoggets, and the bandwagon started by Tony Kornheiser of the Post. We had great players and great management. Coach Joe Gibbs became a legend. This euphoria would soon turn around. For the next 30 years, the team would not perform very well on the scoreboard.
So, given this history, it is understandable that 76 percent of Washington DC residents surveyed by The Washington Post want the team to return to Washington DC. For a generation, Washington DC has lived with the hope that things would change. Fans feel that this might be the medicine that cures the team’s weaknesses. The heartfelt nostalgia for a return to the glory days at RFK Stadium is truly overwhelming, and this is perhaps the main reason for this hope.
But DC residents should be aware that a new NFL stadium won’t revitalize their city: A 2022 analysis of more than 130 studies conducted over a 30-year period found that there is little economic reason for cities to subsidize stadiums because of “overwhelming evidence of their economic ineffectiveness.”
It would be foolish to try to revive the glory of American football by building another NFL stadium that will only be used for 9-12 games per year. Services, amenities and items that residents need will be deferred. Neighborhoods will have to endure the disrespect of football fans, Virginia and Maryland fans will move back to the suburbs, and Washington DC will be left with cleanup duties.
Soon this incongruous memorial to Robert F. Kennedy will be gone. We must ask: how do DC residents see themselves now, and will their vision have a lasting, positive impact on Washingtonians of the future?
Regarding the Post’s May 26 Metro article, “Stumpy the cherry tree dies at 25-ish”:
Before it’s too late, I propose an alternative path for Stalwart Stampy: to preserve it as a wooden sculpture at the Smithsonian Museum for all future visitors to the nation’s capital and local Stampy enthusiasts.
It has long been a pleasure for us to drive past this beautiful wooden sculpture in the front yard of a private home in the North Arlington neighborhood. In the future, many other old cherry trees will be cut down for good mulch. Stumpy deserves better.
