Editorial: Planned Parenthood on DeMaio’s ‘pro-women’ press conference

Estimado editor:

At a public relations event yesterday, Congressional candidate Carl DeMaio announced that he supports legislation that would make birth control pills available over the counter. He claimed this demonstrates his commitment to women’s rights.

I found the announcement disconcerting because the Planned Parenthood Action Fund of the Pacific Southwest has been asking DeMaio for his position on access to contraception for years now, and he has never given us a straight answer. The question of whether birth control pills should be sold over the counter or provided at no cost through health insurance is an important one, but only part of a broader issue of access to care.

The non-partisan Action Fund asked DeMaio on numerous occasions where he stands on Planned Parenthood services, like cervical cancer screenings, breast health, STD testing and treatment, and contraception.

DeMaio had nothing to say when he was running for City Council. He did not respond to inquiries when he was running for mayor. And now, as he attempts to unseat Congressmember Scott Peters, DeMaio still refuses to engage in a dialogue about women’s health with Planned Parenthood.

In my experience, both Republican and Democratic candidates who truly support reproductive health welcome an opportunity to engage with Planned Parenthood. The Action Fund endorses candidates regardless of party affiliation. Our issue is women’s health over political party. Just ask Republicans like County Supervisor Ron Roberts, San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis, and former San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders. Candidates who fail to return questionnaires or phone calls usually do so because they do not support Planned Parenthood. They typically don’t answer our questions because they know mainstream voters won’t like what they have to say.

At Planned Parenthood Action Fund of the Pacific Southwest, we would like to know whether candidate DeMaio thinks a woman’s boss has the right to decide whether she has access to contraception covered by her health insurance. We would like to know if he believes women serving in our nation’s Armed Forces should receive the same medical care and coverage that civilians get. We would like to know his position on protestors who aggressively harass women or blockade health centers.

The Planned Parenthood Action Fund supports the re-election of Congressmember Scott Peters. The reason we’ve endorsed Peters is because he has he been candid with voters about where he stands on women’s health. Not only has he told constituents, he’s shown them. As a member of Congress, Peters co-sponsored the Women’s Health Protection Act and consistently voted to protect access to contraception and reproductive health care.

Supporting women’s health is about more than holding a press conference that addresses a small part of a larger issue. It’s about engaging with community members and respecting them enough to answer their meaningful questions.

Sincerely,

Nora Vargas

Vice President of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund of the Pacific Southwest

Support carbon pollution limits for power plants

By Harold Wimmer

Few things are more frightening for a parent than racing to the hospital with a child who can’t breathe. Few things are more difficult for a physician than telling a family that a loved one will not recover from an asthma attack. We work with people who know those experiences far too well, and because of those experiences, we support reducing carbon pollution.

The American Lung Association and the American Thoracic Society members and its volunteers understand the impact of polluted air. We know that, as a nation, we have to do more to protect the ability of people to breathe, and that requires us to reduce carbon pollution from power plants.
It isn’t enough for physicians to educate patients about the health risks of air pollution, and for parents to keep their children with asthma indoors on bad air days. We must reduce pollution before it takes a further toll on our children and families.

As a nation, we have cut air pollution by over 70 percent since 1970, but today more than 147 million Americans (nearly half of the U.S. population) still live where the air is unhealthy to breathe. Warmer temperatures from climate change will make it even harder to reduce air pollution in many places, and increase the likelihood of drought, wildfires and other threats to our health.
Fortunately, we can fight those threats.

Recently, hundreds of people attended public hearings hosted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in Denver, Atlanta, Pittsburgh and Washington, DC to speak out in support of the proposed Clean Power Plan to place first-ever limits on power plant carbon pollution. They spoke up because they recognize that reducing carbon pollution benefits the health of communities across the nation.

The EPA’s Clean Power Plan provides states with tools to reduce the carbon pollution from power plants by 30 percent, moving us forward in the fight against climate change. But the plan would do more than that. When fully implemented, the carbon reduction plan will also reduce lethal air pollutants such as nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and mercury by 25 percent, preventing up to 6,600 premature deaths and 150,000 asthma attacks in children each year. The plan would also help prevent heart attacks, hospital admissions and missed days of work or school due to illness.

Public health experts call this “prevention.” For the rest of us, it’s just simple common sense.
That is why both our organizations support the EPA’s efforts to establish national limits on carbon pollution. If we as a nation act responsibly now to reduce carbon pollution, we can simultaneously improve our air quality now and prevent many of the adverse health and environmental impacts for future generations.

—Harold P. Wimmer is national president and CEO of the American Lung Association.

Letters

Dear Representative Susan Davis:

I understand that the U.S. Postal Service is hurting. Internet availability has depleted their primary source of revenue: first class postage sales.

However, terminating home delivery is not the answer. And the capital costs of building and maintaining neighborhood mailboxes would be prohibitive.

Consider charging residents for home delivery. How? Tack the fee (probably about $80 per year) to every property tax bill (more for multiple tenants). The tax assessor’s office would then remit that money to the USPS. Of course P.O. Box renters could be allowed to opt out of the “tax,” but they’d have to specifically apply for that relief. And they would receive no home delivery.

Thank you for your fight to prevent loss of home delivery.

—Donna Boyle, via email