Skip to main content

Northwest Voices | Letters to the Editor

Welcome to The Seattle Times' online letters to the editor, a sampling of readers' opinions. Join the conversation by commenting on these letters or send your own letter of up to 200 words

July 3, 2012 at 4:00 PM

  • Share:
  • Comments ((0))
  • Print

Affordable Care Act passes Supreme Court

Response to a misogynistic writer

With the recent Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Care Act [“Defining decision,”page one, June 29], it is not surprising that there are ardent supporters and detractors to this decision. I would have expected nothing less with an issue that has so divided this country.

What is dismaying, disheartening and downright misogynistic is the attitude of one writer [“Disappointed with conservative justices” Northwest Voices,, June 30] who clearly states that he is unhappy with Chief Justice John Roberts’ decision; but accepts his ruling based on constitutionality. OK so far.

Then he continues by stating he doesn’t believe that any member of the liberal wing will ever vote on the constitutionality of an issue saying “ ... especially the three pathetic female justices.”

First, women make up more than 50 percent of our population. Isn’t he really saying that any women who is more than 10 feet from her kitchen is a runaway? If that is what he believes, what does that say about him?

— Alan Zelt, Kenmore

One way to make a moral case

There is an obvious and compelling moral case to made for providing health care to children.

Lynne Varner did not make this case [“Health-care ‘tax’ is money well spent on nation’s children,” Opinion, June 29], but instead insisted on the utilitarian one: “Healthy children make the best learners.”

As a physician and a parent of four grown children, I can attest that the notion of deficient health care regularly impairing children’s education is just nonsense. It would be better to burn $100 bills for home heating than to make this kind of “investment” in children’s health.

Incidentally, since you opined that “denying coverage for people with pre-existing conditions” was “patently unfair to adults” and “equally disastrous for children,” how about acknowledging this fact: that is the only rational way to administer an actual insurance program and not reward people for getting insurance just when they need it.

— James McCullough, Edmonds

No comments have been posted to this article.

News where, when and how you want it

Email Icon

 Subscribe today!

Subscribe today!

99¢ for four weeks of unlimited digital access.