Sunday's letters: Right to birth control, building permit fees, follow the money

Access to contraception at risk

One main talking point for those who oppose abortion is that since contraception is legal and universally available – though not free – it is pure recklessness on the part of women and girls who find themselves with an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy.

This availability of contraceptive devices and medications is a right declared by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut decision, in which SCOTUS ruled that a state’s ban on the use of contraceptives violated the right to marital privacy.

Forward to 2022: Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion to the overturning of Roe v. Wade that the Supreme Court “should reconsider” its past rulings codifying rights to contraception access, same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage.

More: How to send a letter to the editor

No federal law provides this right to contraception.

Realizing a federal law is needed, the House passed the “Right to Contraception Act” by a vote of 228-195, with eight Republicans voting with the Democrats.  All 195 “nay” votes came from Republicans. The bill failed in the Senate with a Republican indication for a filibuster.

This underscores that anti-abortion activists are hypocrites. If the Democrats gain more seats in Congress, women’s rights can be restored and assured for all Americans.

Charles White, Sarasota

Eliminate building fees for storm victims

Soon after Hurricane Ian struck Florida and the tremendous amount of damage became known, I sent an email to the Venice City Council members suggesting that, with so many homes being devastated, especially in mobile home parks like Bay Indies, perhaps the city could eliminate the fees for building permits as a way to help homeowners.

The city's response essentially was no: We can’t do that because permit fees pay the expenses of the building department.

Lately, I’ve seen that our governor has decided the best thing he can do with our money is spend $600,000 flying immigrants to a Democratic area in the Northeast.

Hey, Governor D! First of all, it seems we could probably use thousands of those immigrants seeking asylum to help clean up this mess the hurricane has left behind, but you seem determined to make political points.

Secondly, instead of freely spending our money on political frivolity, how about spending some of it to help those of us who have damaged and destroyed homes?

FEMA is promising to pay only for damage to primary residences and the maximum is $37,900, no matter how large the actual loss is.

Ed Crocheron, Venice

Don’t let prejudice become the norm

When I was growing up, my dad, a refugee from Europe, always said be sure to have snaps on the carpet. He knew about fleeing oppression.

I never thought that I would be fearful in this country. However, the amount of antisemitism, racism and sexism that has surfaced since 2016 is incredibly frightening. So many of our leaders have not denounced or decried the ugliness that has reared its head.

Sen. Mitch McConnell did not say a word when his wife became a target. Sens. Marco Rubio and Rick Scott have not cried out about the antisemitic and racist diatribes of Marjorie Taylor Greene, Tommy Tuberville or Kanye West. They seem to be afraid of alienating the right wing of their party. Not standing up to prejudice allows it to become the norm.

Where are the leaders? Where are their voices? Where is their moral compass?

Norm Greenspan, Bradenton

With developers, follow the money trail

It was very depressing, but equally enlightening, to read your article Oct. 16 (“Meet the powerful consultant who transformed politics”).

The pretty blatant direct influence that developers have on all of our governing bodies is pretty disturbing. I think we would all agree that developers have a certain agenda and now, just like Liam Neeson's character in the "Taken" movie series, they have a very specific set of skills.

I do not oppose development if it is done responsibly, with appropriate impact fees, environmental impact considerations and quality instead of just blatant quantity.

I question their motivation, and my gut feeling is that their overriding concern revolves around profitability.  That being said, following the money trail makes Watergate look like kindergarten.

From now on when I hear a political commercial that hits below the belt, I can only assume that the candidate is on the developer payroll, directly or indirectly, and will vote accordingly. If not, we all will get exactly what we deserve!

Dick Jackson, Sarasota

Campaign ads raise suspicion

The volume of political ads on TV is overwhelming. The amount being spent makes one question the motives of the candidates for these elected jobs.

It would be very enlightening to see who is behind the political action committees and other groups paying the millions and why.

Bill Stelcher, Bradenton

This article originally appeared on Sarasota Herald-Tribune: Protect access to birth control, cut building fees for Ian victims