Life of the Party

An Open Letter from Senator Val Stevens to the Pro-Life Community

8/15/10

(View in PDF format: stevens.open.letter)

Recently, the Clint Didier U.S. Senate campaign released a radio commercial on several Christian radio stations throughout Washington State comparing Clint Didier’s views on abortion with that of Dino Rossi and challenging Dino’s claim that he is pro-life.  This ad has created a firestorm within the Christian community, which, until now, has been mostly unaware of these facts.

The main contention in the present argument has come down to a vote Dino Rossi took in the 2002 session in favor of SB-6537. This statute now forces hospitals to promote emergency contraception to rape victims and provide it upon request within 72 hours of sexual contact. 

Emergency contraception, also known as ”the morning after pill”, causes an abortion if the woman is pregnant.  The bill passed and is now the law in Washington State.  Physicians, nurses and healthcare workers in hospital emergency rooms are forced to act against their conscience, which is formed by their professional training as well as their moral, ethical and religious views.   

For those and other reasons, groups such as the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) oppose these mandates.  The Family Research Council joined AAPS in legal action to stop distribution of the “morning after” pill, in litigation lead by Phyllis Schlafly’s son, Andrew.

I would have felt no need to join the fray on this matter until an email came to my attention from Pastor Joe Fuiten of Cedar Park Assembly.  I was shocked, even insulted by some of his remarks, which in many cases I know to be wrong.  I was there – in the Senate Republican caucus during the debates and discussions – and I was on the floor to take the final vote.  I know what happened, contrary to the picture Pastor Fuiten is trying to paint in stating that he was so involved. 

Let’s take his remarks (in BLUE) point-by-point, with my notes (in RED):

Dear Friends,

I have been seeing a lot of commentary questioning, no stating, that Dino Rossi is not prolife. When I first saw it, I said, “What is this?” Looking a little closer, it seems to be coming mostly from the Clint Didier camp in order to create separation between the two candidates and to breathe life into the Didier campaign … Ya gotta love politics!!!

I particularly was amazed with the charge that Dino supported pro-abortion legislation in Olympia when he was a Senator there. I called Bob Higley to make sure my recollections were correct. Bob Higley was the first President of Washington Evangelicals for Responsible Government (WERG) when it was formed with the help of Ellen Craswell and Skeeter Ellis.

MY NOTE:

WERG was the creation of my good friend and political advisor Doug Simpson (also Clint Didier’s advisor).  Doug met with Skeeter Ellis in the winter of 1993 and that meeting was responsible for the start of WERG – long before Pastor Fuiten ever got involved.  Doug was also the first lobbyist for WERG. I was there encouraging this effort.

WERG paid for a lobbyist in Olympia to represent Biblical causes. Bob led it for a number of years and then became the lobbyist when I became the President of WERG. We worked together on issues like abortion for almost 20 years. We were in on every battle relating to abortion over all that time. I asked him if Dino was always with us on the pro-life issues. Bob answered quickly that Dino Rossi was always to be counted on in the pro-life concerns.

MY NOTE:

Bob Higley was there.  But he was there lobbying AGAINST the bill.  The remark Pastor Fuiten makes about Dino “was always to be counted on in the pro-life concerns” could not have anything to do with this particular bill.  Bob Higley was in my office many times during that session as we worked together to KILL this bill.

This charge that Rossi voted to violate the conscience of medical providers and support abortion during his time in Olympia seems strange. I thought Dan Kennedy at Human Life of Washington did a good job in pointing out the actual facts in the case. (I have a high regard for Dan Kennedy who has been one of the most vigorous and outstanding pro-life forces in Washington State for a very long time). Here is some of what they said:

“This bill was specifically approved by the three Catholic bishops and their lobbyist, Sr. Sharon Park, indicating it did not promote abortion. It offered contraception options to women who were raped. Pro-life legislators were quite concerned and asked for the analysis. The WSCC signed off on the bill because they stated that conception would not occur in the time period provided in the bill. Assured by WSCC that the drugs in the legislation act as a contraceptive, not an abortifacient, and “hospitals” not ER workers are required to provide, they were further assured no separate “conscience protection” in the bill was necessary”

MY NOTE:

I don’t know what pro-life legislators Dan Kennedy is talking about.  Among the pro-life legislators in my caucus, (all who were “NO” votes from the start) there was never a moment of confusion.  We understood clearly that this bill was everything opposite of what Dan Kennedy says above.  Pastor Fuiten has insulted the faithful pro-life legislators-who were endorsed by Human Life PAC and who stood firmly against this form of abortion. 

We never believed that contraception could be given to prevent conception after a rape to prevent pregnancy.  That does not even meet the straight face test.  And why were so many conscientious doctors and nurses opposed to the bill?

Here’s the proof as seen in the final floor vote on the bill:

Voting Yea:  Senators Brown, Carlson, Costa, Deccio, Eide, Fairley, Finkbeiner, Franklin, Fraser, Gardner, Hale, Haugen, Hewitt, Horn, Jacobsen, Johnson, Kastama, Keiser, Kline, Kohl-Welles, Long, McAuliffe, McCaslin, McDonald, Parlette, Poulsen, Prentice, Rasmussen, Regala, Rossi, Sheldon, B., Sheldon, T., Snyder, Spanel, Thibaudeau, and Winsley

Voting Nay:  Senators Benton, Hargrove, Hochstatter, Honeyford, Morton, Oke, Roach, Sheahan, Shin, Stevens, Swecker, West, and Zarelli

Please note that of those legislators voting “Nay” (against the bill) every one of them has received the pro-life endorsement from Human Life PAC and we are proud to wear that distinction with honor.  The criterion for that endorsement is simple: you must agree NOT to support abortion under any circumstance.

(Also note that the charges Pastor Fuiten is referring to here were never leveled by the Didier campaign, but from some other source.)

The charge that the bill which Rossi supported is “against Catholic, Christian, and pro-life values” is refuted by the support the Catholic Bishops gave to the bill. The language of the bill is clear enough that it is not about abortion. The law says it deals with “… health care treatment approved by the food and drug administration that prevents pregnancy, including but not limited to administering two increased doses of certain oral contraceptive pills within seventy-two hours of sexual contact.” Maybe the point is too fine for some, but abortion, which terminates a pregnancy, is not the same as “preventing pregnancy”.

MY NOTE:

Once again, thirteen Senators have been insulted by someone who claims to understand the legislative process. Pastor Fuiten can’t possibly believe that conception wasn’t a strong possibility before the drug was administered.  The point wasn’t “too fine” enough to cause all Human Life PAC supported legislators to vote “Nay.” 

I am appreciative of the tremendous effort the Catholic Church has put into the pro-life issue. I appreciate people like Clint Didier and I think we need his activism in this state. I am not appreciative of the politically self-serving effort to misrepresent Rossi’s record in Olympia.

MY NOTE:

After interviewing Clint Didier, I know that he understands the value of life and he knows the Author of life. (Read Clint’s statement, following my letter)

> Rossi was with us in Olympia. So, did Pastor Fuiten lobby him to vote for SB 6537?

> I was there. So was I pastor – but I don’t remember seeing you there.  Were you working in favor of the bill?

> Bob Higley was there. He is my faithful friend who weekly comes to support my stand against abortion, and would never ask me to support SB-6537.

> Dan Kennedy was there. He never came to my office and I never saw him.  He did not ask me to vote yes to support his Catholic Bishops position.  Was he supporting the bill?

Maybe I shouldn’t note, but I will, who wasn’t there.

• I never saw these would-be politicians who criticize Dino there. I was there and my opposition to this pro-abortion bill is a matter of public record.  It is not a criticism of anyone.  My pro-life record is well documented and no one will ever need to defend it on my behalf. 

Dino has apparently not been willing to make abortion the centerpiece of his campaign. I do not understand pro-lifers who criticize the man saying he is not really pro-life. I thought Paul Aker made sense when he affirmed that what we really need to do is change hearts and minds. We have been making progress, slowly but surely, in the pro-life movement. Until we achieve greater success in the general population with our message there will not be a lot of legislative success. In the meantime, we have work to do but the work is not to treat solid conservative pro-lifers like Rossi as if they were Patty Murray.

MY NOTE:

“Changing hearts and minds” is the way to end abortion.  I could not agree more.  However, compromising the Christian principle that killing the unborn child – under any circumstance – is always wrong.

Manipulating the facts to fit your agenda is never a path to that change.  It does not matter how many bishops you find to agree with your position.

I think successful armies fire at their opponents not their friends.

Dino Rossi is a friend to us in the pro-life community. Help set the record straight. Forward to a friend!

fuitenj@msn.com

IN CLOSING:

The “pastor’s picks” this year recommends a man in the 41^st legislative district who is also NOT pro-life.  In fact, he sits on the board of NARAL, (National Abortion Rights League) an organization we pro-life legislators know to be pro-abortion.  

I recommend that Pastor Fuiten “set the record straight” and further I would ask that he apologize to those of us legislators that he has insulted.  We take our pro-life stance against abortion very seriously because we know the Author of life.

Respectfully submitted,

Sen. Val Stevens

August 15, 2010

————————————————-

8/12/10

STATEMENT FROM Clint Didier on Abortion, and His Endorsement

by Human Life PAC of WA:

“I am extremely gratified that Human Life PAC of WA has carefully followed its own rules for endorsing only 100% pro-life candidates.

And I am proud to say that I am one of those candidates. 

There has been some discussion in the community about what this means.

Let me say it plainly: 

You are either pro-life or you are not. 

Abortion is still abortion no matter under what circumstances.

Some have asked about the radio ads my campaign is running.

Again, let me say it plainly:

The ads simply point out the difference between one of my opponents and me. 

I am 100% against abortion, and he is not. 

That is not an attack, but a statement of fact.

I am pro-life, from conception to natural death.

And I thank Human Life PAC of WA and the Catholic Families for America for supporting me.”

Pro-Life Comparison Chart for U.S. Senate Candidates

The Washington Life Coalition has just issued a helpful comparison chart of the 4 major candidates for U.S. Senate in alphabetical order:

Click image to view content: 

  

Print and share PDF file with others: Pro-Life Senate Comparison[1]

Dino Rossi's Endorsements: Are they reliable?

Much has been made of recent endorsements for Dino Rossi from pro-life/pro-family leaders.  The Washington Life Coalition has laid out the evidence of Rossi’s lack of commitment to restoring the right to life and his voting record that denies the right to life and the right of conscience for pro-life health care professionals.  Soon, WLC will have a comparison chart for the four major contenders in the race.  Presented here for now, is reason to call into question the endorsement of one of Rossi’s pro-life/pro-family endorsements: Pastor Joe Fuiten of Cedar Partk who issues his Pastor’s Picks for every election.  Terra Mork reports:

  

Meet NARAL, Pastor’s Picks, and Steve Litzow

 

Meet NARAL Pro-choice Washington:

On February 27th 2010, NARAL hosted the “I HEART Choice” youth summit. High school and college students gathered in the UW conference room to listen to a Seattle-area abortionist enthusiastically describe her daily craft of child-dismemberment. “Yes, it does look like that, it looks like a human”, she described to the young women who sat in quiet fascination.  

NARAL isn’t particularly concerned with individual rights–the rights of the unborn or the rights of the post-born.  Not only does NARAL want taxpayer money (your money) to fund abortions, they would also like to deny conscience rights to private companies and individuals who do not wish to participate in unethical behavior.  

  

Meet Pastor Joe Fuiten: 

Pastor Fuiten is the senior pastor of a large congregation in Bothell, Washington. He has a reputation of being outspoken about his pro-family, pro-life, socially conservative political views. Every election Pastor Fuiten publishes “Pastor’s Picks”, a trusted source for many believers who are seeking guidance on which candidates reflect their values.   “In the last two years, much of his spare time has been devoted to preserving the definition of authentic marriage, protecting the unborn, among many other issues related to the family and society in general,” describes the church website. On August 6th, Pastor Fuiten released his endorsements for the August 17th primary.      

“In the last two years, much of his spare time has been devoted to preserving the definition of authentic marriage, protecting the unborn, among many other issues related to the family and society in general,” describes the church website.  

On August 6th, Pastor Fuiten released his endorsements for the August 17th primary.

    

Meet Steve Litzow

Steve Litzow is running for Senate in Washington’s 41st legislative district.   

Mr. Litzow is at odds with the values expressed by The Declaration of Independence. He is at odds with his political party’s platform…he is at odds with God’s platform.  

Mr. Litzow likes NARAL. He likes going to their swanky banquets, he likes hosting tables at their fundraisers, and seeing his name listed as a board member of NARAL PAC. And NARAL, in turn, is proud to endorse Mr. Litzow in the primary for State Senate.   But Mr. Litzow is not your typical NARAL-endorsee.   You see, Mr. Litzow is a Republican.   

And just last week, Mr. Litzow received another endorsement--the endorsement of Pastor Joe Fuiten.   

Any questions?

To be continued…   

WLC's New Video: A Matter of Conscience

The Washington Life Coalition (WLC) realeased a brand new internet video today to appeal to pro-life voters in the state of Washington who have been led to believe they should support Dino Rossi in his bid for U.S. Senate.  The video chronicles some of Rossi's statements on the issue of abortion, and then reveals an egregious vote that Rossi cast as a state senator, overlooked by the pro-life movement in Washington.  The news of this vote calls into question Rossi on an issue he refers to as "a matter of conscience".

In 2002, Dino Rossi voted for SB 6537  which forces hospitals to promote emergency contraception to rape victims and provide it upon request within 72 hours of sexual contact.  Emergency contraception, also known as "the morning after pill", causes an abortion if the woman is pregnant.  The bill passed and is now the law in WA state.  Physicians, nurses and healthcare workers in hospital emergency rooms are forced to act against their conscience, which is formed by their professional training as well as their moral, ethical and religious views.  
 
WLC is a coalition of pro-life activists who are concerned with electing representatives in government who will uphold the unalienable rights of all: the rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.  WLC encourages pro-life voters to take a close look at the other candidates in the U.S. Senate race, as well as with all races for public office, to find person(s) with the will to advance the cause of restoring these unalienable rights for all.

Dino Rossi: Not the Pro-Life Choice

Dino Rossi, one of the challengers to Democrat incumbent Patty Murray, is widely believed to be "pro-life" and "opposed to abortion".

It's time we examined the veracity of that rumor. 

What many pro-life voters may not realize, is that Dino Rossi, in his two runs for governor, never received the endorsement of Human Life of Washington, the only pro-life organization in Washington state that surveys (in writing) all candidates for state and federal offices on the issue of abortion.  The same is true this year as Dino seeks a spot on the general election ballot to challenge Patty Murray:  He has not received the Human Life endorsement.  In fact, Human Life of Washington issued a dual endorsement in the U.S.Senate race to: Paul Akers and Clint Didier, having both met the criteria.  (Endorsements have not yet been listed on Human Life of Washington's website, but the press release went out recently).

Human Life of Washington does not endorse candidates who support legalized abortion, even in the hard cases of rape and incest.  Dino Rossi believes abortion should be legal in cases of rape and incest.

Read the full article

Stark Contrast in the U.S. Senate Race

Hat tip: Washington Campaign for Liberty

Question to both candidates at the Patriot Coalition forum (State Convention weekend):  "Most republicans are campaigning today calling themselves pro-life, but the definitions differ. Do you believe in the legal protection of all people from fertilization to natural death, or are there some groups against which you would discriminate and if so, why?"

Notice that Dino Rossi does not answer the actual question.  Clint Didier does in absolute terms.  Then he adds a little more about judges.  For background:  Dino Rossi says he won't make abortion a litmus test for candidates for U.S. Supreme Court.

“Little Emily”: Dino Rossi's True Position on Abortion

  

When it comes to abortion Dino Rossi can be difficult to pin down.

 

In 2004, the Seattle Times reported:

“...Dino Rossi has undergone a transformation. Once a candidate who talked openly about his opposition to abortion and gay rights, Rossi no longer brings up such issues ...Rossi says when he first started out in politics, he was “...maybe a little more idealistic than realistic on some things. ... Over time, you kind of temper some of the things you once believed.”

 

Though in the early 1990s, Rossi identified with pro-life causes, in more recent years he has gone “out of his way to avoid discussing his views on social issues.”

 

How exactly, does Rossi position himself? According to the Seattle Times, “He opposes it except in cases of rape, incest and to save the life of the mother. But he never brings it up on his own.”

 

The same story was given in an interview with the Spokesman Review in 2004, in which Rossi said, “I’ve always believed that abortion was never intended except for maybe cases of rape, incest...,”

 

The bottom line is that Rossi, when pressed, presents a so-called “pro-life” platform that actually supports legalized abortion where the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest, implying that the lives of some—of any “Little Emily”—do not deserve basic human rights.

 

There is no greater assault on the sanctity of womanhood than the crime rape—an unspeakable act of violation requiring years of physical, emotional, and psychological healing. In the rare instances when a pregnancy does result, the nightmare for the victim cannot be mitigated—but only complicated—by taking the life of her child.

 

In his 2008 bid for governor, Rossi made this promise: “I will protect the most vulnerable people in our society.”

 

And yet, is any person more vulnerable in today's society than a child conceived by rape or incest?  We would like to ask Rossi why that child is not worthy of his promise of protection?  Rossi isn’t answering.

 

In fact, when it comes to the whole issue of abortion, he’s not saying much at all these days.  And yet all over the state, people are seeking answers. This is typically what they get:

 

“I am Catholic”

 

“I will vote my ‘conscience’”

 

and,

 

“every soul has a value”
 

At first glance, this appears to be a heartfelt expression of a pro-life conviction, but a deeper analysis brings up even more questions:

 

How does his “Catholic” faith justify his compromised position on life?

 

Does he believe that all souls have equal value, and more importantly should they have equal rights?  At a recent news conference, Rossi told reporters: “If I'm going to have to make a judgment, I’m going to make a judgment on the side of protecting life: “Always have protected life and I will,” —a statement which is at odds with his record and previous declarations.

 

For additional information, please visit: Washington Life Coalition

Is Rossi's Conscience in Conflict With His Catholic Faith (and with his pro-life supporters)?

The bare minimum pro-life voters count on from a U.S. Senator is a commitment to only confirm pro-life judges.  Of course, Congressmen and Senators can do much more than wait for a Supreme Court vacancy.  But it appears we can't even expect the minimum from Dino insuring us he'll vote his Catholic conscience on a Supreme Court nominee.  From Komo News

Abortion is another hot button social issue Rossi often sidestepped during his two runs for governor. When asked, Rossi often called the issue a divisive one in which a governor has no say in changing.

As a U. S. Senator, however, if he were faced with a bill to restrict abortion access, Rossi said, "I would vote my conscience just like anybody else would if I were in that situation."

Rossi, a Catholic, said he believes every soul has value, but added he does not have an abortion litmus test for Supreme Court nominees.

This, after so long campaigning for governor and dodging the issue with "I'm not running for the Supreme Court, I'm running for Governor."  Now, he has to take a stand on how he would vote to confirm lifetime members of the Supreme Court and he comes out on the opposite side of the pro-life issue.

Pro-lifers have a real pro-life alternative in Clint Didier.  See more on Clint here:  Life of the Party Endorses Clint Didier

Life of the Party Endorses Clint Didier: The Clear Choice for Pro-Life Voters

 The decision is clear

The criteria for receiving a Life of the Party endorsement is that the candidate be 100% pro-life and oppose the violations to the inalienable right to life which have been given a legal pass.  The candidate must oppose abortion without discrimination (and be willing to introduce, co-sponsor and vote for legislation that defines personhood as beginning at conception), oppose euthanasia, assisted suicide, and the destruction of embryos for the purpose of research. 

Once it is determined that more than one candidate in the same race meets the above criteria, then we look at stands on other important issues and then at campaign viability.   Upon reviewing all of these factors, Clint Didier is the clear choice for pro-life voters! 

I first met Clint in January at the March for Life.  He was one of only two candidates running for this office (past or current) who attended the March.  I had a chance to speak with him there and asked him directly where he stood on these issues, and was so refreshed by his willingness to take such an emphatic stand for life without fear of who would overhear or who I would tell.  It's been far too long that we had a viable candidate for a statewide race willing to do so.  Here is the bold statement you will find on his campaign website:

I am pro-life – from conception until natural death.  Our Declaration of Independence states our inalienable rights are “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness:  and “That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men…” Therefore, it is the express job of government to protect all innocent human life.  Taking a public policy position otherwise leaves all lives in jeopardy.

Issues and Viability

On Clint's "Issues" page, every Republican, conservative, and/or independent who identifies with the Tea Party movement will find strong statements on the issues that most concern them.  Clint is a well rounded conservative that could unite a broad coalition on issues alone.  His charisma and passion for the issues inspire those who hear him speak and his former NFL super bowl ID has a certain draw that attracts voters otherwise not engaged.  He now makes his living as a farmer.  Clint is a grassroots candidate who attended the Tea Parties before he was a candidate, and was asked to speak at one of them in the Tri-cities area. I hear it was a real barn burner.  People began asking him to run.  He recently received the endorsement of Sarah Palin and has gained a great deal of support from people in the Campaign for Liberty and the Tea Party movement. 

Why not Dino?

Dino Rossi has long enjoyed popularity among Republicans.  He's a charismatic guy too, in a different sort of way.  But Dino does not meet the criteria for a Life of the Party endorsement.  In both of his races for Governor, he chose to dodge the question every time it was asked by the media.  He would say something like, "My wife and I are Catholic and believe every soul has value."  That sounds like a pro-life statement without actually being one.  Nancy Pelosi says things like that.  Ted Kennedy did too.  But he makes no mention of when the soul begins.  He would also repeat the line, "I'm not running for the Supreme Court.  I'm running for Governor.  The Supreme Court has taken this issue out of my hands."  It wasn't, but that's another story.  Now, he can no longer use that line as a candidate for U.S. Senate, where they vote to confirm Supreme Court justices.  Further, it is not up to the Supreme Court to write laws, it's up to our Congressmen and Senators.  Now that he's running for the U.S. Senate, he has only slightly modified his rhetoric.  From the Seattle Times:

With regard to social issues such as abortion, Rossi said that he and his wife are Catholics who believe "every soul has a value" and that he would vote his conscience if such bills came before him.

But he said he never sponsored such legislation when in the Legislature and didn't intend to in the Senate. "That's not why I'm running," he said.

What we don't know from this statement is "what does his conscience say about abortion?"  And why won't he sponsor any such legislation?

But one might say, "well, this is a strategic position because he can't be elected in a 'liberal state' like Washington if he takes a pro-life stand in public."  Nonsense!  Ronald Reagan, a fearless advocate for the right to life, won the state of Washington in a landslide.  And since then, Americans are increasingly more pro-life, a majority,  That certainly includes the state of Washington (get beyond trying to win a majority of King Co. on this issue , there is more to this state than King Co.)  While it's probably true he can't win on a strong pro-life position alone, it doesn't help to hide the position that the pro-aborts suspect you have.  They'll malign you anyway.  And besides, does it make sense to trick the pro-abortion-choice voters into voting for you because of your willingness to take the issue off the table?  Do the ends justify the means?

In addition to his dodging of the issue, when asked in private, Rossi has said that he supports legalized abortion in the cases of rape and incest.   This has been charactarized as a reasonable (and populist) position in the pro-life community, but it is far from reasonable.  We cannot discriminate in regards to the right to life for innocent children, based on something their father or mother has done.   And it is a giant loophole in so-called "pro-life positions" that will keep abortion legal as long as these exceptions are accepted by the pro-life community.  We must choose candidates who see this!  It is time to stop compromising. 

UPDATE: Dino has now added a little more detail to his position on abortion.  He will NOT introduce any legislation on abortion, and will NOT make abortion a litmus test in voting to confirm U.S. Supreme Court nominee. 

A clear distinction

We have a clear distinction between a solid pro-life candidate and someone with a compromised position who frequently dodges the issue.  A choice between a grassroots candidate and the establishment's choice.  Both men are charasmatic, can raise money, and are viable.  Let's pick the one who will stand on his principles without compromise and work to protect innocent human life!  If we in the pro-life community will join with the supporters he already has, we can get him over the finish line!

Dino on Contraception, "Emergency Contraception" and Abortion

Fact Check for Dino's detractors and supporters alike, cut and pasted, unedited and no emphasis added from his own website:

Claim: Dino wants to limit access to emergency contraception for victims of sexual assault.  

Fact:  This claim is false.  While in the Washington State Senate, Rossi was one of only a few Republicans senators who voted in favor of a bill (SSB 6537 in 2002) to require hospitals to provide emergency contraception to any sexual assault victim who requested it within 72 hours of sexual contact.

Christine Gregoire continues to play politics with people in desperate situations in this misleading ad against Dino Rossi.  There has never been an access problem to emergency contraception in Washington.

Dino Rossi does not believe the state should be telling business what they should and shouldn’t sell.  In fact, Dino agrees with the Federal Court ruling, as well as the original ruling by the Washington State Board of Pharmacy, that upholds the conscience clause that has always existed for pharmacists. 

 

Claim: Rossi opposes a woman’s right to choose. 

Fact:  Dino is Catholic and believes that every soul has a value. For him, this is an issue of conscience, and he’s not going to compromise his views just to be elected.

As a state senator he never sponsored legislation, or even an amendment, on this issue.  Washington state voters decided to make it legal and they have reaffirmed that decision several times since. State law is not going to change unless the voters change their minds.

"I'm not running on that issue; I never have," [Rossi] said. "People have voted on that, and I don't think it's going to change." (Spokesman Review, 7/14/08)

 

Claim: Rossi voted to allow insurance companies to refuse to pay for contraception.

Fact: Dino Rossi supports a woman’s right to use contraceptives.

“As for birth control, which Rossi's critics are trying to raise as an issue, people are free to use it ‘and it's going to remain that way,’ he said.” (Spokesman Review, 7/14/08)

The issue was cost of health insurance – not contraception.  The reason we have one of the highest costs for health insurance in America is that the state government has mandated a host of coverages that are required to be sold with every policy.  Every mandate means that the cost of your health insurance policy is higher.  He does not support forcing health care consumers to buy services they don’t need.  For example, in Washington a single male is forced to purchase a health care plan that covers maternity care. 

We need to reduce the number of costly regulations and mandates, not expand them. Individuals have different needs when it comes to their own personal health care, and it is appropriate to give people options about what health insurance plan works best for them.