Planned Parenthood a blessing
Planned Parenthood a blessing
Barbara Ferraro you asked for letters to the editor, so here you go, though not the point of view you were requesting.
First not all of us were rejoicing when Planned Parenthood left Kona, so speak for yourself, please. Anyone who knows the facts is aware that Planned Parenthood is a medical facility that provides health screenings, birth control and many other medical procedures besides abortions to women. Birth control is the best way to cut down on abortions, most people know that fact, and if the Zika virus shows up on our island, we will need Planned Parenthood clinics in both Kona and Hilo.
In my “spiritual” book if you can’t make moral choices then you can’t grow a soul. Our souls grow proportionately to our choices that are true, beautiful and good, but if the mind is incapable of making decision and choices then no soul can develop. My loving God would not want to see parents burdened with these unfortunate babies. Maybe Barbara would be willing to open her home to care for all the brainless babies that could be born on our island that she thinks should not be able to be aborted if they are infected. It is not that long ago that woman had 10-plus children before Margaret Sanger opened the first birth control clinic in the United States — Planned Parenthood.
My mother was one of 11 children and her mother died giving birth to her last baby, leaving all those children without a mother. Do you really think that is God’s will, Ms. Barbara Ferraro? Obviously, you have been brainwashed by some patriarchal religious system, controlled by men telling woman what to do with their bodies.
My prayers to my God will be for more woman to be able to have the free will choice to get the care they need be it from Planned Parenthood or any other medical facility that they can afford.
Rev. Marian Hughes
Waimea
Don’t turn bike lanes into death traps
Congratulations to the geniuses who redesigned the bike lane configuration. You are yet again making the situation worse.
Let’s take northbound approaching Makala. The cyclist is supposed to cross the exit lane, err, right turn lane, going, say, 10 or 15 mph, look over his/her shoulder, assess whether the motorist is going 15, 30, 40-plus mph (while just coming around a bend and over a hill) and make a decision in a fraction of a second whether or not the cyclist should enter the motorist turn lane.
That is just stupid. It’s a death trap for the cyclist. The old (present) system, where the cyclist going straight continues straight and the motorist, who is turning, turns into the turn lane, although not perfect, is much safer. This zigzag configuration is going to get someone killed. I hope this is not the plan on the southbound, makai side, where the cyclist will have to zigzag at least five times across the traffic exit lane to go straight between Makala and Henry. You have to be kidding me if you think the motorists will even see the warning signs, let alone obey them. What a waste of taxpayer, my, money.
As I have pointed out in this space in the past, the intersections on this roadway are very poorly designed with the light standards to the left of the turn lanes. Apparently, the objective was to create some sort of hybrid freeway/city street. This will undoubtedly never be changed. But this is what creates the dangerous situation and the reason the cyclists cannot be moved all the way to the right. Endless re-striping is not a solution. The original lane configuration was the best. The current one is OK. What you are now doing is a huge mistake.
Leave the existing system the way it is and save the taxpayer money. Cyclists simply go straight. No requirement to cross traffic lanes. The motorists are the ones turning. When you turn, you yield. Additionally, make the bike lane another color, green or red, like in many countries, for a productive use of taxpayer dollars and to enhance cyclist safety.
Gerald Gruber
Kailua-Kona
PETA supports spay/neuter
Town hall attendees who called for an increased push in spaying and neutering animal companions are right, as spay/neuter programs are the only way to reduce euthanasia rates without warehousing animals, sending them to hoarders, or leaving them to die slowly of disease (“Howling mad: Groups brainstorm ways to reduce kill rates at island shelters,” Feb. 20).
“No-kill” may initially sound appealing to anyone who cares about animals, but it quickly loses its appeal once you realize that “no-kill” endangers the very animals who so desperately need our help. Under pressure to avoid euthanasia at all costs— or risk being vilified by “no-kill” campaigners — some animal shelters are handing over cats and dogs to anyone who will take them, including unregulated, shoddily run facilities, hoarders posing as “rescues,” and even cruel people who obtain animals only to abuse and kill them. Others simply refuse to accept all but the most adoptable animals, leaving the rest to starve on the streets or die of untreated diseases or injuries.
Open-admission shelters’ intake and euthanasia statistics are often higher because they provide refuge for every needy animal who comes through their doors, rather than picking and choosing who to accept.
Concerned citizens should remember that animals aren’t numbers. When we concentrate solely on statistics, “no-kill” becomes a formula for more suffering, not less. The key to turning our communities into places where no cat or dog has to be euthanized for lack of a home is to cut off the supply of homeless animals at its source — by spaying and neutering, adopting animals from open-admission shelters, and never buying animals from breeders or pet stores.
Teresa Chagrin
PETA animal care and control specialist
Norfolk, Va.