Opinion | How to reduce the number of abortions in Virginia (2024)

Studies suggest that roughly 40 percent of all abortions are economically driven. Women who have no clear path on how to afford raising a child make these decisions. To substantially reduce abortions, we must rally behind positions that promote hope and economic purpose to women who choose life.

Last year, I promoted a workforce bill that I hoped would help single mothers in particular. The legislation would have made community college training free in high-demand fields such as nursing so long as recipients went on to work in that profession in Virginia for five years. Another proposal I offered would have provided tax credits to employers who voluntarily paid for their workers’ child care. Both proposals died in the House of Delegates.

That’s a shame. Policies like these are desperately needed to create robust workforces in Virginia and pull people up from poverty without lifetime handouts. And if women who are considering terminating their pregnancies learned that as single mothers, they would be supported as they trained to become nurses and that their employers could help with child-care expenses, more of them might choose life. Abortion demand will decrease. And we will have changed the conversation about how to become a true “pro-life” party.

Republicans must abandon the philosophy of telling women they “can’t” have an abortion. It does not work, and many voters run to Democrats because we refuse to adjust our paradigm on abortion.

When I say the Republican Party needs to evolve, I am not saying to abandon our core values, but to find other ways to accomplish goals. Let’s be pro-life by being pro-mother and pro-baby. After all, they are a package deal. Those of us who are pro-life should allow ourselves to think outside the box.

Proposals like mine would save more babies in Virginia from abortion than any 15-week ban ever could. And if we rallied around these sorts of affirmative solutions, the Virginia General Assembly would be solidly in Republican control today.

Tim Anderson, Virginia Beach

The writer, a Republican, is a former member of the Virginia House of Delegates.

Regarding John Saunders’s May 25 letter to the editor, in which he objected to efforts by some members of the D.C. Council to revive the Connecticut Avenue bike lane project, I have no doubt he is, as he claims, a daily cyclist. However, I wish he had considered the needs and experiences of the more than 30 percent of D.C. households that don’t own a car, many of which use bicycles as a key part of their transportation needs. I think doing so might have led him to some different conclusions about the wisdom of this project.

Many people who will ride on this corridor will not be doing so because they want to bypass it, as Mr. Saunders suggested. Rather, they will use their bicycles to get to destinations along this route, whether they travel a few blocks, a mile or two, or its entire length. This proposed bike lane would serve hundreds of potential destinations all along the avenue itself, something the Rock Creek Trail does not do.

May I suggest to Mr. Saunders that he ride from, say, Nebraska Avenue NW and Connecticut Avenue NW to the Target in Cleveland Park and back via Rock Creek Park? Oh, and he should be sure to load his panniers with groceries and bring a child along in a bike seat or a trailer. Instead of a relatively easy 3-mile round trip, his “parallel route” alternative is 9 miles and requires 800 vertical feet of climbing.

This is just one simple example, but it is, in fact, virtually impossible to identify destinations along Connecticut Avenue that are even remotely convenient to the Rock Creek Trail. One of the reasons such a large percentage of households are able to live in D.C. without owning cars is because of the investment the city is making in a better, more connected and more convenient bike network. This project represents a continuation of that forward progress, and I hope it is revived.

Steve Offutt, Arlington

The writer is a member of the Arlington County Bicycle Advisory Committee.

I was a Boy Scout for seven years and became an Eagle Scout. Trying to follow the Scouts’ law, oath, motto (“Be prepared”) and slogan (“Do a good turn daily”) has helped me develop a code of ethics and moral behavior that has served me well in life. Given my years in scouting, I was very interested in the front-page article, which addressed the current friction between the Virginia locals who have special feelings for the Maury River.

As a lover of fast-moving clear streams that might offer good trout fishing, I can understand some of their feelings. But I also trust that Scout leadership and individual Scouts have no ill intent when they, on occasion, foul the river with sediment. I hope that in keeping with the principles Scouting teaches, this issue can be solved by the Scouts and locals coming together to discuss what can be done to meet the needs and interests of both parties involved.

Scouts are genuinely concerned about environmental issues, and certainly preserving the Maury River should be foremost in this case. I can also imagine the Scouts are likely to be more conciliatory than residents of an upscale development around the lake might be if the area had been developed differently.

Mike Robinson, Montgomery Village

The two previous owners of the Washington NFL franchise caused major shifts in our Sunday football experience. One moved the stadium out of the city in 1997 over a spat with D.C.’s mayor at the time. The other poorly micromanaged the team, resulting in loss after loss and created a hostile fan base and a working environment that brought shame to our city.

Both actions led to a grand-scale loser mentality among fans. It was especially hard on D.C. We had lost our stadium, our team and our pride as Washingtonians. We were in a state of shock. We were used to winning football. We had won three Super Bowls. We had the Hogs, the stylish superfans known as the Hogettes and the Bandwagon, started by The Post’s own Tony Kornheiser! We had great players and excellent management. Coach Joe Gibbs became a legend. All of this euphoria would soon change; over the next 30 years, the team wouldn’t fare too well on the scoreboard.

So, given this history, it is understandable that 76 percent of D.C. residents polled by The Post prefer the team return to D.C. For a generation, D.C. has lived with hope that things would change. Fans feel this could be the cure for what ails the team. This heartfelt nostalgia for a return to the glory days at RFK Stadium is truly overwhelming and probably the main reason for this preference.

But D.C. residents, be on notice that a new NFL stadium will not revitalize the city. As a 2022 analysis of more than 130 studies conducted over 30 years revealed, there is little financial reason for cities to subsidize stadiums due to the “overwhelming evidence of their economic impotence.”

The hope to resurrect past gridiron glories by building another NFL stadium that will be used for only nine to 12 games a year is foolish. Services, amenities and items that residents need will be deferred. Local neighborhoods will endure football fan rudeness, and Virginia and Maryland fans will head back to the suburbs, leaving D.C. left with cleanup duty.

Soon, this unfitting memorial to Robert F. Kennedy will be gone. The question we must ask is: How do D.C. residents see themselves now, and how will that vision have an enduring and positive impact on future Washingtonians?

Skip Strobel, Washington

Before it’s too late, I suggest an alternative path forward for Stalwart Stumpy: Preserve it as a tree sculpture at the Smithsonian for all future visitors to the capital and local Stumpy lovers as well.

We’ve long found it a treat to drive by a beautiful wood sculpture in our North Arlington neighborhood in the front yard of a private residence. There will be plenty of other old cherry trees removed for the honorable purpose of mulch. Stumpy deserves better.

Rick Barry, Arlington