Vote No on 4

Dear Editor:

Voters should be aware that approval of this simply worded question would establish in Maine law a 4,800-word piece of initiated "legislation" that, with its requirement of costly referenda on even trivial over-limit spending proposals, would be certain to stymie every level of Maine government -- state, county and town. The very purpose of the initiative is to reduce the flexibility of government to deal with the issues before it, even in such circumstances as the current economic downturn. The initiative is being advanced in spite of the fact that Maine general fund spending as a share of personal income has been in overall decline since 2001.

I put "legislation" in quotation marks because the word suggests deliberation and debate by bodies of accountable elected representatives with responsibility for directing the state's affairs.

Support same sex marriage

Dear Editor:

On November 3, Maine voters will have the opportunity to reaffirm Maine's new law, recognizing the civil right for same-sex couples to marry.  With the historic vote of the legislature in 2009, Maine joined Iowa and others that believe that same-sex couples should have equal rights under the law - the same economic benefits as traditional marriage, such as health insurance for your family  surely a hot topic today. 

As CEO of Coastal Enterprises, Inc., I urge Maine voters to side with Protect Maine Equality and vote "No on One."  At CEI we believe that discrimination of any sort should not be tolerated and that America, still a beacon of justice for many in the world,  must keep up its own vows and aspirations to rid the world of discrimination, by doing so at home.   Discrimination has no place in a democracy founded on equal rights.

Readers familiar with CEI may wonder why a nonprofit community investment company is supporting Protect Maine Equality.  We discussed this matter at the employee and board levels, and believe it is a threshold question that each of us personally and institutionally  should discuss openly and voice our concern for any effort to overturn just laws.  We understand that on religious grounds some may not find same-sex marriage acceptable.  My own experience as a seminarian leads me in the other direction, on which I believe all religions are based, that is, compassion for those being treated unfairly.  Whatever one's view, certainly the civil right of equality under the law is a principle we must not ignore. 

CEI's roots are in the '70s civil rights movement, a time in U.S. history when social, racial and issues of economic opportunity came to the forefront.  Our main purpose is to create economic opportunity for people and places out of the mainstream.  Laws  or lack of them - that directly or indirectly discriminate against an individual are of no help in building sustainable, healthy communities.  Discrimination of any sort is simply unhealthy to the evolution of a more just and humane social order.  We urge other institutions in Maine to do same. 

Vote No on One, and, thanks to all for opposing the referendum that would overturn Maine law and allow discrimination.

Ron Phillips, CEO

Coastal Enterprises, Inc.

Wiscasset

‘No on 1’

campaign criticized

Dear Editor:

I am very concerned about the TV ads coming from the No on 1 campaign. It would seem that Jessie Connelly really didn't want the clean fight he so publicly pronounced back in August. 

According to No on 1's advertising, anyone who believes that marriage is between one man and one woman is now being told that they are trying to harm Maine children. This is the public display of "tolerance" coming from the No on 1 campaign. Look at the online comments posted on YouTube, various letters to the editor, and Facebook, and you will see comments that are all vile and hateful. 

Comments range from attacking families and children of marriage supporters, calling those who believe in traditional marriage bigots and other horrible names, and attacking one's religion and strongly held religious beliefs. I attended a debate last night in which these comments were brought up, and Shenna Bellows of the MCLU said she was sorry that happened but now we know what the gay community has been dealing with. I am sorry Shenna, but that is flawed thinking. I know, due to your working with MCLU, that you are associated with many gay couples that might have experienced this type of behavior.

But that doesn't make it okay for the gay community to start attacking innocent people! Anyone that attacks another human being, by word or fist, should be harshly dealt with. So don't try to make that an excuse for what is happening today. If you want to see the hate for yourself, just read the comments on any letter or video that supports marriage between one man and one woman. It is so sad that this is what is happening when this bill has not even been passed yet.

Just think about what we will experience if LD1020 goes into law. I am personally offended by these ads and by Shenna's excuse, as everyone should be. People who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman are not hateful, nor bigoted. Shame on you No on 1.  You cannot eliminate hatred and bigotry as long as you yourself are part of the problem.

Kymberly Souchet

Brunswick

Disturbed with vote on vaccine choice

Dear Hon. Sens. Mitchell, Bartlett and Marrache and Reps. Pingree, Piotti and Berry:

I am disturbed by your vote against Vaccine Choice and am taking the opportunity to explain why it is critical you reconsider your vote in the appeal of Rep. Thomas’ Bill to Prohibit Mandatory Vaccinations, on Nov. 5.

The reasons this bill deserves deliberation include the answer to the ethical poignant question: "Who has the right to decide what is put into another person’s body against their wishes?"  The answer to this, of course, is nobody; not a doctor, not the government; for to do so would be assault.

I am aware that Statute §6355 pertaining to enrollment in public school allows for approved exemptions for medical, religious or philosophical reasons. This knowledge is not because the enrollment forms for public school include Full Disclosure. If they did this Statute would be part of what parents receive upon enrolling their children. The enrollment forms only state that your child must be vaccinated. Full Disclosure is part of this conversation.

My concerns include current Maine Law Title 22 §820. This law states that upon declaration of an extreme public health emergency, "the department" has the powers to take a person into custody and order prescribed care. "The department" may act without a court order if "the department" has reasonable cause to believe that the person has been exposed to or is at significant medical risk of transmitting a communicable disease that poses a serious and imminent risk to public health and safety. Without a court order who approves the reasonable cause to take a person into custody? Where is the oversight? "Prescribed care" is not defined and thus could include quarantine, drugs and vaccinations.

When Governor Baldacci signed the Proclamation of Civil Emergency on Sept. 1, 2009 did he trigger this Statute? What needs to occur for this Statute to be triggered? What are the definable reasons for declaring an "extreme public health emergency" and by doing so, remove any presumed right to decline vaccinations?

US Code §46.116 Informed Consent, requires the people be protected from vaccination mandates.  Presently we are not protected. With all due respect, protection based on reassurances by legislators, such as yourself, and Dora Mills, our Maine CDC Director, are unconvincing and insubstantial within the aforementioned context and within the continued elaboration.

Governor Baldacci's Proclamation (9/1) removes liability from those administering vaccines. This removal of liability combined with the Federal Government’s enactment of The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act ("PREP Act") leaves those injured from vaccinations vulnerable and defenseless with no recourse except the arduous, burdensome and inadequate National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which is an ‘after the fact’ band-aid that has issued over a billion dollars to date.

The PREP ACT added new authorities under the Public Health Service (PHS) Act for the purpose of "alleviating concerns about liability related to the manufacture, testing, development, distribution, administration and use of countermeasures against …and pandemics." This liability shield removes incentives for proper testing for safety and efficacy from manufacturers, distributors, and program planners, and qualified persons who prescribe, administer, or dispense the vaccines. With zero repercussions for the results of products offered/mandated what can we logically expect the outcome to be? We are not talking about an improperly made pair of shoes. These are pharmaceuticals injected into our bloodstreams.

Massachusetts’ Senate passed a bill removing the rights of individuals to their health decisions and private property and threatening detention for non-compliance with any vaccination mandates. 

New York Health Care Workers, mandated to receive the H1N1 vaccine, filed lawsuit against the State of NY. A temporary restraining order was issued by Judge McNamara in NY State Supreme Court.

New Jersey, the first state to mandate flu vaccinations, is experiencing palpitations from parents and citizens taking it to the streets in protest.

This bill is a reaction to what’s occurring outside the State of Maine in a proactive attempt to protect Maine citizens from such occurrences within the State of Maine.

Current events define this urgent matter; to be protected from invasive medical procedures against our will. This natural right of each individual can no longer be presumed, thus it is imperative to protect vaccine choice.

I respectfully urge you to exercise serious consideration and allow this bill, To Prohibit Mandatory Vaccinations, forward. I await your response to my concerns and your vote on November 5.

Sincerely,

Cynthia Rosen

Washington

Appreciation from Rising Tide

Dear Editor:

On behalf of the board of directors at Rising Tide, I would like to extend a heartfelt thank you to all who helped make Rising Tide’s Grand Opening celebration on October 10 a huge success! It was a remarkable day and we were happy to see so many folks stop by to enjoy vendor tastings and samplings, health and wellness education and demos, fabulous kid’s activities, spirited musical entertainment, and, of course, some great deals.

We are grateful to the folks at Lincoln County Publishing for putting together a fantastic insert to promote the event and to all of the local businesses who helped make its publication possible by supporting it.

We want to extend a huge thank you to all of the local vendors and suppliers who attended and offered up such wonderful samples.

We wish to thank our friends at Splatter Kids Art Studio for once again making a Rising Tide event truly fun for the whole family. We are very appreciative of the folks from Country Coach Charters who did an exceptional job orchestrating the parking.

We were also fortunate to showcase some of the outstanding musicians with which Lincoln County is blessed; Hope Hoffman provided a lively mix of musical offerings for all ages and The New Rangers presented inspired versions of classic tunes to a loyal gathering who braved the strong afternoon winds.

The entire staff at Rising Tide did an incredible job of preparing for this event and deserves credit for making it look easy. An event of this kind takes an extraordinary amount of planning and coordination that requires energy, dedication, and organizational skill.

We were fortunate to have a coordinator for this event who has all three of those talents—Carisa Holmes. Carisa (with generous assistance from Maria Northcott) developed the plan for the grand opening and then carried it out by making sure that all of the many moving parts were in place and functioning throughout the day. She helped make it a community event and thanks to her (and many others) it was a memorable day and an unqualified success!

Mark Ward

Board President

Rising Tide Community Market

Vote Yes on 4

Dear Editor:

In the past eight years, state government has increased spending by 46%, and statewide local property taxes increased by 58%, all the while, private sector jobs decreased by 13,000 and the government jobs increased by 3,400. This tax and spend mentality cannot be sustained.  Hardworking Mainers must rise up and say "We have had enough."  This cannot and will not be sustained.

How do I know TABOR will work? Because at the same time spending was skyrocketing 58% across most of Maine, property taxes only went up 9% in Waterville. Cash reserves increased 500%. Our bond rating improved dramatically. Enormous capital improvements were made, and no services were cut. I was the Mayor for 6 of those 8 years - and in my time in office, taxes went DOWN 13%. I know spending can be controlled.

The opposition does not represent the hardworking people of Maine.  They are special interest groups such as the Maine Municipal Association who get their revenue stream off the backs of Maine taxpayers.  They outspend the proponents by a margin of 5 to 1 (and some of that money is your tax dollars. Yes – your tax dollars!) , and their efforts are organized to protect their lifestyle. They truly have no passion for the prosperous future of our state.

For these reasons, I ask that hardworking Maine people support Tabor II, despite decreasing in numbers and being readied for the endangered species list unless we can win this battle.

Vote – YES on Question 4.

Paul R. LePage

Mayor of Waterville

Candidate for Governor

PS: A wise man, Dr. Adrian Rogers, wrote: "You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy into poverty. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friends, is about the end of our state. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."

Support traditional marriage

Dear Editor:

Remember Question 1 back on November 8, 2005, that added sexual orientation to Maine's civil rights statute? On November 9 that year the Portland Press Herald reported that "the law says it is not intended to redefine marriage, which a separate state law defines as the union of a man and a woman. But opponents of the law...argued during the campaign that keeping the gay rights law on the books would pave the way for legalizing same-sex marriage. Maine Won't Discriminate, which led the fight to retain the law, countered that the law had nothing to do with marriage."

The same November 9 edition reported that Texas became the 19th state to approve a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. November 2008 California, Florida, and Arizona passed similar amendments, bringing the total to 30 states that have voted to uphold traditional marriage.

In California, Dee Garrett, a black civil rights leader in the South in the 1960s, rejected the claim that same-sex marriage is a legitimate civil rights issue. "It's (same-sex marriage) not about civil rights. Racism was about civil rights. Marriage is about society, the future and about our children," said Garrett. Seven out of ten black voters in California agreed with Garrett and voted for Proposition 8, which amended the state's constitution to eliminate same-sex marriage. (Kennebec Journal 4-9-2009)

I will be voting yes on 1 this November to protect traditional marriage because it is the foundation of our society.

Mary Rose Pray

Wiscasset