Several weeks ago I received the endorsement of NARAL Pro-Choice Washington. Earlier in September, I was endorsed by Planned Parenthood Votes! Washington.

Typically, NARAL doesn’t make endorsements in Seattle races because most candidates for office in this city are strongly progressive and deeply pro-choice.

Dr. Deborah Oyer Endorses Mike (click for video)

This race is the exception, and my opponent’s position on choice has raised serious concerns for people who believe that a woman’s right to choose is important and should be protected. According to NARAL, “Robert Rosencrantz stands apart from the field as the only anti-choice contender for a seat on the council . . . [he] has publicly stated that he supports such anti-choice measures as parental notification for a young woman seeking abortion care.”

In contrast, says NARAL Pro-Choice Washington Executive Director Lauren Simonds, “Mike O’Brien has demonstrated his commitment to women’s rights and health, and he will be a champion for reproductive freedom in elected office. He strongly supports funding for women’s health care as well as comprehensive sexual health education in our schools.”

This raises some obvious but important question. Since choice tends to be subject to state and federal laws, does Seattle City Council really have a role to play when it comes to women’s reproductive rights? Should voters weigh our positions on choice as they decide who to vote for in this race?

Here’s why I think that voters should care where City Council members stand on the issue of choice.

• For teens and low-income women, public health clinics are often the best—and only—place to go for access to contraception and emergency morning-after pills, and for family planning and abortion counseling. These clinics are jointly funded by the city and King County, and the county is dramatically reducing public health funding and closing clinics. With the city’s budget also under strain, City Council will almost certainly face difficult decisions over providing continuing funding to health clinics in Seattle. I am committed to fighting to ensure that there is full funding to support access to family planning services in health clinics in Seattle.

• The City Council will start work on the Families and Education Levy next year. It currently funds a range of health services in our schools, including reproductive health, contraception, and family planning. I’m committed to ensuring that the Families and Education Levy maintains the programs that the city offers today.

Will Robert Rosencrantz fight hard to fund programs that support something he doesn’t believe in?

The answer to this question is unclear at best.

There are other areas where the issue of choice can impact our lives in Seattle. Rosencrantz has publicly stated that he supports anti-choice measures such as parental notification when a young woman is seeking abortion care. And he has refused to provide clear answers to questions about whether he believes doctors and pharmacists who are anti-choice should be able to deny women access to care.

I believe these are important issues that can have a deep impact on the lives of women in this city. How we address them says a lot about what kind of city we want to live in. I am deeply committed to progressive values and I believe strongly in the importance of ensuring that all women have access to the services and care that they need. I know that many of you share my beliefs.

With a great research university and world-leading companies in key technology fields including aerospace, software, and biotech, Seattle has a well-earned reputation as a leader in technology and science innovation. This is important to the economic future of Seattle because it is a crucial source of high-paying jobs.

But we are in danger of falling behind other cities in because we’re not keeping up in critical areas, particularly when it comes to providing the right infrastructure. A key piece of that is a city-wide broadband network that would give all of Seattle’s citizens and its businesses affordable, high-speed Internet access.

I believe that building a publicly owned, city-wide broadband network that delivers true high speed bandwidth to every home in Seattle should be one of this city’s highest priorities. For more specific recommendations, please check out the new technology infrastructure page in the Issues section of this website.

Robert Rosencrantz is at it again.

First, he apologized for mailing an attack piece to 100,000 Seattle households that misrepresented both my position AND his own position on tolling. He said he was taking tolling off the table.

Now he says he’s going to go back to telling tolling tall tales. His reason? Because I pointed out taking the issue off the table at debates did nothing to make up for the 100,000 mail pieces he sent out spreading these false attacks.

Only one candidate in this race supports a specific tolling plan: Robert Rosencrantz supports tolls on the deep-bore tunnel. I oppose the project and the tolls.

Only one candidate in this race supports the most expensive option and highest tolls for 520: Robert Rosencrantz wants to build a tunnel under Montlake, and pay for it with higher tolls. I will support higher tolls on 520 only if the bridge includes light rail.

Only one candidate wants to increase revenue through tolling: Robert Rosencrantz says he wants tolls “not only to have the revenue but also to regulate the demand.”

I support tolling, but only to reduce and replace existing transportation taxes that have nothing to do with transportation (such as sales and property taxes).

Robert Rosencrantz keeps saying that I want to toll all Seattle streets, which is patently false. I think we should look at tolling highways, and I think we need to consider the impact of diversion into neighborhoods. That means we need to look at corridor tolling that eliminates the incentive to duck tolls by taking neighborhood streets. Which is exactly the same thing Rosencrantz supported in his interview with Friends of Seattle.

Finally, here’s a real position shift on tolling:

“It is a good idea. Corridor tolling systemwide is something we are going to have to have not only to have the revenue but also to regulate the demand. And if we can have peak period tolling such that we don’t have to have as many roads, that is a good thing. That is a way to divert capitol funds away from asphalt and concrete for roads and into the bicycle and pedestrian – it will flow through. So, tolls, great. Systemwide, yes. I’ve seen the transponder things on display and.. it’s coming. We are going to go there.”

- Robert Rosencrantz to Friends of Seattle, July 2009

“I support as little tolling as possible. If it’s necessary to pay for direct construction of something, I could accept it. But I don’t agree with this idea that we should price people out of their cars. I would prefer to toll neither (SR-520 nor I-90). If [tolling is] necessary to pay for construction of 520, I would be open to it. I’m not a “let’s put a user fee on it to force people out of their cars” person. We already pay for our roads through the gas tax.”

- Robert Rosencrantz to Publicola, October 2009

Wow. No wonder he wanted to take this issue “off the table”.