Have you seen Kim Schrier’s ad accusing Matt Larkin of extremism?

Funny that she wasn’t bragging about how she has helped secure the southern boarder to stop millions of undocumented immigrants, human trafficking and enough fentanyl to kill every kid in America that doesn’t know not to take candy from a stranger.

Surprisingly, she doesn’t take credit for lowering inflation, reducing crime, and lowering government spending, subsequently reducing our tax burden and making life in America more safe and affordable.

Oh, that’s right, because she and her party have done nothing to solve those problems.

So why not try an attack ad that makes your opponent look like an extremist?

And best of all, let’s accuse him of extremism regarding the one topic of which Ms. Schrier is the most extreme herself, abortion.

Schrier hopes to woo voters in the 8th district to climb aboard the most radical possible anti-life train outside of North Korea by cosponsoring a resolution (H.R. 8296) that supports a woman terminating the life of the child growing within her for any reason whatsoever, through all nine months of pregnancy. Yes, even up to moments before delivery, so long as a doctor deems her “health” is in jeopardy; note this resolution does not define “health”, leaving the door wide open to interpretation, as has been the case for almost 50 years and costing an untold number of children their lives.

Historically, Democrats have gone along with the companion decision of Roe v. Wade which defined “health” to include mental health. At times I understand that to be used as a reason to terminate a pregnancy for no other reason than the person carrying the child is upset that she is pregnant.

Now that is what I call extreme.

While there are a million couples who are ready, willing and able to provide that infant with a loving home, Schrier’s solution is to fund the abortion industry with your federal taxes in order to take the child’s life before she or he can take a single breath.

Conversely, Matt Larkin agrees with the Dobbs decision which took this life and death issue out of the hands of nine unelected justices in D.C. and returned it to the place where the framers of the Constitution intended such matters to be decided: the will of the people as we vote.

Realistically, Larkin acknowledges that in our state abortion will remain legal.

But it’s possible that if we vote for someone who begins with an ethic that human life really shouldn’t be thought of as disposable, maybe at least we can cut $553,700,000 from our government spending sent to Planned Parenthood from our national debt.

J. M. Akers Sr.

Enumclaw