Every woman should have the choice to carry a pregnancy to term or to terminate it. I fully support both choices. Key word being choice.
How has choice affected my life? That's an easy one. My mother chose to have me. Let me explain.
In 1966, when she was pregnant with me, my mother was exposed to Rubella (German measles). Back then, there was no prenatal testing. Ultrasound was just being introduced. There were no definitive tests. The vaccine had only been around for a few years. What came out at the end was what you got.
Up to 90 percent of infants born to mothers who had rubella during the first 11 weeks of pregnancy develop congenital rubella syndrome. This can cause one or more problems, including:
- Growth retardation
- Cataracts
- Deafness
- Congenital heart defects
- Defects in other organs
- Mental retardation
(source: Mayo Clinic)
Still, although abortion was illegal (Roe v Wade wouldn't be decided until I was 7), my mother had choices, because my grandfather was an OB. He knew people who could give my mom a safe abortion. And actually begged her to have one. He was terrified I'd be born missing limbs, with serious deformities, and with mental retardation (as it was called back then). Because he was an OB, the list above was very familiar to him. Knowledge can be a very scary thing. But knowledge also gives us power. The power to make good decisions.
My mom considered his request and decided to have me anyway. A good decision, of course, because otherwise you all would have missed out on, well, me! Heh.
My mom's uterus calcified when she was pregnant, and I had to live off my own body fat for likely the last 2 months of her pregnancy. I was born with a severe hearing loss in one ear. One that wasn't even diagnosed until I was screened by the audiologist in 1st grade. Back when they, you know, screened kids in the schools for vision and hearing.
We were all incredibly fortunate. And I say all, because it's not just me who was lucky, although I certainly count myself in that club. But my parents were saved the emotional toll and the cost of raising a child with major problems. My siblings were spared the stress of having a sibling who required much more of their parents attention. My grandfather was saved the stress of knowing he could have tried harder to convince my mom to abort me. And I was fortunate that I didn't have more severe problems.
How was I not diagnosed earlier? Well, thankfully it was only one ear. I instinctively compensated by learning to turn my good ear to the speaker. By lipreading. Is it still an issue for me? Oh yes. My sensori-neural loss can't be treated well with hearing aids now, and as a child it couldn't be treated at all. My dream was to be a professional musician. I was a flute performance major in college. But I quickly determined that at that level, my hearing loss was a huge issue that would keep me from being able to perform in professional orchestras. Do I still use the same compensation techniques that I learned as a child? Oh yes. Do I have difficulty in certain situations? Oh yes. Put me in a crowded room, and all you'll get from me is nods and smiles. Because I have absolutely no idea what is being discussed unless I'm looking you right in the face. Put me in a room with someone speaking into a microphone, and unless I'm in the front row and can lipread, I'm lost. Is it a huge issue in my life? Not really anymore. It actually never was.
Am I glad that my grandfather gave my mom the information she needed to make an informed choice? You bet. Am I glad my mother had that choice, even when others did not? You bet. Am I glad she made the choice she did? You bet.
The issue isn't that I came out healthy (deafness aside), without serious complications, so that would have made an abortion 'wrong'. The issue is that my parents were able to know what might happen, and weigh their ability to manage and handle all that comes with the possibility of a child like that, and to prepare for that eventuality. If I was born with major birth defects, would they still be glad to have me? Of course. But had they made the decision that it was too risky, and the choice to terminate the pregnancy, would I have ever known the difference? Of course not.
My husband would have met a wonderful girl and married her and had wonderful children. Without ever knowing that he was missing out on me. Am I glad that didn't happen and that we met, got married, and have the 2 most amazing children ever put on this earth? You bet. But would I have missed out on him and them had my mom made a different choice? No.
None of this is to say that I think my mom should have aborted me. But the idea that she had a choice that other women are now being denied infuriates me. Shouldn't every woman have the knowledge she needs to make an informed decision? Shouldn't every woman have the choice to discuss her options? Shouldn't every woman be armed with the knowledge that comes from prenatal testing so that she can weigh her options carefully?
I admire my mother for making the brave choice she did in a time when she was given the options that most other women did not have. I admire her for standing up to her father and making her own decisions. I admire my father for backing her up in her choice. And I admire my grandfather for giving her the options that so many women then and now are denied.
None of that changes the fact that I'm so grateful she had the choice.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
To attack someone's views on the Constitution, you should probably respect & understand the Constitution
Just sayin.
Darrell Issa, whom I'm ashamed to admit represents my home state, has decided that since the whole birth control debate blew up in his face, he would begin a new attack on President Obama.
via ThinkProgress.org
And as to your contention that you will have a President who will respect the Constitution, you already have one. Not like the POTUS wannabes of the GOP primary race, who frankly want to ignore anything in the Constitution they don't like. Let's provide a few examples, shall we?
Exhibit A:
My buddy and yours, Rick Santorum. He has flat-out said he will not respect the separation of Church and State. That he will force his religion and religious beliefs on the entire country, whether they want it or not (oh, and recent polls indicate, duh, they don't want it). “I don’t believe in an America where the separation between church and state is absolute.” I know he doesn't believe that this is what the founding fathers intended, because he's said so several times, but I beg to differ.
Last I checked, these men were our founding fathers:
~ Every man "ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience."
- George Washington (Letter to the United Baptist Churches in Virginia in May, 1789)
~ "Question with boldness even the existence of a god."
- Thomas Jefferson (letter to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787)
~ "The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.''
- James Madison (Original wording of the First Amendment; Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).)
~ "As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
- (Article 11, Treaty of Tripoli, 1797 - signed by President John Adams.)
~ "As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of government to protect all conscientious protesters thereof, and I know of no other business government has to do therewith."
- Thomas Paine (Common Sense, 1776.)
~ " ... I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and state."
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter, Danbury Baptist Assn. January 1, 1802
~ "When religion is good, it will take care of itself. When it is not able to take care of itself, and God does not see fit to take care of it, so that it has to appeal to the civil power for support, it is evidence to my mind that its cause is a bad one."
-Benjamin Franklin, Statesman, Inventor, Author, Letter to Dr. Price.
And some other Presidents' remarks on it:
~ "Thank God, under our Constitution there was no connection between Church and State, and that in my action as President of the United States I recognized no distinction of creeds in my appointments office."
James K. Polk
~ "Declare church and state forever separate and distinct; but each free within their proper spheres."
Ulysses S. Grant, Seventh annual message, Congress December 7, 1875
~ "I hold that in this country there must be complete severance of Church and State; that public moneys shall not be used for the purpose of advancing any particular creed; and therefore that the public schools shall be non-sectarian and no public moneys appropriated for sectarian schools."
Theodore Roosevelt, Address, New York, October 12, 1915
And of course, Santorum's favorite quote of them all - the one that makes him want to puke his guts up:
"I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish - where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source -- no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials -- and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all."
John F. Kennedy
Then there's this little tidbit from the US Constitution:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Oh yeah. That.
NB: Today, Santorum backed off the "I want to vomit" statement a bit, while still contending that his beliefs are correct. If he no longer wants to vomit, I can only assume that he received some sort of anti-nausea medication, paid for by his federally funded government healthcare pension plan. Nice.
Exhibit B:
Ron Paul, everyone's favorite whacko. He thinks the entire Constitution is unConstitutional. And that's pretty tough to do, given the whole circular reference there. I will admit to a certain fascination every time he opens his mouth. Kind of like a circus act that takes your breath away with its daring do. Or in Paul's case, daring doo-doo.
Exhibit C:
Newt Gingrich (I throw up a little in my mouth every time I write, say, or think his name). He's the hypocritical dude who, as Speaker of the House, impeached President Clinton for doing less than he was actually doing at the time. Clinton at least only got a blowjob (or four). Gingrich, at the same time as he was leading the charge to prosecute Clinton in the House, cheated on his wife (and his other wife) in a full-blown sexual affair. And oh yeah, he wanted to keep his wife on the side, too. Open marriage ahoy! Then he left his wife for the other woman, whom he now wants us to respect as First Lady. Ummm, yeah. Oh yes, and he was ousted by his own party for ethics violations. Lovely man. Anyway, Gingrich has flat-out said that he will ignore any Supreme Court ruling that he does not agree with. Hello? This is the exact reason we have checks and balances written into the Constitution. And the exact reason that the Supreme Court's word is final. He has also said he'll just remove any judge who makes a decision he doesn't agree with. Well, ok then.
Exhibit D:
Mitt Romney, our lovely richie rich. He wants to ignore the mandate in the Constitution that requires that the Federal Government work to provide for the general welfare of the people of the United States. It does not note in the Constitution that we only mean the President's rich buddies. No. That means. Everyone. As in WE THE PEOPLE.
Imagine for a moment, if you will, that it was President Obama making any of these statements. The lynch mobs would move out of the shadows and into the light. And President Obama would be lynched, if not literally (and that would be the desire of that party, I'm fairly sure, given the vitriolic rhetoric I hear) but figuratively in the media and by your candidates.
Oh, which brings me to another point. We have the title of President of the United States for a reason. Every time you call him Obama instead of President Obama, you completely disrespect the man that our country voted into the office. And it certainly wasn't close enough for a recount or a Supreme Court decision. He. Is. Our. President. Period.
You don't have to agree with the man or his politics. You don't even have to like him. But you need to respect the Office that he holds, or else admit that you are the reason that around the world our politics are ridiculed and belittled, and admit that you don't give a flying fuck if anyone respects you if you were the President.
Call him President Obama.
Assholes.
Darrell Issa, whom I'm ashamed to admit represents my home state, has decided that since the whole birth control debate blew up in his face, he would begin a new attack on President Obama.
via ThinkProgress.org
ISSA: We’re going to establish a very different policy. One, that we have a president who will respect the Constitution, not try to convert it to some [inaudible] South African Constitution.Oh, Issa. Right after you admitted you're a douchebag, you obviously feel the need to prove to us that you really meant it. I challenge you to just simply stand on the floor of the House and yell out, "I'm a douchebag!" Then you won't have to keep making all these douchey moves to prove it to us. Plus, I'll let you in on a little secret: we already know.
Issa likely conflated the erroneous accusation that President Obama wants “some South African Constitution” with an equally erroneous accusation that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg prefers the South African Constitution that has recently infected right-wing commentary.
Earlier this month, Ginsburg told an audience in Egypt that other countries’ constitutions may be better models for their burgeoning democracy than the United States Constitution because more recently drafted constitutions are often more precise in laying out individual rights. If Issa had bothered to the entire interview, however, he would have heard her stirring praise for the First Amendment, her references to the “genius” of our Constitution, and her statement about how powerful it is that our Constitution places power in “We the People.” Moreover, if Issa paid attention to the views of Ginsburg’s conservative colleagues, he would know that conservative Justice Antonin Scalia made a similar point when he testified at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that the Soviet Union’s bill of rights “was much better than ours.”
And as to your contention that you will have a President who will respect the Constitution, you already have one. Not like the POTUS wannabes of the GOP primary race, who frankly want to ignore anything in the Constitution they don't like. Let's provide a few examples, shall we?
Exhibit A:
My buddy and yours, Rick Santorum. He has flat-out said he will not respect the separation of Church and State. That he will force his religion and religious beliefs on the entire country, whether they want it or not (oh, and recent polls indicate, duh, they don't want it). “I don’t believe in an America where the separation between church and state is absolute.” I know he doesn't believe that this is what the founding fathers intended, because he's said so several times, but I beg to differ.
Last I checked, these men were our founding fathers:
~ Every man "ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience."
- George Washington (Letter to the United Baptist Churches in Virginia in May, 1789)
~ "Question with boldness even the existence of a god."
- Thomas Jefferson (letter to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787)
~ "The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.''
- James Madison (Original wording of the First Amendment; Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).)
~ "As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
- (Article 11, Treaty of Tripoli, 1797 - signed by President John Adams.)
~ "As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of government to protect all conscientious protesters thereof, and I know of no other business government has to do therewith."
- Thomas Paine (Common Sense, 1776.)
~ " ... I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and state."
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter, Danbury Baptist Assn. January 1, 1802
~ "When religion is good, it will take care of itself. When it is not able to take care of itself, and God does not see fit to take care of it, so that it has to appeal to the civil power for support, it is evidence to my mind that its cause is a bad one."
-Benjamin Franklin, Statesman, Inventor, Author, Letter to Dr. Price.
And some other Presidents' remarks on it:
~ "Thank God, under our Constitution there was no connection between Church and State, and that in my action as President of the United States I recognized no distinction of creeds in my appointments office."
James K. Polk
~ "Declare church and state forever separate and distinct; but each free within their proper spheres."
Ulysses S. Grant, Seventh annual message, Congress December 7, 1875
~ "I hold that in this country there must be complete severance of Church and State; that public moneys shall not be used for the purpose of advancing any particular creed; and therefore that the public schools shall be non-sectarian and no public moneys appropriated for sectarian schools."
Theodore Roosevelt, Address, New York, October 12, 1915
And of course, Santorum's favorite quote of them all - the one that makes him want to puke his guts up:
"I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish - where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source -- no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials -- and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all."
John F. Kennedy
Then there's this little tidbit from the US Constitution:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Oh yeah. That.
NB: Today, Santorum backed off the "I want to vomit" statement a bit, while still contending that his beliefs are correct. If he no longer wants to vomit, I can only assume that he received some sort of anti-nausea medication, paid for by his federally funded government healthcare pension plan. Nice.
Exhibit B:
Ron Paul, everyone's favorite whacko. He thinks the entire Constitution is unConstitutional. And that's pretty tough to do, given the whole circular reference there. I will admit to a certain fascination every time he opens his mouth. Kind of like a circus act that takes your breath away with its daring do. Or in Paul's case, daring doo-doo.
Exhibit C:
Newt Gingrich (I throw up a little in my mouth every time I write, say, or think his name). He's the hypocritical dude who, as Speaker of the House, impeached President Clinton for doing less than he was actually doing at the time. Clinton at least only got a blowjob (or four). Gingrich, at the same time as he was leading the charge to prosecute Clinton in the House, cheated on his wife (and his other wife) in a full-blown sexual affair. And oh yeah, he wanted to keep his wife on the side, too. Open marriage ahoy! Then he left his wife for the other woman, whom he now wants us to respect as First Lady. Ummm, yeah. Oh yes, and he was ousted by his own party for ethics violations. Lovely man. Anyway, Gingrich has flat-out said that he will ignore any Supreme Court ruling that he does not agree with. Hello? This is the exact reason we have checks and balances written into the Constitution. And the exact reason that the Supreme Court's word is final. He has also said he'll just remove any judge who makes a decision he doesn't agree with. Well, ok then.
Exhibit D:
Mitt Romney, our lovely richie rich. He wants to ignore the mandate in the Constitution that requires that the Federal Government work to provide for the general welfare of the people of the United States. It does not note in the Constitution that we only mean the President's rich buddies. No. That means. Everyone. As in WE THE PEOPLE.
Imagine for a moment, if you will, that it was President Obama making any of these statements. The lynch mobs would move out of the shadows and into the light. And President Obama would be lynched, if not literally (and that would be the desire of that party, I'm fairly sure, given the vitriolic rhetoric I hear) but figuratively in the media and by your candidates.
Oh, which brings me to another point. We have the title of President of the United States for a reason. Every time you call him Obama instead of President Obama, you completely disrespect the man that our country voted into the office. And it certainly wasn't close enough for a recount or a Supreme Court decision. He. Is. Our. President. Period.
You don't have to agree with the man or his politics. You don't even have to like him. But you need to respect the Office that he holds, or else admit that you are the reason that around the world our politics are ridiculed and belittled, and admit that you don't give a flying fuck if anyone respects you if you were the President.
Call him President Obama.
Assholes.
Friday, February 24, 2012
No, really. How come you guys call us racist? (for the eleventyth time)
This is all.
Lawsuit Claims Obama Can’t Be President Because He’s Black. Seriously. (via AddictingInfo.org)
Nothing else need be said.
Lawsuit Claims Obama Can’t Be President Because He’s Black. Seriously. (via AddictingInfo.org)
Nothing else need be said.
My women's health care & contraception debate (#1) with the GOP candidates
 |
| Source: UPI/Foxall |
Moderator: Let's talk about birth control.
Romney: There is no issue about birth control! It's about freedom of religion!
Me: Uhhhh, noooo... I believe this entire issue is about access to reproductive healthcare for women.
Paul: The government should be out of our business. It's about liberty! Having said that, I'm an OB, so I should know. No reproductive healthcare for women! Because the more pregnant women there are, the more the free market will drive them to my OB office. I'll be rich! And can insist they pay me in gold, because GOLD STANDARD!! Wheee!
Gingrich: Look. Fuck you for having the audacity to bring this up when we all know President Obama approves of infanticide!
Me: Mr. Gingrich, you are aware that infanticide is hyperbolic language that implies the intentional and systematic murder of an entire group of people, in this case babies? Already born babies? How do you explain that he had 2 infants of his own who managed to escape his murderous rampage?
Gingrich: Fuck you for not agreeing with me.
Santorum: Birth control lets women "do things". Bad things. It's Satan.
Me: Like dooo eeeet with their husbands once they have 27 children and don't want a 28th because they can't afford to send 28 to college?
Santorum: Higher education is evil.
Me: *headdesk*
Moderator: Is the current birth control debate about subjugating women?
Paul: No! It's about liberty and getting the government out of our lives. Having said that, no birth control for women!!!
Gingrich: Fuck you for having the audacity to bring this up.
Santorum: Of course not! But if a woman truly loved her husband, she'd stay at home and have as many babies as he wanted and raise them up proper-like. To do anything else is the work of Satan. It's evil.
Me: So women are too stupid for self-determination over their own bodies, but we're smart enough to raise your children while you hunt and gather?
Santorum: Well sure. Because they do what their husband tells them to. It's in the bible.
Me: *headdesk*
Moderator: If birth control is wrong, what about condoms?
Santorum: What's a condom?
Paul: The government should be out of our business. It's about liberty! If I want to wear a condom as a man, I have the right to do so without government intervention.
Romney: Dude, I'm a Mormon. We don't do condoms.
Me: Why is it ok for men to be allowed access to birth control, but not women? Now, I know you only like this one sometimes, but the 14th amendment says that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." In other words, men and women should have the same rights. And to deprive me of the LIBERTY of control over my own body is unconstitutional. Also, we need condoms to protect men and women from STDs. See? Health issue.
Santorum: First off, STDs for men is all about a gay disease. And those gays deserve what they get. Also, if we only allow sex after people get married, then there's no need to protect against STDs, because people wouldn't be getting ideas about doing unnatural bad things. I have a burning down here about this. Condoms are evil.
Me: Ahhh. So people never commit adultery and have sex with other people? Phew. What say you about that, Mr. Gingrich?
Gingrich: Fuck you for having the audacity to bring this up!
Me: *headdesk*
Moderator: Since birth control is about providing medical care to women in the form of a prescription for medication (duh, cuz there's no other way!), what say you about testosterone treatment for men whose levels are low?
Paul: Men deserve access to whatever treatment they need. The government should stay out of their business!
Romney: Men need their testosterone in order to have a gazillion babies. It's about the religious freedom to knock your wife up as many times as you want. Oh, and to be manly enough in the boardroom to make gazillions of dollars. Because MONEY!
Gingrich: Fuck you for bringing this up.
Santorum: Men need this in order to, you know, *whispers* dooo eeeet with their wives however many times it takes to keep them barefoot, pregnant, and subservient. To deny any man would be evil. Even if he's raping you. That is a gift from God, you know.
Me: So... hormone therapy is ok to be prescribed for a man for a medical condition, but not for a woman for a medical condition? Such as... ovarian cysts that are reduced with estrogen therapy, thus helping women keep those babymaking parts you so love.
Santorum: But women would use those treatments to, you know, do things they shouldn't be doing because it would also let them prevent pregnancies. Which would be evil. Because pregnancy is a gift, no matter who gives that sperm to you - be it hubby or rapist. Whichever. Just be thankful *pats me on head*.
Me: *headdesk*
Moderator: Why do you think women were excluded from the House hearing on "religious freedoms", which was really about denying contraceptive care to women?
Romney: Because women are irrelevant. In every way. They don't make enough money to be on my radar. Except as a bank to deposit my sperm, because MONEY!
Santorum: Because they should bow down at the feet of their God, who speaks through - you know... their husband. And do whatever He says. To do otherwise is evil.
Gingrich: Fuck you for having the audacity to bring this up.
Me: Because the 'right' is terrified that women are articulate, intelligent people who can easily make their case that religious freedom does not free any entity from following the law. And that the SCOTUS has already ruled on that. They are afraid that women will convince other women (and maybe even some men! The traitors!) that we are autonomous creatures fully capable of making our own decisions about everything including our bodies in conjunction with our family, our healthcare providers, and ONLY if desired, our religious leader.
Santorum & Romney: But our religion doesn't believe that! See? Religious freedom! War on religion! Secular agenda! Evil!!
Me: *headdesk*
Moderator: If this is being decided in State houses around the country for the most part, what's the big deal about a federal law?
Me: First of all, federal law supercedes state law. It's written in that Constitution that you all love so much. Federal law (meaning, the Constitution), which was upheld in Griswold v Connecticut, says that you can't deny birth control to women. And Roe v Wade says that you can't deny abortion to women. And furthermore...
Gingrich (interrupting): Fuck you for bringing this up.
Paul: It doesn't matter. The Federal Government is unconstitutional!
Me: Then how is it, Mr. Paul, that you are a member of the federal government? Are you breaking the law?
Paul: Well, somebody has to... and it's my right to do whatever I want, because... PERSONAL LIBERTY!! GOLD STANDARD!!
Santorum: Because we need someone to say once and for all that women wanting to do the nasty for any reason other than having a baby is wrong!! Wrong, I tell you. And even then, they shouldn't want to do it. They should lie there and take it until their husband (or their rapist, whatever) decides he's done. And agree that having so many babies that your uterus falls out is God's will. But in the meantime, I think the states have every right to decide the issues for themselves. Except when I don't agree with them.
Me: *headdesk*
Moderator: Well, thank you all. If you had to describe yourself in one word, what would it be?
Me: Frustrated.
Romney: Religious. Babymaker. (wait, that was two, but I'm allowed because I'm rich! RICH!)
Santorum: God.
Paul: Asshole.
Gingrich: Cheerful.
Me: *headdesk*
Friday, February 10, 2012
Autonomy
There seems to be a problem with autonomy in this country. Namely, allowing it to anyone who is not a rich, white, male. Or a zygote.
Some examples:
Autonomy over one's body. Although this is obvious, the war on women being waged in this country is unprecedented. Since the founding of our country, women have only gained rights. Now, we see many of those being taken away. The right to contraception (Griswold v Connecticut 1965). The right to choose to terminate a pregnancy for whatever reason (Roe v Wade, 1973).
Forcing a woman to have an invasive procedure she does not want in order to ensure she really understands what she's doing is an outright rape. Forced penetration of an object is actually rape. Just in case you weren't sure. And an internal ultrasound, as most of these bills/laws require, is just that - a rather large ultrasound wand is put inside the vagina and up into the uterus. And yes, it is actually as unpleasant as it sounds. No woman goes into an abortion lightly. No woman doesn't consider the consequences. And in forcing women to give up their autonomy in order to undergo a legal procedure, we also strip them of the autonomy to make decisions and use their brain.
And just today, the right to not have one's body beaten in one's own home or elsewhere was violated. The Violence Against Women Act, which was passed unanimously in 1994, was just voted to not be renewed by the Judiciary committee. Not a single Republican voted to renew it. Not one. In fact, they wanted to systematically strip it of its key protections, and of the government's requirement to take care of its people (that is actually in the constitution - the original. They didn't even have to tack it on as an amendment!)
Autonomy over one's dignity. By forcing people to carry papers in the street, we strip away the dignity of any person who might not look American. But what does it mean to look American? We are a country full of people from all over the world. People who look and sound different from one another. I am not asked to carry my citizenship papers around with me. In point of fact, I keep my birth certificate locked away for safekeeping, along with those of my husband and children and my marriage certificate. I would be terrified of losing it should I carry it around with me. Being stopped in the street and asked for one's papers is reminiscent of the time in world history when people were most robbed of their dignity and autonomy. Now, I just wrote a post on not using the Nazi analogy, so I'm not going to do that. I will say, however, that this is likely the closest America has ever come to a legitimate use of that analogy.
Additionally, we deprive the poor and indigent and those who are simply down on their luck of their dignity. Emma Lazarus' poem today would be written as "Take away your tired, your poor. For I do not want them." Forcing drug tests on anyone who receives government benefits goes against everything that this country stands for - you know, the whole innocent until proven guilty thing we take such pride in. We have declared these people guilty, and now require them to prove their innocence to us. That is wrong. And it's being applied in a discriminatory manner - by socioeconomic status. Every single member of federal, state, and local government - from the legislative bodies to the maintenance crews - is a recipient of government benefits. Of government provided health care, insurance, pensions. Yet only those who are not government employees, but are still entitled to government benefits, are being forced to take drug tests. Being asked to pee in a cup to prove you are a "good, decent person" when all you have done "wrong" was to be a victim of a poor economy is outrageous. I will stop being upset about this when every government employee who receives benefits (and that includes a simple paycheck) is also required to take a random drug test at someone's whim.
Autonomy over one's voice. Forcing those who have no access to prove their identity at the voting booth through impossible means deprives them of their autonomy to make their voice heard. By casting their vote. By making their legally entitled voice heard at the ballot box. Again, we are forcing people to prove their innocence and assuming them guilty of fraud, when in point of fact, the only cases of voter fraud have been of those lawmakers who impose the rule simply to disenfranchise those likely to vote against them. Don't get me wrong. I have no trouble with having to show a piece of identification in order to vote. In fact, I'm often surprised when I don't have to show it when I vote in every election. But imposing severe restrictions on the type of identification allowed, when some have no access to obtain it, is wrong. And unAmerican.
Autonomy over one's religion. We are guaranteed the freedom of religion in this country. That also means the freedom to choose our own religion (or not to choose any religion at all) and to not have one imposed upon us by the government. In fact, that is the entire reason for the first amendment to the Constitution. Because our founding fathers did not like having the Church of England imposed upon them. They wanted to insure that our government could never do that to its peoples.
The field of politicians today seems determined to impose their interpretation of Christianity upon me. And frankly, I am offended by that. And angered. If I were to be childish, I would say that "My people were here on this earth first. My people were the chosen people. So back off." But of course, I'm not childish, so I won't say that.
What I will say is that one person's interpretation of a book - any book - is different than another's. I'm a book blogger and book reviewer. This point is never more clear than in the book blogging world, where two people can write a review and interpret a book separately, and you have to wonder if they even read the same book. That doesn't mean that one of them is right and the other is wrong (unless one of them is me, of course). They are both entitled to interpret the book as they choose. I do not want anything forced upon me (or taken away from me) as a result of someone imposing their interpretation of a book or their religious beliefs upon me. Nuff said.
We are so determined to grant autonomy to zygotes, to literally tiny groups of cells, that we forget about the autonomy of those who are already out in the world. We are so determined to take away rights in the name of religion that we forget that religion teaches us to be kind, to treat others as we would ourselves.
We forget that children (those cells, zygotes, and fetuses that are then born and actually become children) should be protected. Protected from working ureasonable hours. Protected from abuse. Protected from having to not eat because their government, in the name of religion, refused to take care of them in their time of need.
We are so determined to grant autonomy to zygotes in the name of religion that we forget to grant autonomy to those less able to care for themselves. The elderly, the sick, the poor. We forget that religion tells us to help the poor and feed the hungry.
We are so determined to grant autonomy to zygotes in the name of religion that we forget that once they are actually born, we have a duty to take care of them.
We are so determined to grant autonomy to zygotes in the name of religion we forget that our country grants us the freedom to not believe in the same religion as someone else, and that does not make them better than us. It does not grant them more rights than us. It does not make them more privileged than us.
It simply means that we choose to believe differently. And that is what our country was founded upon.
Some examples:
Autonomy over one's body. Although this is obvious, the war on women being waged in this country is unprecedented. Since the founding of our country, women have only gained rights. Now, we see many of those being taken away. The right to contraception (Griswold v Connecticut 1965). The right to choose to terminate a pregnancy for whatever reason (Roe v Wade, 1973).
Forcing a woman to have an invasive procedure she does not want in order to ensure she really understands what she's doing is an outright rape. Forced penetration of an object is actually rape. Just in case you weren't sure. And an internal ultrasound, as most of these bills/laws require, is just that - a rather large ultrasound wand is put inside the vagina and up into the uterus. And yes, it is actually as unpleasant as it sounds. No woman goes into an abortion lightly. No woman doesn't consider the consequences. And in forcing women to give up their autonomy in order to undergo a legal procedure, we also strip them of the autonomy to make decisions and use their brain.
And just today, the right to not have one's body beaten in one's own home or elsewhere was violated. The Violence Against Women Act, which was passed unanimously in 1994, was just voted to not be renewed by the Judiciary committee. Not a single Republican voted to renew it. Not one. In fact, they wanted to systematically strip it of its key protections, and of the government's requirement to take care of its people (that is actually in the constitution - the original. They didn't even have to tack it on as an amendment!)
Autonomy over one's dignity. By forcing people to carry papers in the street, we strip away the dignity of any person who might not look American. But what does it mean to look American? We are a country full of people from all over the world. People who look and sound different from one another. I am not asked to carry my citizenship papers around with me. In point of fact, I keep my birth certificate locked away for safekeeping, along with those of my husband and children and my marriage certificate. I would be terrified of losing it should I carry it around with me. Being stopped in the street and asked for one's papers is reminiscent of the time in world history when people were most robbed of their dignity and autonomy. Now, I just wrote a post on not using the Nazi analogy, so I'm not going to do that. I will say, however, that this is likely the closest America has ever come to a legitimate use of that analogy.
Additionally, we deprive the poor and indigent and those who are simply down on their luck of their dignity. Emma Lazarus' poem today would be written as "Take away your tired, your poor. For I do not want them." Forcing drug tests on anyone who receives government benefits goes against everything that this country stands for - you know, the whole innocent until proven guilty thing we take such pride in. We have declared these people guilty, and now require them to prove their innocence to us. That is wrong. And it's being applied in a discriminatory manner - by socioeconomic status. Every single member of federal, state, and local government - from the legislative bodies to the maintenance crews - is a recipient of government benefits. Of government provided health care, insurance, pensions. Yet only those who are not government employees, but are still entitled to government benefits, are being forced to take drug tests. Being asked to pee in a cup to prove you are a "good, decent person" when all you have done "wrong" was to be a victim of a poor economy is outrageous. I will stop being upset about this when every government employee who receives benefits (and that includes a simple paycheck) is also required to take a random drug test at someone's whim.
Autonomy over one's voice. Forcing those who have no access to prove their identity at the voting booth through impossible means deprives them of their autonomy to make their voice heard. By casting their vote. By making their legally entitled voice heard at the ballot box. Again, we are forcing people to prove their innocence and assuming them guilty of fraud, when in point of fact, the only cases of voter fraud have been of those lawmakers who impose the rule simply to disenfranchise those likely to vote against them. Don't get me wrong. I have no trouble with having to show a piece of identification in order to vote. In fact, I'm often surprised when I don't have to show it when I vote in every election. But imposing severe restrictions on the type of identification allowed, when some have no access to obtain it, is wrong. And unAmerican.
Autonomy over one's religion. We are guaranteed the freedom of religion in this country. That also means the freedom to choose our own religion (or not to choose any religion at all) and to not have one imposed upon us by the government. In fact, that is the entire reason for the first amendment to the Constitution. Because our founding fathers did not like having the Church of England imposed upon them. They wanted to insure that our government could never do that to its peoples.
The field of politicians today seems determined to impose their interpretation of Christianity upon me. And frankly, I am offended by that. And angered. If I were to be childish, I would say that "My people were here on this earth first. My people were the chosen people. So back off." But of course, I'm not childish, so I won't say that.
What I will say is that one person's interpretation of a book - any book - is different than another's. I'm a book blogger and book reviewer. This point is never more clear than in the book blogging world, where two people can write a review and interpret a book separately, and you have to wonder if they even read the same book. That doesn't mean that one of them is right and the other is wrong (unless one of them is me, of course). They are both entitled to interpret the book as they choose. I do not want anything forced upon me (or taken away from me) as a result of someone imposing their interpretation of a book or their religious beliefs upon me. Nuff said.
We are so determined to grant autonomy to zygotes, to literally tiny groups of cells, that we forget about the autonomy of those who are already out in the world. We are so determined to take away rights in the name of religion that we forget that religion teaches us to be kind, to treat others as we would ourselves.
We forget that children (those cells, zygotes, and fetuses that are then born and actually become children) should be protected. Protected from working ureasonable hours. Protected from abuse. Protected from having to not eat because their government, in the name of religion, refused to take care of them in their time of need.
We are so determined to grant autonomy to zygotes in the name of religion that we forget to grant autonomy to those less able to care for themselves. The elderly, the sick, the poor. We forget that religion tells us to help the poor and feed the hungry.
We are so determined to grant autonomy to zygotes in the name of religion that we forget that once they are actually born, we have a duty to take care of them.
We are so determined to grant autonomy to zygotes in the name of religion we forget that our country grants us the freedom to not believe in the same religion as someone else, and that does not make them better than us. It does not grant them more rights than us. It does not make them more privileged than us.
It simply means that we choose to believe differently. And that is what our country was founded upon.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Access to birth conrtol is NOT Nazi ideology
Can people on both sides PLEASE stop invoking the "Nazi" comparison?
The latest is Eric Metaxas, commentator on MSNBC's Jansing & Co. In a debate with a rep from NARAL about contraception coverage this morning, he said the following:
First off, let's get one thing clear. The government is not mandating that women must use birth control. The government is saying that when women DO use birth control, it should be completely covered at no cost. Period.
Also, a poll from the Public Religion Research Institute reveals that a majority of Catholics support the decision (at a higher rate 58 to 55% than does America as a whole). And frankly, the only group polled that disagrees with the mandate are those who identified as white evangelical Christians.
Churches are exempt from the policy. But places where employees are likely to be from diverse religious backgrounds, such as hospitals or universities, must provide coverage. Provide coverage, not force people to use it. Geez.
Plus, I'm really tired of people who want to impose religion into everything we do, suddenly crying "Separation of Church and State!!!" to the heavens. You are as hypocritical as they come. These are the same people who would have prayer (Christian prayer) in public schools, who write policy and laws based on (incorrect) biblical reference. These are the same people who preach Jesus all over their speeches and government criticisms, yet act in a fashion that would make Jesus turn over in his grave (if he hadn't you know, already gotten up out of his grave). Yet when these people don't like a law, they cry "Wait!! The Constitution!!" Just STFU already. Seriously, you're irking my shit.
But back to my original point.
So many people (from both sides, but mostly the far right) are comparing any law, ruling, mandate, opinion that they don't care for as being just like the Nazis.
Nazi Germany was under rule by a man and subsequently his party, whose mission was to systematically rid the planet of entire race/ethicity of peoples. Jews, blacks, homosexuals. And they systematically and without remorse went about achieving that goal. By murdering people. Live people. Already born people. People who were actually people. Anyone who wasn't like them.
Does that sound like the same thing as making contraception available for those who would like to use it? I think not.
So STOP invoking the Nazis as a comaprison for everything you don't support.
As a Jew, I'm offended.
As part of a military family, whose family members served during WW2, I'm offended.
As an American, I'm offended.
And as a human being, I'm offended.
The latest is Eric Metaxas, commentator on MSNBC's Jansing & Co. In a debate with a rep from NARAL about contraception coverage this morning, he said the following:
"In [my] book, you read about what happened to an amazingly great country, called Germany. I'm half German. Uh, in the early '30s, little things were happening where the state was bullying the churches. No one spoke up. In the beginning, it always starts really, really small. We need to understand as America, as Americans, if we do not see this as a bright line in the sand, if you're not a Catholic, if you use contraception, doesn't matter. Because eventually, this kind of government overreach will affect you. If we don't speak up, we're gonna be in trouble."
First off, let's get one thing clear. The government is not mandating that women must use birth control. The government is saying that when women DO use birth control, it should be completely covered at no cost. Period.
Also, a poll from the Public Religion Research Institute reveals that a majority of Catholics support the decision (at a higher rate 58 to 55% than does America as a whole). And frankly, the only group polled that disagrees with the mandate are those who identified as white evangelical Christians.
 |
| Source: PRRI Religion & Politics Tracking Survey, Feb 2012 |
Churches are exempt from the policy. But places where employees are likely to be from diverse religious backgrounds, such as hospitals or universities, must provide coverage. Provide coverage, not force people to use it. Geez.
Plus, I'm really tired of people who want to impose religion into everything we do, suddenly crying "Separation of Church and State!!!" to the heavens. You are as hypocritical as they come. These are the same people who would have prayer (Christian prayer) in public schools, who write policy and laws based on (incorrect) biblical reference. These are the same people who preach Jesus all over their speeches and government criticisms, yet act in a fashion that would make Jesus turn over in his grave (if he hadn't you know, already gotten up out of his grave). Yet when these people don't like a law, they cry "Wait!! The Constitution!!" Just STFU already. Seriously, you're irking my shit.
But back to my original point.
So many people (from both sides, but mostly the far right) are comparing any law, ruling, mandate, opinion that they don't care for as being just like the Nazis.
Nazi Germany was under rule by a man and subsequently his party, whose mission was to systematically rid the planet of entire race/ethicity of peoples. Jews, blacks, homosexuals. And they systematically and without remorse went about achieving that goal. By murdering people. Live people. Already born people. People who were actually people. Anyone who wasn't like them.
Does that sound like the same thing as making contraception available for those who would like to use it? I think not.
So STOP invoking the Nazis as a comaprison for everything you don't support.
As a Jew, I'm offended.
As part of a military family, whose family members served during WW2, I'm offended.
As an American, I'm offended.
And as a human being, I'm offended.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Sex, Lies, and Malpractice: Aiding and abetting physicians in lying to women
It's been a while since I posted. Not because I haven't been interested. Lord knows there's a whole host of stuff going on, in the elections (Ugh), in regards to women's health (Hello, Susan G. Komen?), and elsewhere. I found I needed to back off for a while. My blood pressure was up, my anger level was too high. However... this requires some discussion.
There is a bill before the Kansas legislature right now that would violate so many rights of women, I can't even begin to comprehend it.
The Kansas House has only 6 days to discuss this abhorrent legislation before it's brought to a vote.
The bill would do several things to completely violate any trust between women and their physicians. First, it would allow a doctor to LIE to a woman by not telling her about potential problems with the pregnancy such as birth defects, potential medical consequences for the mother and/or child in order to prevent the woman from choosing an abortion.
Then, on top of that, it exempts the doctor from any malpractice suits that might arise from blatantly lying to their patient. And if that baby happens to be born with 12 heads and no arms? Well, they're exempt from malpractice there, too. Only if the woman happened to die as a result, could a wrongful death suit be filed. Once again, the anti-choicers are showing that female life is unimportant. We are only to be used as incubators. Period.
The bill also requires physicians to outright lie to their patients, by informing them of the (nonexistent) link between abortion and breast cancer.
It also includes a requirement that the mother hear the heartbeat, and prohibits any tax deductions for expenses related to out of pocket expenses for purchasing health insurance coverage that includes abortion.
Basically, it is the worst of the worst from all the anti-choice bills from around the country combined into a pretty little package with sugar on top.
The bill is also a personhood bill, basically eliminating terms such as zygote and fetus and replacing them with "unborn child".
I am so disgusted by this horrendous and unconscionable legislation. It removes so many federal constitutional rights from women (when will we remember that the SCOTUS actually upheld the constitutional right of women to obtain both birth control AND to terminate a pregnancy), turning them strictly into incubators. (Which we already knew was how women are viewed by so many, anyway).
I again reiterate: My choice to have a baby or not has no bearing on your choice to have a baby or not. Period. End of statement. I completely support the rights of anyone to choose to have a baby rather than to terminate a pregnancy. I also support the right of anyone to choose to terminate a pregnancy for any reason, even if I personally don't support the reason for it. Example: I don't support pregnancy termination as a sole means of birth control. I believe that if we make birth control available to women and men (including minors), that the number of unwanted and unintentional pregnancies will decline. The statistics have borne this out. I also believe that educating minors and men and women about the potential risks of unprotected sex, including STDs, pregnancy, etc, will decrease the numbers of unwanted and unintentional pregnancies. The statistics also support this.
What I don't believe in, is someone (usually a man) who 1) believes that government has no role in an individual's life and 2) does not have to deal with any physical implications of MY pregnancy personally, and 3) who is NOT ME, telling me that I cannot choose what is best for my life, the life of my family, or the life of my child.
I refuse to go back to a day when women were forced to have back alley abortions and died by the thousands in order to have liberty over their own person and body. I refuse to go back to a day when women were 2nd class citizens, should be seen and not heard, and should only exist to be a receptacle for their husband's penis (at a time and place of his choosing, regardless of if the woman's receptacle door was open or not), a time when women were relegated to roles of nurse, teacher, and secretary. Note: These are all very noble roles - IF they are the roles that a woman chooses.
And IF, despite my refusal, that is what is forced upon me against my will... if that is what is going to be legislated, then that legislation also damn well better make it economically viable, just like it was back in the day to which they'd like to return. Where a single income could support a family, pay the mortgage, send the children to college, and support a very nice retirement. Somehow, I don't see that in our future, so...
Dear Government, get the hell out of my uterus.
There is a bill before the Kansas legislature right now that would violate so many rights of women, I can't even begin to comprehend it.
The Kansas House has only 6 days to discuss this abhorrent legislation before it's brought to a vote.
The bill would do several things to completely violate any trust between women and their physicians. First, it would allow a doctor to LIE to a woman by not telling her about potential problems with the pregnancy such as birth defects, potential medical consequences for the mother and/or child in order to prevent the woman from choosing an abortion.
Then, on top of that, it exempts the doctor from any malpractice suits that might arise from blatantly lying to their patient. And if that baby happens to be born with 12 heads and no arms? Well, they're exempt from malpractice there, too. Only if the woman happened to die as a result, could a wrongful death suit be filed. Once again, the anti-choicers are showing that female life is unimportant. We are only to be used as incubators. Period.
The bill also requires physicians to outright lie to their patients, by informing them of the (nonexistent) link between abortion and breast cancer.
It also includes a requirement that the mother hear the heartbeat, and prohibits any tax deductions for expenses related to out of pocket expenses for purchasing health insurance coverage that includes abortion.
Basically, it is the worst of the worst from all the anti-choice bills from around the country combined into a pretty little package with sugar on top.
From Sec 23 (2) (emphasis mine)
Printed materials that inform the pregnant woman of the probable anatomical and physiological characteristics of the unborn child at two-week gestational increments from fertilization to full term, including pictures or drawings representing the development of an unborn child at two-week gestational increments, and any relevant information on the possibility of the unborn child's survival. Any such pictures or drawings shall contain the dimensions of the unborn child and shall be realistic. The material shall include the following statements: (A) That by no later than 20 weeks from fertilization, the unborn child has the physical structures necessary to experience pain; (B) that there is evidence that by 20 weeks from fertilization unborn children seek to evade certain stimuli in a manner which in an infant or an adult would be interpreted to be a response to pain; and (C) that anesthesia is routinely administered to unborn children who are 20 weeks from fertilization or older who undergo prenatal surgery.
The material shall also contain objective information describing the methods of abortion procedures commonly employed, the medical risks commonly associated with each such procedure, including risk of premature birth in future pregnancies, risk of breast cancer, risks to the woman's reproductive health
The bill is also a personhood bill, basically eliminating terms such as zygote and fetus and replacing them with "unborn child".
From Sec 19:
(b)As used in article 19 of chapter 60 of the Kansas Statutes Annotated, and amendments thereto, a person also means an unborn child. (c)As used in this section, "unborn child" means a living individual organism of the species homo sapiens, in utero, at any stage of gestation from fertilization to birth
I am so disgusted by this horrendous and unconscionable legislation. It removes so many federal constitutional rights from women (when will we remember that the SCOTUS actually upheld the constitutional right of women to obtain both birth control AND to terminate a pregnancy), turning them strictly into incubators. (Which we already knew was how women are viewed by so many, anyway).
I again reiterate: My choice to have a baby or not has no bearing on your choice to have a baby or not. Period. End of statement. I completely support the rights of anyone to choose to have a baby rather than to terminate a pregnancy. I also support the right of anyone to choose to terminate a pregnancy for any reason, even if I personally don't support the reason for it. Example: I don't support pregnancy termination as a sole means of birth control. I believe that if we make birth control available to women and men (including minors), that the number of unwanted and unintentional pregnancies will decline. The statistics have borne this out. I also believe that educating minors and men and women about the potential risks of unprotected sex, including STDs, pregnancy, etc, will decrease the numbers of unwanted and unintentional pregnancies. The statistics also support this.
What I don't believe in, is someone (usually a man) who 1) believes that government has no role in an individual's life and 2) does not have to deal with any physical implications of MY pregnancy personally, and 3) who is NOT ME, telling me that I cannot choose what is best for my life, the life of my family, or the life of my child.
I refuse to go back to a day when women were forced to have back alley abortions and died by the thousands in order to have liberty over their own person and body. I refuse to go back to a day when women were 2nd class citizens, should be seen and not heard, and should only exist to be a receptacle for their husband's penis (at a time and place of his choosing, regardless of if the woman's receptacle door was open or not), a time when women were relegated to roles of nurse, teacher, and secretary. Note: These are all very noble roles - IF they are the roles that a woman chooses.
And IF, despite my refusal, that is what is forced upon me against my will... if that is what is going to be legislated, then that legislation also damn well better make it economically viable, just like it was back in the day to which they'd like to return. Where a single income could support a family, pay the mortgage, send the children to college, and support a very nice retirement. Somehow, I don't see that in our future, so...
Dear Government, get the hell out of my uterus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)