Clearly Nebulous

Save Sakineh -- and others like her...

Although her stoning apparently has been suspended, Iranian mother Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani still faces a death sentence for having an "illicit relationship." She has already endured 99 lashes, and will likely be hanged. 

It is not known for certain what became of the two men involved, but since women must be proven innocent and men must be proven guilty in these cases, it almost always results in no punishment for males.

The estimate of 5000 "honor killings" worldwide each year is probably far lower than the actual number.

This article reports that apparently "honor killings" are on the rise, and not just in Muslim countries -- the majority of reported deaths occur in the U.K. (But of course, the numbers reported are far lower than the actual crimes committed.) While the author argues that the motivation is religious, not simply misogynistic, I believe that this barbaric practice is dis-using religious beliefs to justify the most heinous oppression of women. Ain't nothing more misogynist than killing a woman simply for seeking to live a normal life.

A website started by Sakineh's two sons tells her story and has a petition asking for her release. (And there is a facebook page as well.) It has attracted the attention of some celebrities, but it deserves everyone's attention on its own merit. We cannot continue to let extremists hijack a peaceful religion, and stopping the murders of innocent women is one of the most compelling reasons to speak out.

SNL's Will Forte Catches up to FFL's "Herstory"

Well look who just caught up! Will Forte had a pretty funny bit on Weekend Update last week on SNL where he recognized that March is Women's History Month, "Or should I say herstory?" Forte asked.

 

Pretty funny song, although -- as Seth Meyers points out at the end -- Emily Dickinson was known for her poems not books! (warning: a little bit of slightly crude language) 

Well,  Feminists for Life of America has been honoring women each March for years now with their Herstory Worth Repeating profiles of the founding foremothers of feminism.

Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and all the women who first fought for women's rights were, without exception, pro-life feminists. FFL has featured the stories of many of these great feminist pioneers in their newsletter and on their website.

Today's featured profile is Elizabeth Blackwell, the first woman to receive a degree from an American medical school. In her diary, she wrote this about a notorious female abortionist of her day :

Elizabeth Blackwell, the first American female physician, was a pro-life feminist.

"The gross perversion and destruction of motherhood by the abortionist filled me with indignation... That the honorable term 'female physician' should be exclusively applied to those women who carried on this shocking trade seemed to me a horror. It was an utter degradation of what might and should become a noble position for women…. I finally determined to do what I could do 'to redeem the hells,' and especially the one form of hell thus forced upon my notice."

Be sure to check out more of the stories of these brave women throughout the month -- you can sign up for emails and/or membership on the website.

Pro-Abortion Groups Ignore Women's Suffering in China

In an editorial by Kathleen Parker on November 11 regarding coerced abortions and sterilizations in China, we learn deeply disturbing details regarding the lengths the Chinese government goes to in order to enforce their one-child policy. The information was smuggled out by activists, at their own peril.

The activists have confirmed our fears: If a woman in China who does not have a "birth permit" is discovered to be pregnant, she "has to surrender her unborn child to government enforcers, no matter what the stage of fetal development. " This means she is dragged into a clinic, onto a table and her child is killed in her womb and extracted --apparently even if she were in active labor, moments from delivery.

The editorial relates accounts of how -- even though killing a baby is illegal -- perfectly healthy late-term infants who survive an abortion are left to die, sometimes taking a couple of days in a trash can to do so.

Even though not every abortion in China is "forced," one can only imagine just how many of the estimated 13 million abortions in China every year are in essence coerced, if not in actuality. That's right -- every year a number larger than the population of Greece is aborted. (But of course, when CNN reports this, the most important aspect of the story is that there is not enough contraception or sex education, not the tragedy of why 13 million children die largely due to its country's ineptitude. Yeah, contraception and education would get that number down to "only" 10 million, easy!)

The Chinese government foresees that this policy will be in place for decades to come.

Of course, many other problems result from this one-child policy that detrimentally affect Chinese women, and other Asian countries. The preference of having a son has led to a disproportion of 37 million fewer women, which has caused the sex slavery trade to increase at an alarming rate. (I imagine that number would be even higher if China hadn't relaxed the policy in some counties for families to have a second child if the first is a girl.)

Almost lost amongst the sad statistics is that 500 women each day (yes, I had to go back and check because I still can't believe it) 500 women each day commit suicide in China. Almost 15,000 a month... 180,000 a year... The highest rate in the world can be attributed at least partly (how big a part one can only speculate) by the policy, activists say.

So where is the outrage from "women's rights" groups here in America? You know the ones who say that abortion is not a good thing, but should remain a woman's "choice"? What do they have to say when it's not a choice? What do they say when women are forced against their will, literally taken into bodily custody and coerced into this "procedure"?

My search found one sentence. Followed by a big "But..." (You know, one of those statements that totally delegitimizes the previous sentence, as if the second is important, the first... not so much.)

In a Spring 2008 newsletter Planned Parenthood said:

"We were shocked and repulsed by the 'one-child' policy of China that forced women to have abortions against their will. But, here in America, there are constant attempts to pass laws that would force women to have children against their will."

That's right, stopping physical violence inflicted upon unknown millions of women who must endure the murder of their very wanted children before their eyes... Not as important as denying the preborn their right to live in an affluent nation that would welcome every single one of our aborted children into the arms of a couple waiting to adopt, or could provide a mother with the support to raise her child... ahem. 

Every other search I tried, for NOW and NARAL e.g., turned up nothing, though I imagine somewhere they said something equally benign and self-serving.

But of course these organizations are only concerned about having more abortions in the world, not fewer. They want countries with restrictions to change their laws so more abortions can be performed, and they want the U.S. to pay for them.

They're too busy working to bring more abortions to women who don't really want them. They don't have time to worry about stopping abortions performed on women who really don't want them.

The women of China and their preborn children are waiting. We must stop ignoring their desperate cries for help.

Exactly *Which* Party Really Cares about Pregnant Women?

On a Facebook thread, there was a discussion about the GOP being pro-life. A friend of a friend who had apparently experienced a crisis pregnancy and chose to abort wrote an empassioned comment. She felt that the GOP was a judgmental crowd that shamed women who experience such a pregnancy, relegating them to a life on welfare. She praised Planned Parenthood for offering "all choices."

She also said she found it amazing that conservatives cry foul when their independent choices are limited, but limit the reproductive choices of others.

This was my response:　

    L -- I'm so sorry you experienced the tragedy of abortion.

　I too had an unplanned pregnancy... I spent my senior year at North Park pregnant, and delivered my daughter 4 days after graduation.

　NP is a pretty conservative community (altho Swedes are rather progressive) and I was very nervous about the reaction I'd get. I was overwhelmed with how supportive every single person there was. Everyone said how great it was that I was having my baby.

　The only negative reactions I had were from people I knew who were in favor of abortion. They told me I was ruining my life (and my baby's father's life) and couldn't see why I wasn't aborting. So much for supporting choice.

　It's not the GOP that is telling women that they must give up everything -- on campuses and in office buildings across America it is liberals who sneer at women who get pregnant and actually want them to just go away -- they can't be bothered with the problems pregnant women "choose" to have.

　Conservatives don't offer choices? There's just one they don't offer -- the one that has not made life better for women despite all its promises. Instead they offer health care thru pregnancy and beyond, baby care items, legal services to help get child support or to sue for wrongful termination/discrimination in the workplace. They are on the front lines demanding that universities provide services for pregnant and parenting students. And of course, they offer caring adoption services.

　As a member of Feminists for Life for over 25 years, I have heard time and again and again how a woman in a crisis who wanted to have her child was spurned by institutions advocating "choice."

　The only choice that liberals care about is abortion. PP'hood will help you pay for an abortion bec they make billions, and they'll give you a pamphlet about breast cancer bec a foundation is paying them to. Welfare is a system that Dems want to keep people in -- Reps want to help women get out of it.

　Now it sounds like maybe you had a personal experience where someone who was conservative shamed you -- I'm not saying it doesn't happen -- there is a small sector of rigid types who try to shame women. But it is a myth (perpetuated by those who are pro-abortion to advance their agenda) that the GOP is predominantly made up of those rigid types.

　Believe me I have had bones to pick with the GOP -- e.g. the Family Leave Act -- they favored the business lobbyists too much. But they have come around. I and the many women (and men) I know or have met who had an unplanned child just did not experience what you describe from conservatives.

　It is amazing to me that the DNC -- who claims to be the champion of the weak, and who says that women can do anything -- see nothing wrong with killing the most innocent and vulnerable at any gestation in the womb or leaving them to die on the table (esp'ly those with defects), and believe that oppressing the preborn is necessary for women to be "equal."

　Pro-life feminists like me believe that every woman and every child, no matter what their circumstance, deserves every chance and unconditional support to live the best life they can.

"L" did not respond, but I was pleasantly surprised that I received positive responses from a couple of folks who support abortion rights. Not saying they agreed with everything I said, or that I changed their minds much if at all, but at least they were open to another point of view that perhaps they don't run across every day.

Guarding Against Gardasil

The Washington Post had an article today about how schools in D.C. and Virginia are "requiring" girls entering 6th grade to receive the HPV vaccine (Gardasil) There is an opt-out: In Virginia, you can just not get the shot, but in D.C. parents must fill out a form.

But of course, "opt-out" has already been lost on some. A quote from the article:

"It wasn't really a choice," Haggans said while waiting in line at Kelly Miller Middle School during one of the District's free immunization clinics Thursday. Lanise received her second of three doses of the HPV vaccine at the clinic. "The school said she needed it, so I got her it," Haggans said.

So even though it isn't actually required, some parents will still think it is, or simply go along with it, and get the three shots -- kaching! that's another $375 in Merck's pocket!

Well, my daughters will not be getting the HPV vaccine, even though I am a big advocate of vaccines -- for easily communicable diseases. My daughters don't need a shot for something that is sexually transmitted. 

I believe that there should be some mandates to protect the public at large -- but only for diseases that can be spread by casual contact and are potentially deadly. The government has no right to require protection from something you can only catch from sexual contact, potentially risking a bad reaction which has included paralysis and some deaths that can't be explained.

Jessica Varga of Nevada became paralyzed hours after receiving a dose of Gardasil.

I'm not so worried that my daughters will become promiscuous if they get this shot. Whereas, I think young women do avoid sex for fear of getting pregnant and some for fear of getting AIDS, I can't imagine too many are thinking about other sexually transmitted diseases or cancer when they're deciding whether or not to have sex.

But I do take exception to the notion that our schools and our government are assuming that young girls will inevitably become sexually active so soon that they feel that girls as young as nine need this shot. Even entering sixth grade these girls aren't even twelve -- and they're already being set up to have sex at a young age?

These proponents of Gardasil actually think they are empowering young women to take control of their sexual health. Not from where I stand.

My daughters will be truly empowered. They will be taught that it's best not to have sex until marriage, and all the reasons why. They will unequivocally believe that their sexuality is so special it is not to be trifled with, that no boy should ever be allowed to attack their self-esteem or trick them to think otherwise. A truly empowered young woman would never have sex unless under the best of conditions, practically, spiritually, mentally, emotionally, physically, etc etc -- and not before they're at least eighteen.

If they do decide otherwise -- after they're out of high school, in a long-term monogamous relationship with someone whose health history they are fully aware of, and after full discussion and consideration of possible repercussions -- I will have taught them that they should be examined by a doctor first, and then they can make any health care decisions for themselves. (They will also be encouraged not to use an abortifacient to prevent pregnancy, and they will base their decision knowing that sooner or later they will get pregnant... but that's another blog post.)

What's really going on here is the bigger agenda of sex without consequences. Gardasil, birth control, abortion -- all being shoved down the throats of young women while trying to convince them they are "taking control of their sexuality." Sounds more like certain sexually liberal advocates are trying to convince everyone -- most importantly themselves -- that recreational behavior that can damage you both body and soul, and potentially can create another human being, can be alright if you simply get shots, pop pills, and undergo "procedures."

I'm not buying it -- and neither will my daughters.

Gardasil can also vaccinate men, though it has not yet been approved by the FDA to be marketed as such. Isn't it interesting that once again the responsibility of preventing sexual consequences is placed on young women? Why don't radical feminists have a problem with this, like traditional feminists do?

Update: Apparently the FDA has now approved Gardasil for males, as of October 16, 2009. So when will liberal groups push for young men to get vaccinated? Doesn't matter, my son will not be participating either...

 

 

A Special Place in Heaven for Pro-Lifer Eunice Kennedy Shriver

Here's what the MSM will not tell you about Eunice Kennedy Shriver -- unlike almost everyone else in her politically powerful family, Mrs. Shriver remained true to the pro-life views of her Catholic faith. She recognized that political clout was not reason to abandon one's principal's in defending the most helpless among us.

Here is an excerpt from a story on Mrs. Shriver from Feminists for Life's Remarkable Pro-life Women, published in 1998.

WHEN EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER was awarded the Presidential Medal of Honor in 1984, then- President Ronald Reagan declared, "With enormous conviction and unrelenting effort, Eunice Kennedy Shriver has labored on behalf of America’s least powerful, those with mental retardation …. Her decency and goodness have touched the lives of many."

Shriver, a longtime supporter of Feminists for Life of America, has demonstrated a lifelong concern for the "least powerful." The founder of Special Olympics International and executive vice president of the Joseph P. Kennedy Jr. Foundation, Shriver supports organizations that work on behalf of women and children, born and unborn...

As executive vice president of the Joseph P. Kennedy Jr. Foundation, Shriver continues to support solution-oriented programs to eradicate discrimination and problems faced by the disenfranchised. The Kennedy Foundation says its mission "is to provide leadership in the field of mental retardation and services to persons with mental retardation, both those born and unborn, and their families."

Shriver, recognizing the high rate of mental retardation among children born to teen-age mothers, led the foundation’s efforts to develop an innovative program to address the causes of problems facing teen-age women and their children. Called Community of Caring, the program focuses on "health and nutrition for the pregnant teen, preparation for childbirth, development of parental skills, and the importance of continuing in school and avoiding risk-taking behavior." Parents and community volunteers act as a mentoring network for teen-age mothers. Since its inception in 1986, more than 350 schools have adopted the Community of Caring program.

In my opinion, the tireless efforts of Mrs. Shriver easily make her the most significant, successful, and saintly of the Kennedy Clan.

Violence is Not the Answer

There is only one appropriate reaction to the murder of Dr. Tiller: condemnation.

No statements about whether or not he had time to make himself right with God, no questions about whether or not he had put himself in harm's way. No one deserves to be killed in cold blood. This is not a battlefield. No matter how frustrated one may be about the fight for the preborn, no matter how many lives are lost to the tragedy of abortion -- it does not serve our cause, nor help anyone in the long run to turn to maniacal acts.

In fact, it is the very idea that another single person is the cause of troubles that perpetuates the deaths of over 3,000 little souls every day. Over one million times every year, a woman believes that killing the child within her is the solution to her troubles.

If those deaths are wrong, so is this one. Our cause, and the world in general, would be better served if we all championed the value of every person -- or at least the potential of every person.

Who knows? Dr. Tiller could have been the next Dr. Nathanson.

Dr. Bernard Nathanson was the doctor who first persuaded the leaders of women's groups to fight for abortion. He later had an epiphany, denounced his actions, and is now one of the most relevant voices in the pro-life movement.

Maybe not. Maybe Dr. Tiller would have gone to his grave with the delusion that he was helping women. Despite all the evidence to the contrary -- for instance, that pro-life doctors have testified that they have never come across a single case where a pregnant woman's life or health was threatened that could not be treated in a manner that allowed both mother and child to have a chance.

Despite the fact that all the ills that abortion is supposed to cure are instead growing exponentially. Despite the evidence that abortions -- especially late-term ones -- haunt women and cause them mental duress. Despite the fact that an unknown number of those late-term abortions are performed for reasons that are only discovered to be incorrect when it is far too late -- instead of a "monster" emerging from the womb, a perfect little child is delivered who had the misfortune of a "false-positive diagnosis."

But you never know. Hearts and minds can be changed. If we stress the value of motherhood, support women in their times of crisis, extol the value of every person no matter what their challenges may be, show that there is always a better answer than abortion, and point out that some choices are wrong no matter how long you think about them or how many professional opinions you seek or how certain you think you are in a time of incredible pressure that this is what is "best"...

Stand up, be strong, speak your mind, do good works to help support women and children -- but do not resort to violence.

The Truth about Truth -- Sojourner was Pro-Life

Another pro-life feminist foremother was embraced -- perhaps "absconded" would be a better description -- by the pro-choice activists who honored her yesterday at the unveiling of a memorial in the nation's Capitol.

The accounts I have read in the WashPo http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/28/AR2009042803936.html?sub=AR and on pro-abortion blogs praised the life of Sojourner Truth, acknowledging her activism for abolition, against the death penalty and for -- as they reported it -- the vague "women's rights."

Now we all know that when those two words are mentioned in public, a pro-abortion stance is implied. The reporters and attendees of the memorial conveniently failed to mention that Sojourner Truth -- like every single one of her feminist contemporaries -- was against abortion.

I thought it interesting that one of those pro-abortion blogs quoted Truth's most famous speech, not recognizing the obvious pro-life feminist message:

"That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud-puddles, or gives me any best place! And ain't I a woman? Look at me! Look at my arm! I have ploughed and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And ain't I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man - when I could get it - and bear the lash as well! And ain't I a woman? ...I have borne thirteen children, and seen them most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother's grief, none but Jesus heard me. And ain't I a woman?"

Sojourner Truth knew the strength of women. She knew they could do anything -- that childbirth and motherhood would not preclude them from accomplishing great things. She knew women did not need to dispose of their children to achieve equality.  She knew that those who do not acknowledge the humanity of the preborn are just like those who denied the personhood of black slaves. She called abortion what it is, and decried it as the evil it is.

So it was disheartening to see the likes of the uber-pro-abortion Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi acting as if they are deserved to honor this great champion of the oppressed. And when Michelle Obama declared that she thought Truth would have been proud of her -- a descendant of slaves -- as First Lady, she was only partly right. Sojourner Truth would have been pleased at the position, but appalled at the abortion agenda that helped put Obama there.

You May Say I'm a Dreamer...

Some comments to my post about Sarah Palin's speech once again brought up some of the same old questions and arguments by the pro-abortion side. My response bears posting, and the pro-life arguments bear repeating:

One comment said "I haven't researched the history of the women's rights movement and how or where abortion comes into play..."

Feminists for Life has well documented that the every single one of the early feminists -- Susan B. Anthony and all her peers -- were against abortion. And not just because it was dangerous. They called it "child-murder" and they worked to advance the recognition of the strength of women and the value of motherhood.

It was in the early '70s that two men -- one a doctor and another a zero-population guy -- convinced feminist leaders (who had previously not considered abortion the sacred cow it now is) that in order to be taken seriously by the workplace, they had to be able to unburden themselves of the trifles of pregnancy.

They made up a number of abortion deaths per year -- they said 10,000 when there were actually 119 in 1970. No one bothered to check. Seriously, if anything was killing that many women, we'd know. They came up with other incredulous arguments -- like young women wouldn't be able to finish their educations. Says who?

A Supreme Court that meant well made a tragic and lawfully unsound decision.

So, pro-abortionists continue to argue that it comes down to women controlling their lives -- can you name any other right that supersedes the right to life in any other situation? (Not self-defense -- you are protecting your own life.) The government would not be controlling anyone's life, They would be acknowledging the right of an innocent person to live, and make taking that life an illegal act.

Which then shifts the argument, what if a woman's life is threatened by a pregnancy?This is a miniscule fraction of the million-plus abortions every year, and pro-life obstetricians have testified that there is always a treatment that can be tried to preserve both lives. (Sadly, the baby sometimes does not survive the treatment, but at least it's given a chance.) And how does that small fraction justify the other million-plus abortions?

So then the "women will still have abortions and they will be dangerous" argument kicks in. If abortion is made illegal, it will be because the right to life of the child is recognized. Is there any other type of murder that anyone thinks should be made legal because it still happens and those who perpetrate it think it's not murder?

Are "honor killings" to be allowed since those who commit them think they are justified and they will carry them out anyway, despite any laws?

Another comment noted:

"Who's to say that every woman who has an abortion will regret it? That's between her and God."

Again, I can't think of any law where we take into consideration that the guilty conscience of the person (or absence thereof) is between them and God. Why should this be the tipping point whether or not we should allow the action in question or outlaw it?

Another observation:

"It's naive to think we can educate and convince every pregnant woman to go through with the birth, then consider alternatives to keeping the baby. In this world, that's just too utopia-thinking. Can you save a few lives? Sure. Do you solve the problem? Not a chance."

Again, just because there will still be a certain group of women who will still seek an abortion does not negate the right to life of every preborn child.

And "save a few lives"? Try at least 700,000 every year. That's a low estimate of the number of women who say that they didn't really want to have an abortion, but felt they had no other choice. Call it a utopia, but in a land where we recognize the value of every woman and preborn child, society will be forced to deal with the ills that drive women to abortion, and those 700,000 women -- and many others who will realize their own potential and the potential of their child -- will not have to experience the tragedy of abortion. (Not to mention the men involved in these pregnancies.)

None of the "promises" that the abortion advocates said would be cured by access to abortion have been realized. Child abuse and battering of women has risen exponentially. Poverty still strikes single mothers the hardest as the responsibility of parenthood still rests mainly on their shoulders. Women still face discrimination in the workplace.

Doesn't it occur to pro-abortion advocates that some of these ills still exist because of the pervasive  notion that "Well, that woman 'chose' to have that baby. She made her bed now she has to lie in it." Often absolving the father, who is equally as responsible, and absolving men in general from recognizing the value of motherhood?

So maybe a world free of abortion is idealistic. But I also imagine a world without hunger, a world without homelessness, a world without so many problems. Pretty lofty goals. Does that mean we as a society should not strive for that ideal?

Sarah Palin's Choice

You could see this coming from a mile away... When Sarah Palin disclosed in a speech for a pro-life group how she struggled with the knowledge that her youngest child had Down syndrome -- you just knew what the headlines and the response from the mainstream media would be.

Palin explained how she was on a business trip and the thought crossed her mind that she could sneak off and have an abortion without her husband's knowledge. She described the thought as "fleeting." She then said she found the courage to have her son and is so glad she did because Trig is the joy of her entire family's life.

Predictably, the headlines ran the ilk of "Palin Considered Abortion" totally ignoring the thrust of Palin's entire speech and once again bowing before the altar of "choice." And today the Washington Post ran an editorial by Ruth Marcus that reverently toed the pro-abortion line.

Marcus says that if Palin and prolifers had their way, women "would have no thought process to go through" -- (Because you know, those who cherish all life would be thought police. Women wouldn't even be allowed to think!) -- that we would in essence be making the decision for all women.

Every once in a while the Post will trot out an editorial by some wishy-washy liberal who actually realized the value of the imperfect life within her, and brought her child with Down syndrome into the world (unlike more than 80% of women like her in America). Even though the writer recognizes the potential of her child and the joy that has come from their appearance in the world, she hails the fact that there is still "choice" for women. In other words, the women who pen these editorials know that imperfect people deserve life just as much as anyone else -- but if another woman thinks they don't, it's ok for that other woman to kill her child. Because it's her "choice."

Ah, yes. The "women need to think for themselves" and "the government shouldn't be making private decisions" canards.

Of course the whole point of championing life -- and the whole point of Palin's  speech -- is treated by the MSM as if prolifers are simply bossy cows. In actuality we're declaring the value of every human life, and the ability for women to overcome any obstacle.

Sure there are moments of weakness in which someone may look for what seems to be an easier way out of a situation -- a way no one will have to know about -- with the mistaken belief that it will somehow be a better option. Forgetting that she will know about it. For the rest of her life.

If a woman struggling to feed her children considered shop-lifting, we would understand. If an overwhelmed mother considered abandoning her children, we would see it was out of desperation. If a beaten women considered murdering her abuser, we would recognize the sense of self-preservation.

But we wouldn't legalize theft, child abuse, and murder in order to preserve those women's ability to "control their own decisions." We would steer these women to a food bank, a childcare relief service, and a women's shelter. Because we know that there is always a better way that a woman can see when not feeling despondent and alone in the world -- when she feels supported by her family, friends, and community.

Sarah Palin recognized her vulnerability, one that many women may know at some point in their lives. But she also recognized the dignity of all humanity. Thoughts may cross our minds, even unexpectedly, but the actions we take are deliberate.

What will we as a nation -- as a part of that humanity -- decide the fate of the imperfect will be?

No Longer above His Pay Grade

So after several other pro-abortion decisions in his fledgling administration, today Obama decides to allow funding for research with new lines of embryonic stem cells. It is being reported by the likes of the Washington Post that BO feels he is "depoliticizing" science. (You see, when you take the liberal political position, you aren't being political, you're being purely rational/prescient/practical/what-have-you, in this case, scientific.) What it seems he actually is doing is "de-ethicizing" science since the policy revealed today seems to have no ethical restraints of any kind.

BO is simply pursuing every avenue to help those afflicted with diseases who could benefit from stem cell research. Never mind that there has been much less promise in the area of embryonic research -- and in fact a new study has found that such therapy has been causing tumors. No matter -- we have to cover every base.

I actually heard a medical ethicist describe it as going to Vegas and putting money down on every number at the roulette table. You're bound to come up a winner with that strategy. What?!

That is not how medical research works -- as any medical ethicist should know. Otherwise, why aren't we giving money to homeopathic research for the treatment of Parkinson's? Herbal treatments? How about aroma therapy?

In research, you are not guaranteed a win, and placing money on every possibility -- especially when you have a finite amount of funds to work with -- is not only impractical, but takes money away from the more promising studies. Focusing funds to the studies that have actually produced favorable results will more than likely lead to treatments and maybe even cures sooner.

This same guy said that embryos are just going to be thrown out anyway, so why not put them to good use? Put to good use? You mean let them make more money for the fertility clinic? Because they're not just going to give them away. (Despite whatever guidelines BO says he wants, money will change hands.) Here's a good use: Let the embryos be adopted by other couples (heck I've even heard there are nuns who would volunteer to give the embryos a chance) -- but no, the couples who create the embryos don't want to give them up. They want them destroyed. Better to assuage their guilt by making them think it's ok because it will help important research (not). But I digress...

For years, we have heard heart-breaking pleas that cutting off funds to embryonic research was taking away hope for a treatment or cure. Not entirely accurate since there has been private funding, and there was still public funding for established cell lines. (A fair compromise that all the MSM seems to be forgetting.) And now that there has been no major progress in embryonic research (and even a down-side, with the tumor discovery) while there have been many exciting breakthroughs in non-embryonic stem cells, it seems cruel in my mind to keep using those poor souls to promote the abortion agenda.

So you know those poor moms of kids with diabetes and the husbands of women with Alzheimer's who have been convinced they were being denied the chance for a cure? How are they going to feel when they lose that person just a short time before the treatment or cure is discovered using one of the non-embryonic methods?

"Sorry, with more money, that alternative research would have found the treatment or cure in time for your loved one -- but we had to funnel funds to the dead-end embryonic research for ideological reasons. You understand, don't you?"

They won't, but it will be too late. And the politicians, radical pro-abortion feminists, and the abortion industry will be laughing their way to the bank.

Less than Two Feet away from Life

Seven times I have accomplished the monumental task of moving less than ten pounds less than two feet. I have come to realize that basically, that's what childbirth is.

It is tragic to think that's what separates far too many viable babies from living versus dying. Less than two feet.

The harshest aspect is that -- if only figuratively -- there is a window into this world that those preborn can see.  Their mother's cervix has been dilated -- all that has to happen is for them not to be killed before they travel through the birth canal. But they are not allowed to even try.

Should they somehow slip through, they are considered a mistake, a botched attempt. And there are some -- including the man who resides in the White House -- who thinks they should be set aside and left to die.

Or worse -- immediately tossed into a bag and placed in the trash. A young mother in Florida whose child was delivered before the abortion doctor had a chance to kill it, had to watch in horror as a clinic worker did just that.

http://www.lifenews.com/state3911.html

Why would a worker do this? How could she have such a callous disregard -- like the man in the White House -- to think that the smallest and weakest among us are nothing more than trash?

Even if you accept the premise (which I don't) that a woman's liberty to control her body supersedes the child's right to live: The mother has already endured the painful opening of her cervix -- how is it a burden on her body not to kill the baby? If it's all about her body -- why can't we just pull that baby out and give it a chance?

Because it's not being pregnant that women think is the problem, it's the baby. It's not about how that baby will affect their bodies, it's about how that baby will change their lives.

How can we begin to turn around this backward thinking? It all begins with valuing motherhood and our children. When society accepts and women truly believe that this precious gift of bearing children empowers them and is not a burden -- when every woman and every child is treasured -- then we might finally make a big advance for the preborn.

What have you done lately to make this happen? Start with your own heart and mind, and don't be afraid to speak from both.

Time for Macrobiotic Sex?

George Will had an op-ed about an essay over at Policy Review -- the topic at hand: how we are becoming a society that shuns gluttony and has all kind of eating taboos, while at the same time developing an attitude that anything goes in the sexual arena.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/25/AR2009022503123.html

It seems ridiculous that we are cutting trans-fat and red meat from our school cafeteria menus, while distributing condoms and pregnancy tests down the hall in the nurse's office. While restaurants are compelled to list nutrition information on all their menu items, abortion clinics can perform potentially deadly procedures without informed consent.

Why the dichotomy? Why are we becoming more austere at our dining tables -- eschewing animal products, pesticides, and growth hormones -- while becoming downright bacchinalian in our bedrooms -- ingesting birth control pills, Viagra, and aphrodisiacs? Cookbooks and diet books are best-sellers, while the most-viewed websites (amongst men anyway) are pornographic.

The articles above explore how the tables have turned. While our grandparents cooked with reckless abandon -- using lard, heavy cream, and fat-laden meats -- today it's all about non-hydrogenated monosaturated oils, soy milk, and tofu. Conversely, our grandfolks waited until they were married to have sex, stayed with that same person their whole lives, and had as many children as happened to come their way. Today, of course, people have many sexual partners, live together, have "starter marriages," and abort and/or limit the number of children they have.

The articles examine the reasons behind this phenomenon -- what they dance around is the idea that gluttony and unhealthy eating can be observed, and is reflected in our appearance. Promiscuity and all its hazards are experienced behind closed doors, or within our bodies or minds. Everyone can see if you're grossly overweight just by looking at you. No one ever has to know that you had a sexually transmitted disease or an abortion or an addiction to porn.

Day in and day out there are reports about which foods are bad for you. There is a drive to treat our bodies as temples... when it comes to what we eat. While it is true that our diet can affect our looks and even our lives, the damage that is being done to our society at large by the breakdown of sexual scruples is doing much greater harm. Sexual assault, domestic violence, and child abuse are on the rise. Forty percent of women experience the tragedy of abortion (and half of them more than once). While the family has broken down, churches sit empty and prisons are over-flowing.

Perhaps if we treated our bodies like temples in every aspect -- if we extrapolated "you are what you eat" to other facets of our lives -- we would truly achieve the purity of mind, body and spirit that so many seem to desperately crave.

I Would Love to Say Obama is a Modern-Day Lincoln...

You saw the title and thought my first words would be "but I can't." Well... it's true that I can't. But I would love to someday.

That is, if Obama -- like Lincoln -- has a change of heart that leads to an evolution of his beliefs. A transformation that grants rights to the last remaining class of people whose liberties are being denied: The preborn.

On the 200th anniversary of his birth, one might not remember that Lincoln at one time was not in favor of ending slavery. Although partly due to his support of state sovereignty, uncharacteristically (to me anyway) it also was because of a prejudice against the black race.

It does not tarnish his legacy in my mind, but instead proves the measure of the man. Considering the racial bias of his day was so prevalent, it is no surprise that he held those notions. The fact that he was able to admit he was wrong, see the error of his thinking, and unflinchingly declare his new position showed his wisdom and compassion.

Lincoln said: "Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally." Hmmm... sounds like a valid argument against abortion. 

Call it a pie-in-the-sky dream. More than we could hope for. But I say a similar path by the current office holder is not beyond the realm of possibility.

Obama himself was born of a crisis pregnancy. He endured a less than desirable start in life, and yet he rose above it. RIght now -- for some unknown reason -- perhaps some notion of self-loathing? -- he has convinced himself that the fact that his mother "had a choice" was the most important thing.

He is wrong. What was most important was that his mother believed in the potential of the young life inside her. She had the faith that she could get through anything. That more than anything, her child deserved the chance to live.

Will Obama have that epiphany? Will he realize the convoluted postulation of the supremacy of choice over life? Will he lead this nation into a new era where every life is celebrated, pregnant women are given whatever support they need, and motherhood is recognized as an incredible gift?

In his second inaugural address, Lincoln said this about healing the nation: "With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right..."

In Obama's case, we can only "hope."

Sanctity of Human Life Day 2009

The day is almost over. It will be at least 4 years until a day of commemoration like this will come again. I've read over and over lately that the doom and gloom I feel is misplaced. With all that is going on, there are much bigger bailouts to fry.

I truly want to believe this. That we can hope to at least hold on to the status quo. Just as stronger pro-life legislation has failed to pass in some states -- mostly due to wild accusations of possible consequences of such legislation by pro-abortion forces -- we can still call upon a weary electorate to not allow the pendulum to swing the other way.

But with a pro-abortion president, a pro-abortion Hollywood and news media, a pro-abortion atmosphere at the majority of our nation's universities, and Christian churches across the land that either promote or turn a blind eye to the tragedy of abortion -- and the deep pockets they all appear to have -- I must say my spirits are very low.

However, we are still the majority. The number of abortions performed on younger women continues to decline. And I know that the message of pro-life feminism -- its belief in not only the sanctity of human life, but that abortion ultimately harms women and does not advance equality or freedom, but instead violently oppresses a class of pre-born people -- is reaching the hearts and minds of more and more people each day.

We must lay the groundwork in the belief systems of our children. Embolden them to respectfully challenge those who would attack those beliefs. And not allow the clear truth to be obscured by euphemisms and twisted facts.

With a heavy heart I pray for our nation, and those who will never know her glory because of those who have managed to pervert her ideal of the right to life. May God have mercy on us all as this new administration threatens everything we have fought so hard for.

We must fight on.

My 100th Post -- How about something completely different?

Naaah! So all kinds of U.S. birth rate statistics have been flying about lately...

First there are the stats that say birth rates are up in all demographics -- not just the raw number, but the percentage of women who gave birth in just about every category is up. For the first time since 1971, the U.S. birth rate is (barely) above the "replacement" rate of 2.1 births per woman. (By comparison, the E.U.'s rate is only 1.47!)

btw These are stats for 2006, so I was glad to do my part on that one! And in general, congrats to all my fellow mothers from that year. In my book, more babies = more blessings and it is all good.

The other rates that are up are births to single women. Again, up in just about every demographic. Some dramatically so. For 20-24-year-olds, which was at 37 percent in 1990, now we find that 58 percent of births to women in that age range are to single moms. That's... a lot.

But I think the more astonishing figures for unwed births are found in the racial breakdown. The rate for the largest sector, white women, is at about 26 percent, while the smallest -- Asian -- is only 16 percent. But the other group rates blew me away: Hispanics are split evenly at 50 percent, Native Americans are at 64, and non-Hispanic blacks... 70 percent, yes 7-0, of births are to single moms!

I'm no expert, but there seems to be something really not right here. We are failing minorites in a big way. But that's a much bigger fish to fry another day...

Re: the general increase in births, it is of course celebrated by fellow pro-lifers. Pro-abortion forces on the other hand spin it into a tragedy as they declare it's a result from fewer "reproductive service providers."

That's funny. It seems to me that despite the dearth, women were able to reproduce... Oh wait, you mean abortion providers. Of course! If only there had been more abortionists there would be fewer babies in our country!

(Not that "too many babies" is a problem, but if it were -- wouldn't the best/easiest/most sensible answer be less sex, not more abortions? I can hear them: No, not that -- anything but that!)

It couldn't possibly be that women chose not to abort because they realized it's not what they want, it had to be because that "choice" wasn't available. Well, the abortion rates for 2006 aren't available yet, but the last year released was 2004 which showed a decline to a level not seen since 1974. So it's not just an astronomical rise in the pregnancy rate -- more women are choosing life, especially teens. I'll stand by the notion that more often than not it's a conscious choice, not a paucity of providers.

Re: the rise in single motherhood. Again -- it's a tragedy to pro-abortion groups, because to them it signals lack of abortionists, but you aren't going to hear them say that they have any kind of problem with the absence of fathers and the diminishment of the family.

Of course, that's the first words out of more conservative folks. Single motherhood = bad. Oh, yeah, in cases like Bristol Palin, they're glad more women are choosing to have their babies and taking responsibility. But some are going so far as to say that all single moms -- if they don't intend to marry the father -- should put their children up for adoption.

Nothing against adoption -- but it's not for every single mother (me). And nothing against supporting marriage and working to have both a mother and father (who are married to each other) in the home raising their children, but it's not always the best short-term solution for some women. Long-term I would agree -- children fare better with a father around. But again, sometimes it is not in a woman's control, and they shouldn't run out and get any guy just for the sake of having a man in the house.

We have to be careful that while we encourage the family unit, pregnant single women don't feel ostracized to the point of making a really devastating decision.

Let's do what we can to support women who find themselves in a bind, no matter what the circumstances, and realize that there can be more than one life-affirming way that works best for all those involved. Our top priority should be creating a society that welcomes children and supports women -- without putting constraints on either.

Madoff Makes off with PP Money

The good news is that a big donor to Planned Parenthood lost a bunch o' bucks in the Madoff scandal, and so PP is now laying off 20% of its staff.

Of course, this could lead to one of their biggest fundraising efforts as word spreads that they have fallen victim. Since you just know they will find some way to blame it on Bush, libs will line up to ensure that women across our nation will continue to be able to end their child's lives to solve problems. (Don't use other solutions! We must save this sacred cow!)

And of course Obama will use it as an excuse to replace the lost funding and then some. So instead of some liberal foundation's pockets, abortion money will come from ours.

Excuse me if my exuberance is subdued. I hope I'm wrong...

Born under less than perfect factors -- what a Tripp!

So Sarah Palin is a grandma, and she and her daughter and son-in-law-to-be are showing great grace under pressure. They are also standing up to the snide comments and false reports to present a great example of how to deal with a not-all-that-uncommon family situation.

They are showing everyone that just because a blessing arrives under less than ideal conditions doesn't make it any less of a blessing. My oldest daughter arrived unexpectedly, but -- while I wish she had the more ideal life she deserved -- no one can tell me that she is worth any less.

How should we judge our grandchildren, our children, or heck any person on earth? On the circumstances of their conception or birth? So a child born to a married couple who waited until they had enough money saved and live in a house and then maybe had a little trouble conceiving so they more greatly appreciate the miracle of their child's entry into the world -- does that baby have more worth or potential? Are those parents superior members of society?

Sure we try to guide young people to make choices that would prevent this situation -- but the other side of the coin is that we don't want to make them feel we won't support them should a pregnancy occur. It's a fine balance, and one could argue that perhaps Bristol felt a little too secure in her family situation.

She knew that she and her boyfriend would be able to deal with this challenge, and that their families would be there to back them up. She knew that a baby may cause a detour in life, but not a dead end. So she and Levi took a chance, and sure enough, as they often do, a sperm met an egg and a little life began.

But by no means is Bristol being cavalier about her situation. She has said “Teenagers need to prevent pregnancy to begin with – this isn’t ideal. But I’m fortunate to have a supportive family which is dealing with this together. Tripp is so perfectly precious; we love him with all our hearts. I can’t imagine life without him now.”

So congratulations to Bristol and Levi, and may your son, Tripp, be blessed with health and happiness -- wishes that every child, regardless of how they came to be, richly deserve from us all.

Which Obama will pro-life advocates get?

More than a few people I know who are pro-life voted for Obama. They are not weakly pro-life by any means. They include people who have marched in Washington. One was a man of the cloth.

But they gave up on the Republican party, saying they made no progress on the life issue, forgetting that there is little you can do without the majority of justices on the court. Yes, some appointees by Republican presidents have disappointed, but we were so close. Just one more...

I fear now that the eldest liberal justices who were hanging on by a thread will finally let go and be replaced by justices who look at least 25 years old, the minimum -- although none will have to prove their age, natch, based on the precedent BO has set -- and we will have at least 50 more years of abortion on demand.

My friends and so many others like them believed Obama's promises. They ignored -- or were unaware of -- his record, and bought the whole "common ground" spiel. Well, no use beating them up about it.

What matters now is determining, which Obama will they get? The one they "hoped" for or the one we warned them about? The one who talked about personal responsibility and reducing the number of abortions or the one who referred to having a baby as a punishment and promised his first act in office would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act?

It's not looking good based on some of his early choices for his staff, including an EMILY’s List executive director and a former NARAL legal director. Planned Parenthood's president was also named as an advisor to the transition team.

The Obama-Biden Transition Project posted a report compiled by over 50 abortion advocacy groups entitled “Advancing Reproductive Rights and Health in a New Administration,” which calls for major policy reversals regarding abortion including:

• Committing one billion dollars (yes, "billion" with a "b") in taxpayer funds for international abortion groups like International Planned Parenthood Federation

• Increasing taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood clinics nationwide by 133%, up from $300 million to $700 million

• Repealing every budgetary restriction on abortion funding, including the long-standing Hyde Amendment, which prohibits the use of federal taxpayer funds for abortion through the Medicaid and Medicare programs

• Expanding taxpayer funding for abortions through the Peace Corps, on military bases, and in federal prisons

And that universal health care that Obama promised that also pulled pro-lifers to his side? It will include abortion coverage -- for any reason at any stage of gestation. Yes, your tax dollars will perform partial birth abortions.

Or will they?

What we all need to remember, and what we need to remind those pro-lifers we know who may have voted for Obama -- we don't just have to sit back and "hope" for the best. We all -- whether we voted for him or not -- can hold him accountable to that promise of fewer abortions. We don't have to just sit back and watch as pro-abortion groups make up their Christmas lists and watch helplessly as Santa Obama fills their stockings.

We know that the above policies will lead to more abortions not fewer. And we need to let Mr. Obama know that we will not tolerate it.

We must take a stand and not back down. We the majority -- as most Americans are in favor of the sensible restrictions they seek to strike down, and oppose the federal funding that they seek to procure -- must let our leader know.

You can join the Susan B. Anthony List and sign the petition at  http://www.sba-list.org/abortionbailout or contact your congressmen/women at https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml and http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Which Obama will pro-lifers get? The one that we DEMAND.

Dick Wolf's Pro-Abortion Bash Parade Continues

This time it's pharmacists -- oh, and children who are conceived under extreme circumstances.

The episode starts with a woman asking a pharmacist for the morning-after pill. Well, the pharmacist behind the counter looks a bit annoyed but then says plainly (I would actually say in a somewhat sensitive way):

"Have you talked to your doctor about emergency contraception?... It's best if you see your doctor first."

Goodness gracious! How dare she push her beliefs on this poor woman who is obviously distraught?!

Did you miss it? So did I. Where is the pushing of beliefs in those words?

Maybe it was the next thing the character said, "Have you considered adoption?"

Ok, not really the usual role of a pharmacist to offer this suggestion, but since the woman was not going to see a physician... Wouldn't the physician have offered this alternative? Continuing a pregnancy and choosing adoption is an alternative to taking a drug that has been the cause of several deaths. Is that pushing beliefs?

Well then of course the show takes it usual melodramatic turn and the concerned pharmacist becomes a pariah as she scolds the woman (who went ballistic and grabbed her) for letting someone "get in her pants." Then when it's revealed the woman was a rape victim, the evil pharmacist still wants to press charges for the assault. How heartless! She doesn't care about women!

So then comes the inordinate charge from the usually loveable Didi Conn (!) as the nurse who examines the victim -- after the detective says that "the rapist really worked her over."

"So did that pharmacist," Frenchie says. "Too many of them think they have the right to push their beliefs on their patients."

"Maybe if they had been raped they'd be more compassionate," the detective adds.

That's right. Asking a woman if she has talked to a doctor, recommending that it's best to talk to a doctor first, and suggesting the option of adoption is akin to a brutal act of rape.

And of course that's not the only element of this episode drawing my ire. The first victim and another both spit out the words "his baby" in reference to children conceived during acts of rape.

Why oh why must we perpetuate the belief that these children are somehow demon seeds -- that they are not worthy of drawing a breath because of who their "fathers" are?

Why -- in our heartfelt desire to provide the compassion and support that rape victims so richly deserve -- must we continue to allow the victims to direct their need for peace of mind, to somehow wrap their minds around what has happened to them and begin to deal with how it has changed them forever -- why does their child have to be obliterated as part of that process?

It is the woman's child growing inside her. They are both victims. Why must her child take the fall when they both have done nothing wrong? Why do we allow the victims to think that another act of violence is justified?

Another character -- a D.A. who pursued a murder charge against a battered woman who escaped her custody, embarrassing her, and making it harder for that D.A. to keep her position in a field dominated by men -- later says:

"I was trying so hard to become one of the boys, I forgot why I became a lawyer."

This episode was written by a man, but was produced and directed by women. I gather they, too, in trying to be one of the boys, have forgotten that every innocent life has value.

Maybe if they had been the product of a rape, they'd be more compassionate.

NBC takes another shot at Palin (and pro-lifers and religion and...)

Well, so much for staying away from writing for awhile -- a simple viewing of my favorite detective show pulls me back in...

Apparently ratings are down for Law and Order: SVU, and last night's episode (11/11/08) seemed to be another desperate attempt to remain relevant. Which is a shame for a show that has often done great deeds in exposing the latest dangers that arise, especially for children.

In this episode, it turns out that four friends at a Catholic high school are pregnant -- one belonged to a chastity club with her boyfriend, but got pregnant with a fling, and then convinced her best friends to follow suit.

The show's detective, Olivia Benson, questions the girls in a montage, and one of the first comments is, "What's the big deal? That vice-president lady's daughter is gonna have a baby."

That's when the alarm went off in my brain and I could see where this circus was headed. (I'm only listing the half of it.)

Another teen lets loose with a barrage of disrespect hurled at the officer about her ticking biological clock (while the parents stand by mute). Olivia fires back:

"...You [should] be petrified about your future. Do you know the odds of a teen mom finishing high school? Forget college or any other dream you might have... If you see [your friends] it might be in line waiting for food stamps or all of you going to the doctor trying to get an appointment at the free clinic."

After a short protestation from the girl and her father (the mother, still mute) Olivia continues with a laundry list of health risks for babies born to teen moms. When the father tells Olivia not to blame his daughter, since she is only a child, Olivia replies:

"That's my point exactly."

Yes, they're not a child if they want contraception or an abortion, but...

Then there's the stereotypical white trash New York mom who at first throws a fit about the pregnancy, and lashes out at the friend who started it all and tries to drive her to commit suicide. But when she calms down and becomes the only parent who decides to happily welcome the new addition, she is portrayed as a dimwit who brags about becoming a "GILF."

And oh, that poor young girl is found dead -- but it turned out not to be suicide. The sole responsible young adult in this episode -- the boyfriend who kept his chastity promise -- choked her to death in a fit of rage.

"I ask for forgiveness every night, and God doesn't answer me. He says nothing," he tells the detective. "I'm the one who kept my promise. I'm not the bad one. Why won't He answer me?"

Ah, but at the very end, one of the grandfathers-to-be tells one of the girls that she won't have to go to foster care, and he will take care of her and his grandchild.

"It's not about the past," he tells her. "It's about right now."

There -- does that happy ending make up for this farce?

ARGH! So I probably don't have to explain to you all why I have such a problem with almost the entire show. But I'm sure NBC is clueless, so I penned this letter to them:

To the producers and writers of Law and Order: SVU --

The 11/11/08 episode of SVU offended me in so many ways, but I will try to limit myself to the most egregious.

Why do you find it necessary to take a serious topic that needs addressing -- the cavalier attitude of some teens toward sexuality and parenthood -- and turn it into a methodical bashing of the chastity movement, Catholicism, and pro-life advocates?

When I heard the dig at Gov. Sarah Palin's daughter, the writing on the wall was clear for this episode. But what should I expect from a network that has gone so far out of its way to disparage the governor, from Tina Fey's witless caricature to the daily rantings of your "journalists"?

You then have a character depict teen motherhood as a hopeless dead end to clueless young women, and also portray stereotypes of parents who are either obnoxious or apparently have next to nothing to say.

Do you see how irresponsible this is? Certainly, statistics for young women in this situation don't look good. But as long as society perpetuates the idea that there is no future for these teens, that is what society will give them.

Why not instead sincerely promote the caring option of adoption -- not just have the token pro-lifer spout off a couple off dispassionate phrases?

Or for those who choose to keep their babies, why not demonstrate the available support that they can have to pursue a better life for themselves and their children? Why must you play a part in condemning them to a lesser life?

Instead of positive messages, your show cannot resist the opportunity to scoff at chastity and religion, and turn the sole responsible teen into a murderer who seems to have a misplaced faith in God.

The happy little ending cannot make up for the gross onslaught and the disservice you performed for young women -- and young men -- who may find themselves in a serious situation.

I will monitor your show -- as it has often performed a great service in exposing new dangers -- but I will not patronize the sponsors of last night's episode.

 

If you feel so inclined, you may copy any or all of that letter, and send your own email to NBC. The site to send comments is found at http://www.nbc.com/Footer/Contact_Us

Getting to the Heart of the Matter

So I'm shocked and amazed at what occurred on TOWS yesterday (which I believe was a rerun that I saw when it first aired, but somehow I missed the miraculous occurrence). Amidst the wavy gravy new age babble, out came the strongest pro-life message I have heard on the show in ages.

Of course, the declaration came not from O herself -- she was too lost in a blather about a silver bubble wand from Tiffany's (in an utterly nonsensical moment, she proclaimed that the appearance of that bauble was "a miracle"!) One of her guests, a woman who writes a column for O Magazine, brought it up -- almost out of the blue -- but it drove home that affirming the value of all life comes from the heart.

Martha Beck recounted her experience as a doctorate student at Harvard. She was only 25, but she found out that the baby she was carrying had Down's syndrome. She admitted that her first thought was that she should have a "therapeutic" abortion. She then realized that was "the shallows" of herself, reacting in fear.

"For the first time in my life, my inner core of peace said 'No, I want this. I want this experience,' " Martha recounted. "I believed that this child would teach me how to be happy. And that's exactly what happened."

Martha went on to explain that she had to go through "a ring of fire" before she was able to go from the shallows to her core to find that happiness. But she declared it was worth it, because anything that anyone seeks in a state of fear just won't work.

How many of the one million women who will lie down and have an abortion this year -- 700,000 or so of whom say that they wouldn't do so if they felt they had the support they needed -- are stuck in that shallow place? How many feel unable to find peace because they are afraid of what they would have to go through to get there?

Eighty-nine percent of the preborn diagnosed with Down's syndrome are aborted in this country. A virtual genocide is occurring mainly out of fear, by those not given the fortitude to go where the joy of raising a special child lies. Hundreds of thousands of perfectly healthy babies are obliterated because of the overwhelming sense of dread their mothers are unable to shake.

Is that what feminism is about? Clinging to a sacred cow that has brought nothing but sorrow and regret simply because women are petrified? Being afraid to stand up to a society that says that only by sacrificing their children will women find "equality"?

Women are the compassionate ones. The seekers of peace. We look beyond the materialistic, and are willing to go through whatever life throws at us to reach our goals, with integrity and without compromise.

At least that's what I was taught by the strong women in my life. Why aren't other women, at all levels of importance and influence, on the same page? What are they afraid of?

Maybe they just haven't got the heart.

Women who believe in glass ceilings...

... need to redirect their energies!

A great op-ed by Ruth Marcus in the Washington Post pointed out that a new study found that -- particularly in politics -- there is no glass ceiling for women. The real reason that there are so few women in American politics is not because of discrimination, but because of a lack of ambition. Women don't feel they can stomach the world of politics.

And who can blame them? Look at what Hillary has been through, regarding attacks on her gender. Just as there are few women who take up boxing, who wants to get in the ring and be punched around like that?

But I can't help thinking Hillary and her kind have been a part of the problem. In trying to be too much like their male counterparts, they added to the mud-wrestling environment. Case in point: by adopting a give-an-inch-and-they'll-send-us-all-back-to-the-Dark-Ages approach in regards to abortion, they appear a lot more like the wild-eyed, knee-jerk NRA than the nurturing, thoughtful leaders that women can be.

I honestly don't think it's too much of a leap to think that, if women are being told "Hey, it's ok if you don't think your able to have this baby" that they are going to back down from other challenges, big and small.

When I told my friends I was going to be on Jeopardy! they were supportive, but all of them said, "Oh, I could never do that!" If women are too afraid to go on a simple game show, what are the odds they're going to be able to throw their hat into a contest of true importance?

I have to say I was with them. I was going to be involved through volunteer work, but never try to enter the arena. Now I'm thinking twice. It's probably further down my path, but I'm not counting it out. I may fall on my backside (again!) but I feel I may have to give it a try. (And I don't mean just a school board!)

In her piece, Ruth Marcus also pointed out that there is a similarity with the dearth of women who write editorials. Most women are too intimidated to express their opinions publicly. I had written my share of letters to the editor, but the thought of a blog was too scary.

Obviously I got over it. And it's time the women of America got over it -- all of it -- too!

Here's a link to the whole editorial by Ruth Marcus -- a very good read:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/27/AR2008052702557.html 

Choice Words

Joy's been making a lot of Noise lately -- she keeps saying how being against abortion is "against women." Here goes...

It's time to stop apologizing for being pro-life. It's time to stop accepting the label "anti-choice." It's time to stop allowing people to keep telling us who we are and what we think.

I resent and refute the notion that if you're pro-life, then you're telling women what to do and taking away their right to choose. To the contrary, this is what pro-life feminists are saying:

Women are strong, powerful, and resilient. They can overcome any obstacle, given a fair chance. They should not be made to feel ashamed for finding themselves in a situation where they may need to ask for help, resources, or even just patience.

Pro-life feminists are telling women who experience an unplanned pregnancy that they are not alone. There are countless people who want to help them. With material needs, housing assistance, childcare resources, and legal representation. You and your child are not a burden. You both are worthy of whatever short-term or long-term assistance you may need -- financial, material, or emotional.

We will be there to help you fight for your rights in the workplace, the classroom, and the courtroom. We will not allow your employer to fire you for being pregnant. We will assist you in finishing your education. We will not allow the father of your child simply to walk away from his responsibilities.

Because you and your child are not the problem.

What are you actually hearing from those who think abortion is the answer? You're on your own.

You shouldn't have to be punished with a baby. You can't finish your degree, get ahead in your career, or find a good man with a baby in tow. It will be for the best.

It's okay to let your boyfriend, abuser, or rapist off the hook when they run off. You and your baby can pay the price for their transgressions. After all, who's going to want to help you? You don't want to be a burden. You don't want to have to ask for assistance.

Don't even think about what is happening. Everything will be ok when it's over. Don't worry about any potential risks. Just blindly go into it, because so many others have done it before, and it's legal, so it must be ok.

You're under a lot of stress right now. You're in no condition to consider working this out any other way. Just get it over with. Oh, you don't really want this? You feel like you really have no choice? Well, that's for you to deal with on your own. Don't you feel empowered?

Thirty-five years of convoluted thinking. Pro-abortion forces think they're fighting for the freedom of women. They think by having abortion available, it equalizes men and women, because then women also have the power to just "walk away." What they refuse to recognize is that as long as they continue to perpetuate the notion that there is something wrong with bearing children, then women will continue to be treated as second-class citizens.

As long as they insist that parenthood is a choice, women who want to have their children will be dismissed by the workplace, the universities, and society in general because "well that was your decision, you didn't have to have that baby" and, for the same reason, men will continue to think that it's okay to abandon their obligations.

Where are all the promises of Roe v. Wade? Over 40 million abortions and women still don't have equal pay, child abuse rates have soared, and more women and children than ever before are in poverty. The status quo ain't workin' -- time to rethink things, NARAL.

Pro-life forces are the ones who are "pro-woman."  We are the ones who believe in the capabilities of women. We are the ones telling women they don't have to pay with their children's lives in order to get ahead. We are the ones working for change to alter archaic concepts that oppress pregnant and parenting women in the workforce, in academia, and the world at large.

There are so many other battles that would truly empower women. Fighting child pornography, human trafficking, and rape-as-warfare. But until our child-bearing gift is elevated to its deserved status, pregnant and parenting women and their children will remain to viewed as nothing more than burdens to be disposed of.