We prefer the term "Selective Discrimination"

Bush calls for end to racism (other forms of discrimation A - OK)

At a White House meeting with prominent black leaders on Tuesday, President Bush reiterated language from his inaugural speech stating "we cannot carry the message of freedom and the baggage of bigotry at the same time" and like everything else in this great country, the caveat remains "unless BushCo states otherwise."

Whaddya mean gays are discriminated against? They can get married, just not to anyone they'd want to marry:

"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I think we ought to codify that one way or another," Bush told reporters at a White House news conference. "And we've got lawyers looking at the best way to do that."

"Yes, I am mindful that we're all sinners," the president said Wednesday when asked for his views on homosexuality. "And I caution those who may try to take the speck out of the neighbor's eye when they've got a log in their own." "I think it's very important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts, to be a welcoming country," Bush added. "On the other hand, that does not mean that somebody like me needs to compromise on an issue such as marriage."(George W. Bush, 22 October 2003)

"nothing wrong with discriminating against gays." (VA State Sen. Kenneth Cuccinelli February 2005)

Choosey preachers choose Christians

Under the president's rules, all government contractors, except religious groups, are now forbidden to discriminate in hiring on religious grounds. Thus religious groups are not being treated "like all other groups." Rather, they are being given a special right to engage in religious bigotry in employment in taxpayer-funded programs. Nobody was trying to "discriminate against faith-based organizations" before 2002, as Gonzales suggests. Religious groups were just asked to play by the same rules as everyone else. Gonzales' take on all this is Orwellian.



It's not your lack of religion that makes you enemy of the state, it's your lack of patriotism
"I think people attack me because they are fearful that I will then say that you're not equally as patriotic if you're not a religious person," Mr. Bush said. "I've never said that. I've never acted like that. I think that's just the way it is. " (George W. Bush, 11 January 2005)


Keep your religion in your house of worship, abide by mine everywhere else

"I fully understand that the job of the president is and must always be protecting the great right of people to worship or not worship as they see fit," Mr. Bush said. "That's what distinguishes us from the Taliban. The greatest freedom we have or one of the greatest freedoms is the right to worship the way you see fit. (George W. Bush, 11 January 2005)

In an interview in 1999, Bush cited Scalia and Clarence Thomas, the two most conservative members of the court, as justices he especially admires.

Clarence Thomas advanced the position that the constitutionally mandated separation applied to the federal government, but not to individual states -- a position that would allow Virginia, for example, to declare a state religion and advocates allowing states use tax money to proselytize for that state's religion. [Elk Grove v. Newdow, 2004]

Justices Scalia and Thomas do not believe in the right to privacy with regard to sexual activity between consenting adults specifically referencing that once cannot distinguish homosexuality from other traditional morals offenses [Lawrence v. Texas, 2003]

Heathens need not apply
"On the other hand, I don't see how you can be president at least from my perspective, how you can be president, without a relationship with the Lord," he said.


Tags:gay marriage;Patriotism;First Amendment;discrimination;Separation of Church and State

Sphere: Related Content

Today's Special: Jefferson on a Spit

Bill to allow school proselytizing sails through Virginia House panel

Legislation that would open all public property — including schools — to preaching, praying and proselytizing breezed through a House committee on Feb. 4.

The bill would also write into the state Constitution a ban on same-sex marriage. It was endorsed 14-4.

With only four dissenting votes, the House Privileges and Elections Committee advanced a proposed change to religious-freedom guarantees rooted in the 1786 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom authored by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and reflected in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

I don't even know where to begin. The first amendment of the US Constitution (apparently a minor and non-binding document the Supreme Court uses for grins) states:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Government property is not your publicly funded church and the government is not permitted to sponsor or endorse religion (any religion). One's right to freedom of expression does not supercede the right to freedom of religion of another. If you want to proselytize, do it somewhere other than public schools and government property. It is not my responsibility to fund your religious activities, especially those targeted at infringing on my rights so you can try to convert me to your religion.

The religious-freedom resolution found wide support for remedying what its sponsor, Del. Charles W. Carrico Sr., contends is a growing bias against Christians.

He said other nations upheld their founding religious tenets and compelled respect for them, specifically noting the Muslim culture of Arab countries as an example. Then, he quoted Patrick Henry in appealing for greater leeway for Christianity.

Yes Henry wanted more leeway for Christianity, and yet, he did not prevail in attempts to make the US a country with a state religion. I think it's a safe bet to say he lost the appeal because his suggestions were not consistent with the general consensus of our forefathers; had they agreed the language of the first amendment would have been much different than what was ratified. There is no growing bias against Christians, nobody is preventing Christians from practicing their religion as they see fit. There is, however, a ground-swell of people who do not want so-called "Christians" forcing (secular people, people of other religions, non-fundamentalist Christian denominations) their religion on us.

Carrico's reference to the Muslim culture in Arab countries (you know, the religious culture we're currently fighting to bring Democracy & ostensively to provide "freedom" to their people) have something this country does not: a state religion. Despite the fact the majority of Americans happen to be among the drastically endangered Christian religion, the United States is not a Christian Country.

I'm no expert on Constitutional Law, but I'm not sure a state is allowed to create laws that are in direct violation of the US Constitution. If laws are applied equally, what is to prevent use of government buildings & public schools to indoctrinate children in the evils of Christianity, G-d and Jesus is wrong (Go Satan?!), well those laws won't apply to equally to everyone. Those proposing & supporting these bills make it clear, the laws will be based on their specific interpretation of acceptable religious belief and/or scripture.

How does this bullshit get through the minds of rational people? Well either they're not really rational, they have an agenda that may seem innocuous to you know but may not be consistent with what you think you'll be getting in the long run, or they actually buy into the blatantly incorrect and politically motivated assertion that voluntary religious expression has been threatened or banned. My guess is there is a distinct agenda to not only obliterate the separation of church and state but to openly declare a state religion. It's interesting, though not surprising, that this is tied into an attempt at banning gay marriage (Virginia , where fornication is fine as long as you're straight). Abortion couldn't achieve this goal because when it comes to affecting their own lives, people will break with church doctrine of their own religions; but when it comes to homosexuality, many straight people focus on the sexual aspect of a gay relationship and, since they do not understand and do not think they'll be affected, they'll support measures based on their own internal "ick" response. What these people don't realize is that once you break with the protections of the 1st Amendment in this manner, legislation can (and will) be based on religious doctrine - in this case, Fundamentalist Christian doctrine.

Virginia is not the only state to decide to legislate with an eye to religion. New Mexico is playing the same breach of the 1st Amendment as VA.

NM legislators aim at banning gay marriage, infringes on freedom of religion as well. Rep. Gloria Vaughn, R-Alamogordo introduced House Bill 445 which not only limits marriage to heterosexual couples, but it provides fines to clergy who perform same-sex marriage ceremonies; specifically doesn't recognize same-sex marriages from other states or countries; and nullifies the New Mexico marriage licenses granted to gay couples in Sandoval County last year. Vaughn admitted there are religious intentions behind HB 445. "It defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, which is according to Scripture. God made Adam and Eve, not 'Adam and Steve.'

If Christian religion and scripture defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, the Christian Churches should not be sanctifying marriages that are not acceptable under their religious doctrine. Religious activities are not under the domain of the state and, as such, church doctrine should not be under consideration in development of civil legislation just as the government should not be dictating religious dogma and practice. This is especially important when considering that not all religions have the same views and doctrine (there is even 100% agreement between Christian denominations).

"Marriage is not defined that way in Hebrew scripture," said Rabbi Marvin Schwab of Temple Beth Shalom. "Whoever says that ought to read the Bible. And when they say they want the law to follow Scripture, do they support public stoning of women who commit adultery?"

Schwab said he considers HB 445 to be a violation of the separation of church and state and an infringement on his right to "interpret the dictates of my religion, as someone who was ordained to do that."

If you're Christian and not too keen on gay folks, these stories may not bother you much. Of course, you're idea of what a good Christian is, does and feels is acceptable may not be the same as the good, moral Christians making the laws. Are you sure you'd be accepted as a good moral Christian to all other Christians who may be in charge of legislating your activities & behavior?



Tags:gay marriage;Religion;First Amendment;legislation;Separation of Church and State

Sphere: Related Content

The evils of cartoon exploitation

As I'm sure you've heard that some Christian groups, including James Dobson's Focus on the Family (FoF), contend that the We Are Family cartoon video has the audacity to promote different kinds of families to school-children.

"If you look at the Web site, it becomes pretty clear that a part of the agenda is to change the definition of family to include virtually anyone who chooses to be called a family, including homosexual couples and homosexual couples raising children," said Peter Sprigg, senior director of policy studies of the Washington-based Family Research Council. "Much of what they have is coded language that is regularly used by the pro-homosexual movement such as 'tolerance' and 'diversity.'

"Ultimately, we feel that this is being used as propaganda to indoctrinate very small children to accept a different definition of family."

Sprigg said the companies behind SpongeBob SquarePants and the other cartoon characters might not endorse gay and lesbian families but are being employed to give that message legitimacy.

In addition to the well-known non-humans singing and dancing, the video encourages children to go to the WAFF website to sign a Declaration of Tolerance, written by the Southern Poverty Law Center:

Tolerance is a personal decision that comes from a belief that every person is a treasure. I believe that America's diversity is its strength. I also recognize that ignorance, insensitivity and bigotry can turn that diversity into a source of prejudice and discrimination.

To help keep diversity a wellspring of strength and make America a better place for all, I pledge to have respect for people whose abilities, beliefs, culture, race, sexual identity or other characteristics are different from my own.

According to the New York Times, James Dobson, founder of FoF, said the popular cartoon figure SpongeBob SquarePants would appear in "a pro-homosexual video" while speaking at a congressional dinner in Washington last month.

"We see the video as an insidious means by which the organization is manipulating and potentially brainwashing kids," Paul Batura, an assistant to Dobson, told the Times.

Dobson and FoF reacted to the backlash by claiming he was taken completely out of context. They go on to claim Main Stream Media is abusing the situation to attack religion/good moral people. I tried getting direct information (full text articles in response and a copy of the speech transcript from the FOF site and just get the strangest messages when trying to access the site - maybe they have jewdar to keep computers of folks like me from accessing their info?). I was able to get an excerpt from the FoF response on a bulletin board:

In truth, this tale has very little to do with SpongeBob himself, and everything to do with the media’s ability to obscure the facts and to direct lies and scorn toward those of us who care about defending children.

The video, which millions of children will soon see, features nearly 100 favorite cartoon characters that kids will instantly recognize, including not only SpongeBob, but also Barney the Dinosaur, the Muppets, Dora the Explorer, Bob the Builder, Winnie the Pooh, Clifford the Big Red Dog, Jimmy Neutron and Big Bird. The video itself is innocent enough and does not mention anything overtly sexual. Rather, it features the children’s cartoon characters singing and dancing along to the popular disco hit "We Are Family."

But while the video is harmless on its own, I believe the agenda behind it is sinister. My brief comments at the FRC gathering were intended to express concern not about SpongeBob or Big Bird or any of their other cartoon friends, but about the way in which those childhood symbols are apparently being hijacked to promote an agenda that involves teaching homosexual propaganda to children. Nevertheless, the media jumped on the story by claiming that I had accused SpongeBob of being "gay." Some suggested that I had confused the organization that had created the video with a similarly named gay-rights group. In both cases, the press was dead wrong, and I welcome this opportunity to help them get their facts straight.

Sesame Street has always use the same essential techniques for teaching children that not all people are just like them and their families, there is a vast and diverse population of people with different cultures and that children should accept and understand those differences. The applicable definition of the word tolerance is: "the capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others." As we all know (or should know), the word respect has different meanings: one that means to hold in deferential regard/esteem; another means "to avoid violation of or interference with" - the latter definition is the one that applies to tolerance.

The problem is, the Religious Right (Christianity as co-opted by Falwell, Dobson, Robertson, et. al.) is playing it both ways by making the claim the gay community/secularist liberals are using lessons in tolerance to promote behavior they find immoral/reprehensible (i.e., homosexuality, fornication, etc.) as they claim this forces them to condone said behavior. They then go on to complain that those who deride them for intentionally misdefining tolerance with regard to these programs and the homosexual/liberal "agenda" are "religiophobes" who are attacking Christianity itself.

It appears as though, in truth, the Religious Right thinks it has a fundamental right to be intolerant of others, as they appear to want to interfere and intrude in the lives of others who do not wish to live in accordance with the tenents of Fundamentalist Christianity. This is evident in the manner in which they advance their agenda, ranging from simple hate speech (Fred Phelps and the like) to hijacking the Constitution in an effort to limit rights to a select group of citizens and criminalize behaviors solely on their personal/religious beliefs. In short, they apply definitions of respect as part of tolerance differentially to suit their agenda; they accuse their opposition of doing exactly what they, themselves, are trying to do. They cannot concede that tolerance programs are not malevolent because they only seem to understand the concept in terms of their own actions.

There is some good news from the Christian movement and that is that many of the rational among them are scratching their heads at this "controversy" as much, if not more than we are. In the January 24th issue Christianity Today, Phil Vischer, the creator of Vegie Tales addresses the issue honestly and with a bit of levity. On whether the "we are family" organization/video promotes homosexuality, he states:

Boy, that's a thorny one. Does pledging to "respect people whose … sexual identity or other characteristics are different from my own" promote homosexuality? We're supposed to love everyone. I'm pretty sure that's biblical.

At the same time, we certainly can't endorse behavior that the Bible labels as sinful. So is "respecting" more like "loving," or more like "endorsing"? Are they encouraging grade school kids to accept homosexuality or to accept homosexuals? I'm not sure I'm qualified to parse that sentence.

And what's the inverse of that pledge? To disrespect people of differing sexual orientations? Jeepers, that doesn't sound biblical.

He goes on to say he's baffled by the shock of the Evangelical Community when the rest of the world is caught "acting, well, 'wordly'" and that he's "anxiously awaiting the day the world registers great shock at the sight of Christians acting 'Christianly'." Maybe that's why I, as an outsider, am so very confused by such spiteful, un-Christian behavior by "good Christians." I get the impression I have the same view of "Christianly" behavior as Mr. Vischer and think we should all expect Christians to be just that so we can save the shock for the hate and vitriol spewed by what should be a very small minority of inacurately self-labeled "Christians".

The issue also has links to interviews with creators/producers of other children's cartoons and links to Dobson/FoF defending themselves. FoF claims "it doesn't object to Mr. SquarePants, but thinks he's being exploited." a very funny statement considering SpongeBob is a secular, cartoon designed for commericalization and marketing. Maybe FoF will partner with organizations like Witness or Amnesty International in an expansion into the new realm of Animated Character and Muppet Rights to prevent any further senseless exploitation of these beings.

On a sadder note, the Igg-els lost, but we beat the spread and TO made it through the game (I still think he was nuts to play). More importantly, that Ameriquest Ad was a riot!




Tags:gay marriage;James Dobson;SpongeBob;religious right;focus on the family;tolerance

Sphere: Related Content

From passive/aggressive to downright hostile

in 2 seconds flat. Yep, that's been me lately.

It must be the hormones, maybe the lack of sleep too. You'd think the promise of my impending escape from that painful little company would have me all bright and cheery.
Especially since the weather's absolutely beautiful and the Igg-els are playing in the Superbowl (certain members of the team better pray for a win. Considering some of the trash they've been talking, I think there are some very big men from New England looking to do some potentially career ending damage to those birds).

Kazan's spaz about the evil mutilation called circumcision and how his lack of foreskin makes it impossible to enjoy the ultimate in sexual satisfaction irked the shit out of me. I was less than appreciative of the slammage that I was being emtional as opposed to logical because I said that knowing my own family medical history (DM & PVD), I would have my sons (were I to have any) circumcised as infants (mind you, not by Rabbi Fischer). I've never known anyone so obsessed, let alone so angry, about something they're sure they're missing that must be exponentially more gratifying when they have no control group for objective and legitimate comparison.

I then went on to peruse CNN for some lighter fare to come across 2 teenaged girls losing a lawsuit for the great cookie caper of 2004. This is an example of the sort of frivolous lawsuit that tort-reform should address. I guess it's true, no good deed goes unpunished.

Eggs are put to hatch on a chance
As sad as it is, a "promising" blastocyst does not mean it will definitely implant, let alone make it past the first trimester and go to term. Many of my friends (way too many, come to think of it) are well aware of this sad fact. What confuses me most is how someone who believes life begins at conception and that an unimplanted embryo is, indeed, a himan being with a right to life, could consider utilization of IVF. I feel for this couple who feels they've lost a chance at parenthood due to an error, but if they really believe that life begins at conception, they should be filing suit for wrongful death of all the discarded embryos (if they were all discarded and, if not, they should proceed with attempted implantation of any remaining ones).

CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- A couple whose frozen embryo was accidentally destroyed at a fertility clinic has the right in Illinois to file a wrongful-death lawsuit, a judge has ruled in a case that some legal experts say could have implications in the debate over embryonic stem cell research.

In an opinion issued Friday, Cook County Judge Jeffrey Lawrence said "a pre-embryo is a 'human being' ... whether or not it is implanted in its mother's womb."

He said the couple is as entitled to seek compensation as any parents whose child has been killed.

The suit was filed by Alison Miller and Todd Parrish, who stored nine embryos in January 2000 at the Center for Human Reproduction in Chicago. Their doctor said one embryo looked particularly promising, but the Chicago couple were told six months later the embryos had been accidentally discarded.

In his ruling, Lawrence relied on the state's Wrongful Death Act, which allows lawsuits to be filed if unborn fetuses are killed in an accident or assault. "The state of gestation or development of a human being" does not preclude taking legal action, the act says.

Lawrence also cited an Illinois state law that says an "unborn child is a human being from the time of conception and is, therefore, a legal person."

"There is no doubt in the mind of the Illinois Legislature when life begins," Lawrence wrote.

Another judge had thrown out the couple's wrongful-death claims, but Lawrence reversed that decision, partly because that judge did not explain his decision at the time.

An attorney for the fertility clinic said an appeal would likely be filed.

The decision could curb reproductive research, said Colleen Connell, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Chicago.

Connell expects the ruling will be overturned on appeal.

"It may be groundbreaking, but it's the wrong decision," Connell said. "No appellate court has ever declared a fertilized egg a human being in a wrongful-death suit."

Stem cells can potentially grow into any type of human tissue. Many scientists believe they could someday be used to repair spinal cord injuries and treat some diseases. Anti-abortion groups oppose such research because it involves destroying embryos, and the Bush administration has severely restricted federal stem cell funding.

Abortion opponents praised Lawrence's ruling. "Life begins at fertilization, not implantation," Pro-Life Action League director Joe Scheidler said.

While the ruling likely is too narrow to affect abortion law, it increases legal risks for fertility clinics, said John Mayoue, a family attorney in Atlanta and specialist on in-vitro law.

Mayoue said court rulings on the treatment of embryos have been contradictory.

"We are considering embryos to be property for certain purposes and life for others, and that's the incongruity," he said.

This suit and the IL law (like the VA law) defining a fetus incorrectly from the point of conception and stating that life begins at conception is dangerous on so many levels. If life begins at conception in the state of IL, how is it that elective abortion is legal there and how soon before IL has proposed legislation like the one original proposed amendment in VA that could have made not reporting a miscarriage a crime? Additionally, if the state of IL legally defines conception as the start of life, shouldn't criminal charges of felony homicide/recklaess endangerment be filed in the case above (and murder 1 charges be filed for any destroyed/discarded embryos even when the parents consented)? Either life begins at conception for all, or it does not, you can't have it both ways.


I stand outside this woman's work, this woman's world. . .
The Vatican recently praised a 41 yearold woman for refusing treatment for cancer that was diagnosed the same time she found out she was pregnant.

"She was aware that if she gave birth she wouldn't have had any hope of surviving," the Vatican newspaper wrote. "Despite that she went through with her choice, the choice of welcoming new life even at the cost of her own death."

The baby was born 6 months into the pregnancy, the mother died 3 months later. She is survived by her husband, who supported her decision, and 2 other children aged 10 & 12. It'll be interesting to see how her children feel about her decision when they grow up (especially the baby who may grow up with survivor guilt). Most of those I know who oppose abortion, would not expect any woman to make the decision to try to go to term in these circumstances, especially considering how early in term she was, that the cancer was treatable and she has two living children who deserved to have their mother much longer than they did. A case in which the pregnancy was further along and the cancer was most likely terminal would make the decision to go to term more understandable for most people. The point, of course, is that ultimately the decision was hers to make in accordance with her religious beliefs and her conscience. This points to the dangers of allowing religious ideals of morality dictate legislation in this country as unlike the Catholic Church, some religions would actually dictate a decision to terminate in this woman's situation.

What was she thinking? Jurors have recommended a sentence for a Houston man convicted of the aggravated sexual assault of a six-week-old baby. The child's mother, Eugenia White, 28, has been charged with failure to report child abuse because she failed to take her daughter to the hospital and then claimed she had accidentally scratched the baby while changing a diaper.

"I was really upset, and I was crying," White testified. "I didn't know what to do. He was begging me not to take her and not to tell them that he did it."

Tags:gay marriage;abortion;Pro-Choice;IVF;circumcision

Sphere: Related Content

Snippets from the State of the Empire *erm* Union Address

To make our economy stronger and more productive, we must make health care more affordable, and give families greater access to good coverage, and more control over their health decisions. I ask Congress to move forward on a comprehensive health care agenda — with tax credits to help low-income workers buy insurance, a community health center in every poor county, improved information technology to prevent medical errors and needless costs, association health plans for small businesses and their employees, expanded health savings accounts, and medical liability reform that will reduce health care costs, and make sure patients have the doctors and care they need

He'll be doing that by enacting tort reform which protects insurance companies (not consumers) & encouraging the outsourcing of jobs so people will be unemployed and financially distressed to the point they're eligible for Medicaid?

Our second great responsibility to our children and grandchildren is to honor and to pass along the values that sustain a free society. So many of my generation, after a long journey, have come home to family and faith, and are determined to bring up responsible, moral children. Government is not the source of these values, but government should never undermine them.

[. . . and yet, in his next statement, he's going to advocate doing just that:]

Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be re-defined by activist judges. For the good of families, children, and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage.

This helps families, children and society HOW???? By making sure homos and their families don't have the same rights and responsibilities afforded to everyone else, that's how. Unless both partners in a gay relationship have decent health insurance through their own jobs, one partner (and possibly their children) won't be afforded the same right to be covered under their partner's policy b/c they can't get married (and few employers provide domestic partner benefits). I guess in his thinking, they'll realize they can overcome being gay when they realize if they were "normal, moral" people they could get married and have these benefits (or maybe, if they still insist on being gay they won't have kids since they may not be able to cover medical costs)? I see lots of straight people who do a pretty good job of screwing up marriages - we don't make it illegal for some of those yahoos to get married (heck, Britney got married twice in the same calendar year)!

Because a society is measured by how it treats the weak and vulnerable, we must strive to build a culture of life. Medical research can help us reach that goal, by developing treatments and cures that save lives and help people overcome disabilities — and I thank Congress for doubling the funding of the National Institutes of Health. To build a culture of life, we must also ensure that scientific advances always serve human dignity, not take advantage of some lives for the benefit of others. We should all be able to agree on some clear standards. I will work with Congress to ensure that human embryos are not created for experimentation or grown for body parts, and that human life is never bought or sold as a commodity. America will continue to lead the world in medical research that is ambitious, aggressive, and always ethical.

Our society under BushCo and the religious right would then be judged quite harshly by the standards of civilised societies. Brother Jeb has not only (unconstitutionally) created a law to prolong Terri Schiavo's death but he also felt the best way to intervene when it was discovered a severely mentally retarded 22 year old rape victim was pregnant was to appoint a legal guardian for the fetus to ensure the pregnancy went to term; a guardian selected to say that going to term was what "was best for the mother [rape victim]". In additon to cerebral palsy and autism, the woman was also prone to seizures that increased her already high risks of pregnancy/labor & delivery; sure that's what's best for this woman with the cognitive capacity of a 1 year old. I guess Quality of Life, suffering, etc. have no negative impact on human dignity only ensuring birth occurs and duration of life when one is terminal is what matters for the Bush family.

Because courts must always deliver impartial justice, judges have a duty to faithfully interpret the law, not legislate from the bench. As President, I have a constitutional responsibility to nominate men and women who understand the role of courts in our democracy, and are well qualified to serve on the bench — and I have done so. The Constitution also gives the Senate a responsibility: Every judicial nominee deserves an up-or-down vote.

apparently, if your interpretation of a law is different than Bush's you're an activist judge legislating from the bench but if you have a completely different interpretation that essentially re-writes the law to limit civil rights, you're not an activist.

*sigh* and ending by quoting FDR , lots of idea but no plan to address the fiscal issues - hey, what's more debt as long as the rich have tax cuts and big business has tax holidays, right?

Statement by John Kerry on State of the Union Address

“President Bush said tonight that the state of our union is strong and confident, but millions of Americans know it can and must be stronger. The best way we can instill real confidence in their future is if we follow the true mandate of the last election -- a mandate for unity and true bipartisanship. The political campaigns are over and now we must get down to work. For the 11 million children in this country without health care, we must make our union stronger. For our brave soldiers in Iraq and their families, we must act now in the wake of the Iraqi elections to give them reasons to be as confident about their future as they are courageous under fire.

“The best way to begin genuine bipartisanship to make America stronger is to work together on the real crises facing our country, not to manufacture an artificial crisis to serve a special interest agenda out of touch with the needs of Americans.

“Our country faces a real crisis in health care, a real challenge of record budget deficits, and every American deserves a real plan to improve retirement security -- not weaken it. The problems of health care can be solved if we stop giving tax cuts to those who have the most, and start making health care affordable for those working harder and harder for too little. I was disappointed the President did not spend more time addressing this problem that keeps millions of Americans up at night worrying about their children's future.

“The problems facing Social Security 50 years down the road can be fixed tomorrow if Washington ends the borrow-and-spend policies that are running up a record debt and dumping it on the backs of our children. The challenge of retirement security can be solved if we sit down in the true spirit of bipartisanship and make it possible for young people to save and invest while still guaranteeing that Social Security remains insurance against poverty and disability that can never be wiped away. “Watching Iraqis go to the polls for the first time was an inspiring beginning this week, but we can't stop there. It wouldn't have been possible without the bravery of American troops. I am glad the White House will at long last act to provide a $250,000 benefit for the families of troops who've made the ultimate sacrifice. We must do more for those who give of themselves for God and country. But the greatest tribute to the memory of the fallen is an exit strategy called success. Elections were an important milestone, but to go the distance the President must now bring other countries to the side of the Iraqis to rapidly train a security force capable of providing stability. Even more critical is bringing Iraqis together and making clear to millions of Sunnis who stayed home that they have a stake in a secure nation. “We must succeed in Iraq, but we must also wage and win a more effective War on Terror. We must never take our eye off the ball in the greater struggle against extremism. I was disappointed that the President didn't mention Osama bin Laden's name once tonight. Wherever that terrorist who has murdered Americans is hiding tonight, he should know America will never rest until we've destroyed him and his terrorist network.

“The state of our union -- our faith, our families, our values -- is strong, but we must challenge ourselves and challenge Washington to make the country we love as strong as the freedom that makes it special.”

Tags:gay marriage;SOTU;Jeb Bush;abortion;George W. Bush

Sphere: Related Content

Bush won't bail out urban Indian health center

from: www.indianz.com

New Mexico's two senators blasted the Bush administration on Friday for denying funds to an urban Indian health facility that is facing closure within months.

Sen. Pete Domenici (R) and Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D) reacted with disappointment after learning that the Albuquerque Indian Health Center will not receive the money it needs to stay open. The Indian Health Service (IHS) refused the senators' request for $5 million to ensure that 25,000 tribal members who make their home in the state's largest city will receive medical care.

"Barring a last-minute reprieve, this center faces sure closure," said Domenici. "There is little chance that Congress can provide any immediate funding, and the IHS assessment is that it has no funding available."

"This is an unacceptable situation," added Bingaman. "The Albuquerque Indian Health Center has already cut back dramatically on the care it offers Native Americans living here, and now the center is being forced to do it again."





The bad news came from Dr. Charles Grim, the director of the IHS. In a letter last week, the Bush appointee said the request for additional funds "is not a viable option because of limited funds throughout our system t o deliver health care services." So he ordered a "downsize" and a "reduction-in-force" at the facility.

"I am confident that the [Albuquerque] Area Office and the service unit will explore all opportunities to provide the highest quality health care to this population," Grim wrote.

The center has been under financial stress for the past few years. Hours have been cut, staff has been reduced and services have been scaled back as funds have dried up.

According to IHS, one source of the problem is that more money is going to tribal governments in the area for their own health programs. More than a half dozen Pueblos and Navajo Nation communities are within driving distance of Albuquerque, and six of the tribes have clinics and service units on their own lands.

To stay afloat, the center said it needed $5 million in federal funds or it would close its urgent care clinic, the lifeblood of the facility, on January 1. An estimated 100 to 200 patients received urgent care every day.

In hopes of preventing that from happening, Domenici and Bingaman last month asked Grim to use his discretion to reprogram $13 million in IHS funds. They wanted $5 million to stabilize services and $8 million to improve services. The center's existing budget is about $5.4 million.

The crisis developed too late for the senators to include earmarks or special provisions in the fiscal year 2005 budget that could save the center. Still, Congress in November approved $3.0 billion for the IHS, an increase over the amount that had been sought by the Bush administration.

Despite the influx of money, Grim insisted that there isn't enough to go around. In his letter, he said alternatives are being considered, such as working with the state of New Mexico and tribes and obtaining "fiscal support" from the Navajo area office, which just opened a $12.5 million expansion of an urban Indian clinic in Gallup.

Domenici and Bingaman said they will continue to work to find a solution to the problem. Bingaman said he will write to Mike Leavitt, the new secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the IHS.


Cold Weather Gear for Pine Ridge Reservation Families

Winter has hit hard on the reservation and there are many families who lack the proper warm clothing and gear to protect them from the bitter cold, including children and elders. In the last couple of weeks the temperatures dropped below zero and there's no telling when it will happen again.

Please check your closets for items in like-new condition or do some shopping for coats, jackets, sweaters, sweatshirts, hooded sweatshirts, hats, gloves, scarves, ear warmers/headbands, ski masks, new blankets and new socks to send to the community of Red Shirt. These will be distributed to local families so we are seeking all sizes--newborns through elders!

Red Shirt is an isolated community so not many donations make it there. The only community facilities there are the elementary school and the Head Start building. The town is far from the nearest post office, their letter-sized mail is delivered only 3 times a week, and those that receive packages in the mail must make the trek to Hermosa, 22 miles away, to pick them up. Please help us keep these families warm!

Please send your donations via the U.S. Post Office to:

Marlene Stout
Red Shirt School
HCR 89
Box 313
Hermosa, SD 57744

http://friendsofpineridgereservation.org/difference/


Winter Fuel Emergency Fund American Indian Relief Council
PO Box 6200
Rapid City, SD 57709-6200
http://www.airc.org




Tags:native american;charity

Sphere: Related Content

Neo-cons and Zealots and Homophobes, oh my!

The Arlington Group, a coalition of conservative religious organizations, quickly fired off to Bush political guru Karl Rove a private letter signed by such figures as Bauer, Don Wildmon of the American Family Association, Focus on the Family's James Dobson, conservative standard bearer Paul Weyrich and evangelist Jerry Falwell. They laid down a none-too-subtle threat that the Administration's "defeatist attitude" on gay marriage might make it "impossible for us to unite our movement on an issue such as Social Security privatization where there are already deep misgivings."

Oh for crying out loud, what the fuck are these guys afraid of? I know a lot of people who have problems with the idea of gay marriage but are OK with civil unions/domestic partnership (which they think grant the same rights as marriage, but doesn't), it's the word "marriage" that weirds them out. Even most of the folks who don't like gay people & think they shouldn't be allowed to marry, think amending the constitution is going to far (we've never amended the constitution to restrict rights before, talk about taking a step back).

So fine, these guys think they need a consitutional amendment to protect the sanctity of marriage that must be between a man and a woman because gays cannot procreate? They need to prove this by including the following in the proposed constitutional amendment to define, strengthen and protect the sacred bond of marriage and the stability of the American family:

1. Define marriage as a life-long committment between a man and a woman with the primary purpose of procreation and child-rearing
2. Revoke all no-fault divorce laws
3. Ensure all couples are suitably prepared for marriage prior to approving and issuing a marriage license

In order to achieve this, all couples should be required to go through and pass a state-mandated pre-marriage counseling program (or an equivalent religious program that meets state standards) prior to being granted a marriage license. Additionally:

• Unmarried couples who have a child out off wedlock without putting the child up for adoption, should be required to get married

• these couples will be required to go through specialized state mandated marriage counseling during the pregnancy

• Divorce will only be granted if/when a spouse is convicted of domestic abuse (of the other spouse or their children)/rape/child molestation/similarly violent crime and/or adultery
• In cases of adultery, a couple should be forced into legally mandated marriage counseling with first disclosure
  

• a child born of an adulterous relationship when the married partner does not have children with the current spouse would result in dissolution of the marriage (with penalty against the adulterer) and required marriage between the parents of the child
• in the case of a child born out of an adulterous relationship with one or more of the parents being married with minor children from the marriage, final determination of marital status, custody and any applicable penalties would be decided by family court
• these adulterous couples will be required to go through specialized state mandated marriage counseling programs and will not be allowed to divorce due to adultery (progressive criminal penalties for adultery will apply starting with first disclosure of adultery)

As marriage will be limited to heterosexual couples because the official purpose of marriage is primarily for procreation and child rearing, methods of reproduction outside of sexual intercourse will be made illegal in the US. Couples wanting to have children will be allowed to adopt; it is anticipated that all couples who marry will have children unless they are of advanced age at the time of marriage that precludes having children or they have children from a previous marriage (i.e., widows or those who were legally divorced as described due to one of the criminal acts described above - those convicted of crimes leading to divorce will not be allowed to remarry unless approved by family court).




Tags:gay marriage

Sphere: Related Content

Planned Parenthood's relationships w/ Adoption Agencies: does PP do enough options counseling?

OK, so I was on a board earlier and there was a thread about the original judge in the Roe V Wade case ripping the ruling, etc. which obviously generated some discussion. One of the guys who is adamantly pro-life (honestly thinks pro-choice is really pro-abortion, I think I've partially disuaded him of that notion) with the belief life begins at conception therefor abortion is murder. He's very active in his church and involved in some sort of pastoral counseling of women post-abortion, and these women have pretty much implied a big lack of options counseling and pressure to abort from PP and other clinics. Anyway, among his comments included a concern that PP and society at large doesn't do enough to promote abstinence and a feeling that if we in the pro-choice movement really are about keeping abortion "safe, legal and rare" and not big propopents of abortion for convenience, PP would do more to facilitate and promote the adoption option. I gave him some information and started thinking about whether there were any formalized relationships between PPFA and adoption agencies; I knew there were some informal ones and but I think less than 5% get referred (which could be for many reasons). I came across some interesting information on the individual regions and adoption referral and then I came upon this:

Virginia Planned Parenthood Facility First in Nation to Offer "Choice"
from The Pro-Life Infonet, August 6, 1999

Ronoake -- Women walking into the confines of Planned Parenthood of Blue Ridge Inc. have two choices regarding their unborn child: Through one door, they may choose to abort her. Through another, they can put her up for adoption.

Although there are 900 Planned Parenthood agencies and 130 affiliates nationwide, this is the only Planned Parenthood facility where the false pro-abortion notion of "choice" is partially a reality.

This combination of abortion and adoption, which has gotten mixed reviews from pro-life groups, is the brainchild of David Nova, 38, president of the Roanoke clinic. He is also the past president of the local Reform Jewish temple, and "choice," he says, is part of his religion.

"This new building will be operationally pro-choice," he says refering to the new 2-million dollar facility they are building. "All choices will be available: abortion, adoption and prenatal care."

To date, there have been no adoptions resulting from the arrangement, but one is under consideration.

According to Virginia Department of Health figures, there were 821 abortions in the greater Roanoke Valley in 1997. Mr. Nova's facility averages 15 abortions a week; one of the few places in Southwest Virginia where women can get them.

Will the new system bring down abortion rates? "It might," he says.

Mr. Nova, a past deputy director for Amnesty International, took over the abortion facility 10 years ago. He was on staff when it began doing first-trimester abortions in 1995.

Its long-term business plan also included adoptions, a possibility that has been a hot topic in Congress this summer.

According to the Adoption Awareness Act, introduced July 14 in the House and co-sponsored by 40 members, federally funded health clinics such as Planned Parenthood must present the "adoption option" to their clients. Otherwise, they lose their funding under Title X of the Public Health Service Act.

This would greatly affect Planned Parenthood, which receives $45 million annually from Title X. In 1998, the abortion agency provided prenatal care to 17,000 people, performed 166,900 abortions, and made 5,500 adoption referrals -- 3,881 less than in 1997.

The Adoption Awareness Act would establish a $7 million-a-year grant program for adoption training. The "adoption option" had been the subject of casual conversation at Roanoke Planned Parenthood for years, as the agency had an informal relationship with several adoption agencies.

Peter Pufki, executive director of Children's Home Society of Virginia, stepped in. Planned Parenthood was already referring women to CHS, which does 45 adoptions a year. However, there was no in-house counselor with whom women could discuss adoption.

"We felt it was more powerful to provide that option here instead of sending them along," Mr. Nova said.

In April, a licensing agreement was announced whereby Planned Parenthood would give CHS office space and CHS would pay Planned Parenthood $1 for each woman referred to it. CHS' nameplate was then stenciled on the clinic doors. A CHS staff member comes to Planned Parenthood one day a week, usually on the days when the most pregnancy tests are done.

The new facility, which will increase the clinic's space from 7,000 square feet to 11,000 square feet, will include free pregnancy tests, prenatal care for uninsured and Medicaid women, a drive-through window for pill pick-up (another first for Planned Parenthood clinics, Mr. Nova says), and a garden for "contemplative thought."

The reason for the pregnancy tests? The local Crisis Pregnancy Center does them free. Tom Clark, director of the CPC of Roanoke Valley, declined to comment about the expansion.

"It's irrelevant," he says. "What Planned Parenthood does is their business." There has been some bad blood between the two groups in the past, dating from the time a few years ago when Planned Parenthood bought the building that housed the CPC offices. When its lease came up, Planned Parenthood refused to renew it.

It was an "awkward" situation, Mr. Nova admits, which is why the adoption license has been an attempt to secure some good publicity. "This gives us greater legitimacy in having the interests of the mother first," he says.

This fall, Mr. Nova plans to offer adoption services in two other affiliated abortion centers in Blacksburg, Va., and Charlottesville. The latter clinic recently received an $800 grant from an Episcopal church to train staff on adoption procedures.

Jim Sedlak, founder of Stop Planned Parenthood in Stafford, Va., says offering adoptions is a ploy to get the public's mind off of abortions at the agency.

"This announcement by Planned Parenthood in Roanoke came after a major effort last year by the state of Virginia to offer a 'Choose Life' license plate, the proceeds from which would go to places that provide adoptions," he said. "Just observing the way Planned Parenthood operates, it interests us that a Planned Parenthood clinic in Virginia would be the first to offer these services."

The Roanoke abortion facility stands out in several ways. Not only is it the first in the country to offer the adoption option, but it also employs a female "Southern Baptist" minister to counsel women regarding abortions --another first, apparently. She told a local newspaper that Scripture is "ambiguous" on the subject.

Mr. Nova will travel to Chicago this month to describe his program to a national gathering of CEOs of Planned Parenthood clinics. He has already received a phone call from one Chicago adoption agency about his program.

"I certainly think this is a great idea," he says. "I think there's a lot of interest out there, but it requires a great fit . . . two agencies that can work well together."
http://www.ohioroundtable.org/library/articles/life/vaplanned.html

Obviously, as you read through, it's apparent that any attempt a Pro-Choice group/agency makes at reducing unwanted pregnancies, discouraging sex for those who are ill-prepared to handle it, and adoption referrals/counseling will be viewed as disengenuous by those whose agenda is something other than wanting to discourage irresponsible behavior and the consequences of it, but I think this is the sort of thing we should be promoting in addition to better education and contraception.

In order to be eligible for Title X funding, PP needs to perform options counseling to all women seeking abortion services. Many state laws mandate options counseling as well. By options counseling, I am not advocating PP staff tell a woman/girl she must consider keeping the baby or putting it up for adoption and try to talk a woman out her decision to abort (though, I'm sure the religious right would advocate and mandate that if they could). This being said, I think it would be wise to expand on the relationships the regional PP offices already have with adoption facilities and, possibly, have more official ties either akin what's been enacted through the Blue Ridge PP facilities or have a counselor on site from the adoption agency/WIC/etc. should someone ask more questions about options and/or seem unsure about their decision (to ask that woman if she wanted to speak with one of the other counselors - not to force them on her). While most women go in for both appointments at a PP clinic (many states require informed consent and procedure w/counseling sessions at least 24 hours apart) with their minds made up and unwilling to accept even the mandated options counseling, some are ambivalent and some do second guess their decision - those could be offered information on referrals (if appropriate), etc. when they are sent home to ensure they do want to go ahead with the procedure. In many instances, having someone readily available on site would be extremely helpful to these women (and very convenient for them as well).




Tags:unplanned pregnancy;Planned Parenthood;Pro-Choice

Sphere: Related Content

Holy shades of Margaret Atwood, there's more to reproductive rights than abortion?!

Women's reproductive rights also include not being subjected to requirements of routine pregnancy testing (for non clinical reasons) and requirement to get pregnant and the ability to take precautionary measures to avoid pregnancy. Granting the government excessive latitude to demand additional, unwarranted access to our bodies via legislation regarding reproduction could open the door to a multitude of possibilities depending on those in power.Are you reallysure the religious right will stop at "abortion on demand" or will the next step be to make contraception illegal? Consider the possible ramifications. . .

Scenario I

Laws could be changed to restrict access to contraception and limit abortion to: pregnancy that is imminently life-threatening to the mother; pregnancy resulting from rape or incest; one parent suffered from a serious hereditary disease or a disease likely to cause serious congenital malformations; the pregnant woman suffered from a serious physical, mental, or sensory disorder; advanced maternal over age 45; or the pregnant woman had given birth to at least four children that were under her care. Except in the case of a life-threatening situation, abortions will have to be approved by a medical board and be performed in the first trimester in a specialized unit. Women who obtain illegal abortions, and those who perform them, will be subject to fines and imprisonment.

Additionally all women of reproductive age will be required to undergo regular gynecological examinations at their place of employment. Pregnant women will be monitored until delivery, doctors were required to report all women who became pregnant and gynecological wards were under continuous surveillance. Investigations will be carried out to determine the cause of all miscarriages.

Alternatively:

Scenario II

Laws could be changed to require all pregnant women to submit to having their medical records scrutinized by an objective panel of experts (not their personal doctor) through-out their pregnancy:

• ALL pregnant women will be required to have the same battery of pre-natal testing with continuous follow-up and testing for fetal defects (genetic and developmental), as well as testing of their own health (including dietary evaluation to ensure they are eating and drinking exactly as prescribed by nutritionist).
• At any point in time, the panel of experts following their pregnancy can order them to terminate said pregnancy due to meeting standardized termination criteria
  
• Only pregnancies that meet this standardized abortion criteria may be terminated
• anyone obtaining or performing a non-eligible (illegal) abortion will be subjected to criminal charges
  
• All pregnancies that meet criteria must be terminated
  

To ensure no women intentionally defy medical protocol requirements in order facilitate meeting abortion criteria; a woman will be held criminally negligent if it is determined she has any culpability in the health issues leading to the pregnancy meeting abortion requirements.

The only "opt-out" policy for those who object to abortion is voluntary sterilization (to avoid being forced to undergo a procedure they find morally objectionable).

Additionally, to ensure no unsafe and illegal abortions are attempted, all females biologically capable of reproduction will have to submit to monthly pregnancy tests (Tanner staging will be done routinely on pre-pubescent females to determine when they are capable of reproduction and avoid missing accidental pregnancies in this population) to ensure all pregnancies are followed from as soon after conception as possible through to resolution regardless of outcome.

Scenario I is not conjecture, it is Romanian history between 1966 - 1984 under the leadership of Nicolae Ceacescu. Remove the information in color and you have legislative changes as requested by the "Pro-Life" Movement (subject to change, of course).

Am I being a typical, hysterically paranoid, liberal female?

Recently, John Cosgrove (R-78) proposed and amendment to VA HB-1677 as follows (italicized language was added to the bill; bold emphasis is mine):

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

1. That § 32.1-264 of the Code of Virginia is amended and reenacted as follows:

§ 32.1-264. Reports of fetal deaths; medical certification; investigation by medical examiner; confidentiality of information concerning abortions; penalty.

A. A fetal death report for each fetal death which occurs in this the Commonwealth shall be filed, on a form furnished by the State Registrar, with the registrar of the district in which the delivery occurred or the abortion was performed within three days after such delivery or abortion and shall be registered with such registrar if it has been completed and filed in accordance with this section; provided that:

1. If the place of fetal death is unknown, a fetal death report shall be filed in the registration district in which a dead fetus was found within three days after discovery of such fetus; and

2. If a fetal death occurs in a moving conveyance, a fetal death report shall be filed in the registration district in which the fetus was first removed from such conveyance.

B. The funeral director or person who first assumes custody of a dead fetus or, in the absence of a funeral director or such person, the hospital representative who first assumes custody of a fetus shall file the fetal death report; in the absence of such a person, the physician or other person in attendance at or after the delivery or abortion shall file the report of fetal death. The person completing the forms shall obtain the personal data from the next of kin or the best qualified person or source available, and he shall obtain the medical certification of cause of death from the person responsible for preparing the same as provided in this section. In the case of induced abortion, such forms shall not identify the patient by name.

C. The medical certification portion of the fetal death report shall be completed and signed within twenty-four 24 hours after delivery or abortion by the physician in attendance at or after delivery or abortion except when inquiry or investigation by a medical examiner is required.

D. When a fetal death occurs without medical attendance upon the mother woman at or after the delivery or abortion or when inquiry or investigation by a medical examiner is required, the medical examiner shall investigate the cause of fetal death and shall complete and sign the medical certification portion of the fetal death report within twenty-four 24 hours after being notified of a fetal death.

When a fetal death occurs without medical attendance, it shall be the woman's responsibility to report the death to the law-enforcement agency in the jurisdiction of which the delivery occurs within 12 hours after the delivery. A violation of this section shall be punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor.

E. The reports required pursuant to this section are statistical reports to be used only for medical and health purposes and shall not be incorporated into the permanent official records of the system of vital records. A schedule for the disposition of these reports may be provided by regulation.

F. The physician or facility attending an individual who has delivered a dead fetus shall maintain a copy of the fetal death report for one year and, upon written request by the individual and payment of an appropriate fee, shall furnish the individual a copy of such report.

It's extrememely important to note that the state of VA defines "fetus" as the "product(s) of conception" regardless of age (that is from the moment of conception). After receiving a multitude of e-mails, Cosgrove stated that the intent of the proposed revision was to aid Chesapeake police in the investigation of full-term babies abandoned shortly after birth and reported still-births (3rd trimester) not attended by a physician; he has stated he will now revise the proposed amendment to state just that. Why this wasn't clearly delineated from the outset is beyond me, especially considering how the word "fetus" is defined by the VA legislature; had the language been accepted as originally submitted, it would have opened the doors wide open for additional intrusion into the private lives of female citizens.

Tags:abortion;reproductive rights;Pro-Choice miscarriage

Sphere: Related Content

Safe, legal and rare. . . really guys, this isn't a new stance

I'm pretty sure that the idea of abortion being safe, legal and rare has been around for at least 10-20 years and this, along with complete reproductive rights/privacy regarding medial issues, is the agenda of the Pro-Choice Movement. While those who refer to anyone who supports reproductive rights as abortionists or pro-abortion may not want to believe this, it is true nonetheless. Until recently, I think that most of this country knew full well, even those with extreme views on the "pro-lfe" side, exactly what the position of the Pro-Choice movement really is . This is why attempts to overturn Roe v Wade have failed & why those of us who grew up during/after the 70s felt safe about it. I think this is why the extremists invented the "partial birth abortion" which is something so abhorrent that almost everyone shudders at the thought of it. PBA was used as a litmus test in the most recent elections and it worked. The D & X procedure is real, incredibly rare, and done in the most dire of situations (I'd be willing to bet only the most extreme fanatic would condemn the decision). In order to "research" the claims of those against the PBA, the government forced reviews of medical records (I'm not sure all clinics fought and/or lost the cases to prevent this) and was either unable to find any example of what they have called PBA or is unwilling to provide even anecdotal evidence of it (which means if they found a case, they knew it would have the opposite effect of what they want). Those who label themselves pro-choice are a diverse bunch ranging from those who may actually support abortion as a method of birth control (I've never met anyone who would admit to that, but would not be surprised that they exist) to those who think abortion is wrong but understand that this belief is based on personal/religious reasons but do not think they have the right to impose those on others.

We are all painfully aware that there is one very big fact on which we do not all agree and do not have the ability to prove/disprove who is right at this point in time, and that is what defines "human life" and when it begins. Even within the Abrahamic religions, which all believe the soul is what makes human life distinctly different than other life, there is a disparity of belief when ensoulment occurs. I'm not even sure all the Christian denominations are in agreement with each other on this point. Those who don't believe life begins at conception, would not reasonably believe abortion is murder. For those who agree with you that human life begins prior to actual birth there are other issues to be considered, such as at what point in time does "human life" begin and when does this unborn life have rights that supercede the rights of the mother?

So, you say you want to stop the senseless murder of unborn babies? Impact demand by attacking the root of the problem. Make unplanned/unintended pregnancies so rare the elective abortion rate will plummet:

• comprehensive health education including "sex" education (I actually think this should be taught as part of the life science corriculum, not by a gym teacher or school nurse). Sex education should include:
• all aspects of reproduction (anatomy/physiology, menstrual cycle, oogenesis & spermatogenesis)
• open an honest discussion the responsibilities related to and the potential consequences of sexual activity
  
• this should include non-religious/non-judgmental discouragement of sexual intimacy until adulthood, when the possiblity of being able to handle the responsibilities associated with those consequences is more likely
  
• this must also include discussion of all effective means to avoid the potential consequences of sexual activity
  

• increased funding of research into new, compliance-friendly contraceptive agents that are used prospectively to prevent ovulation/spermatogenesis/fertilization
• improved access to contraceptive agents along with improved labeling regarding contraceptive failure
  
• sticker labeling on hormonal contraceptives regarding medications, etc. that can interfere with the medications and potentiate ovulation with advise to practice a barrier method in conjunction with the hormonal contraceptive when using meds that can cause contraceptive failure
  

You in?


Tags:abortion;sex education;Pro-Choice

Sphere: Related Content

The Santa Clause III: Attack of the Red Herring

Groups on right say Christmas is under attack

This week, Jerry Falwell, a conservative leader, told supporters that "so-called civil libertarians attempt to purge all vestiges of faith from the American public square." Also this week, Paul M. Weyrich, another conservative leader, proclaimed that "the campaign to eliminate Christmas from our society is well underway." Several conservative commentators have echoed the charge on television and radio and in newspapers.

The Rutherford Institute, declaring "Christmas Under Siege," cites a "growing tendency among public schools and government officials to ban references to Christmas or Christianity." The Alliance Defense Fund, which has been battling gay unions, sent letters to more than 6,700 schools as part of its "Christmas Project." It has 700 "allied attorneys" looking for cases where local authorities have sought to secularize the holiday, and it has found three dozen instances of bans on candy canes, prohibitions on Christmas colors, and cancellation of holiday celebrations that had Christian components.

I had a long chat with my folks the other day because I am just incensed at how these people are using requests that public school not have children sing religious Christmas carols in music class and Christmas concerts to make a claim their religious freedom is under attack. My dad was surprised at how strongly I felt these songs should not be included in public schools because I never complained about it growing up (originally because I was confused and thought there was something wrong with me for being confused, as I got older I just recognized that I have to respect and abide the faith of others because this is a country that is predominantly Christian). This being said, I'm seriously perturbed how the issue is used to get normally rational people hysterical over "secularists"/non-Christians trying to "rob them of their holiday". Now if you look at the lyrics of Christmas Carols like: "Hark! The Herald Angels sing", "G-d rest ye merry gentleman", "Go tell it on the mountain", "O Holy Night", "What Child is This?", "Away in a Manger", "O Come All Ye Faithful", they are overtly religious in nature (with references to Jesus as messiah/saviour and being Christian, etc.) and therefore completely inappropriate in class/choir/student concert of a public school.

Even to a non-Christian child who knows they/their families don't believe in these things, the message still appears to be one of endorsement of Christianity via celebration of Christmas through school/government. This goes beyond respecting someone else's faith, this is a de facto requirement to become engaged in religious activity in a public (government funded/supported) setting.

Singing the dreidle song or a Kwanzaa song, does not take away from the Jesus is saviour/deity/G-d message of Christmas as these songs are more akin to "Holly, Jolly Xmas" or "Jingle Bells". I can guarantee you the families protesting removal of a creche would be mighty displeased to see Satanic symbols at their child's school and if someone were to write/advocate a holiday song with lyrics like "In December, children, don't despair; Jesus is not the Saviour, of this please be aware" and lead public school children regardless of faith or lack thereof in class or a Holiday Concert, they'd lose their job, their house would probably be fire-bombed and I'm sure there would be lawsuits for the despair and anguish of the little Christian children.

No one is trying to discourage, let alone prevent, anyone who freely chooses to do so from celebrating Christmas. It is, however, a religious holiday (Independence Day is a historical holiday; Christmas is not and it would be incorrect/disrespectful to treat it as such) and, like other religious holidays (including Chanukah, Passover and Easter), shouldn't be celebrated in public schools because children are a captive and impressionable audience. It is possible to acknowledge a holiday without actively celebrating it.

Your right to freedom of expression does not supercede the rights of others to freedom of religion; imposing your religious beliefs on others is an infringement/violation of theirs. The people complaining that Christmas is "under attack" are the same ones who stomp their foot to keep "under G-d" in the pledge and the 10 commandments posted in schools with the argument that no-one should feel as though religion is encroaching on public institutions because the references are "really" secular, have no overtly religious meaning and that the "secularists" are reading way too much into them. These same people then respond to a question of "if these symbols are so devoid of meaning why can't we remove them from public institutions?" with the accusation we're trying to prevent them from expressing their faith! Do they even know what they want, let alone why they want it? People do a great disservice to themselves, the country and their religion when they focus on public displays and activities instead of their own personal observance and celebration.

If people are so concerned about expressing their faith and maintaining the integrity of their holy days, why don't they embrace and express their faith by going to church, participating in a Living Nativity at church/privately owned community center/home, adopting a local family in need, etc. instead of protesting others' use of the phrase Happy Holidays in lieu of Merry Christmas or complaining about the dearth of Nativity Scenes & Christmas Carols on government property and public schools?



Tags:1st Amendment;Religion;Christmas

Sphere: Related Content

Satan masquerades as an angel of light and his servants wear the guise of righteousness

What I, as an outsider, have noticed of the Christian Leaders overtly involved in politics (Falwell, Phelps, Robertson, et. al.) is that their focus is not their own behavior or tending to the needs of their own flock, it's the behavior/actions and beliefs of those outside their domain. The neocons they support are equally hypocritical. Who among us would use religion/faith as a weapon; focus on condemnation instead of love; legislate decisions for us lest we dare to exercise free will; or lay claim of knowledge to what cannot be known and use this intimate knowledge for political gain/ambition? When acting acting out of "love" and concern for sinners, should you not tell them: "we love you, we are concerned about you, we understand you are free to make your own choices and we'd rather you choose otherwise so we have no other choice but to say (1) we're here for you, if you want our help to change and/or (2) we can not keep company with you because we don't want even a remote association with that with which we disagree" or do you protest them, enact laws against them and send treatises about their eternal damnation? Which would be consistent with the truly faithful?

Galatians 6:"Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you may be tempted. Carry each other’s burdens, and in this you will fulfill the law of Christ. If anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself. Each one should test his own actions. Then he can take pride in himself, without comparing himself to somebody else, for each one should carry his own load.

Bible.com commentary on false prophets, I noticed the following interesting points (emphasis added by me):

Examining the conversation of these leaders can quickly reveal the God they serve. Do they speak of God's kingdom, His righteousness, and His love; or does their conversation center on the things of this world and life? Are they peacemakers, sowing mercy and love? Are they gentle and patient, or do they lose their temper easily? Do they walk in faith, or are they continually looking to other men for their needs to be supplied? Are they always pressuring people for money, or do they simply receive those gifts over to others, or do they continually complain and gripe over all the things that are not pleasing to them? Is goodness evident in their lives instead of evil? Do they put people in bondage by always threatening them with the wrath of God, or is freedom of choice extended with the warning of the penalties of sin? Jesus came to set us free, not to bring us under the bondage of men.

Let us prove all leaders and see if their fruit is good fruit.Do they love and not hate, have joy instead of depression, and promote peace instead of strife? Are they longsuffering (patient) or impatient, gentle or harsh? show love and tolerance for those that oppose them?

Who but a false prophet would say "well yes, we're all sinners" then stand in judgment to say G-d thinks that the sins of others are more grievous than their own? They point out that they repent their sins and do not continue to engage in them unlike, say, homosexuals who do not recuse themselves from sinful relationships. Yet they preach and impose legislation on all of us in a manner that breeds contempt and fosters sin.

Galatians 5:19 "The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of G-d."

When those of us who do not support the imposition of the religious beliefs of other on our lives, or even the foisting of our own religion on others, point out morality cannot (and should not) be legislated and that people must live in accordance with their own faith, we're accused of mocking G-d.

Galatians 6:7 "Do not be deceived: G-d cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows."

Well, if there is a G-d, the lives we lead and our own behavior and actions will be what he bases his judgment on. G-d is omniscient and infallible, man is not.

Those who oppose separation of church and state are labeled by these leaders a "godless secularists" and yet among us there are many faithful who do not like the bastardization of our religions to be used as a test or tool to control the masses. Those who know full well that man has free will and he can, and should, make moral decisions of his own volition (you can't just claim the moral high ground, you have to live it and let others choose how to life their lives.) If your only way of not succumbing to temptation is avoidance, then avoid it, others get strength by temptation and some indulge; it's called free will and we're nothing without it.

The neocons, Falwell/Roberston/Bush/Phelps assert that religion must remain in the public domain as it's the only way to prevent our descent into moral decay and, therefore, we must support bringing prayer back into schools and municipal/government settings so people can attest to and express their faith to the world. Funny, Matthew 6:5 actually seems to admonish this need for overt displays of faith:

"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your father, who is unseen."

Express your faith by leading a good moral life and when you pray, do so to communicate with G-d, not to show others how faithful you are. Is it possible these leaders are pushing this issue to affect an appearance of faithfulness and lay claim they can expose those who are not among the "faithful" for their own personal benefit (because those who are not with them are against G-d)?

Matthew 7:21 "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity*."

* iniquity also means injustice; isn't offering different rights to people inequitably an injustice?

2 Corinthinians 11:13 "For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, that his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness."

Is it not possible that these religious leaders could really be false prophets leading those who truly wish to lead good, moral lives down a path other than the one they think they're on? Their end will be what their actions deserve. Torelance is not limited to saying you can exist but our rights/beliefs supercede your rights, tolerance affords equal rights (you don't have to like them, you done have to approve the actions but you can't tell them they have to hide or are not allowed the same rights and protections you have yourself).

1 Corinthians 13:4 "Love never fails. But where there are prophesies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child a I talked liked a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."

Tags:false prophets;religion;Falwell;Robertson;Phelps

Sphere: Related Content