The Hamiltonian Express: get on board or get out of the way

BushCo, the Republican Leadership and the Religious Right have bandied about the argument that theirs is a view most consistent with the thoughts and principles on which the United States was founded and that Progressives/Democrats have completely missed the historical basis of their beliefs. They are, in fact, correct. . . sort of.

During the artistocratic Washington administration, Alexander Hamilton as Secretary of the Treasury helped enact economic policies that favored the few "gentlemen of principle and property" (wealthy, educated and the clergy) and strengthened the army in a way that appeared to be set up to control rather represent/protect the general populace. Washington and Hamilton were staunch Federalists that supported the President acting independently of Congress and felt no need for checks and balances, much like the current administration.

Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans, on the other hand, followed a philosophy of states' rights, limited federal power, and supported a "wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another" that essentially stayed out of personal/private affairs. Jefferson's party was mired in many political battles with the Federalist party and, much like today, the battles focused on the Judiciary. It was during Jefferson's presidency that the landmark Marbury v Madison ruling established the indepent power of the Supreme Court.

Another similarity between the early days of the US and today is the partisan bitterness reflected in the media. Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists were supported by John Fenno's Gazette of the United States, while Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans were supported by Philip Freneau's National Gazette. In July 1792, Freneau published a scathing criticism of the Hamiltonian program which may be applicable to the administration of King George today.

How to change a Republic into a Monarchy [emphasis added]:

1. It being necessary in order to effect the change, to get rid of constitutional shackles and popular prejudices, all possible means and occasions are to be used for both these purposes.

2. Nothing being more likely to prepare the vulgar mind for aristocratical ranks and hereditary powers than titles, endeavor in the offset of the government to confer these on its most dignified officers. If the principal magistrate should happen to be particularly venerable in the eyes of the people, take advantage of that fortunate circumstance in setting the example.

3. Should the attempt fail through his republican aversion to it, or from the danger of alarming the people, do not abandon the enterprise altogether, but lay up the proposition in the record. Time may gain it respect, and it will be there always ready, cut and dried, for any favorable conjuncture that may offer

4. In drawing all bills, resolutions, and reports, keep constantly in view that the limitations in the Constitution are ultimately to be explained away. Precedents and phrases may thus be shuffled in, without being adverted to by candid or weak people, of which good use may afterward be made.

5. As the novelty and bustle of inaugurating the government will for some time keep the public mind in a heedless and unsettled state, let the press during this period be busy in propagating the doctrines of monarchy and aristocracy. For this purpose it will be particularly useful to confound a mobbish democracy with a representative republic, that by exhibiting all the turbulent examples and enormities of the former, an odium may be thrown on the character of the latter. Review all the civil contests, convulsions, factions, broils, squabbles, bickering, black eyes, and bloody noses of ancient, middle, and modern ages; caricatureize them into the most frightful forms and colors that can be imagined, and unfold one scene of horrible tragedy after another till the people be made, if possible, to tremble at their own shadows. Let the discourses on Davila then contrast with these pictures of terror the quiet hereditary succession, the reverence claimed by birth and nobility, and the fascinating influence of stars, and ribands, and garters, cautiously suppressing all the bloody tragedies and unceasing oppressions which form the history of this species of government. No pains should be spared in this part of the undertaking, for the greatest will be wanted, it being extremely difficult, especially when a people have been taught to reason and feel their rights, to convince them that a king, who is always an enemy to the people, and a nobility, who are perhaps still more so, will take better care of the people than the people will take care of themselves.

6. But the grand nostrum will be a public debt, provided enough of it can be got and it be medicated with the proper ingredients. If by good fortune a debt be ready at hand, the most is to be made of it. Stretch it and swell it to the utmost the items will bear. Allow as many extra claims as decency will permit. Assume all the debts of your neighbors — in a word, get as much debt as can be raked and scraped together, and when you have got all you can, “advertise” for more, and have the debt made as big as possible. This object being accomplished, the next will be to make it as perpetual as possible. The more effectively to bring this about, modify the debt, complicate it, divide it, subdivide it, subtract it, postpone it, let there be one-third of two-thirds, and two-thirds of one-third, and two-thirds of two-thirds; let there be three percents, and four percents, and six percents, and present six percents, and future six percents. To be brief, let the whole be such a mystery that a few only can understand it; and let all possible opportunities and informations fall in the way of these few to cinch their advantages over the many.

7. It must not be forgotten that the members of the legislative body are to have a deep stake in the game. This is an essential point, and happily is attended with no difficulty. A sufficient number, properly disposed, can alternately legislate and speculate, and speculate and legislate, and buy and sell, and sell and buy, until a due portion of the property of their constituents has passed into their hands to give them an interest against their constituents, and to ensure the part they are to act. All this, however, must be carried on under the cover of the closest secrecy; and it is particularly lucky that dealings in paper admit of more secrecy than any other. Should a discovery take place, the whole plan may be blown up.

8. The ways in which a great debt, so constituted and applied, will contribute to the ultimate end in view are both numerous and obvious. (1) The favorite few, thus possessed of it, whether within and without the government, will feel the staunchest fealty to it, and will go through thick and thin to support it in all its oppressions and usurpations. (2) Their money will give them consequence and influence, even among those who have been tricked out of it. (3) They will be the readiest materials that can be found for a hereditary aristocratic order, whenever matters are ripe for one. (4) A great debt will require great taxes; great taxes, many tax-gatherers and other officers; and all officers are auxiliaries of power. (5) Heavy taxes may produce discontents; these may threaten resistance; and in proportion to this danger will be the pretense for a standing army to repel it. (6) A standing army, in its turn, will increase the moral force of the government by means of its appointments, and give it physical force by means of the sword, thus doubly forwarding the main object.

9. The management of the great funded debt and an extensive system of taxes will afford a plea, not to be neglected, for establishment of a great incorporated bank. The use of such a machine is well understood. If the Constitution, according to its fair meaning, should not authorize it, so much the better. Push it through by a forced meaning and you will get in the bargain an admirable precedent for future misconstructions.

In fashioning the bank, remember that it is to be made particularly instrumental in enriching and aggrandizing the elect few, who are to be called in due season to the honors and felicities of the kingdom preparing for them, and who are the pillars that must support it. It will be easy to throw the benefit entirely into their hands, and to make it a solid addition of 50, or 60, or 70 percent of their former capitals of 800 percent, or 900 percent, without costing them a shilling; while it will be difficult to explain to the people that this gain of the few is at the cost of the many, that the contrary may be boldly and safely pretended. The bank will be pregnant with other important advantages. It will admit the same men to be, at the same time, members of the bank and members of the government. The two institutions will thus be soldered together, and each made stronger. Money will be put under the direction of the government, and government under the direction of money. To crown the whole, the bank will have a proper interest in swelling and perpetuating the public debt and public taxes, with all the blessings of both, because its agency and its profits will be extended in exact proportion.

10. “Divide and conquer” is a maxim consecrated by the experience of ages, and should be familiar in its use to every politician as the knife he carries in his pocket. In the work here to be executed, the best effects may be produced by this maxim, and with peculiar facility. An extensive republic made up of lesser republics necessarily contains various sorts of people, distinguished by local and other interests and prejudices. Let the whole group be well examined in all its parts and relations, geographical and political, metaphysical and metaphorical; let there be first a northern and an southern section, by a line running east and west, and then an eastern and western section, by a line running north and south. By a suitable nomenclature, the landholders cultivating different articles can be discriminated from one another, all from the class of merchants, and both from that of manufacturers.

One of the subordinate republics may be represented as a commercial state, another as a navigation state, another as a manufacturing state, others as agriculture states; and although the great body of people in each be really agricultural, and the other characters be more or less common to all, still it will be politic to take advantage of such an arrangement. Should the members of the great republic be of different sizes, and subject to little jealousies on that account, another important division will be ready formed to your hand. Add again the division that may be carved out of personal interests, political opinions, and local parties. With so convenient an assortment of votes, especially with the help of the marked ones, a majority may be packed for any question with as much ease as the odd trick by an adroit gamester, and any measure whatever carried or defeated, as the great revolution to be brought about may require.

It is only necessary, therefore, to recommend that full use be made of the resource; and to remark that, besides the direct benefit to be drawn from these artificial divisions, they will tend to smother the true and natural one, existing in all societies, between the few who are always impatient of political equality and the many who can never rise above it; between those saddled with the burdens of the hereditary government to be introduced — in one word, between the general mass of the people, attached to their republican government and republican interests, and the chosen band devoted to monarchy and Mammon. It is of infinite importance that this distinction should be kept out of sight. The success of the project absolutely requires it.

11. As soon as sufficient progress in the intended change shall have been made, and the public mind duly prepared according to the rules already laid down, it will be proper to venture on another and bolder step toward a removal of the constitutional landmarks. the power is equally applicable, such as religion, etc. By Here the aid of the former encroachments and all the other precedents and way-paving maneuvers will be called in of course. But, in order to render the success more certain, it will be of special moment to give the most plausible and popular name that can be found to the power that is to be usurped. It may be called, for example, a power for the common safety or the public good, or “the general welfare.” If the people should not be too much enlightened, the name will have a most imposing effect. It will escape attention that it means, in fact, the same thing with a power to do anything the government pleases “in all cases whatsoever.” To oppose the power may consequently seem to the ignorant, and be called by artful, opposing the “general welfare,” and may be cried down under that deception.

As the people, however, may not run so readily into the snare as might be wished, it will be prudent to bait it well with some specious popular interest, such as the encouragement of manufactures, or even of agriculture, taking due care not even to mention any unpopular object to which this contrivance, particular classes of people may possibly be taken in who will be a valuable reinforcement.

With respect to the patronage of agriculture there is not indeed much to be expected from it. It will be too quickly seen through by the owners and tillers of the soil, that to tax them with one hand and pay back a part only with the other is a losing game on their side. From the power over manufactures more is to be hoped. It will not be so easily perceived that the premium bestowed may not be equal to the circuitous tax on consumption which pays it. There are particular reasons, too, for pushing the experiment on this class of citizens. (1) As they live in towns and can act together, it is of vast consequence to gain them over to the interest of monarchy. (2) If the power over them be once established, the government can grant favors or monopolies, as it pleases; can raise or depress this or that place, as it pleases; in a word, by creating a dependence in so numerous and important a class of citizens, it will increase its own independence of every class and be more free to pursue the grand object in contemplation. (3) The expense of this operation will not in the end cost the government a shilling, for the moment any branch of manufacture has been brought to a state of tolerable maturity the exciseman will be ready with his constable and his search warrant to demand a reimbursement, and as much more as can be squeezed out of the article. All this, it is to be remembered, supposes that the manufacturers will be weak enough to be cheated, in some respects, out of their own interests, and wicked enough, in others, to betray those of their fellow citizens; a supposition that, if known, would totally mar the experiment. Great care, therefore, must be taken to prevent it from leaking out.

12. The expediency of seizing every occasion of external danger for augmenting and perpetuating the standing military force is too obvious to escape. So important is this matter that for any loss of disaster whatever attending the national arms, there will be ample consolation and compensation in the opportunity for enlarging the establishment. A military defeat will become a political victory, and the loss of a little vulgar blood contributes to ennoble that which flows in the veins of our future dukes and marquesses.

13. The same prudence will improve the opportunity afforded by an increase of military expenditures for perpetuating the taxes required for them. If the inconsistency and absurdity of establishing a perpetual tax for a temporary service should produce any difficulty in the business, Rule 10 must be resorted to. Throw in as many extraneous motives as will make up a majority, and the thing is effected in an instant. What was before evil would become good as easily as black could be made white by the same magical operation.

14. Throughout this great undertaking it will be wise to have some particular model constantly in view. The work can then be carried on more systematically, and every measure be fortified, in the progress, by apt illustrations and authorities. Should there exist a particular monarchy against which there are fewer prejudices than against any other, should it contain a mixture of the representative principle so as to present on one side the semblance of a republican aspect, should it, moreover, have a great, funded, complicated, irredeemable debt, with all the apparatus and appurtenances of excises, banks, etc., upon that a steady eye is to be kept. In all cases it will assist, and in most its statute books will furnish a precise pattern by which there may be cut out any moneyed or monarchical project that may be wanted.

15. As it is not to be expected that the change of a republic into a monarchy, with the rapidity desired can be carried through without occasional suspicions and alarms, it will be necessary to be prepared for such events. The best general rule on the subject is to be taken from the example of crying “Stop thief” first — neither lungs nor pens must be spared in charging every man who whispers, or even thinks, that the revolution on foot is meditated, with being himself an enemy to the established government and meaning to overthrow it. Let the charge be reiterated and reverberated till at last such confusion and uncertainty be produced that the people, being not able to find out where the truth lies, withdraw their attention from the contest.

Many other rules of great wisdom and efficacy might be added; but it is conceived that the above will be abundantly enough for the purpose. This will certainly be the case if the people can be either kept asleep so as not to discover, or be thrown into artificial divisions so as not to resist, what is silently going forward.

Tags: US history; politics; conservative; propaganda;judiciary

Sphere: Related Content

Injustice Sunday: A Fundamental(ist) Guide to "Religious Persecution"

Next Sunday (24 April), James Dobson's Focus on Family & Family Research Council will launch an all-out assault on the country in the name of protecting Christianity from dissention. They will, reportedly, be joined by Religious Majority Dictator Bill Frist in a simulcast broadcast on the Christian Television Network.

During the simulcast, Dobson & Perkins will elucidate how Senate Democrats are discriminating against President Bush's judicial nominees solely because those nominees are known or suspected Christians, not due to concerns about the extreme political views of these nominees as they claim (and we all know, discrimination based on religion is always wrong when it comes to hiring practices). Any action to prevent approval of the President's nominees is iron-clad proof that the secularist-run (non-Orthodox Jews, liberal christians and members of other marginal/heathen "religions" are really secularists) Democratic party is in the midst of an all-out war on people of faith & religion, Christianity in particular.

It cannot be underestimated how dangerous it is for Christians (and Christianity itself) to be in the majority in a coutry when the government does not support Christianity as the state religion. As such, there are people in this country who steadfastly refuse to accept all tenets of Christianity as literally described in Scripture (that would be the Christian Old Testament except where superceded by the New Testament; the Qu'ran is false because it is text adhered to by Islam in an attempt to usurp the authority of the New Testament)and/or morality in accordance to the official Republican Platform.

The purpose of next Sunday's event, according to Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, is to [emphasis added]:

"pound the United States Senate with phone calls and faxes, telling them to stop filibustering people of faith and vote up or down on the president’s judicial nominees. We have got to get the Christians of this country -- people of faith -- to understand that this is an issue; this is a battle they cannot miss.”

The threat of Democrats to filibuster or otherwise prevent the approval of these judges presents a clear and present danger to the Republican party's ability to seat judges that will ensure all US law is reviewed in context with the religious beliefs of our founding fathers and the Christian heritage on which this country was built.

Former U.S. Representative Bill Dannemeyer (R-CA) emphatically states the biggest problem facing our nation is the inabilibity of the current leadership of this nation, led by Congress, has to make a basic decision to acknowledge that G-d does, in fact, exist. Until this happens, the ability of the Christian majority to use G-d's existence to justify legislation based on their intrepretation of His rules. Perkins concurs, indicating that representative government is threatened when the courts refuse embrace/accommodate Christian values while intepretting the law, in failing to do so, they are acting in a hostile manner toward Christians and attacking the religious beliefs on which this country was founded.

Once these nominees and others of their ilk are seated, the Republican Party can set things right. Interpretation of the First Amendment will be re-clarified as being neutral towards denomination, not religion. This will protect the most devout of the majority religion (the people of faith) from those who would fight scripture based legislation and allow the US to officially be declared a Fundamentalist/Orthodox Christian nation (provided one particular denomination of Christianity is not favored over all others). Additionally, this will continue to protect "people of faith" not only from the current onslaught by Atheists, Jews, Liberal "christians", Muslims, Secularists and heathens, but from future generations who may take the occasional dip in the liberal pool.

Now before you panic, in making the US a Christian country, the Republican Party will not be mandating specifics of religious practice and belief. Religious based legislation and social policy will be limited to the realm of sexual immorality, education and government supported expression to aid in the observance of Christmas and Easter. Government regulation of business practices (including the business of medicine and financial institutions), the penal system and social programs (i.e., social security & welfare); this is a Capitalist Country after all.



Tags: religion; politics; conservative; propaganda

Sphere: Related Content

G-d - America's favorite mascot

According to PA HB 1012, which becomes effective May 15th:

In 1956, the United States Congress adopted the motto "In God We Trust" as the national motto. It is currently codified at 36 U.S.C. § 302 (relating to national motto). On July 24, 2000, the United States House of Representatives, along with the concurrence of the Senate, unanimously resolved to encourage the display of the national motto of the United States in public buildings throughout the nation.

The Federal 5th, 9th and 10th Circuit Courts have ruled that displaying the national motto passes constitutional muster so long as the purpose of the display is to advance or endorse the national motto rather than a particular religious belief or practice.

Apparently, awareness of this motto helps provide public school students "A proper understanding of United States history and government." As such:

The board of directors of every public elementary and secondary school in this Commonwealth may permit administrators and teachers in each public school to prominently display the motto "In God We Trust," which is declared in 36 U.S.C. § 302 (relating to national motto) to be the national motto of the United States, in each classroom, school cafeteria and school auditorium.

How better to further instill the message that G-d is nothing more than a cheap, meaningless motto to be bandied about to make a statement that in the 20th century, the US went out of it's way to make an ineffective claim of faith and in the 21st century we used this as historical justification to make sure schoolchildren are aware we consider ourselves morally superior for using G-d in our slogan.


Tags: religion; politics; conservative; propaganda

Sphere: Related Content

Rudolph the Yellow-Bellied Hypocrite

Eric Rudolph, the domestic terrorist who was so proud to act on his "moral" convictions that he spent 5 years in hiding to avoid facing the consequences of those actions, has managed to avoid putting his proverbial money where is mouth is yet again. According to Rudolph:

"Abortion is murder. And when the regime in Washington legalized, sanctioned and legitimized this practice, they forfeited their legitimacy and moral authority to govern."

If I understand his statement, he's saying abortion is wrong because it is murder, and murder is most definitely wrong. Rudolph himself murdered a 35-year old off-duty police officer and injured many others in bombings of 2 clinics that perform abortions. In the minds of the "all life is sacred except when it comes to those they consider immoral" set, anyone who works at or patronizes such a clinic is a murderer who deserves the death penalty. The death penalty and other forms of corporal punishment( including maiming) is a sentence that can be handed down by those who have the moral authority to do so (this authority is legitimately limited to "Pro-Life" supporters).

According to Rudolph, homosexuality doesn't pose a threat when it's kept private, but being gay in public is an attempt to "force society to accept and recognize this behavior" that should be met with "force if necessary". Based on this and his own superb moral authority, Rudolph felt justified in injuring 5 women who compounded the heinous sin of homosexuality by going to a lesbian nightclub.

Rudolph also set off a the infamous pipe bomb during the 1996 Summer Olympics that directly caused the death of a 44-year old woman (in other words, he murdered her) and injuries to over 100 others. Rudolph is fully aware that Centennial Olympic Park was neither an abortion provider nor a gay bar; he master-minded this attack to shame the US for legalizing abortion.

Eric Rudolph is a murderer. Eric Rudolph thinks murder is wrong. Eric Rudolph thinks murderers deserve the death penalty. Eric Rudolph has strong moral convictions and is willing to endanger others and murder in support of them. Eric Rudolph cut a deal to avoid facing the death penalty for committing murder. Eric Rudolph is a flaccid excuse for a human being who doesn't have the balls to stand by his supposed convictions.



Tags: Abortion; Pro-Choice; pro-life; reproductive rights;homosexuality;hypocrisy

Sphere: Related Content

A full (Sun Myung) Moon in Washington

Jesse Taylor of Pandagon has posted an alert to the must read three-part series the Moonies (d.b.a. The Washington Times) is doing "on why the ACLU is home to atheist Nazi-sympathizers, communists, and, uh, suffragettes."

Part One details the "secular assault on religion" lead by a "network of organizations that shares logistics, troops, board members and funding sources and includes radical feminists, humanists, atheists and liberal Jewish and Christian groups." The latter of which are, obviously, as anti-religion as you can get (you know, the types that preach "tolerance" which is a code word for the homosexual agenda). The lead organization is the G-d-hatin' ACLU founded by Roger Baldwin who was Unitarian, a denomination that sounds like some covert Jew group since they believe "in God but not in the divinity of Christ." The story goes on to explain how these unpatriotic freaks lobby to remove innocuous references to religion like creches at city hall & Christmas carols in public schools because, as we all know, they aren't a state endorsement of religion, they just make sure everyone knows that Jesus is our saviour born of a virgin (non-Christians are more than welcome to remain in denial if they insist).

Part deux will, no-doubt, be an expose on how the succubi at elitist main line colleges (is that redundant?) drain innocent ditto-heads of all moral values (probably during all those "Take Back the Night" vigils).


Tags: religion; politics;conservative; ACLU

Sphere: Related Content

Thank heavens she can hire a good nanny to raise the child

Despite her recent diatribe against "false tabloids" for telling lies (not to be confused with real tabloids telling the truth) it appears as though Britney Spears really is pregnant. I have to admit, I'm suprised she's actually the one who's carrying the child considering she seems to find it really hard work to tell the maid or the pool boy to do things.


Tags:britney

Sphere: Related Content

Respectfully Religious

This morning, Faithful Progessive posted an open letter to liberal bloggers regarding his concern about the negative impact of "liberal anti-religious bias" on the religious progressive community. In his commentary, he rightfully notes that faithful progressives (& many moderates) are among the staunchest defenders of civil rights, peace and justice, that they support these things because of their religious beliefs, and that they have no interest in leveraging their support as a way to impose their particular religious beliefs on those who do not share them.

Many of my own views have been attacked as "SSSSSSSEC-u-lar-ist" by the religious right and their conservative bretheren because I have nothing but disdain for those who do seek to impose Christianity [in accordance with their particular understanding] on the rest of the country. The knee-jerk reaction those who are not religious have to the mention of religion/religious devotion have is primarily due to a conditioned response to almost any discussion in which Christian religious doctrine is even remotely mentioned. Additionally, many of us who are perceived as secular because we don't appear overtly devout or observant are on the receiving end of snide remarks about being secular (not that there's anything wrong with that), not being appropriately religious and/or not have an accurate understanding of our religion. To make matters worse, those of us who are not Christian have had to endure some less than appropriate comments from not only the conservative media, but neighbors, co-workers & even friends as they carp about "those people" who make a big deal about something as "innocent" as a creche, Christmas Carols or Easter Pageants in the public schools. We, supposedly, are "religiophobes" who are trying to remove all vestige of Christianity from the public arena.

Despite my response, in which I place the onus of changing the perception non-Christian left has when religion is referenced (even indirectly) on the religious left, I fully appreciate how disheartening it can be to have someone be so openly disrespectful by referring to any religious belief or association with religion as stupid, backward, or worse. I'm equally horrified to read posts that are derisive to any/all religious belief in progressive forums as I am to read words expected from the religious right in progressive forums. We also hear that many of those who are progressive/moderate and religious voted in a manner diametrically opposed to the majority of their stated views solely due to their stated scripturally based disgust at the possibility that gay folks might get the right to marry. Needless to say, many on the liberal left have been exposed to many who are progressive except on social issues in which their religious views dictate they start quoting scripture in protest; these actions start to make many on the religious left sound more like Scalia, who always seems to have some threat behind any reference to religion or morality.

Of course, I know better. I'm fully aware of the wonderful progressive Christians who are at the forefront of making this country a better place. Anyone working on the misconception all of who are among the Christian faithful are hypocritical, humorless bastards out to impose their religion on the rest of us need to check out the following folks:

Brandon

Dignan

Faithful Progressive

Father Jake

Tim Simpson

the folks at Faith Forward & Progressive Pilgrim (who were very nice about my confusion about Borg Christians and religious Trekkies).



Tags: religion; politics; progressive

Sphere: Related Content

Funding of "Crisis Pregnancy Centers"

After spending too many hours reviewing data listings that left me thinking that 24 was pretty old to have a baby (way too many of the mom's whose data I reviewed were 13-19, and it was at least the second pregnancy for quite a few of them) & getting lost taking a new "short-cut" that added 30 minutes to my commute home, I came across this on the Bush v Choice blog.

According to the linked article , anti-choice "crisis pregnancy centers" in Minnesota stand to gain approximately $2.5 M in state funding to continue their work. It goes on to say that there are about 100 centers of this type across Minnesota providing a range of services that (according to supporters) include maternity clothes, infant formula and even rent money. The quality of services & accuracy of information provided vary between all the centers, as does the level of evangelizing in pregnancy counseling. According to Anne Halverson, a woman who was an unwitting patient at one fo these centers when she was 19:

"I believed that they would be honest and supportive of my situation," said Halverson, who has a 1-year-old son. Instead, a counselor "asked me why on Earth I wouldn't have this baby, as if keeping the baby was a consequence for my 'irresponsible' behavior. She made it seem that having this baby was the only way for me to rectify a bad situation."

Just out of curiosity, I checked out the web-site for the Total Life Care center referenced in the article and even did an online yellow page search for pregnancy to see how the center advertises. I have no idea how accurate the medical information the centers provide is or the degree of "pro-life" religious propaganda they throw at patients, but it appears as though anyone who checks them out prior to a visit should be completely aware of the type of center they are and the types of services they would (or would not) provide. Whether other abortion alternative providers are as open about their philosophy is another question altogether.

In order to receive government funding, a facility that provides abortion services must supply full options counseling that includes services the center itself does not provide (and, generally, referrals to those who do provide those services). It does not appear as though abortion-alternative centers are or will be held to the same standard.

Now, I have no problem with abortion-alternative clinics receiving an equal share of government funding provided:

1. they do not engage in the old bait & switch in order to harass/intentionally mislead patients that are unaware of their abortion is evil philosophy
   
2. they are required to limit any discussion of abortion to stating it is a procedure they do not perform or provide referrals for
   
3. they are required to provide medically accurate information (not biased propaganda)
4. they are held accountable to the same degree as any other clinic the provides healthcare and/or counseling services
   

If these centers are so proud of the moral high ground on which they stake a claim, they should be proud to be open an honest about their mission and philosophy. They should also be comfortable with beliefs that they do not resort to chastising/intimidating or harassing patients whose actions/decisions they do not support.



Tags: Abortion; Pro-Choice; pro-life; reproductive rights

Sphere: Related Content

Delayed gratification

It looks like Tommy's buddies are s-l-o-w-l-y backing away from him, what gives?

Have the Republicans finally realized their actions on Terri Schiavo overstepped their bounds? Have they finally realized that DeLay's fiery flatulence and threats to the judicial branch may be seen as the attempt to destroy the checks & balances our founding fathers set up to protect us against renegade representatives? Could it be that 43% of Americans think DeLay is an evil-doer?

Bill Frist now officially concurs with President Bush that the justices involved in the Terri Schiavo circus followed the law and acted fairly. Rick Santorum is suddenly rethinking his stance on ethics and his association with Delay as well as his own hypocritical stances (he may change his stance on the death penalty). Could any of this be due to the mid-term elections and Republican fears that what they'd originally thought would guarantee their continued power might actually bite them in the ass? Nah, I'm sure this is all about honor and has nothing to do with politics or polls.



Tags:delay; frist; santorum; politics

Sphere: Related Content

A black eye for the Vatican

The Vatican either doesn't get it or doesn't care. Considering the following, I think it's a bit of both.

Cardinal Bernard Law, the former Archbishop of Boston who resigned in what most would consider disgrace in December 2002, has been chosen to lead one of the nine daily Masses of mourning for the pope at Rome's St. Mary Major Basilica. This is an official, important and highly public role of honor that Law will be playing, and extremely unsettling considering his resignation came about after unsealed court records revealed he had allowed priests guilty of abusing children to move among parish assignments and intentionally not notified the public. Laws actions not only aided and abetted pedophile priests to avoid prosecution, he enabled them to continue to engage in sexual molestation and victimize a slew of additional innocent children without fear of reprisal.

From Jim Connolly's "The Pope Who Revived the Office of the Inquisition
An American Catholic Reflects on Papacy of John Paul II"

18. Last but not least, Karol Wojtila proved his utter moral bankruptcy in his horrendous mishandling of the pedophile scandals in the Catholic Churches of the United States, Canada, Ireland, Britain, and several other nations. Wojtila could never bring himself to a clear apology or an acknowledgement of wrongdoing or institutional responsibility for the Catholic Church's practices of abuse, intimidation, and rape of tens of thousands of children and adolescents. Most reprehensibly, Wojtila removed the independent power of the United States Catholic bishops to discipline pedophile priests while attributing the horror and filth within the American Catholic Church to some sort of American cultural malady.

One would think that if JPII and/or the Vatican truly believed the molestation in US churches was due to an American cultural malady, they would most certainly have removed such a shining example of this malady from any role of power within the church. Instead, while Law had to resign from leading the Archdiocese of Boston, JPII chose to honor him by appointing him archpriest of St. Mary Major Basilica, one of 4 basilicas under direct Vatican jurisdiction. This is, ostensibly, the official Vatican position as to why Law is being permitted such an honor.

The hypocrisy of declaring homosexuality an abomination that must be combatted by denying those who engage in hamosexual relationships the same rights as those who engage in heterosexual ones & the Vatican warning US politicians not to allow legalization of gay marriage (an act that can only occur between consenting adults and that the Catholic church is not required to condone or perform) in contrast with the open support of someone so intimately involved in the continuation of sexual abuse of non-consenting children by priests is morally reprehensible. The Vatican has been named as a defendant/co-conspirator in US lawsuits for the sexual molestation cases and has asked the State Department to intervene on its behalf in the matter. The Vatican wants to have a say in governing the US to ensure we're all (Catholic or not) compliant with Catholic Dogma and yet they still want immunity from prosecution as a Sovereign Nation. American citizens (children no less) were routinely attacked and abused on American soil over decades with what can only be seen as the tacit condonation of the Catholic Church and the Vatican.

The honors bestowed on Cardinal Law by the Vatican should be seen as nothing other than the Vatican thumbing its nose at victims of child molestation and the laws of this country. We've declared war on sovereign nations for less and held other countries civilly liable for crimes committed against our citizens with their approval. The Vatican should be forced to stand trial and defend itself for the actions of its officers. Additionally, the next Pope should apologize to all who were victimized by Catholic Priests and Church Leadership and strip Bernard Law of all ecclesiastical duties.



Tags:vatican; Catholic; Pope John Paul II; child abuse

Sphere: Related Content

Helping those who plan to do harm is A-OK as long as it pays well

Arthur Finkelstein - if you pay attention to US politics you know he's the savvy political consultant that helps bring excessive power to social conservatives who want "less government" (as in decrease support for social programs that help people) except when it comes to religion and sex. On the latter two topics, these politicians insist that the government be the vehicle to save our mortal souls by imposing fundamentalist/ultra-orthodox religious views on our lives via public schools and legistating our love lives/sex lives.

Finkelstein, who is openly gay after being outed in 1996, has worked for many right-wing gay bashers who voted for anti-gay legislation while he supported them:

• Lauch Faircloth (R-NC)
• Jesse Helms (R-NC)
• Don Nickles (R-OK)
• Bob Smith (R-NH)

Arthur Finkelstein who is referred as the "Godfather of dirty politics" by his detractors , and who vilifies Democrats as "liberals" (you know those "liberals" support the rights of gays to marry and would let those sinning homos raise kids don't you?) announced on Friday that he recently married his male partner in a civil ceremony conducted at his home. Finkelstein and his husband have been a couple for about 40 years and live in Ipswich, MA with their 2 adopted children.


I guess the homo-haters have found a legitimate use for gay folks (other than kindling) and that some people are willing to sell out the rights of others for a couple of bucks. Welcome to AmeriKKKa.



Tags:gay marriage; Republican; conservative; hypocrisy

Sphere: Related Content

Beware the blue flame

That bastion of (dis)honor and (un)ethical behavior, Tom DeLay, continues to milk Terri Schiavo and her death for all her political worth. He's been threatening the "activist judges" with impeachment for not bending to the will of Congress and the President when they refused to intervene in the Schiavo case. DeLay has described the inaction of the courts as "Judicial Murder" (not to be confused with court imposed sentences of the death penalty, which DeLay supports) and says it is time for "for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior."

In a videotaped message to attendees at the "Confronting the Judicial War on Faith” conference, DeLay angrily denounced the judicial branch for overstepping its authority by ignoring the "legitimate will of the people." Those attending the conference called on Congress impeach/remove “activist judges” and reduce or eliminate funding for “activist courts” that take objectionable decisions. They have likened any ruling that does not allow for the imposition of their [fundamentalist] religious based laws on the rest of society as a ”well-orchestrated attack on our Judeo-Christian heritage.” These folks are mad as hell and they're not gonna take the First Amendment's "assault on religion" any more!

The intent of the statements of Politicians like DeLay, Rick Santorum, Lamar Smith and their ilk is to incite more fundamentalist fervor in an obvious attempt to turn our participatory republic into a theocratic oligarchy.

In a commentary to this week's Parsha, Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson, likens irresponsible speech to leprosy. Miriam, the sister of Moses, criticizes Moses' wife for being too black. In turn, Miriam is afflicted a disorder that leaves her skin white & flaky.

Midrash Vayikra understands the law of leprosy as an allusion to seven traits the Lord hates: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked thoughts, feet that run eagerly toward evil, a false witness and one who sows discord among people. How many of these violations pertain to an irresponsible use of language!

The likes of DeLay & Santorum make it clear that there is a powerful (and vocal) Cabal that fully intends to impose their religious views on others (regardless of whether their own actions are consistent with their stated religious ideals, ethical or honorable or not). Fiery rhetoric and political flatulence leads to more than just the occasional blue flame, they can lead to combustion as well.


Tags:delay;freedom of religion; hypocrisy

Sphere: Related Content

Did Barbara Weller just perjure herself?

Sometimes I don't understand myself. I was just avoiding the 10 journal articles I really need to read, clicking on links, not paying attention and came across this [emphasis added]:

DECLARATION OF BARBARA J. WELLER
STATE OF FLORIDA )
COUNTY OF PINELLAS )

I, BARBARA WELLER, Attorney for Respondents in the above-styled case, hereby declare under penalty of perjury:

1. I visited with Terri at various times during the day on March 18, 2005, the day her feeding tube was removed.


2. During the morning I was in the room with Terri and various members of her family. Terri was in good spirits that morning. The mood in her room was jovial, particularly around noontime, as we knew Congressional attorneys were on the scene and many were working hard to save Terri's life. For most of that time, I was visiting and talking with Terri along with Terri's sister Suzanne Vitadamo, Suzanne's husband, and Terri's aunt, who was visiting from New York to help provide support for the family. A female Pinellas Park police office was stationed at the door outside Terri's room.


3. Terri was sitting up in her lounge chair, dressed and looking alert and well. Her feeding tube had been plugged in around 11 a.m. and we all felt good that she was still being fed. Suzanne and I were talking, joking, and laughing with Terri, telling her she was going to go to Washington D.C. to testify before Congress, which meant that finally Terri's husband Michael would be required to fix her wheelchair. After that Suzanne could take Terri to the mall shopping and could wheel her outdoors every day to feel the wind and sunshine on her face, something she has not been able to do for more than five years.


4. At one point, I noticed Terri's window blinds were pulled down. I went to the window to raise them so Terri could look at the beautiful garden outside her window and see the sun after several days of rain. As sunlight came into the room, Terri's eyes widened and she was obviously very pleased.


5. Suzanne and I continued to talk and joke with Terri for probably an hour or more. At one point Suzanne called Terri the bionic woman and I heard Terri laugh out loud heartily. She laughed so hard that for the first time I noticed the dimples in her cheeks.


6. The most dramatic event of this visit happened at one point when I was sitting on Terri's bed next to Suzanne. Terri was sitting in her lounge chair and her aunt was standing at the foot of the chair. I stood up and learned over Terri. I took her arms in both of my hands. I said to her, "Terri if you could only say ‘I want to live' this whole thing could be over today." I begged her to try very hard to say, "I want to live." To my enormous shock and surprise, Terri's eyes opened wide, she looked me square in the face, and with a look of great concentration, she said, "Ahhhhhhh." Then, seeming to summon up all the strength she had, she virtually screamed, "Waaaaaaaa." She yelled so loudly that Michael Vitadamo, Suzanne's husband, and the female police officer who were then standing together outside Terri's door, clearly heard her. At that point, Terri had a look of anguish on her face that I had never seen before and she seemed to be struggling hard, but was unable to complete the sentence. She became very frustrated and began to cry. I was horrified that I was obviously causing Terri so much anguish. Suzanne and I began to stroke Terri's face and hair to comfort her. I told Terri I was very sorry. It had not been my intention to upset her so much. Suzanne and I assured Terri that her efforts were much appreciated and that she did not need to try to say anything more. I promised Terri I would tell the world that she had tried to say, "I want to live."


7. Suzanne and I continued to visit and talk with Terri, along with other family members who came and went in the room, until about 2:00 p.m. when we were all told to leave after Judge Greer denied yet another motion for stay and ordered the removal of the feeding tube to proceed. As we left the room, the female police officer outside the door was valiantly attempting to keep from crying.


8. About four in the afternoon, several hours after the feeding tube was removed, I returned to Terri's room. By that time she was alone except for a male police officer now standing inside the door. When I entered the room and began to speak to her, Terri started to cry and tried to speak to me immediately. It was one of the most helpless feelings I have ever had. Terri was looking very melancholy at that point and I had the sense she was very upset that we had told her things were going to get better, but instead, they were obviously getting worse. I had previously had the same feeling when my own daughter was a baby who was hospitalized and was crying and looking to me to rescue her from her hospital crib, something I could not do. While I was in the room with Terri for the next half hour or so, several other friends came to visit and I did a few press interviews sitting right next to Terri. I again raised her window shade, which had again been pulled down, so Terri could at least see the garden and the sunshine from her lounge chair. I also turned the radio on in her room before I left so that when she was alone, she would at least have some music for comfort.


9. Just before I left the room, I leaned over Terri and spoke right into her ear. I told her I was very sorry I had not been able to stop the feeding tube from being taken out and I was very sorry I had to leave her alone. But I reminded her that Jesus would stay right by her side even when no one else was there with her. When I mentioned Jesus' Name, Terri again laughed out loud. She became very agitated and began loudly trying to speak to me again. As Terri continued to laugh and try to speak, I quietly prayed in her ear, kissed her, placed her in Jesus' care, and left the room.

FURTHER YOUR DECLARANT SAYETH NOT.

I hereby declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief. Executed this 22nd day of March, 2005, at Seminole, Florida.

BARBARA J. WELLER
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 25nd day of March, 2005.

Interesting, how the statements from Weller regarding what happenned have changed a little as time has gone by:


From Blogs for Terri, 18 March 2005. Richard's post at 2:36 PM:

Attorney Barbara Weller was with Terri earlier today. She told the media that, during her visit with Terri, she explained to her what was happening. According to Weller, Terri began to cry and could not be quieted. She tried to coach Terri to say "Let me live" but she simply was having too much difficulty.

From Hyscience, 18 March 2005 2:40 PM (same exact verbiage):

Attorney Barbara Weller was with Terri earlier today. She told the media that, during her visit with Terri, she explained to her what was happening. According to Weller, Terri began to cry and could not be quieted. She tried to coach Terri to say "Let me live" but she simply was having too much difficulty.

There's a bit of a difference between the statements issued 18 March and those that have been issued subsequently. The earlier ones don't even mention the Ahhhh Wahhh declaration for some strange reason (and these blogs very much side with the Schindlers, so why wouldn't they contain that critical info?). Some of the other "Pro-life" blogs claim a police officer asked Terri if she wanted to live when serving her with a subpeona and Terri clearly stated "yes." According to the affadavit above, a police officer was also present to hear Terri's attempted "declaration." Why is it that neither of these police officers has come forward to say they witnessed these events and they happenned exactly as described by the Schindler's & their attorney? Additionally, the Schindler's have gone out of their way to show as much video of Terri (including the infamously edited video "proving" that Terri was aware and showed cognitive abilities) as possible, even some video post-withdrawal of feeding tube was aired on TV. . .why is it that these declarations were not caught on video and provided as further evidence of the grand conspiracy of Michael Schiavo, the Florida State Legislature, the Federal courts (District 11 court of appeals) and all staff at the hospice that interacted with Terri? Under the circumstances, it just seems awfully strange that there's absolutely no objective documentation of any of these attempts at statements by Mrs Schiavo.



Tag: terri schiavo

Sphere: Related Content

Classy Ladies

Katie Hale of St. George, UT, can truly claim to be Pro-life. The 50 year old grandmother of 3 donated 1/5 of her liver to 10 month old Alonda Martinez who was in the throes of end-stage hepatic failure. Who wouldn't take that risk to save the life of their grandchild - right? Of course, but this wasn't her grandchild - Alonda was a complete stranger. Hale had been on the donor list for two years after reading how the liver can regenerate itself and now she's given the greatest gift one person can give to another. G-d bless Katie Hale for her selflessness. G-d bless the Martinez family and best wishes for a speedy recovery and long, healthy life for little Alondra.

You've probably heard that Janeal Lee, who won Ms. Wheelchair Wisconsin, was stripped of her title for not being disabled enough. As is the norm for pageants, when the winner can not fulfill her duties (or is not allowed to do so), the first runner up is crowned in her stead. Today it was announced that the first runner up, Michelle Kearney, refused to accept the crown in protest. The crown will, instead, go to second runner up Kim Jerman who plans to represent Wisconsin in the national pageant next July in NY.




Tags: disability;organ donation; honor; pro-life

Sphere: Related Content

Funny Pope stories

I have to admit I'm no fan of the late Pontiff, but I'm Jewish so I didn't have to agree with him, his interpretation of scripture or his policies. The vast majority of my friends are Catholic and they don't seem overly preoccupied or concerned about the Pope's death so it came as a surprise when I received an email from a colleague at work referencing him and his death. In all fairness, the colleague is Polish (as in born, raised and still living in Poland) and, as the Pope was also from Poland (which is a great source of pride for the country) it's understandable that Catholics there have taken his death quite poorly. Any way, as he and his friends are having "a very sad time with our Pope's death", he took it upon himself to look up some information about the Pope to disseminate that would make them smile as they reflected on his life:

Back when he was still Cardinal Wojtyla was fond of telling people that "in Poland 50% of cardinals love to ski. Only Cardinal Wyszynski doesn't ski at all"

When the Pope met father Leon from Tyniec who was very skinny, he said: "this is the definition of a monk: bones wrapped in a black tunic."

Over the past few years, there has been much media scrutiny about the Pope's health. Once a journalist asked the Pope how his health was. The Pope replied: "I don't know. Did not have a time to read the morning papers, yet"

In '94 during Synod of Bishops, the Pope could hardly walk to his chair. When he got there he whispered: "Eppur si mouve" ("nonetheless it's moving..." ) - this was the sentence spoken by Galileo, in reference to the Earth, when the holy inquisition made him withdraw his scientific findings on astronomy.


Tags:Pope; Religion; Catholic; humor

Sphere: Related Content

I wasn't plan to write any more about Terri Schiavo, but

I'm actually taking a little break for lunch and came across this from Ampersand [emphasis added]:

From Harriet McBryde Johnson’s Slate article

There is a genuine dispute as to what Ms. Schiavo believed and expressed about life with severe disability before she herself became incapacitated; certainly, she never stated her preferences in an advance directive like a living will. If we assume that Ms. Schiavo is aware and conscious, it is possible that, like most people who live with severe disability for as long as she has, she has abandoned her preconceived fears of the life she is now living. We have no idea whether she wishes to be bound by things she might have said when she was living a very different life. If we assume she is unaware and unconscious, we can’t justify her death as her preference. She has no preference.

I think Johnson has a good point regarding changing preferences. However, if we accept that point, then why does it make a difference whether or not someone leaves a living will? If someone who is not yet disabled lacks the information needed to make an informed choice about life while disabled - and it seems to me that is probably true - then they don’t magically become more informed if they leave their wishes in the form of a living will, rather than in the form of talking to their spouses and loved ones.

I, too, agree that people tend to have some preconceived notions about how devastated a new disability will be for them in the long run, and how well they would (or would not) be able to adapt to their new state and lead what they consider a worthwhile life. Many people assume their lives are "over" when they, for example, become a quadraplegic or paraplegic. People in those situations eventually do come to accept their new situation and lead full and productive lives.

When I was in grad school, I took a counseling course (just in case I changed my mind and went into genetic counseling) in which my Professor arranged to have to people who'd been through lifechanging events speak with us. One such person was a man who'd had a significant C-spine injury after taking a drunken header into the shallow end of a pool. He told us about the stages of anger and frustration he went through, including a preference he'd died, and then how he finally progressed to making the best out of his situation and how he was now leading a fulfilling life. [When asked if he could find anything positive about being confined in his current condition, he replied "I get great parking"]

Based on stories like this, I'm sure that most people in a situation that involves loss of a sense or ability to ambulate and/or loss of a limb do eventually adapt and lead the productive and fulfilling lives they'd previously thought impossible. This being said, there's a huge difference between losing the ability to do certain things through disability while still being a functional human being with the ability to interact with others and the situation Terri Schiavo was in. This is one of the reasons I was so suprised to read the extreme reactions from many in the in disabled (?handicapable?) community had to those who support removal of life support in the situation of PSV.

For the sake of argument, let's work on the assumption that Terri Schiavo, while unable to communicate & having no functional control of her body (other than autonomic responses), was actually aware of her condition and situation. Yes, her family surrounded her and told her they loved her, but she was incapable of communicating or interacting with them. She had no functional capabilities whatsoever. Isn't it possible that she spent a large period of time terrified (if she'd been aware, I'd expect she'd have been extremely hyperdynamic from a medical standpoint)? Isn't it also possible that she mentally pleaded for death on a constant basis? She did not interact to them and yet they believed they were interacting with her (they acted towards her, received comfort in these activities, but did not interact with her as she was incapable of communicating with them).

I don't know about you, but the thought of being in that situation absolutely terrifes me. When people ask me if I would fear death if there's no G-d, Heaven, Hell or reincarnation, I usually reply that what terrifies me most would be being dead, lying in my grave and yet having a "soul" that was aware but incapable of interacting with others or physically doing anything. Losing certain limited physical capabilities or even losing some level of cognition that negatively impacted my mental abilities (while allowing me to interact with others, not just allow others to think they're interacting with me) are handicaps that could be adapted to and/or overcome; losing all but being aware is surely nothing other than madness inducing and not exactly a combination of factors one could logically expect a human being to adapt to and learn to appreciate. This "disability" goes well beyond the isolation of solitary confinement (which is considered punitive). The Schindlers stated (in their depositions) that Terri's wishes and/or suffering had no impact on their quest to prevent removal of life support. They were willing to keep her body alive in its condition even if she were in excrutiating pain and/or emotionally tormented because her life had meaning to them. In essence, they made it her duty to remain alive under those conditions to bring them joy. If Terri was aware, in horrific emotional pain and (silently) pleading for her family to let her go so her body could complete the dying process and her soul could do whatever they do when one dies (as a Catholic, presumably she believed she'd go to Heaven), wasn't force-feeding her an act of cruelty?



Tags: terri schiavo; disability; medical futility

Sphere: Related Content

You've got a friend in Pennsylvania

In a bit of good news from the Family Law front, it appears as though common sense has actually prevailed in a child custody/visitation dispute. Considering the stories I hear from my mother (a legal assistant in an office that handles a lot of divorce/custody/visitation/child support cases), my friends and co-workers, I'd begun to think common sense was never applied in family court.

A couple in a long-term relationship were raising a daughter together. The little girl was the biological child of LRM (the child has no relationship with the biological father). For the 3 years they were together, LRM's partner TB took on full parenting responsibilities playing an integral part in daily child-rearing activities. The couple split in 1996 after which LRM refused to allow TB to visit their daughter. LRM proceeded to spend years doing everything possible to alienate TB from her daughter and then used the alienation as crux of her case against allowing any visitation. Lower courts actually ruled that LRM's success in creating the alienation was a legitimate reason to refuse TB the right to visitation. The case recently made it to a 3 judge panel on PA Superior Court which, last month, rescinded the lower court ruling and immediately granted (guided) visitation between TB and the child.

The most amazing part of the ruling? Both TB and LRM are women and the statements of the Superior Court make it clear that a family is a family regardless of the sexual orientation of the parents.

"Imagine a scenario where the same premise is applied to spouses," wrote Judge Michael T. Joyce in the court's uplifting ruling. "It is inconceivable that an embittered spouse who successfully estranges the children from the other spouse, to the point where the other spouse is unknown to the children, should be rewarded by a determination that it shall be in the best interest of the children not to have any relationship at all with the alienated spouse because of the custodial spouse's feelings," Judge Joyce continued. "The preposterousness of this scenario is equally applicable to the case at bar, despite [the non-biological lesbian mother's] non-traditional status."

Full story at Alternet.


Tags: gay parenting;gay rights; Civil Rights

Sphere: Related Content

Dear Kansas State Legislature:

Jessica from the Bush v Choice blog directed me to an article in the Wichita Eagle that indicated, as part of your plan to support Phil Kline in his zeal to investigate and file criminal charges in any case of child sexual assault, you have sent a piece of legislation to the desk of Gov. Kathleen Sebelius. According to this article, the new law would require clinics to preserve a sample from an aborted embryo/fetus to allow for DNA testing that would ostensibly assist in the prosecution of those who commit statutory rape of a female under the age of 14. I have to admit I find this to be a very interesting way to catch those who sexually abuse minors, but have a couple of logistical questions about the use of the samples in helping you make an arrest and your plans for prosecution:

1. As child sexual abuse is a particularily heinous crime, I was wondering if you plan to ensure that police aggressively investigate these crimes, including asking all males with known contact with the mother to provide samples for comparison and/or obtain warrants to collect a DNA sample from a suspected rapist?
2. How will the crime be adjudicated if the father is the same age as the girl (or younger), will she (also) be prosecuted for the crime of having sex with someone under the age of 14?
3. What are your abilities to prosecute if the sex act did not take place in the state of Kansas?
4. Do you currently take DNA samples from children born to females who were under the age of 14 at the time of conception?

According to state Attorney General, Phil Kline, his investigation into abortion clinics is not a "fishing expedition" related to his personal opinion that abortion should be banned, it is a legitimate inquiry necessary to identify and punish healthcare providers who do not comply with state child abuse reporting requirements and capture sexual predators who commit crimes against underaged females. I don't think you'll find any moral and law-abiding citien who thinks that those who commit crimes against children should not be captured and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I think you'll also find that most of us expect that healthcare providers to be compliant with reporting requirements in known or legitimately suspected cases of domestic/sexual abuse. To this effect, I have a few more questions I'd like to ask:

1. Does the state of Kansas currently conduct investigations of sexual abuse every time the state is notified that a female who is under the age of 14 (or was under the age 14 at the time of conception) gives birth or has a miscarriage? Do you prosecute all offenders in these cases?
2. Does the state of Kansas currently prosecute all healthcare providers involved in pre-natal treatment of a girl under the age of 14 (or who was under the age of 14 at the time she was impregnanted) for failure to report sexual abuse if there is no documented evidence they reported the case to the authorities (or verified it had previously been reported)?

It seems quite unfair and a bit sexist to only investigate crimes of sexual abuse against females, are there plans for another law to require that a sample from all babies born and aborted embryos/fetus' be saved to be matched to a biological father to ensure he is not a victim of statutory rape?

I look forward to your reply.

Regards,

Ol Cranky



Tags: Reproductive rights;teen pregnancy; abortion; child abuse;kansas;legislation

Sphere: Related Content

I'm sorry, who is it telling girls that having a baby will ruin their life?

DHHS has a web-site that is supposed to help parents be good parents. Perhaps you've heard about it, it's been in the news - wedged between bits on Terri Schiavo & the Pope. . .OK, maybe you haven't heard about it. Like every aspect of government affected by King George, it's quite biased towards life choices acceptable to religious fundamentalists without regard for those who may have differing views on life. For example, in the section about waiting [to have sex], the site advises:

"Your teen son or daughter needs to know why you don't want them to have sex now."

So far so good, you should explain your concerns why they shouldn't become (or remain) sexually active so that they understand that they too should share these concerns. Then it goes on to say:

"Tell them why waiting for sex until they are married is the healthiest choice."

They got me on this one. As I've said before, we do need to get the message across to adolescents that there's something to be said for life experiences (outside of sex) that will enhance their understanding of the world as this will greatly affect their decisions, and that it's in their best interests to wait until they have more life experience and are able to take care of themselves before facing the potential consequences of sexual intimacy. This being said, I don't agree that waiting until marriage is necessarily the healthiest choice at all, let alone a realistic one. Of course, they have an answer for those who never marry:

“Delaying sex is a healthy choice for all teens. Even if teens never marry, the values created through abstinence such as respect, responsibility and self-control will benefit their future relationships.”

That's it. No more info on discussion how to address the abstinence in case of no marriage/delayed marriage issue.

So, what does the government say you should do if your child already is sexually active? Take them to a healthcare professional for pregnancy/STI screening and tell them it's not to late to stop. [they also encourage parents to "give your teen the support, information and skills to be successful", but no advice on how to provide them with that information]

“Teen girls get infected with STDs more easily than adults. That seems strange since teens are usually in better health than adults. One reason they may be more easily infected is that they are still maturing and have less developed linings in their reproductive tract. Infections can enter and grow more easily. These infections can lead to scarring that may result in life-long problems.”

This is a very simple-minded conclusion coming from government scientists. Maybe, one of the reasons teens get infected with more STDs is because they are not using any protection when engaging in sexual activity. This is not surprising given the mixed message the web-site provides regarding use of condoms. They state (accurately) that condoms are not 100% effective, especially if used incorrectly or if they slip/break; they do not reference that correct and consistent use, especially in conjunction with a spermicide like nonoxyl-9 increases the effectiveness of condoms for both disease prevention and contraception.

"One thing we do know about abstinence is that if you practice it, you will not have an unintended pregnancy or risk catching a sexually transmitted disease."
[HHS spokesman Bill Pierce]

This also explains the disregard that some "STDs" aren't only transmitted sexually (some, such as hepatitis, can be transmitted through body fluids other than semen and contaminated food; some, such as herpes and HPV can spread through any skin-skin contact).

Catholic Online, in defending the abstinence only approach, states [emphasis added]:

“But the positive effects of delaying sexual activity is strongly defended in studies published by the Washington-based Heritage Foundation. On Sept. 21 the organization published a report entitled "Teens Who Make Virginity Pledges Have Substantially Improved Life Outcomes."

The report provides statistical evidence demonstrating that teen-agers who publicly pledge to refrain from sexual activity are less likely to experience teen pregnancy. And they will likely have fewer sexual partners.

The study cited data from the government-funded National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, showing that the behavior of adolescents who have made a virginity pledge is significantly different from that of peers who have not made a pledge. Teen-age girls who have taken a virginity pledge are one-third less likely to experience a pregnancy before age 18.

The Heritage report also observed that almost two-thirds of teens who do not make a virginity pledge are sexually active before age 18. By contrast, only 30% of teens who report having made a pledge become sexually active before age 18.
[snip]

Another advantage is the reduction in children born outside marriage. The report observes that children born and raised outside marriage are seven times more likely to live in poverty than those born and raised in intact married families. As well, they are more prone to a number of social problems, ranging from crime to emotional difficulties.

Adolescent girls who make a pledge to refrain from sexual activity are substantially less likely to give birth in their teens or early 20s. By age 18, 1.8% of those who were firmly pledged had given birth, compared with 3.8% of girls who did not make a pledge.”

This is not exactly something to crow about, it also does not show the applicability or efficacy of abstinence-only education/abstinence pledges to the general public (or how many of those girls who were "firmly pledged" had abortions).

By far, however, my favorite statement on the web-site is about the information you should tell your children so they abstain (until marriage) to avoid teen parenthood [emphasis added]:

"For those who become teen parents, one thing is certain - life changes for them. Many teen mothers never finish high school. Teen mothers and their babies are more likely to have health problems. And families started by teen mothers are more likely to be poor and end up on welfare."

I find this statement especially interesting as one of the arguments "Prolifers" use regarding the ways the Prochoice movement gets girls/women to abort instead of going to term to raise the child or putting a child up for adoption is to get the message out that having a baby will ruin a woman's life [emphasis added]:

"Prochoice groups tell women that they can't handle having a child on their own, they can't have child and also keep their dreams and hopes alive if they do give birth to their baby. They say that they will throw away their life if they have their baby. Then when they realize that they made a mistake with their abortion and suffer in that realization, then prochoice groups couldn't care less about them. They tell those who are suffering. They listened to you and then they realized that they really did kill their own flesh and blood, and they are suffering for that
[Posted by: Nate | March 16, 2005 11:36 PM]

and

“Why do women have abortions?” she’s asking. “Coercion by family or friends. Or family members who say, ‘That baby will ruin your life.’ Can you imagine picking up a baby and saying, ‘You’ll ruin somebody’s life!’ Babies don’t ruin people’s lives. Poverty ruins peoples’ lives. Lack of health care, lack of education: Those are the things that ruin people’s lives.” [Serrin Foster]

Foster, that great Feminist she is, must believe women need to be protected from themselves because they are, apparently, incapable of making decisions on their own. They abort only because others coerce them to do so.

I guess I shouldn't let any of this bother me at all since they address all the other issues you need to discuss with your teen as follows:

“Sex isn't the only topic you should talk to your teen about. Risky behaviors often go together. Kids who smoke are more likely to use drugs and drink. Kids who drink and use drugs are more likely to be sexually active. When teens were asked in a recent survey if they were drinking or using drugs the last time they had sex, 25 percent of them said "yes." Teens who drink are seven times more likely than teens who don't drink to have had sex. And teens who use drugs are five times more likely to have had sex. (25) So when you're talking about sex, also talk about other health risks like alcohol, tobacco, drugs and violence.”

Of course, what do you expect from a government that only funds abstinence-only education that teaches "facts" such as: 50% gay teen are infected with HIV, boys produce male & female sperm, and women who want to keep a partner should never act "too" smart. You should check out other "facts" taxpayer dollars are being used to teach and the information regarding the textbooks that contain them.

Tags: Reproductive rights; unplanned pregancy;teen pregnancy;sex education;abstinence

Sphere: Related Content

Common Sense: the panacea for a pharmacist's moral health

Lindsay Beyerstein has a great post regarding "pharmacist's rights" and the states that have enacted/are considering CO legislation to allow pharmacists the right to refuse to perform all required duties of their job when they disapprove of a medication and/or the use of a medication by a certain patient population on moral grounds. We've all heard the stories: Pharmacist Refuses to Fill Prescription for EC to Rape Victim; Pharmacist cites sin and refuses to fill prescription for contraception to college student (this is the guy who refused to return or forward the prescription and then complained about the girl coming back to the pharmacy with 2 cops "They were trying to scare me. . .They had no business there. It certainly wasn't a police matter. ... For a free country, it is really an embarrassment. They asked for my address and said they were filing a report."); etc. I've commented on on Lindsay's post, at the NARAL Bush v Choice blog and other places as these stories broke, and I've got to say this whole "need" to legislate CO status to protect the moral and psychic health of pharmacistsis the biggest crock imaginable. I can't believe people actually fall for it. . .but then I think and I realize people aren't falling for it, it's yet another creation of religious fundamentalists to impose their views of morality on the rest of the world.

If these people are really concerned only about their own morality and mental health, such that the feel the act of filling a prescription for contraception makes them complicit in the sins of sexual immorality and/or abortion, there is one very simple way for them to continue in their profession in good conscience without the requirement of any legislation to allow them to perform duties they find objectionable: work in a pharmacy that does not stock (and therefore does not accept prescriptions for) any potentially offensive medications such as contraceptives.

• Pharmacies associated with Catholic Hospitals do not stock/fill prescriptions for contraceptive agents as all forms of contraception, except "Natural Family Planning", are expressly forbidden by the Catholic Church. A pharmacist who would be psychically damaged by filling a prescription for any agents of immorality should feel comfortable knowing a pharmacy affiliated with the Catholic Church would never put them in a position to do so, let alone require it is part of their job.
• I'm sure there must be Christian (capital C, that means Evangelical/Fundamentalist) pharmacies out there that do not stock contraceptives or any other medication that has even remote abortifacient properties on principle. [I tried to find some online, but the ones I found via 711 (Ameripills & BuyRxMed) sell contraceptives - go figure!].
• Open your own Christian Pharmacy with support of your community.

Options abound without being put in that horrid position of having a job description that includes filling morally objectionable medications. There can only be one reason why this would not be an acceptable alternative for those seeking legislation to permit refusal of healthcare services (including filling/dispensation of prescriptions) and that's the fact that they're not objecting to the duty to prevent their personal emotional pain; they want the right to inflict pain on those who use these medications

Our little RxBuddy who was so offended by police action, refused to return the patient's prescription or forward it to another pharmacist under the grounds that "It would be a sin to induce another to sin. Whether they participated or not, I would be participating in the bucket brigade." I find this to be a very curious statement. Wouldn't allowing another pharmacist at the pharmacy to fill and dispense sin inducing medications (he had an agreement he wouldn't have to fill prescriptions for contraceptives; ostensibly when he wasn't working alone, the other pharmacist on duty would handle these prescriptions) make him equally complicit? One would think, using his reasoning, that working at such a pharmacy would be tacit condonation of his employer's policy as it enables induction of sin. So this begs the question, why would any pharmacist spiritually sensitive enough to consider filling/dispensing/transferring contraceptive prescriptions sinful take employment at a pharmacy that actually stocks and sells them?



Tags: health care; contraception; reproductive rights; fundamentalism; hypocrisy

Sphere: Related Content