As the healthcare debate rages in this country - and particularly here in my home turf of Wisconsin - note this little-noticed but not off-point matter:
The federal Pregnant Women Support Act is on tap in Congress. Go to http://thomas.loc.gov, key in bill number HR 2035 {house}, or S 270 {senate}. This bill may not be to the liking of everyone, but from what I’ve heard [and I fully admit I haven't read the bill myself, at least not yet], it’s that very rare piece of women-and-pregnancy-focused legislation that’s supported by both pro-choice and pro-life groups. Among its provisoions, I understand that it would:
• Repeal the sunset on adoption tax credits and make them permanent • Fully fund the federal WIC Program, Special Nutrition for Women, Infants and Children• Increase funding for domestic violence programs• End the denial to pregnant women of health care from insurance companies because of "pre-existing conditions”• Establish a national toll-free number and public awareness campaign to offer women support and knowledge about options and resources available to them when they face an unplanned pregnancy• Provide new mothers with free home visits by registered nurses• Help pregnant high-school and college students stay in school, offering them counseling as well as assistance with continuing their education, parenting support and classes, and child care assistance.• Codify the current regulation allowing states to provide State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) coverage to unborn children and their mothers
Among supporters of the PWSA are:
May 18, 2009
To my recollection, the Pro-Life and Pro-Choice argument originally was derived out of the early roaring 20s, 30s, 40s and 1950s careless and accidental deaths, when back in the day, we had Midwives and Witch Doctors practicing medicine and performing surgeries without proper education and a license. Some women were dying at the hands of these people who declared themselves a Nurse or Doctor.
This, for or against life argument reminds me of my teenager and young adult children who can’t seem to make up their mind on what they want to be when they grow up. My children are one minute For a Life choice and one minute For choosing to do something else. You can’t make them choose one or the other because it really depends on their life circumstance at that day and time.
As a parent, I get very frustrated and tired of my children pulling me to support them on this and that and I feel that We Citizens, Congress and our President ought not to be allowing the Pro-Life and Pro-Choice groups push us around either.
The Pro-Life and Pro-Choice argument only needs what our Republican Chairman Steele mentioned on “Meet The Press” and that is Tort Reform, Insurance and Pharmaceuticals invited to the table to assist with Health Care Reform.
I know you Pro-Life parents are concerned for the health and welfare of women and I know you Pro-Choice parents are just as concerned for your women as well. Both of you groups have women in your lives that may take the Pro-Life and/or Pro-Choice position and you will have no control over their decision that may go either way in the near future.
I repeat, You Pro-Life and Pro-Choice groups should cease taking such a stand-off position because you can’t predict what your own future holds for you and your family members to bet that your daughters, aunts, cousins, sisters or nieces won’t want to enjoy either of your positions. I know for sure you can’t place that bet. No one knows what the future will bring us but we can all take measures to guard against mal-practice of medical procedures and bad medicine that occurred back in the day.
“YES WE CAN BE FOR BOTH.” Yes, we Citizens, Congress and President Obama can be for Pro-Life when our women are faced with having to make that decision if she wants. Yes, we Citizens, Congress and President Obama can be for Pro-Choice when our women and girls are faced with having to make that decision if she wants too. “YES WE CAN!”
Back in the day, I made decisions to have a baby and I made a decision to have an abortion too. I appreciated the freedom to make my choices and I appreciated my parents and friends support of my decisions. Thank God I escaped the “Terrorist and Home Grown Bombers” of Abortion Clinics back then.
The bottom line is… Our daughters, nieces and our grandchildren are to be treated with respect and proper care and be able to receive professional medical treatment for whatever her decision.
Sincerely,
I’m not a Catholic, although I studied the religion, and believe I would have become a Catholic if I didn’t have stronger feelings towards the Christen religion I did choose.
However, I strongly disagree with Notre Dame’s decision to invite the President to speak at their commencement exercise and then follow the invitation up with highly publicized disagreements in the media, regarding the president’s pending appearance – could this be a cruel and very unbecoming way to deliver a political message?
Is it because President Obama is not a Catholic? No, since Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush all spoke at Notre Dame graduation ceremonies and the school has an established tradition of having the current president speak at its commencement, extending the invitation to Obama, who is pro-choice and recently overturned the ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, has caused a fierce backlash among some Catholic groups.
I strongly believe our president is not going to use this occasion to campaign for his decision and beliefs on pro-choice and stem cell research to those gathered at the commencement.
Furthermore, I believe the Catholic parishioners are both smart enough and loyal to their beliefs to understand the issues of controversy over the aforementioned to listen and absorb opposing view points.
The following is a video I produced and released on YouTube during the Primaries last year, where John F. Kennedy is speaking about his Catholic religion and his personal feelings regarding his roll as President. Please give it a listen and see what this former Catholic had to say.
Senator Obama – Faith
Over the past several months, on the Internet, there had been numerous videos and e-Mails circulated, regarding Senator Obama’s religion, which is currently an unpopular religion in some countries and perhaps here in America. This uncalled for “smear” campaign is totally nonproductive to the issues concerning our country at this time, furthermore, an individual’s beliefs should not affect our important selection for the highest office in our country. The video reflects that of another time in our history where religion was also considered an issue in choosing a President, although the audio quality is poor and portions of the audio reluctantly had to be edited, to conform with YouTube’s requirements for uploading, the message given is absolutely “clear” as to its meaning.
Over the past several months, on the Internet, there had been numerous videos and e-Mails circulated, regarding Senator Obama’s religion, which is currently an unpopular religion in some countries and perhaps here in America. This uncalled for “smear” campaign is totally nonproductive to the issues concerning our country at this time, furthermore, an individual’s beliefs should not affect our important selection for the highest office in our country.
The video reflects that of another time in our history where religion was also considered an issue in choosing a President, although the audio quality is poor and portions of the audio reluctantly had to be edited, to conform with YouTube’s requirements for uploading, the message given is absolutely “clear” as to its meaning.
Additional postings regarding this topic and others may be found here:
I have found the Government Comment email address for the Conscience Clause. LET THEM KNOW HOW YOU FEEL... but please be courteous! :) proposedrescission@hhs.gov
View related blog entry:
by Samantha Singson
(NEW YORK – C-FAM) The annual Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) meeting continues at the United Nations (UN) this week and delegates have begun the arduous task of negotiating the “outcome document” – a non-binding agreement on HIV/AIDS and care-giving that is the focus of this year’s session. While the meetings have been closed to non-government organizations (NGOs), the United States (US) delegation has openly stated that “sexual and reproductive health and rights” would be a priority issue for the Obama administration.
At a briefing hosted by the United States, a member of the US delegation, Ellen Chesler, stated that it was a specific priority of the US delegation to ensure that “comprehensive sexual and reproductive health and rights” are included in the document. She added that they are a “fundamental part” of the Beijing Platform for Action of the 1995 UN women’s meeting held in Beijing, China, where countries ultimately rejected attempts to make abortion an international “right.” The idea of sexual rights was rejected at the Beijing conference. Additionally, the term “sexual and reproductive health and rights” has been interpreted by radical feminist NGOs and some governments to include abortion.
Chesler, who authored a biography praising the work of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, also included “comprehensive sexual education, rights and services,” promotion of a new UN gender office, as well as US commitment to ratify the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)” as priority issues for the Obama administration at this CSW.
At the end of the briefing, an audience member questioned the Obama administration’s support for abortion despite the myriad scientific evidence which shows how detrimental it is to the lives and health of women. Chesler dismissed the woman’s question stating that the evidence is “unreliable because it has ideological elements.”
Another contentious provision in the draft CSW document calls on states to support the CEDAW committee’s non-binding “concluding comments.” 185 countries have ratified the convention, but language supporting the CEDAW committee’s concluding recommendations remains controversial. The CEDAW committee has questioned more than 70 nations on their abortion laws even going so far as creating their own "general recommendation" that reads abortion into the document even though the nations that negotiated the treaty made sure that controversial issue was never mentioned.
Delegations are expected to battle it out over the CEDAW paragraph in negotiations this week over concerns that the committee is pressuring countries on abortion. Some feminist NGOs at the CSW, however, already consider abortion an accepted part of CEDAW and have now set their sights on using the CEDAW committee to protect “lesbian rights” and same-sex “marriage.”
At an event commemorating 30 years of CEDAW, the Centre for Women’s Global Leadership claimed that CEDAW successfully established a “right to abortion” by linking it to “reproductive health.” Organizers argued that now the CEDAW committee should focus on protecting a “woman’s right to choose their partners,” which is not limited to members of the opposite sex.
The CSW will conclude in New York on Friday.
I haven't posted here before; my main blog is www.samefacts.com . And I've made it a policy not to joggle the elbows of the folks who ran the most skilful campaign in American political history. My usual attitude when they do something I don't like is to assume they know something I don't.
But the choice of Rick Warren to give the invocation at the Inauguration is a terrible, terrible idea. He's offensive to anyone who cares about sexual and reproductive freedom, and he's made the claim that the Bible justifies agressive war against whoever gets designated as "evil." Many of the people whose dearest values Warren holds in contempt, and whose freedoms he wants to deny, worked their hearts out for the campaign, while Warren was (at best) neutral.
Yes, it's important to reach out to white evangelicals. But there must be someone else.
because we all know and love someone with whom we can share this moving piece <3<3<3
By Shari MacDonald Strong
When I was about six years old, I decided I wanted to attend the little Baptist Church that was next door to my family’s house – and not just because I loved riding my bike with the banana seat around its parking lot. From that day until a handful of years ago, I attended evangelical churches of one kind or another. So, it’s no surprise that I spent much of my life in the Pro-Life camp, worrying about sanctity of life issues.
And yet, here I am today: a member of the Democratic Party, supporting a Pro-Choice candidate. In fact, these days I consider myself simultaneously Pro-Life (meaning that I would encourage a woman to continue her pregnancy if possible, and I would do whatever I could to help her) and Pro-Choice (because I believe that individual women, and not James Dobson or George Bush, should get to make wise, informed, thoughtful decisions about their lives) – a fact that boggles the mind of friends on both sides of the issue. How did I get here? With days to go before the election, I’d like to explain.
Dear Pro-Life Friend,
As a former Pro-Life Crisis Pregnancy Center volunteer, I’m as surprised (in some ways) to find myself supporting a Pro-Choice candidate as you are to see me here. There was a time when I couldn’t have envisioned it – back when I felt secure in my (comfortable and, I admit, self-satisfied) belief that I knew better than pregnant women whether or not they should have their babies. In church, I was taught that women who sought abortions were selfish, that they wanted a “convenient” way out of their perplexing predicaments. That they didn’t care about the life inside them, and that those of us who did care were responsible for intervening: with our votes in the voting booth, with our bodies at Pro-Life protests, and, yes, with our big, big mouths.
Then, when I was eighteen, one of my closest (and at the time, single) friends became pregnant; she was too frightened to tell her family, and she had nowhere to go. I helped my friend find a family to live with during her pregnancy, and another family to adopt the child. After that, I started volunteering at the Crisis Pregnancy Center. In my training, I learned to tell women that the one-minute pregnancy test took 10 minutes: enough time for them to have to watch the evangelistic VHS tape I was supposed to turn on for them while they awaited their test results. I was supposed to tell them about Jesus, and about abortion tearing their babies to pieces. But when I looked into the tired, anxious, heartbroken faces of the women – none of whom took their decision lightly – what I wanted to do was offer compassion. I never met one who was single and flighty and careless. The women were often married, all of them older than I was, some of them at the end of their ropes. They looked at me like I had no idea what life was capable of doling out – and they were right. My words would do nothing to ease the difficulties of their situations; my judgment would only make the women feel worse about what they genuinely believed they needed to do.
Many were poor, most were struggling, some were in abusive relationships, a number were barely surviving. And there I was: young, privileged, without a care – throwing judgment and Jesus at them, but offering no real help or hope. The pregnancy center claimed to offer support, but there were no real resources available. No halfway houses or homes for pregnant girls ever had room for them. I could help clients sign up for the WIC (Women, Infants, and Children) program, which gave them access to free cheese. But what good was cheese to the co-ed who had to drop out of college, to the wife in an abusive common-law marriage, to the woman with no place to go? One night, a pregnant girl begged me to help her find a place to live – and no agency I called could help. As she went out into the night, and into an uncertain future, I laid my head on the desk and decided I’d had enough of judgment and finger pointing. I decided the best way to help would be . . . to actually help. Contrary to what I’d learned in church, none of the center’s clients had been looking to abortion as a “convenient” way out; most were figuring out how they would survive, even without a baby. Talk about your inconvenient truths.
These women knew that resources and government support were scarce to nonexistent; they also knew that families were more than willing to adopt healthy white babies, but no one wanted the minority babies, the sick babies, the babies born to mothers who struggled with alcohol or drug addiction. They knew that if they had their babies, most of them would be on their own. It wasn't a question of convenience for most. It was a question of survival.
It was at that point that I began to make a shift. I still wanted to help prevent abortions, help save lives, bring abortion numbers down. But I no longer believed that picketing an abortion clinic or fighting for a law change was the way to do it. I came to believe, and still do believe, that the way to bring down abortion numbers is by helping the women in practical ways: working to get equal pay for women, better access to health care and day care, guaranteed paid maternity leave, etc. A number of studies show that abortion statistics actually go down under more progressive administrations and laws. (I'm sure people on both sides can cite a range of statistics, but it just makes sense to me that when women have more support, they're more likely to have their babies.) So, it's not that I don't care about the abortion issue. It's simply that I come at it from another direction now. I'm supporting the party whose policies I believe help women and families more, and believe their taking office will result in fewer women believing that abortion is their best option.
Finally, to those friends who have painted Barack Obama as “abortion-loving,” let me say that I know a lot of pro-choice folks, and I consider myself both pro-choice and pro-life, and none of us is an "abortion lover." People on both sides of the issue -- including me, including you, including Obama -- are compassionate. We simply disagree about what political actions are most helpful to women and families.
To sum up: I don't support Obama in spite of being pro-life, but because I'm pro-life. Women who are desperate will always find a way to get abortions, whether or not they're legal. I think it's a waste of time to exert our energy on judging women considering abortions and speculating about what their motives may or may not be, picketing clinics, and focusing on laws that won't prevent abortions in the end, anyway. I believe the real goal should be to create a society in which women and mothers and families receive the practical and emotional support they need in order to survive and thrive (again: healthcare, excellent child care, equal pay for equal work, education, access to social services, etc.) if they have their child. I believe that that is the answer to the abortion issue, and that's why I am a Democrat. I realize that many people have other opinions, but this is mine. And that's why I'm voting for Obama.
Love,
Shari
Shari MacDonald Strong is the Creative Nonfiction Editor for Literary Mama. Her essay "On Wanting a Girl" appears in the anthology It's a Girl: Women Writers on Raising Daughters (Seal Press, April 2006). She writes a column for Mamazine, and has also written for a number of publications, including Geez magazine. Shari worked as an editor and copywriter in the publishing industry for 15 years. She writes a blog from her home in Portland, Oregon, where she lives with her husband, photojournalist Craig Strong, and their children: grade-schooler Eugenia, born in Russia, and preschool sons Will and Mac, born via gestational surrogacy.
The Maternal Is Political
http://www.literarymama.com/columns/zen/archives/2008/11/an_open_letter.html
Joe and Barack,
RE Vice-Presidential Debate
I watched some of the debate tonight, I've have been discussing the upcoming elections and politics quite a bit for several months now, I am a regular voters. Regarding the portion of the debate that I saw, I've discussed how you didn't offer any solutions but just engaged in Bush-bashing. I had thought to myself that it would be funny if Sarah Palin reminded you that you were running against her and John McCain in 2008, not George Bush. Now, I didn't catch the whole debate, so I'm sure that if you offered some good solutions we must have missed that part. However we also noticed that you seemed to be the most conmfortable and at ease of the two of you during the debate.
I won't venture to say who we think "won" the debate, because we don't look at at from such a simplified perspective. Some things that we look for in our candidates are real solutions, not just promises or slogans, but detailed information on exactly how they propose to resolve problems that we face, and we then determine if those proposed actions are aligned with our principles and govermental philosophies. I am sorry to say that rarely do we find politicians that are willing to give that amount of detail on either side of the aisle. I suppose that this is largely due to the fact that most voters do not tend to evaluate positions in regards to their principles and philosphies; hence they are easily moved by excitement, fanfare and pomp which is readily available through the various political camps and media outlets.
We are aware that candidates spin their positions in an attempt to appeal to an audience, we also know that many people create fallacious arguments to shore up their positions, many of these arguments may sound reasonable to many segments of the population, but are nothing more than a unintentional red herrings which neglect essential elements of the truth and confuse many people who do not deeply consider the issues and their positions.
One such situation is the argument regarding abortion. I believe an abortion would only be justifiable in the case of rape, or the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother. However, it has been termed by many as a "womans right to choose". Many of our leaders use the question of "when does life begin" in order to escape from addressing the issue, or even attempting to define the beginning of life at some specific point in a pregnancy in order to justify abortions. They may argue that the fetus is not viable outside the womb and therefore does not have a right to life.
All of these arguments and horrible distortions of thought which when followed allow the adherents to justify needless killings. For example, the argument that a young fetus is not human or that its abortion is ok since the fetus is not viable outside the womb is a fallacy because by removing a fetus from the womb, you deprive it of its proper nourishment and shelter. No living things are viable when deprived of proper nourishment and shelter. Does a man become un-human if he is left in the desert or lost at sea?
Secondly the search for the instant that life begins is an unjustifiable distraction from the real issue. We all know that the scientific requirements of life are that an organism eats, and reproduces. According to the scientific definition a fetus is alive the instance the cell becomes two cells and takes in nourishment from the placenta. Genetically a man or woman is a human and defined as such by his 32 chromosomes. A fertilized human egg qualifies according to this genetic definition as a human.
The phrase a "womans right to choose" is nothing more than a despicable euphemism for kiling the unborn. It is used by politicians to pander to voters, it is used by the people to justify selfish acts of of inhumanity and irresponsibility.
I am a fiscal conservative, constitutionalist, and believe in a limited government. I believe when people speak of penumbral rights derived from the constitution and speak of it as a living document they are treading on dangerous ground. There are many things I disagree on with both major political parties. My principles are hierarchical, some are extremely important, and others are flexible. The issue of abortion is at the top of the of this hierarchy; as such I cannot vote for you, Barack or any other politician who advocates abortions or seeks to defend Roe v. Wade; and I will not send you 5 dollars.
Al
Over three million children in America are abused, neglected and killed each year in this country. This staggering issue overshadows all other issues, or should! The real issue of crime against children of America is buried.
The issue isn’t whether these defenseless victims should be born; the issue is protecting them against violence after they are. The issue is protection for the American babies who are brought into this world without a choice or a chance. Biden's legacy of legislation to stop violence against women must serve as a guidepost to stop this horrific violence against children in this country as well.
· Abortion and Pro-Choice
o Obama was right about the abortion issues and the need to let that choice be made between the woman and her God. His words and sentiments echo the voice of American women with conscious.
o McCain’s reply: “We will take care of the children.” Does he live in a bubble?
More children have died in this country from 2003-2008 than the number of American youth who gave their lives in Iraq.
This is the real issue and if both sides of the abortion/pro-choice battle were to put their time, energy and money into actually “taking care of the children” in this country we might be able to change this shameful picture of our nation.
It is a sad day for Americans when we lose our vital youth to war, but equally sad, and appalling is the number of children we lose every year to abusive, neglectful parents. A major portion of children born in America every year are born to teenage girls….surprised?
Fight the fight, vote right! The world is waiting, the time is now, the man is Obama!
http://transpolitical.blogspot.com/2008/09/abstinence-only-for-non-conservative.html
reprint from TransPolitical blog 9/7/08
On the permission of another.” — Justify My Love, Madonna
The chattering hubbub has somewhat died down on Bristol Palin’s pregnancy out of wedlock. Ironically, it appears that both Republican and Democrats’ campaigns were happy to see this subside. As a blogger, I didn’t really have any issue with Bristol Palin as it’s unfortunate, but still a natural occurrence. I actually felt sorry for both her and her unwitting husband-to-be.
What was saddest was seeing how the oh-so-sanctimonious-and-now-embarrassed Republican National Committee operatives did everything they could to obfuscate. They paraded her out (gotta have those family values), but had baby Trig attached to her as if umbilically, complete with baby blanket plastered strategically over her body to hide the baby-bulge. It wasn’t really overt of a bulge, but the RNC and McCain campaign’s paranoia was such that even the slightest breath of pregnancy out of wedlock was enough to induce palpitations.
John McCain, Shelly Shannon and the Army of God
By Frederick Clarkson
Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 07:46:17 PM EST print story
Raw Story reports that John McCain, against the advice of wiser heads, addressed a conference of the far right Oregon Citizens Alliance in the early 90s. He should have listened.
The speaker just prior to McCain publically expressed sympathy for Shelly Shannon, who then stood accused (and was eventually convcicted) of the attempted murder of Dr. George Tiller of Wichita, Kansas -- as well as carrying out a multi-state spree of clinnic arsons across the West.
Shelly Shannon also considered herself a soldier in the underground terror organization, Army of God, which views Shannon as a "hero of the faith" and a "Warrior Soldier in the Army of God." The group devotes a section of its web site to celebrating her exploits and her martyrdom.
Blogger Jed Lewison highlighted McCain's opposition to a 1994 law that made it a federal crime to bomb or blockade abortion clinics or to attack abortion doctors. McCain's vote against the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act put him in league with the Senate's most radical anti-abortion advocates, who split with more than two dozen anti-abortion senators who voted to crack down on clinic bombers as a matter of preserving law & order.
His [McCain's] speech was preceded by some kind words for an anti-abortion activist accused of shooting a doctor. McCain quickly got a first-hand flavor for the OCA. Marylin Shannon, the vice chairwoman of the Oregon GOP, had a spot on the program to give an opening prayer. In short order, she praised the Grants Pass woman accused of shooting an abortion doctor in Wichita and thanked the Lord ``for Lon Mabon and the vision you put in his heart.'' Shannon, the GOP chairwoman, referred to the accused shooter of the abortion doctor as a "fine lady," who shouldn't be judged solely based on the single act of violence, according to a letter she wrote to The Oregonian, which was accessed via Lexis Nexis. While she did not endorse violence against abortion providers, she wrote, she recognized the "debate stirring within the anti-abortion movement" over whether killing abortion providers was a "just cause."
McCain quickly got a first-hand flavor for the OCA. Marylin Shannon, the vice chairwoman of the Oregon GOP, had a spot on the program to give an opening prayer. In short order, she praised the Grants Pass woman accused of shooting an abortion doctor in Wichita and thanked the Lord ``for Lon Mabon and the vision you put in his heart.''
Shannon, the GOP chairwoman, referred to the accused shooter of the abortion doctor as a "fine lady," who shouldn't be judged solely based on the single act of violence, according to a letter she wrote to The Oregonian, which was accessed via Lexis Nexis.
While she did not endorse violence against abortion providers, she wrote, she recognized the "debate stirring within the anti-abortion movement" over whether killing abortion providers was a "just cause."
Sponsored by the Matthew 25 Network:
Barack Obama's strengthening of support for prenatal care, health care, maternity leave, and adoption will make the difference. Studies confirm it.
I am inspired by what Senator Obama calls "the promise of America -- the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation in the fundamental belief that I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper. That's the promise we need to keep."
http://www.prolifeproobama.com/index.htm
Here are some things I said about abortion with a pro-life voter. I have no evidence how effective (or counterproductive) this approach may be. I'm just describing it as one option to try for canvassers who feel stuck.
Two weeks ago I canvassed a very pleasant young undecided voter. Her most important issues were ending the war in Iraq and ending abortion. Naturally, I talked about the war and foreign policy first before moving on to abortion.
I have always thought that the first step with a pro-lifer is to take their feelings seriously. Only a minority of pro-lifers are faking their concern for fetal life as an excuse for confining women to the role of mothers and housewives. The considerable majority really believe that abortion is the killing - the murder - of a baby. That is the reason that condoms, IUDs and oral contraceptives, all of which are far more vital to women's control of their reproductive lives than abortion, do not generate the same passions.
