Monday, March 19, 2012

Hunting is more important than healthcare?

I was just perusing the latest legislative update from my state senator, Paul Gazelka, and one particular bill that he's sponsoring caught my eye.  The following text comes from Senator Gazelka's legislative update:

"S.F. 1911, otherwise known as the 'Freedom to Hunt and Fish Act of 2012,' will provide for the continuation of hunting and fishing license purchases in the event of a shutdown."

All I can say about this is, "Are you fucking kidding me??" 

Minnesota had a state shutdown last year that lasted throughout most of our summer.  As someone who works in the medical supply field, I can tell you that this shutdown had devastating effects on our patients.  Our Medicaid patients were unable to get many of their essential supplies like ostomy bags, diabetic test strips, etc.  How in the world is the ability to hunt and fish more important than access to needed medical supplies?

I'm not taking an anti-hunting/fishing stance here.  Although I personally don't hunt or fish, I know that many, many people across the state enjoy these activities and I don't necessarily want to begrudge them of their pastime.  I also know that many, many of said hunters and fishermen are conservatives; Gazelka's base.  Hence, the reason he probably sees this as such an essential bill.

Gazelka was one of the people directly responsible for the shutdown last year, and will most likely be again this year.  When he causes the next shutdown, now he can make sure that his base doesn't feel the squeeze that the rest of us will feel as a result of the shutdown.  Therefore, he has even less reason to compromise in order to avoid a shutdown. 

I must commend him on his political savvy, but chastise him for putting the "right" to hunt and fish above the "right" to manage your diabetes.  Unbelievable.

Thursday, March 8, 2012

More Birth Control Ranting

Sorry to harp on this subject for two posts in a row, but the subject of birth control really does warrant consecutive posts, since it seems to be dominating our current national discussion.

I would have thought that 50 years after the introduction of "the pill," the hullabaloo would have subsided a little. Apparently though, the idea that women can and should control their fertility is still a very revolutionary one. What I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around is the thought that somehow not using contraception is a "family value."  It seems to me that contraception is the very foundation of family values.  After all, what better way to promote healthy families than by allowing couples to plan when to have their children and how many they can reasonably manage to care for?  When people are prepared and willing to welcome children into their home, those children will be better provided for and the family as a whole will be stronger.

On a personal note, I have been taking birth control pills since the age of 16.  I had a very smart mother who, although never giving me the impression that my becoming sexually active was ok with her, nevertheless told me that if I simply couldn't talk to her about it, then I should at least go to Planned Parenthood and make sure to be safe about it.  And that's exactly what I did.  And if I hadn't, I would probably now be raising a child with my then boyfriend, who was incredibly abusive on many different fronts.  If I were still with him, I would be miserable, and in turn would probably make a very miserable mother.  If I wasn't still with him, I would be attempting to share custody with a terrible human being and all of the struggle that sort of situation implies, which would probably be very painful for my child(ren).

As it turns out, I didn't end up pregnant as a teenager, and was thus able to leave an abusive relationship, go to college, enter the workforce, and find a more suitable man to marry and raise a family with.  The result?  I have 2 wonderful, happy children who live in a stable, happy home with two parents who are beyond thrilled to have them in their lives.  We were able to have our children at a point in our lives when we were emotionally and financially able to care for them, which means we are able to focus our time and energy on loving them and raising them to be good people, which will, in turn, make them better parents one day.

None of this would have been possible without access to birth control.  And yet, we are made to feel that using this wonderful gift of technology makes us lesser people somehow.  That by taking charge of our fertility, we are "sluts."  For most of human history, pregnancy was an inevitable outcome of having sex, and maybe for that reason it was necessary to use shame as a tool for preventing unwanted pregnancy.  But what's the excuse now?  Why must women continually be told that if they dare to use their bodies for pleasure, they should be willing to submit to the inevitable outcome?  We have the tools to prevent pregnancy now, and women should not be shamed into not using those tools to better their lives, and the lives of their children down the road.

Birth control is THE family value.

Friday, March 2, 2012

Contraception Calamity

I spent a large part of last night folding laundry while watching various news commentary shows that discussed the awful comments made by Rush Limbaugh regarding birth control.

In a nutshell, he said that if women expect to have the govenment subsidize their birth control, then they are basically being paid by the public to have sex and are, hence, prostitutes.  Further, they should post their sexual encounters on the web for taxpayers to enjoy since they paid for that sex.

Wow.

I just can't even wrap my mind around that one.

Not that I expect anything coherent or remotely sensible to come from Rush Limbaugh's mouth, but this seems kind of out there even for him.  Do we really need anymore proof that this whole birth control "discussion" we're having is a lot more about hatred of women's sexuality and a lot less about the dollars and cents of contraception?

We are being held hostage by a small minority of people who seem to believe that we should still be living in the days when women just kept their mouths shut and kept an aspirin between their knees.  Having religious faith is one thing, but insisting that others follow your particular faith is whole 'nother ball of wax.  If Muslims were insisting that no one should eat pork (or whatever it is Muslims don't eat), there would be hell to pay from the Christians.  Yet, they don't seem to understand that they are doing the exact same thing to the rest of us.

Let's get one thing straight: contraception is not a magic medicine that makes it ok for women to have endless sex with endless partners (although, if men do that it's ok).  Contraception is a basic part of healthcare that keeps women healthy and allows them to put off having children until they're ready, making for a healthier mom and a healthier child.  And reducing the number of abortions! What is their problem with this?  Their problem is that women are now able to have sex without being saddled with a child as a consequence.  They think that women should be punished for having sex, but men should not. 

Whether you like it or not, human beings (men AND women) are sexual creatures, and we can either deal with it responsibly like adults or stick our heads in the sand and wish it wasn't so.  Which option do you think is more productive?