Liberal House on the Prairie

More Birth Control Ranting

2012-03-08T16:40:00.000-06:00

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.

Contraception Calamity

2012-03-02T11:17:00.000-06:00

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?

"Activist" Judges

2012-02-22T10:31:00.000-06:00

We've been hearing a lot about "activist judges" in the past few years, and the term grates on my nerves every single time I hear it. To me, an "activist judge" is a judge who makes a decision you personally disagree with. Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that there aren't judges out there who have less than stellar motives. We recently had a judge running for office in my area who wanted to implement a Christian world view via the judiciary, and he wasn't even shy about openly telling people this (which is hopefully why he wasn't elected).

But I'm seriously starting to wonder if people even realize what the judicial system is there for. Since they don't teach much civics in school anymore, it's really no surprise that people are uneducated about what judges are supposed to do, which really leaves our country in a sad state of affairs.

So, if you're one of the confused multitudes, I'll break it down for you. Judges are essentially there to interpret the law and pass judgement within the scope of our Constitution and set of laws. But one very overlooked job of a judge is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Despite what some may think, we do not live in a country where the majority rules. We live in a democracy where we are given certain fundamental rights by our Constitution. So yes, on many issues, including who we elect to office, the majority rules. But on other issues, such as civil rights, it's up to judges to make sure that people's rights are protected, even if those rights are not popular at the time.

For example, gay people should be afforded the same rights as the rest of us under our Constitution. However, these days that seems to be an unpopular point of view, especially among the Christian majority in this country. So what it supposed to happen is that the judiciary protects the rights of an unpopular minority against the will of the majority who may not want rights afforded to a certain group of people. Unfortunately, even our legislators seem to have lost sight of that fact and are putting people's fundamental rights up to a popular vote.

Can you imagine what would have happened if we had allowed people to vote on the civil rights of African-Americans, especially in the Deep South? We'd probably still have segregation laws to this day. Black people deserve to have all the same rights and responsibilities as any other citizen of the U.S., simply because they are human and they live here, no matter how unpopular or small in number they may be. It doesn't matter what the white majority says, because it's not up to them to give or take away rights; it's up to the Constitution and the judiciary which protects the rights given by the Constitution.

Why can't people take this same logic and apply it to the issue of gay marriage? It doesn't matter whether you are for or against it. That's not the point. The point is that it's not up to you or me to give or take away people's rights. So the next time you hear about someone railing on about an "activist judge," consider that maybe the reason that judge is hated is that they were just doing their job properly.

Ultrasound Politics

2012-02-21T14:31:00.000-06:00

I just caught the tail end of an NPR show discussing the new Virginia ultrasound law that requires women seeking abortions to have a vaginal ultrasound to help them better understand the decision they so flippantly made about terminating their pregnancy.

I've been hearing about this issue a lot lately, but finally feel the need to put my 2 cents in.

First of all, I've had a vaginal ultrasound, and let me tell you, it ain't fun. I had to get one during my last pregnancy, and as a person with sexual assault in my background, it made me very queasy. Not to be indelicate, but we're talking about a rather large probe here. I did it without (too much) complaint, because I was having a very wanted and planned for pregnancy, and my doctor assured me it was in my best interest. But I can't imagine being pushed into this procedure for absolutely NO medical reason, especially if I had been seeking an abortion because I was raped. Let me repeat that: having a pre-abortion vaginal ultrasound serves absolutely NO medical purpose. The purpose is clearly to get the best image possible of the embryo in the hopes that the woman seeking the abortion will change her mind. After all, you know how emotional and wishy-washy we women are about making personal decisions.

The woman in the NPR discussion had written an article about the new law that described the ultrasound as a form of rape, since the law does not allow for the woman to give her consent to be vaginally probed; she either does it, or she doesn't get the abortion. The author of the piece was roundly chastised for this point of view, but I think she made a good point. Doesn't the government forcing you to be vaginally probed fall somewhere along the lines of sexual assault?

This law is nothing more than yet another attempt to slut-shame women who had the audacity to have sex with someone in an instance where bearing a child was not the ultimate goal. It is also an attempt to continue pushing the lie that women who have abortions do so casually, and without really knowing what they're doing, which of course implies that women just aren't all that smart to begin with. And you know what, if women keep voting for the people (mainly men) who are passing these ridiculous laws, then maybe we're not so smart, are we?

Dear God No

2012-02-08T10:21:00.000-06:00

Really? Rick Santorum? That's who you're going for Minnesota? Rick Santorum? Do you know anything about Rick Santorum? Not that I approve of any of the GOP candidates, but Rick Santorum is just a whole 'nother breed of crazy.

Yes, Rick Santorum won the Minnesota GOP caucus vote last night, and I'm still in a little bit of shock. I mean, I suppose if you're an evangelical Christian who believes that we should be living in a Christian theocracy where we're all required to abstain from sex until marriage, carry unwanted pregnancies, live in loveless, sham marriages if we're gay, and give money to the official Christian church of America, then Santorum is probably the way to go. But if you value personal freedom at all, what would possess you to support this guy?

I certainly don't think the Democrats, or Obama specifically, have all the answers, but they certainly have better answers than Rick Santorum. This guy is so obsessed with gay people, that I find it hard to believe he's not gay himself. Anyone who spends that much time thinking about homosexuality is doing so for a reason. If he ever wants to get over his Google problem, he should probably just shut up on the issue and move on to something else.

I think that the average Santorum voter is hoping that he can somehow bring us back to the Utopian days of the 40's and 50's where everyone waited to have sex until they got married, no one had abortions, and gay people were non-existent. In other words "family values." But here's the thing about the 40's and 50's; that Utopian version of the decades never existed in the first place. People were just much, much better about hiding their secrets. There were a lot more premature babies born to couples who had only been married 7 months, a lot more women dying of mysterious hemorrhaging, and a lot more crazy uncles living with their "roommate."

My husband and I were discussing this the other night in the context of these kinds of old secrets within our own extended families. A lot of crazy shit happened to our ancestors, but they were much better about covering it up and living a lie. Isn't it better to just live in the open and be honest about who you are and what's going on in your life?

I think so, but I'm pretty sure Rick Santorum doesn't.

The Christmas Conundrum

2012-01-16T13:02:00.001-06:00

So, the daily thrust of life has kept me from blogging for awhile. With a toddler, a 7-year-old, a full-time job and a chronic disease, one doesn't get as much time as one would like to devote to blogging. However, I really wanted to get out a blog about Christmas, but since I was suffering a family bout of the bubonic plague during Christmas, I'm just getting to it now.

Let me start by saying, I love me some Christmas. I mean, I'm decking the halls by November 10th. And for a few years, I really had a mental debate going on in my head as to whether or not it was ok for me to love Christmas so much, what with me being an atheist and all. But over the past few years, I've come to peace with my merry ways.

I realized that I'm not really celebrating the religious Christmas holiday, but rather the cultural one. Christmas trees, presents, lights, and all that good stuff I love about Christmas were never really a part of the celebration of Jesus' birth until the church decided to co-op them for their own uses. Most of the traditions we celebrate every year actually have pagan origins, and the church wisely predicted that if they could integrate these things with their religion somehow, it would persuade more people to convert since they wouldn't have to give up their beloved traditions.

We have no idea when Jesus was born (if he even really existed), so celebrating his birth on December 25th is really rather arbitrary. Hence the reason we don't set up a nativity scene in our house. For me, Christmas is a lot more about being close to your family, enjoying good food, giving freely to other people, and getting some sort of warm break from the cold winter.

I always laugh when I hear people decry the "war on Christmas." As if Christmas in America is just suddenly going to be bombed into oblivion. We love Christmas. It's part of our cultural heritage. Would I like to see the "Christ" taken out of Christmas? Certainly. But that doesn't mean I want to quit celebrating it. I just want to celebrate the things that really matter about the season, like the happy-dance my children do when they open a particularly good present, our once-a-year cheesy egg bake that reminds me of my grandma, and watching the "A Christmas Story" marathon on TNT. Is that really so wrong?

Reproduction Education

2011-11-11T14:38:00.000-06:00

So I need to rant here for a minute.

I've been in the hospital twice in the past 2 weeks with my Crohn's disease (hence my lack of riveting new blog posts). Every time I go to the ER, they ask me if I'm pregnant or not. When I reply that I'm not, they ask me if there's a chance I could be pregnant. When I reply that there's not, they ask me how I know that there's no chance that I'm pregnant.

Now, I understand that they need this information. For one thing, I'm presenting with severe abdominal pain. So obviously, it would be good to know if a pregnancy is contributing to or causing the pain. Also, they generally want to do an x-ray, which I've heard is a no-no if you're pregnant (although that didn't stop them from doing one anyway when I was actually pregnant).

My problem is this: How do I know I'm not pregnant? Well, let me see. For one thing, I've been pregnant twice, so I have an idea of what the symptoms are. For another thing, I've been in possession of this female body for 34 years and have some idea of how it functions. Oh, and there's all those birth control pills I take. Which leaves only one matter up for discussion: sexual activity.

Now, I'm married, and I don't think my sexual habits are anybody's business, least of all some nurse I just met. But after I've given them my last menstrual period date and the knowledge that I'm on a strict contraceptive regimen, they still prod me as to how I know I'm not pregnant. If they want to know when the last time I had sex was, why don't they just come out and ask me? Maybe the fact that it's a Catholic hospital makes them squeamish to mention the word "sex;" I really don't know.

But my main beef with this whole process is the fact that they even have to ask me how I know I'm not pregnant in the first place. It implies that most women don't know how one becomes pregnant. If I could just answer them that yes, in fact, I know there's no chance I could be pregnant, and they could trust me at my word, that would mean that women are fully educated about how and when they become pregnant. But sadly, this is not the case in America. Too often, women have very little idea of how the actual reproductive process works.

When I worked at Planned Parenthood, we had many teenagers that would come in for pregnancy tests who had no idea what their period had to do with pregnancy. In some cases, the girls had not yet had their first period, but were scared they might be pregnant. And to me, the problem is plainly that we discourage education about sexuality and reproduction. As if, should we mention it to kids, they will get the idea to do it (because we all know that kids don't think about sex until someone suggests it to them).

Maybe, if we actually let the schools educate the masses about our reproductive systems, then I wouldn't have to answer personal, patronizing questions every time I have to go to the emergency room in excruciating pain. I once had to tell the doctor that I hadn't had sex in "X" number of months, in front of my poor mother! No mom should have to hear that kind of thing.

So America, lets pull our heads up out of the sand about sex, and let me go to the hospital in peace for once.

Rant finished.

In Which I Singlehandedly Fix the Nation's Economy.

2011-10-27T14:14:00.000-05:00

Okay, I'm no economics expert. In fact, I still count on my fingers. Just yesterday, I bought 4 packs of spider pop-up toys that came 4 to a pack because I needed 12 for my son's daycare Halloween party (I was counting by 3's). So I'm the last person you would ever want to trust with your money.

However, I do think I have enough common sense to make some assessments about what would help us get out of this economic mess we're in. With that disclaimer, here is my patented six part plan to fix the economy:

1. Legalize Marijuana
This one seems like a no-brainer to me. By legalizing pot, we would reap the rewards of tax revenue, while eliminating the cost of law enforcement involved in pot-related cases. "But wait!" you say. "Won't everyone start smoking pot then?!" No. I personally would not become a stoner if pot was legalized tomorrow, nor would most people I know. The people who are doing it now will keep doing it, and the people who aren't, won't. I think this same argument applies to all illegal drugs, but we can stick with pot for now.

2. Legalize Prostitution
See my argument above and apply it to this. Also, I think that prostitution is something that will always happen, and women would benefit from having it legalized. They would get better access to healthcare and would be able to operate in a safer environment.

3. Tax Product Imports
If companies are going to ship all of our manufacturing jobs overseas, then we should give them a disincentive to do that by charging them to bring all those products back into the country. Right?

4. Focus on "Green" Jobs
I think we could make up for some of the manufacturing jobs that have been lost over the years by creating new "green" manufacturing jobs. Solar panels, wind farms, etc. I don't know a lot about this industry, so I won't go into detail, but it seems like it would work.

5. Medicare for All
Providing a single-payer insurance plan for all Americans would reduce the costs we are already paying for people who have no insurance and rack up large hospital bills for things that could have been caught early. Think about it, everyone having coverage would mean everyone could go to the doctor and get their prescriptions and medical supplies. What does this mean? Higher demand for doctors, nurses, pharmacists, receptionists, nurse's aids, etc. Sure, a lot of health insurance company employees would lose their jobs, but they could retrain for one of those new green or healthcare jobs. Also, at least they'd have their medical costs covered while they were unemployed.

6. Taxation Fairness
Make the wealthy pay the same percentage of their income in taxes as the rest of us do. Seems only fair to me, and it would help us raise a ton of money to train people for all those new green and medical jobs we'll have.

Pretty soon, we'll all have a job and be able to buy stuff, which means more companies can sell stuff, which means more people have jobs, which means more people can buy stuff, etc., etc., etc.

Why don't I rule the world yet?

The Santa Question

2011-10-18T12:03:00.001-05:00

We had the "Santa discussion" with our 7-year-old son last night. It actually went pretty well.

I should back up a little and say that I was listening to the audiobook version of "Parenting Beyond Belief" which is a parenting book for atheists. There were a few different takes on the Santa issue in the book. Some said you should never tell your child that Santa is real to begin with, but since I read the book 7 years into my parenting adventure, that really wasn't an option. Someone else said that you should reveal the secret at the point when they ask you point blank if Santa is real or not, because otherwise you're just lying to them, and when they eventually figure that out they may not trust you on other issues.

This plan of attack made sense to me. Last year, when we were driving home one day, he piped up from the backseat and asked "Mom, is Santa really real?" At that point, I just kind of danced around the issue by saying that some people believe Santa is real, and others don't, and it's really up to you to decide if you believe. I realized later that this was the exact response I gave him when he asked me if God was real.

So a few days ago, I asked him what he was currently thinking about Santa Claus, and he said that he had a plan this year, whereby he would ask Santa for a certain present and not ask anyone else for it, and then when Santa brought it for him, he would know he was real. Smart kid.

You see why I didn't want to have his dreams crushed come Christmas morning.

When we spoke with him last night and told him that we were the ones buying him those "Santa" presents, he smiled. We asked him how long he had suspected it was us, and he said, "since I was 4." Again, smart kid. When we asked him if he was disappointed that Santa wasn't real, he said "no" and then moved on with reading his book.

Christmas at our house is a purely secular/cultural holiday. It's all about food, family, and fun (oh, and presents). I suspect that our son doesn't really care if Santa brings him any presents, as long as someone does and Christmas keeps coming.

And hopefully, this will be a lesson to him in questioning the things that other people say are true, "just because." If I can do anything good as a parent, it would be to instill in my sons the need to question and think for themselves.

Letter to a Bumper Sticker

2011-10-12T12:21:00.000-05:00

This article was just so great I had to reprint it here. That, and I'm too lazy to write anything original at the moment. It was written by Cate Odonnell at Drake University and I'm very jealous that I didn't write it. Enjoy.

I would like to take a moment to acknowledge my favorite bumper sticker I used to see in the Goodwin-Kirk parking lot. I’m talking, of course, about the one that asks me, “Aren’t you glad your mother was pro-life?”

Good call, bumper sticker. Yes, all people who give birth are automatically pro-life. But just for argument’s sake, what might it be like to have one of those crazy, baby-eating, pro-choice mothers?
Bumper sticker, it might interest you to know that I personally have one of those baby-eating mothers. “But that’s impossible,” you might say. “You have not been eaten and surely you were once a baby.”

Well played, bumper sticker. One of the choices offered by being pro-choice is giving birth. My baby-eating mother didn’t decide to keep me out of fear, lack of access to a safe, legal abortion or because she saw a creepy pro-life billboard. In fact, it would seem that she kept me because she wanted me. Sometimes baby-eaters do stuff like that.

Pro-life is an interesting term, actually. The men and women who are truly pro-life are awesome. You can tell they’re awesome because they do such things as help pregnant women access prenatal resources and help parents locate health care, childcare and other support they need. Rather than guilting women or taking away their rights, some pro-life organizations also look at more successful ways of lowering the number of abortions, such as educating people about using birth control and preventing unwanted pregnancies. Avoiding unwanted pregnancies means fewer abortions, which means everyone wins. Go ahead and give the people who fall into this category a high-five. I like them.

Interestingly enough, though, many people who call themselves pro-life would more appropriately fit under the title of anti-choice. I’ve noticed that a solid chunk of the people who claim to be pro-life actually do more to reduce my autonomy than to increase the chance of life or the quality of life of my future children.

If you’re confused about whether you’re pro-life or anti-choice, here’s a litmus test: Are you forcing your religious convictions on me? Then you are anti-choice. Are you harassing a woman entering Planned Parenthood, intentionally and cruelly making a difficult day harder for her? Anti-choice again. Do you feel that cells in my body have more rights than I do? Anti-choice. Are you holding up a sign that confuses the terms “zygote,” “embryo” or “fetus” with an incorrect term like “baby” or “child?” Well, that doesn’t make you anti-choice as much as scientifically inaccurate and rhetorically misleading. But you still don’t qualify as pro-life. Boom. Roasted.

Moreover, when women are no longer able to get abortions for life-endangering pregnancies, it seems less pro-life and more pro-death. Also falling under pro-death: limiting safe and legal abortions for women, causing an increase in illegal “back alley abortions.” According to the Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood, 47,000 women worldwide died from unsafe abortions in 2008, not including the women with serious infections and lifelong physical and emotional scars. Don’t limit my right to a safe abortion and tell me you’re pro-life. Just don’t.
I’ll be real with you, pro-life bumper sticker. If I were to have any other kind of medical procedure and you interfered with it, I would judge you hardcore. There is, for instance, no need for you to protest my knee surgery with offensive signs. If you attempted to pass legislature to make knee surgery more difficult to get, then that would be a jerk move. Ditto in trying to ensure that my insurance wouldn’t cover that knee surgery. When it’s all said and done, I feel like you have no business being involved in my knee surgery at all, really. Seeing, you know, as it is a private medical procedure and also not your knee.

So how do we meet in the middle when you think I’m a baby killer and I think you’re laying claim to my uterus? You may be able to tell from aforementioned comments that I have a few opinions on abortion, and I am not free from blame when I say that as students at Drake, we have polarized the issue to the extent that almost all we can do is close our minds. The crosses in Helmick Commons last year signifying “dead babies” was probably not the most persuasive gesture Drake Respect for Life could have imagined (especially since I find it presumptuous that my embryo would have a cross. Are all “dead babies” automatically Christian now?). Likewise, if you’re one of the people who took those crosses or otherwise destroyed that display, you did absolutely nothing but prove your intolerance to other points of view. Good work, kids.

I would like to call a truce of sorts. As pro-choice Drake students, is it possible that we don’t tear down signs that promote Respect for Life and its events? In fact, what if we go to the events and try to understand their members’ perspectives? They had a non-polarizing speaker come to campus last year that said women don’t have access to or knowledge of resources and options besides abortion. What up, compromise? At the same point, it would be nice if the most recent pro-life speaker on campus didn’t lump together homosexuality, abortion, child abuse and the Holocaust. I can’t say those arguments convinced me of anything besides a misunderstanding of every issue, ever.

What if we had conversations around abortion instead of debates? Discussion around the issue of abortion is important, whether it is in classes, in print or in chalk. Perhaps we could see each other as intelligent and opinionated individuals instead of monsters. It would be nice to see collaborative programs educating students about reproductive rights and issues, and it would be great if you stopped assuming things about my mom. I dream of a day when outspoken pro-choice supporters and passionate pro-lifers can walk hand-in-hand and be judged not by their stances on abortion, but by their willingness to open their minds and respect each other’s seriously misguided perspectives.

Boom. Put that on a bumper sticker.

School Vouchers and Homeschooling

2011-09-28T15:32:00.000-05:00

Our local paper has an article in it today about the local school board launching an initiative to find out why students have been either leaving the district or not enrolling at all. After skimming the article, I scrolled down to the comments section. You'd think I would have learned by now to quit reading the comments in this paper, since they're populated by trolls, but I let my curiosity get the better of me.

Some of the comments are as follows:

"If you really want the best education you should give vouchers for those that believe another school or homeschool provides a better work environment. Competition is ALWAYS the best for education and business/ thats why walmart rules the world because it has no real competition and its stuff is junk and workers underpaid."

"Ahh, but liberal teachings are so important to the Democrat agenda. What gives parents the right to want their children to learn anything else? Much less, not pay for it (liberal agenda)."

"We choose to homeschool, and I could go on and on about about the reasons: Smaller . . . no negative peer pressure, moral absolutes, less wasted time,. . ."

Personally, I think we have an above-average public school system here. I have many complaints about my time as a student here, but overall, as a parent I've been happy with the level of education my son is getting. He had some problems with reading in Kindergarten and 1st grade, and was quickly enrolled into a one-on-one teaching program that brought him up to grade level. The teachers have been wonderful, and my son loves going to school.

However, year after year our school district asks for more money from the community, and year after year they are denied. Then we have the nerve to complain about the quality of our schools.

I do not understand how anyone can claim that school vouchers are the answer to our public school problems. In case you're unfamiliar with the concept of school vouchers, here's the gist of it: I think my local public school sucks, so the government should give me tuition money to enroll my kids in a private or religious school. How does that solve anything? Our public school system is decaying, so instead of focusing money on them, let's funnel it to private schools? And I won't even get into the problems with using public money to send kids to religious schools. I'm sure you can figure out where I stand on that one.

As for home-schooling, I can understand the impulse to want to provide a better education for your children by providing it at home, but I think home-schooling brings it own set of problems. For one thing, most home-schooling these days seems to be going on for religious reasons, which again, I probably don't have to explain my problem with.

But to me, the biggest issue is the damage that can be done by keeping your children from going through the struggles associated with school. Learning how to survive and thrive and in the social setting of school is an important part of development. Kids need to figure out how to navigate the world full of other people who don't necessarily think or act like them. Kids who are sheltered from that may have problems transitioning into the world of work as an adult.

Anyway, my point is, public schools are important. They educate the next generation of people who will be taking care of us in our old age. Even if you don't have a child in school, don't you want the people who will be your future doctors, business owners and insurance salesmen to be properly educated? Why don't we value our public education system a little more?

The Death Penalty

2011-09-22T10:07:00.000-05:00

I used to be "squishy" on the death penalty issue. I was never a hardcore "hang 'em high" type, but I used to think that if you killed someone, you deserved to die. And in a way, I still think that. Many people have that emotional reaction to crime. Many of us think that if someone we love was murdered, we would want the person who did it to die. I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with that.

Over the years though, my opinion on the issue has evolved. I used to think that from a realistic point of view, it was a whole lot cheaper to just execute someone than to incarcerate them for the rest of their lives. Then I learned that it's actually more expensive to impose the death penalty, because of the legal fees associated with the mandatory appeals process.

I used to think that death was the "ultimate penalty." But after mulling it over for awhile, I think that it's actually more of a punishment to spend the rest of your long life in prison. Just because you're alive, that doesn't mean your life is good. Death can actually be a kind of escape from responsibility.

I used to think that our justice system was more or less right on when convicting people, but after hearing the stories of many people who were either innocent or at the very least had a decent amount of reasonable doubt in their case, I'm convinced we have executed innocent people.

I used to think that the death penalty was reserved for the "worst of the worst," but that is clearly not the case anymore.

I used to think that the family of the victim(s) had the right to see the perpetrator of the crime put to death, but now I think that the family of the victim(s) of a violent crime is probably not in the best place to be deciding anything. And should we leave these kinds of life or death decisions up to people who are in an unimaginable emotional state?

We all look back on the middle ages with all their beheadings and various creative ways to execute people with wonder and a sense of "what were they thinking?" But aren't we really doing the same thing? Just because our method of execution is cleaner and quieter, is it any different?

On it's face, the death penalty seems to make at least some sense. An eye for an eye. But how can we be positive that the eye we're taking is the right one? The justice system is run by people, and people make mistakes. I don't want to take that chance.

Let 'Em Die

2011-09-20T07:11:00.000-05:00

With the whole Ron Paul "Let Him Die" brouhaha last week, I had really hoped that the morality of healthcare in America would start to get more attention in the media. Sadly, I was wrong.

There are many financial and political arguments to be made regarding America's healthcare calamity, but no one seems to want to touch the moral argument. For all the talk we hear about Christianity and faith in politics, especially on the side of the GOP, why don't we talk and think more about what the "right" thing to do is rather than what the most cost-effect thing to do is?

Republicans are so willing to make moral arguments on every other issue of the day. Abortion, gay marriage; these things are not argued by the right on their financial impacts, but on the morality. So why are they so squeamish about even the sheer mention of the morality of healthcare.

Recently, a 24-year-old man died from a tooth infection that spread to his brain. Yes, that happened.
Here.
In America.
An easily treatable, preventable thing that in any other western "civilized" country would have been treated quickly through some sort of government directed plan. Was his needless death moral? Is that what Jesus would approve of?

My brother once said that you really can't argue about healthcare reform because it's a moral issue and people refuse to talk about the morality or even see it (or something to that effect - I'm sure I'm misquoting). But he was right. Until this country grapples with the undeniable fact that our healthcare "system" is truly amoral, we will never have significant change.

Why I'm an Atheist

2011-09-16T10:56:00.000-05:00

In our world, people often question how someone could be an Atheist. But I question how in this day and age, anyone could not be an Atheist. I feel I must stress again that this is my own personal opinion, and it's not meant to offend anyone; just to make you think a little. :-)

Science
We now have at our disposal so much scientific information, so many rational explanations about how the world works, that we really don't need a religion to explain it to us. Back when there was no explanation for disease, natural disasters, or other natural phenomena, it made sense to think that there was some intelligent force causing everything. But these days, that explanation simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Too Many Religions
With so many different doctrines about god(s) in the world, how can any one be right? The biggest predictor of someone's religious belief is their place of birth. If there really was one god with one doctrine, why would there be so very many different faiths around the world, and why would your faith depend on where you live? As a child, I wondered how a fair and loving god would condemn a small child in Africa to hell simply because he had not had the luxury of hearing about Christianity, and that question sticks with me to this day.

Skepticism
I've always been one to question things, so it's natural that I would question religion. I've never found any concrete proof to show that god exists, so why would I believe something in the absence of proof? When my son questions me about god or religion, I tell him he should believe whatever he can find proof of. Someone telling me that the Bible is true because the Bible says so is just circular logic that makes no sense. If that is the case, then why isn't the Koran correct because the Koran says so?

Holy Books
All holy books, including the Bible, were written by men, not a supernatural being, and men can say anything they want to. They can make stuff up, they can misinterpret, they can have poor memories. Nothing in any holy book holds any sway for me, because there is no reason to believe that any of the dictates in them are legitimate. People of faith tend to pick and choose the passages that apply to them or that feel good to them, ignoring everything else that's written in the book. It's way too subjective to take seriously, and ripe for any kind of rampant misinterpretation or misuse.

Contradictions
It makes no sense to me how there can be such variation of human life, yet we have religions that tell us we all have to act in a certain way. Why would an all-knowing god create gay people, then tell them to ignore those feelings? Why would he create women, and then tell them they are not worthy of the same rights as men? Why would he create menstruation and then tell women they're dirty when it happens? Why would he create sex as such a pleasurable means to reproduce, then tell people to never, ever do it?

If some guy walked up to you on the street and told you he was the son of god and you should listen to what he has to say so you can be saved, and furthermore, you should do this just because he said so and because god said so too, you'd probably think he was crazy and ignore him. But because a similar story happened thousands of years ago, it somehow makes sense? Just because a story is repeated enough and believed to be true by a lot of people, it doesn't make it true.

I wish believers of any religion would question their own faith using the same standards they apply to other faiths. To Christians, it's obvious that Islam is wrong. But why? Are their beliefs and stories really that much different than Christian's? Are Mormon's stories any crazier than Catholic's? With so many faiths to choose from, how can any one be the "true" faith.

Basically, I'm not going to believe anything that just makes me "feel good." If there is no rational reason for believing it, I don't see a reason to commit my life to it. I don't need a religious doctrine to tell me how to be good. I have an innate sense of what is right and wrong, as I think most people do. I don't require a holy book to tell me that I shouldn't hurt or kill someone, or that I should treat others with respect or kindness.

I think the world is enough as it is, and religion is a just a distraction from finding out what's actually true in the world.

The Creed

2011-09-12T14:49:00.000-05:00

As I was listening to the Freethought Radio podcast, I heard the greatest thing I've never heard before.

H.L. Mencken's Creed:

I believe that religion, generally speaking, has been a curse to mankind – that its modest and greatly overestimated services on the ethical side have been more than overcome by the damage it has done to clear and honest thinking.

I believe that no discovery of fact, however trivial, can be wholly useless to the race, and that no trumpeting of falsehood, however virtuous in intent, can be anything but vicious.

I believe that all government is evil, in that all government must necessarily make war upon liberty…

I believe that the evidence for immortality is no better than the evidence of witches, and deserves no more respect.

I believe in the complete freedom of thought and speech…

I believe in the capacity of man to conquer his world, and to find out what it is made of, and how it is run.

I believe in the reality of progress.

I – But the whole thing, after all, may be put very simply. I believe that it is better to tell the truth than to lie. I believe that it is better to be free than to be a slave. And I believe that it is better to know than be ignorant.

How have I never heard this before? It so perfectly sums up my beliefs (except for that whole thing about government being evil. . . )

Conservative Liberals

2011-08-30T12:59:00.000-05:00

I was just listening to MPR (Minnesota Public Radio for the uninitiated) and they were discussing the current divide between the two political parties in Washington. The speaker (I have no idea who he was since I turned the show on halfway through) made the statement that a big part of the problem is that the Republicans have gotten so conservative, and the Democrats have gotten so liberal.

WHAT??!!

I am a liberal. I am very, very, unabashedly liberal. Most of the Democrats in Congress however, are not.

Just look at the President. Do people really and truly believe that he is oh-so-very liberal? Yes, he may lean to the left, but he's nowhere near a full-fledged liberal when it comes to most issues. He is fully willing to compromise any liberal beliefs that he has to get his job done and stay popular with the independents.

Just because the Republicans have become more conservative, doesn't mean that the Democrats by default have become more liberal. We seem to live in this state of equal time; where if there is one side, there must be an equal point of view on the other side. If 'A' equals 'A', then 'B' MUST equal 'B.' If conservatives love America, then liberals must hate it. If Republicans like "family values" then Democrats must hate them.

I just really don't see how anyone can take an honest look at the Democratic Party and say that they are "more liberal" than they ever used to be. There are a few tried and true liberals like Barney Frank, Al Franken, and Bernie Sanders, but on the whole, the Democratic Party has been inching to the right for quite some time now. Our whole system has strayed to the right, and maybe that makes it look like the Dems are more liberal than they actually are. Sadly, they are not.

Rick Perry: The New GWB

2011-08-29T09:02:00.000-05:00

I'm really having a hard time with this whole Rick Perry phenomenon. I simply can't wrap my head around how this country went through 8 years of pure hell under George W. Bush, yet half of the country seems ready and willing to jump right back under the bus.

Whenever I hear Rick Perry speak, I see GWB. He's got the same swagger, condescending tone in his voice and inability to put together coherent sentences. I heard someone on TV who's met him describe Perry as "dumb as a box of rocks." That's pretty dumb.

My husband thinks it's due to the fact that half the country is functional retarded; sorry, "mentally challenged." But I'd like to give people a little more credit than that. Can't they see how Perry would just be reheated GWB? Did anybody but the super-rich do well from 2000-2008? Were soldiers better off? Were workers, women, children better off? I don't think so.

Since when did having a nauseatingly macho attitude qualify you to be the president? Oh ya, since GWB.

By the Numbers

2011-08-21T12:29:00.000-05:00

My brother and I tend to call each other when we're out driving and we see interesting bumper stickers. The other day, he called me and said he was sitting behind someone with a bumper sticker that read, "1 in 4 babies dies from choice." We both thought that number seemed a bit off, so I did some Google-ing and found this at the Guttmacher Institute website:

"Twenty-two percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion."

So I guess that number was (fairly) accurate.

What interested me more, though, was the statistic I found right above that one:

"Nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended." Wow.

So then I thought, I wonder what the stats are in Europe, where they are much more open about sexuality and provide comprehensive sex ed and easier access to abortion.

I couldn't find useful comparisons on the whole population, since I'm lazy and unwilling to go past the first page of Google results, but I did find a teen comparison on the Advocates for Youth Site. According to their numbers:

"In the United States, the teen abortion rate is twice that of Germany and more than 1.5 times that of the Netherlands. "

You can read their full report here: http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=419&Itemid=177

So what does this tell me? Our abortion rate could be much lower than it is if we quit insisting on turning a blind eye to the realities of sex. We seem to tell kids, "Sex is dirty, scary and dangerous, so you should save it for the person you really love and never give it to anyone else." How realistic is that point of view?

Does it make me sad that our abortion rate is practically 25%? I guess. But not because I think "babies" are dying. It's because I think many of the women who have been put in a position to choose abortion may not have had to do so if they had reasonable access to birth control and education.

The Religions, They are a Changin'

2011-08-20T14:49:00.000-05:00

I have three, count 'em, three, very cool cousins who have radically changed their religions in the past few years. Two became Catholics and one is now an Evangelical. If you're reading this, don't worry, I'm not talking about you. The three I speak of don't read my blog. One is on facebook, but he unfriended me, I'm assuming because he didn't like my confrontational replies to the BS he was posting.

This really distresses me. Not so much the fact that they changed their religions. People are free to do what they want. What bugs me is that these were three of my favorite relatives. All of them used to babysit my brother and I when we were kids, and they were the cool, pizza-ordering, cartoon-watching grown-ups we really looked up to and admired. As adults, I also really liked all of them. They were just so cool and down to Earth and fun to talk to. One of them used to call me when I was in the hospital with one of my Crohn's flare-ups and give me pep talks because he deals with a similar disease.

But now, it's as if they all made a radical 180 in their personalities. With the exception of one, the other two have become totally different people. They now seem to put the church and their new radically conservative ideologies above their friends and family. One of those two didn't come to our annual family reunion this year. I can only guess, since we don't really talk anymore, but I'm assuming it's because he didn't want to hang out with the rest of us heathens.

The other two were at the reunion, where I missed out on an apparently epic conversation on religion. Another cousin, we'll call her "Jennie," filled me in on the conversation that took place after I had taken my kids home. The discussion had turned to gay marriage. To make sense of the conversation, you need to know that one of these guy's daughters is a lesbian. When asked by Jennie if he would walk her down the aisle if she got married, he answered, "no." When she asked the other guy, who is this girl's uncle, if he would come to her wedding if she decided to get married, he also answered, "no."

Their reasoning was that a gay marriage was not a "real" marriage because it was not sanctioned by the church, therefore it didn't deserve their respect or time. Jennie pointed out to them that my marriage was also not sanctioned by the church, but my dad walked me down the aisle and they both came to my wedding (although, to be fair, that was in their pre-bible-banging days). They explained to her that my marriage was also not "real," and by extension, I guess my brother's marriage and my parent's marriage are also not "real" because none of them were sanctioned by a church. Although I might point out that all of those marriages are still going strong despite the absence of god, while many "real" marriages I know of have fallen apart.

What worries me the most about this phenomenon is, could it happen to me? Could I hit 40 and all of a sudden decide to find Jesus? That would be truly tragic, since I like my life the way it is now. And I simply can't understand how finding Jesus causes you to lose your family if they don't agree with your new doctrine on life.

It seems like an epic waste of faith.

What's Wrong With Women Working?

2011-08-16T14:05:00.000-05:00

When I was at the county fair a couple of weeks ago, I picked up some "literature" at a booth that's been a fixture at the fair for as long as I can remember. It has about 50 or so small pamphlets on various Christian topics.

The pamphlet, entitled "What's Wrong With Women Working?" has provided several minutes worth of entertainment for me and my family. It's an overview of the biblical teachings on women working outside of the home, and it is just precious.

Here are a few of my favorite quotes:

"The woman is to look to her husband for her food. The husband is to go out and make the living. Now we have a generation of weasels that are eating out of a woman's pocketbook."

"It is an abomination for 'Christian' colleges to offer career courses for women. A young lady can learn all she needs to know about homemaking at home."

"Vital areas of the home such as cooking, canning, freezing, washing, ironing, cleaning, shopping, nursing the sick, training the children, helping their husband, etc., etc., are not passingly mastered. They require full time."

Under the heading, "A Few Excuses for Violating the Scriptures," excuse number two is "My husband doesn't earn enough money." The response to this excuse reads as follows:

"Maybe you're just trying to live outside his means. Maybe you're living up more than he earns. The answer to that problem is not to abandon God's instructions for the wife and launch out on a path of your own choosing. You need to cut down on your high tone living. The problem may not be that he doesn't earn enough. It may be you are just spending it faster than he can bring it home. Living above your means."

The last section of the pamphlet is entitled, "Dangers of Violating the Scriptures," and the "dangers" are simply priceless:

"1. Juvenile delinquency and dope heads.
2. Self sufficient women bringing home their own check.
3. The wife sees some 'sharp cookie' some 'Fancy Dan' over there on the job. She begins to compare him with her own husband. She has her own check. Soon she doesn't need her husband any longer."

The "Conclusion" of the pamphlet is very succinct:

I have just told you a few things about what's wrong with women working. There are many, many other things wrong with it."

It amazes me that many Christians today will laugh at that antiquated view of women in the workplace, and yet still cling so strongly to the "biblical teachings" on other issues such as gay marriage and abortion. It's a typical example of conservatives and liberals alike picking and choosing scripture to support their already established points of view.

Just one more reason I'm an Atheist.

Christian Republicans

2011-08-10T15:31:00.000-05:00

I've been thinking a lot lately about the major contradiction in beliefs between Christians and Republican'ts. Let's examine:

Christians:
-Help the poor, sick, and "least among us"
-Never judge thy neighbor
-Give away your possessions so that the less fortunate may have comfort
-Be kind in spirit
I'm pretty sure these are the things Jesus preached, albeit in a more condensed format.

Republican'ts:
-What's mine is mine, and you don't get any
-Welfare is for lazy people
-Avoid taxes at all costs, even though it means poor people may go hungry
-Privatize healthcare so that only the rich can get medicine
Again, this isn't meant to characterize the entire GOP platform, but I'm generalizing here.

I really can't wrap my head around why these two groups are so intertwined. Christians today seem to ignore the "help your neighbor" part and instead focus all of their energy on abortion and gay marriage, neither of which Jesus actually spoke about.

Ive heard some of these people tell me that it's the church's job to care for the poor, not the government's, but if the government has a much more effective way to care for the poor, say, through Medicare or food stamps, shouldn't they support that? I mean, you can't guarantee that all people live in a place with a particularly helpful church, but you can insure that everyone in America gets help with Federal programs and public education.

Where is the connection that I'm not seeing here?

Community Clinic

2011-08-03T19:37:00.000-05:00

I have an appointment at the Mayo Clinic in the morning (nothing to worry about - just a routine follow-up), so I actually have a little bit of precious "alone time" here in my hotel room. With no toddler to distract me, I can actually write in peace for once.

So here's what I've been involved with lately.

Our local Planned Parenthood clinic is scheduled to close this month, after 40 years of service to the community. In a small, rural town like mine, PPH was the only place people looking for affordable family planning care could go. There are no other low-cost clinics anywhere near here, and if you're trying to get care with discretion, you can't count on the local medical center. After all, you're definitely going to run into one of your mom's friends while you're there, who probably has access to your medical records and knows what you're doing there.

So for this community, PPH closing is a major catastophe, to say the least.

For the better part of a year, I've been working with a local group based at the Public Health Department that's been trying to set up a teen wellness clinic. A place that would offer family planning services, as well as other wellness services, to local teens.

When it started, the point of it was to supplement PPH's dwindling hours. For several years now they had only been open a few hours a week. However, with the announcement that PPH would be closing, our clinic project took on a whole new level of importance.

I had mentioned to my parents that I had been attending these steering committee meetings, and had talked to them a little bit in passing about what we were doing. Last week, I was told by my mom that I should quit mentioning it to my dad, because he is very concerned that my involvement in this project will hurt our family business.

I don't take this as any kind of criticism on my dad's part. I'm sure he's as pro-family-planning-clinic as the next guy. He's simply being realistic about the intolerance for liberal ideas (or as I call them, "common sense") that can always be found in our community. Even though this project won't have the name "Planned Parenthood," and even though it's a Public Health project, which I think is fairly uncontroversial, the mere fact that birth control will be available to (unmarried) people will invite the ire of the local conservative majority.

It just really saddens me that in this day and age, birth control is still a controversial issue.

Entitlements

2011-07-26T08:55:00.000-05:00

Can we please, for the love of god, STOP calling them "entitlements" and use some proper terminology here? They are "safety nets" not "entitlement programs."

I understand why the Republican'ts use the term. It makes Medicare and Social Security sound like luxury programs that Americans feel "entitled" to and therefore don't really need or deserve.

What I can't understand is why the Democrats have wholeheartedly jumped on board with this Frank Luntzian language. It's like we always dive head first into the conservative traps without thinking at all.

I have a job where I have to deal with Medicare billing quite frequently, and believe me, it's not some sort of free for all giveaway for old people. Anyone who deals with Medicare knows that their standards and anti-fraud measures are very stringent, and it's actually pretty hard to make sure something gets covered under Medicare. You really have to have all of your i's dotted and t's crossed.

The idea that we're just throwing money at these programs for no reason is laughable. People need a safety net, especially elderly people whose savings have been plundered by Wall Street.

What kind of country are we when we view taking care of our most vulnerable citizens through the same lens as spoiled rich kids receiving an inheritance? Not a very Christian one I would say.

Love Crimes of Kabul

2011-07-21T13:41:00.000-05:00

The other night my husband and I watched a movie called "Love Crimes of Kabul."

No, it's not what you're thinking.

It was a documentary about people (mostly women) who are sitting in prison in Afghanistan because of some sort of "crime" involving adultery.

One young woman was there because she had been found at her kitchen table eating macaroni and cheese with her boyfriend. She was charged with intent to engage in sexual acts or something of that sort.

Another woman was arrested for not returning home from work on time. She had missed her curfew and was afraid to go home because, as she said, "my family talks with knives." She was 24-years-old.

It really made me think 2 different things.

One: How do we think that we're going to bring any kind of democracy to a country that treats its women like children?

Two: In a perfect Evangelical Christian society wouldn't it be exactly the same?

Letter to the Senator

2011-07-12T07:04:00.000-05:00

I've been getting regular email updates regarding the state government shutdown from my Republican State Senator, Paul Gazelka. When I got the last one, I decided to email him back. It went something like this:

"I appreciate that Republicans and Democrats have different views about taxing vs. cutting, but I hope you'll consider getting rid of the social demands that you put into your proposal, like abortion and stem cell research. These are not issues that should be decided in the budget negotiations.

I also think that since the Governor has been willing to scale back his tax proposals, that you guys could do your part to compromise some of your ideas as well."

Here's the response I got:

"There was almost an agreement on June 30th. The governor has gone back to the full $1.4 billion increase above the $4 billion increase we already passed in our budget.

It would not surprise me if we were somewhere near his last agreement that he withdrew.

Paul Gazelka"

Could someone please explain to me how this addresses anything I wrote to him about?

This is what we're dealing with here in Minnesota. God help us all.

MN Shutdown - Who's at Fault?

2011-07-06T18:11:00.000-05:00

Hear me out. Even though I'm a liberal, I'd like to think I can look at this at least a little bit objectively.

When we all went to polls last November, we voted for people based on our beliefs about how the government should be run. Mark Dayton made no secret of the fact that if he became the Governor, his goal would be to raise taxes on the wealthiest Minnesotans. And the Republicans who were elected in the legislature made no secret of the fact that if they won, they would not raise ANY taxes, and would solve the budget deficit by cutting programs.

Well, guess what? All of them won, and now all of them are holding their ground.

What doesn't seem to be getting any coverage in the press is the fact that along with the cuts Republicans put in their budget proposal, they also added several non-budget related demands, such as banning abortion after 20 weeks, eliminating collective bargaining rights, and getting rid of stem-cell research.

What does any of that have to do with balancing the budget? Nothing, that's what.

If the Democrats were insisting on adding marriage equality to the budget plan, I would be against that too, because budget negotiations are no place for social warfare.

Governor Dayton has been negotiating. He's a agreed to scale back his tax hikes, and is willing to cut funding to some programs. However, the Rupublican'ts continue to insist that all of their demands be met. That's not negotiation, that's hostage-taking.

You have to give it to the Republican'ts though. Many people elected them solely on the abortion issue, and they're going to give those voters what they want come hell or high water.

So whose fault is it? The voters. I hope abortion is an important enough issue for them to stop receiving their daycare assistance into the foreseeable future.

What Liberals Celebrate on the 4th of July

2011-07-03T12:17:00.000-05:00

While browsing through Facebook today, I came across a great article by Dan Bimrose entitled "What a Liberal Does on the 4th of July." It was an excellent read and it inspired me to write my own post about liberals and Independence Day. Then I realized that (a) my toddler will be up from his nap soon, so I don't have much time, and (b) I really can't say it any better than Dan did.

If you want to read the full article, go here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-bimrose/what-a-liberal-does-on-th_b_887567.html

Otherwise, here is my favorite part:

Liberals respect, honor and cherish the Constitution as an evolving document capable of being changed when we as a nation are ready for change.

We believe that the founders had it right when they said in the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." We believe this to be the very worthy intent of our founding fathers.

We acknowledge conservatives love the Constitution as well. Well, they love certain parts of the Constitution. Different conservative groups would love to repeal a variety of amendments including the 8th, the 14th, the 16th, the 17th, the 19th and possibly the 26th amendment.

Liberals do believe that children born in the inner city or poverty stricken rural areas deserve the same access to health care as blue bloods spending the holiday on Martha's Vineyard. We are not unpatriotic because we believe this. Perhaps you could call us compassionate, but not unpatriotic.

We understand that we pass on more to our children than just budgets and balance sheets. We also pass on the environment and the planet to our children and grandchildren. Regardless of whether or not we feel that global warming is real or a myth we still value clean water and clean air.

We may not appreciate the wars we are currently fighting in the Middle East, but we love and respect our soldiers. After all they are our brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, wives and husbands.

We believe that teachers, policeman and firefighters should be paid and paid well due to their value and service to our community.

We believe that all of our children deserve libraries, gym class, and the opportunity to star in their school play.

We believe our country is great because we are a melting pot, not in spite of it. We value diversity. This is the American Way. This was the American dream.

We pay our taxes, but think that the wealthiest amongst us and the most profitable industries can share in bearing a little extra burden to fix our government's mistakes.

We believe that our senior citizens are people who have served our countries and their families well. They deserve not just our respect, but the ability to retire with the reasonable assurance that their health needs and financial needs will be met.

No, we do not agree with everything and most of the time we do not agree with anything, but it is not necessary to call each other unpatriotic or un-American. Liberals do not think conservatives are evil, we just think they are wrong. Perhaps some of the name calling conservatives out there will learn that liberals are Americans too.

Whether liberal or conservative, we are all American. Have a great 4th everyone!

MORON

2011-07-01T14:16:00.000-05:00

This was what I found on my car this morning. Someone had written "MORON" in the dust on my rear window. I have to give them props for spelling it correctly at least. I'm assuming they were referring to my "Pro-Child, Pro-Family, Pro-Choice" bumper sticker. Or maybe they just hate Fords, and by extension, America.

It probably happened at the restaurant last night where I was enjoying a leisurely dinner with my extended family. Either that, or my husband did it this morning, but I think that's the least likely of the two scenarios. I tried to take a picture for you, but the damn glare from the sun wouldn't cooperate.

As I've said before though, it amazes me that someone thinks I'm going to change my mind on the issue based on their thoughtless window writing. I'm amazed they even got it on there at all considering I just washed my car yesterday. But it cleaned off easily, so I guess no harm done. Thanks, you moron.

Shutdown Time

2011-06-29T21:57:00.000-05:00

Everyone in Minnesota is bracing themselves for the impending state shutdown. If the Democratic governor and the Republican legislature can't come to an agreement on the budget my Friday, we'll all be SOL for the 4th of July weekend.

What I can't wrap my head around is how the average, everyday citizen who even pays minimal attention to the issue can't seem to see what's going on here. Governor Dayton wants to raise taxes on the wealthiest 2% of income earners in the state, and the Republicans want to just cut programs with no revenue increases. So in the spirit of compromise, the governor said, "OK, I'll cut my plan down by half, now it's your turn," and then the Republicans come back with, "Nope."

I thought the point of governing was to compromise for the good of the people. But here in MN, our conservative legislators are simply digging in their heels and refusing to compromise on their end. Yet somehow, what with the brilliant messaging machine that the Republican party has become, all the blame seems to either get put on the governor or at least spread evenly between him and the legislators.

But this should not be an even sum blame-game. One side is willing to greatly compromise, while the other is simply content to sit it out until the opposing party caves in. That's not governing and it's not fair.

My Republican state senator had the nerve to send out an email to his constituents reminding them of all the programs that will get cut if there's a shutdown. Yes, we know - and you're the one who won't do anything about it!! The whole thing just makes me crazy!!

The Book of Mormon

2011-06-27T21:29:00.000-05:00

I apologize in advance for those I will undoubtedly offend with this post.

I recently got a copy of the soundtrack for "The Book of Mormon - The Musical," the new Tony award winning musical on Broadway. It's the perfect combination of my love of musical theater and atheism. If you haven't listened to it yet, you must. It's funny.

My favorite song is "I Believe" which chronicles some actual Mormon beliefs. The lyrics are as follows (I cut out a few boring verses for the sake of length):

"A warlord who shoots people in the face.
What's so scary about that?
I must trust that my Lord is mightier
And always has my back.
Now I must be completely devout
I can't have even one shred of doubt...

I Believe; that the Lord, God, created the universe
I Believe; that He sent His only Son to die for my sins
And I Believe; that ancient Jews built boats and sailed to America
I am a Mormon
And a Mormon just believes

You cannot just believe part way,
You have to believe in it all.
The problem is doubting the Lord's will
Instead of standing tall

I Believe; that God has a plan for all of us
I Believe; that plan involves me getting my own planet
And I Believe; that the current President of The Church, Thomas Modson, speaks directly to God
I am A Mormon
And dang it! a Mormon just believes!

You ask the Lord in faith
He will always answer you
Just believe in Him
And have no fear!

I Believe; that Satan has a hold of you
I Believe; that the Lord, God, has sent me here
And I Believe; that in 1978 God changed his mind about black people!
You can be a Mormon
A Mormon who just believes!

The Scriptures say that if you ask anything
God Himself will know
But you must ask Him without any doubt
And let your spirit grow...

I Believe; that God lives on a planet called Kolob
I Believe; that Jesus has his own planet as well
And I Believe; that the Garden of Eden was in Jackson County, Missouri
You can be a Mormon: you'll feel it
And you'll know it's all true: you just... feel it
You'll be a Mormon
By gosh!
A Mormon just...
Believes!"

It's funny because of the crazy beliefs it points out, but when I read it, I also laugh at the "you must ask Him without any doubt" part. It amazes me that if there is a god who supposedly created us as enormously curious beings, that he would just expect us to take things on faith alone, and blindly believe other people who claim they've spoken to god or have some sort of "inside knowledge" that no one else seems to have.

But is all of this really any more implausible than believing that a virgin gave birth, or that a snake talked someone into eating an apple, or that a man somehow fit two of every animal on Earth into one boat? Is it any crazier than believing that a wafer and wine is the actual flesh and blood of Jesus? Many of us like to make fun of other people's crazy beliefs, but I think we do ourselves a disservice when we fail to critically look at our own as well.

And if you really want a laugh, Google the lyrics to "All American Prophet."

Guest Blogger

2011-06-23T14:27:00.000-05:00

The following post was written by a guest blogger, Marcia, who is the head of our local DFL unit. I was unable to attend the meeting she is going to discuss, so she kindly did a write-up for me to post here. Thanks Marcia!

I attended a Town Hall Meeting last night in Crosby. Rep. John Ward (DFL) Senator Paul Gazelka (GOP SD 12 ) and Senator John Carlson (GOP SD 4). This was obviously 2:1 and I was proud of Rep. Ward for holding his own and defending the middle class.

The discussion revolved around the state’s budget and the potential shut down. Senator Carlson had some realistic points, but when a couple of Central Lakes College Student Senate students addressed Gazelka I heard him say that they should not ‘depend on government.’ He was not listening to them about how they were struggling to stay in school, needing work study and accumulating escalating school loans. The state used to pay 60% of tuition and now it pays 40%. Does MN value education anymore? The man lacks empathy, despite talking about several of his children being in college.

Mr. Gazelka better not go back to a special session and bring up Voter ID and funding a stadium! That will send me over the edge. It’s bad enough that he voted (and sponsored) putting discrimination on the ballot for 2012.

There was excellent testimony from teachers, nurses and blue collar citizens about the impact of ‘no new taxes’ on them the last 10 years.

If cutting taxes on the top tier was supposed to create more jobs and add stability, what has happened? Corporations are sitting on piles of cash and not hiring. Employees are working harder and some corporations are sending jobs overseas and hiding massive profits in overseas banks.

The GOP stance is that if the top 2% is asked to pay their fare share - they will leave the state. There have been tax cuts in MN the last few years, when times were good – the rich (and the rest of us) got tax cuts, so why when times are tough would we not want to make sure MN remains healthy? One woman said she does not want to compete with Mississippi. We’re MINNESOTA!!!

John Ward noted that Polaris (a MN based company) was closing its North Dakota plant. All the fear about companies moving to North Dakota, South Dakota and Wisconsin that the GOP swears will happen if they are asked to contribute toward good education, good infrastructure and the things MN critically needs.

But the worst comment of the evening was Gazelka saying that welfare people were moving to MN because they can access more benefits and they can use their EBT cards for tobacco and alcohol. John Ward said he would like to offer some ‘facts’ – and that was that ‘welfare’ Gazelka was speaking of was 1% of the budget. 85% of the Health & Human Service budget goes to nursing homes. Now - Remember the GOP was adamantly opposed to “Death Panels.” In Wisconsin, seniors get end of life counseling and they make out Living Wills and Health Care Directives. Wisconsin has cut health care costs because the elderly have chosen not to remain hooked up to tubes and to a machine with no hope for a quality life. This makes sense, to have seniors (or anyone!) make these choices while they are alive and well. This is when health care costs escalate, in the last few months of life.

It gets so tiring listening to the knee-jerk comments of Mr. Gazelka. Upon leaving I was giving thanks for Rep. John Ward and his courage defending the middle class. We know there have to be cuts, but they should not come at the expense of the health and well being of our great state. Cutting people off from Minnesota Care will result in increased Emergency Room costs. That hurts our hospitals. Those if us that have insurance pay more to cover these costs. We do not have an HONEST BUDGET and we have not had one for YEARS.

We need to be looking at the big picture and quit playing the ‘shell game’ budget that Tim Pawlenty subjected us to for his terms in office. Let’s decide what is important to MN and focus on that! I urge everyone to listen to former (GOP) Arne Carlson’s comments on the current state of our state. It is an eye opener. Tim Pawlenty did not budge an inch with a DFL House and Senate. Now the GOP House and Senate majority expects DFL Governor Mark Dayton to cave in to all their requests and budget? Maybe Gov. Dayton should and let the people see the ‘all cuts’ budget and what will happen to Minnesota. It would ensure that the DFL would win in 2012. I just hate to see all the people hurt in the process.

Father's Day

2011-06-18T13:56:00.000-05:00

Since it's Father's Day, I thought it would be a good time to give a little tribute to my dad.

My dad and I have never been your typical father/daughter duo. We never went to Father/Daughter dances, we don't hug each other and he doesn't have some cutesy pet name for me. My dad was a teen father and thus was thrown into fatherhood early, only to figure it out for himself.

The most important thing that my dad has really taught me is that when you have an opinion on something, your opinion better be able to hold up under scrutiny. As you might imagine, my opinionated beliefs began early in life. And whenever I would spout off my latest opinion on something, my dad was there to challenge it. Not in a mean, confrontational way, just in a "Oh ya, well what about this" way.

I remember when I was thirteen and the first gulf war was happening, I told my dad I thought it was horrible that we were sending all those soldiers over there to die. He said, "Really? Then what should we do? Let the people in Kuwait die instead?" He actually made me stop and think about the consequences of what I was saying.

No matter what opinion I had, my dad always played the Devil's Advocate. Most of the time, I could tell that he might not really believe what he was saying, but he wanted to make sure that I really believed what I was saying.

I don't think my dad had some master plan for teaching his children how to think; I'm sure it just came naturally to him to question things, as it now comes naturally to my brother and I. We are better thinkers and better people because of him. Although we grew up in Minnesota, he was not a hunter or golfer or fisherman. He taught us through his example to respect animals and other people and respect ourselves. And although I've never seen him set foot inside of a church, he taught us to be good to people and do what you can for others.

Now, as an adult, I work for my dad at our family-run company, and he continues to challenge me everyday. Usually it's just to be funny or in an attempt to annoy me, but he still makes me consider my opinions and then hold strong on them. And I make it my personal mission in life to liberalize him and repent against his Republican ways.

He's simply a good person who's made me a better person and better parent by his example.

Best and Brightest

2011-06-12T18:13:00.000-05:00

I was listening to MPR the other day and former Minnesota Governor Arne Carlson was being interviewed. For those who don't know, Arne Carlson was our Governor in the 90's (pre - Jesse "the Body") and he was one of those old-school Republicans who actually seemed to believe in limited government, fiscal responsibility and, god-forbid, compromise with Democrats. During the interview he was expressing some disappointment with the current field of Republicans (or Republi"can'ts" as I'm going to start calling them).

He said that the idea of government used to be "putting up your best and brightest to run for public office." These days as we all know, stupidity has become an ever-increasing virtue when it comes to being a viable candidate for public office, at least where the Republican'ts are concerned.

Take for example Mike LeMieur. He was the Republican candidate running for the state House in my neighboring town of Little Falls. I watched this man speak in a tea-party sponsored debate last year, and I swear to god he was dumb as a box of rocks. He was asked many fairly simple questions to which he responded, "I don't know, I'm just a plumber." When asked whether Shariah Law was a threat to the US, he actually answered by saying "I don't know what that is." And this guy won!! He was anti-choice and anti-gay and that was enough for the voters apparently.

In that same debate, the Democratic candidate running for the state Senate seat in my district was Taylor Stevenson. He's in his early twenties and just graduated from Dartmouth with a political science degree. He's young, sure, but he's a brilliant guy! You can speak to him on basically any topic and have a very intelligent conversation with him. He knows his shit, so to speak. But of course, he lost to anti-choice, anti-gay Paul Gazelka, who went to Oral Roberts University.

I really can't understand why people are so eager to send idiots into public office. I like to think I'm somewhat intelligent, but I want someone much, much smarter than me running the government. When did that go out of fashion?

Letter to the Editor

2011-06-08T17:18:00.000-05:00

My latest letter to the Editor appeared in our local paper this week. Rather than just calling them "Letters to the Editor" like every other newspaper in America, our paper calls this section the "Open Forum." Anyway, here's my letter:

"I’ve read a lot of letters in this column recently from people who are happy about gay marriage being put on the 2012 ballot. Even some of my own friends think this is a sensible idea — just let the voters decide. What’s wrong with that?

So for anyone out there who doesn’t understand; here’s what’s wrong with that.

It is completely un-American to put the rights of a minority up for public vote by the majority. If you approach rights this way, then the majority will always keep rights from the minority because they’re voting only based on their personal opinion. If we had put interracial marriage up for public voting in the 50’s, it surely would have been outlawed. Why? Because the majority thought it was wrong and went against the Bible, and they had the majority, therefore winning the argument.

For all the bad press “activist judges” seem to get these days, there’s a point to having a judiciary, and that is to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Judges are supposed to make unpopular decisions, because their job is not to reflect the will of the people, but the will of the law and the constitution.

I have no dog in this fight. I’m not gay, and I’m already married. Gay marriage would not affect me one way or another. However, I know that it will affect many Minnesota families in a very poignant way, and it will affect many children already living in caring, two-parent, same-sex households instead of foster care.

Even if you somehow illogically think that sexuality is a “choice,” shouldn’t that choice be protected anyway? After all, nothing is more of a choice than religion, and we seem to protect that right pretty fiercely."

After the letter, there is the obligatory "comment" section where everyone and anyone can comment on your letter anonymously. These comments tend to be pretty vile, but I was surprised that with this letter, the first few comments were very eloquent, thoughtful, and flattering. However, we'll skip those comments because they're boring.

Here is the exchange between me and some of the righties in the comments section. I should explain that when I say "them" I don't mean one person - just whatever person happened to respond:

Them: "And, the liberal courts won't be able to make gay marriage legal as easily as they could have before the Constitutional Amendment. That explains the reason for it. I also think that Republicans are enjoying the liberal screeching that this is causing."

Me: "Liberal courts" just means courts you don't agree with. It doesn't mean they're wrong."

Them: "Too many courts are trying to pass policy. They are in it for the glory and the press. But you are right Amy, we should never put anything to a vote, because some minority will cry foul. Oh hell, we cannot even agree on who can vote and who cannot. Let us just all go liberal and everyone do anything and everything that you want."

Them: "so if there is a conservative court/judge does that mean its not wrong it just means you dont agree with it."

Me: "As long as they're making their decisions based on the law and not the so-called "will of the people."

Them: "So, you're saying that the sodomy laws should be enforced?"

Me: "No, I think they should be repealed."

Them: "Sounds like somebody is a big fan of sodomy! You should make some campaign signs! We need a catchy slogan for the bumper stickers!"

Classy.

Faces of Abortion

2011-06-03T16:19:00.000-05:00

I have my DVD set to record anything that has "abortion" in the description. I'm always hoping this will snag me some good documentaries on the issue, but at least once a week I end up with a recording of a show called "Faces of Abortion" that runs on one of the 2 million religious channels Dish Network seems to carry.

I generally just delete these without even watching them, but since it's summer now and all my shows are on hiatus, I decided to put on "Faces" while I was getting ready for work the other morning.

What I noticed right off the bat was the two portly elderly white gentleman sitting in what must have been the peanut gallery, judging quietly from the side of the stage. I guess they were deacons or something? Then the scowly lady host started to introduce the woman whose story we were about to hear. The lady host had one of those Botoxed faces with a permanent false friendly-ish expression that you can see right through to the eyes that are judging you.

The woman whose story was presented had apparently been coerced into an abortion at age 19 by her boyfriend. Predictably, she regretted the abortion immediately (probably because she didn't really want to have it in the first place). After a downward spiral, she found Jesus several years later, which REALLY made her regret the abortion.

The second story presented was about an old guy who had helped his girlfriend have an illegal abortion back in the day and didn't regret it until. . . wait for it . . . he found Jesus.

After the 2 stories there was a lengthy discussion by the old guys and another hip young Christian guy who worked in the Development (aka-send us money) Department, about how they as men needed to "protect women" from being hurt by abortion. So basically, us silly-headed women aren't smart or moral enough to make decisions for ourselves, so we need our big, strong knights in shining armor to protect us from ourselves.

I think I'll just go ahead and delete it again next time.

Folksiness

2011-05-27T13:09:00.000-05:00

Could we all come together, as a society, and just ban the word “folks” from our vocabulary? It’s condescending and really dumbs us all down.

That thought had never occurred to me until I read it in Susan Jacoby’s book “The Age of American Unreason,” in which she chronicles the slow descent of America into our current age of idiocy. She explains that people used to take offense at being called “folks” as it implied that a person belonged to a lower class. However, these days politicians in particular have come to throw around the term arbitrarily, to label their constituents as just “good plain folks;” working hard and getting by. It seems to be some sort of badge of honor these days to be one of the “folks.”

I think this constant usage of the term encourages people to be proud of their ignorance, and it encourages people in power to look down on the people they’re “representing.”

As I heard the term being used for the 790^th time this week on MPR this morning, it just grated on my ears as it does every time I hear it. “The folks in rural Minnesota have to work hard and cut back and so should the government.” As if being one of the “folks” means you have some sort of enlightened status whereby you know that the only important things in life are working hard, going to church, and drinking beer. The “folks” like to stay out of politics and leave that stuff up to the people in St. Paul or Washington.

Every time a politician uses that word, it’s like they’re metaphorically patting a grown up on the head and saying “Don’t you worry your little selves about all this budget business. Just go back to watching American Idol.”

It’s all nonsense. We are not “folks.” I am not one of the “folks.” We are individuals with various personalities and needs and concerns. And politics does affect all of us, whether you folks choose to pay attention to it or not.

This is a bi-partisan issue. I’m calling on all politicians, all people really, to immediately cease and desist with the use of the words “folks.” If I hear it again I’m going to start fining you each $100 per offense. That would be a surefire way to fix the budget.

Bumper Sticker Blues

2011-05-24T07:37:00.000-05:00

So I’m driving to my friend’s house the other day, and as I pull onto the highway, I notice a car in the left lane that’s quickly catching up to me. The car pulls up alongside me and honks vigorously. I turn to look thinking maybe it’s somebody I know, and see the driver leaning over the passenger seat (and whoever’s sitting in it) to give me a hearty thumbs down sign. He then starts pointing towards the back of my car.

My first thought was, “is my back tire flat?” It’s happened before that another motorist pointed out a flat tire to me. But then I realize, no, he’s pointing to my bumper sticker that reads “Pro-Child, Pro-Family, Pro-Choice” and showing his disapproval by giving me a thumbs down.

I then slowed down to make sure he got ahead of me a little bit, and by the time I turned left off the highway, he was on my right honking again as he drove by.

I can only assume that he thinks his big display will somehow make me pause and reconsider my point of view, which is asinine because I clearly have a strong enough view of my own on the issue to place a bumper sticker on my car in the first place.

I can also only assume he really could care less about the actual baby sitting directly behind me in the backseat whose life he was endangering by distracting me from driving at 70 mph, not to mention the two children he had in his backseat who apparently weren’t important enough to keep his eyes on the road for. He seems to care more about theoretical fetuses than about the living, breathing children we were both hauling in our backseats.

So presumably this guy doesn’t care what choice you make, as I clearly chose to have a baby. He just cares about making sure women have no choice at all. And he seems to think endangering the life of my baby is an appropriate way to share his opinion.

What a jackass.

Bible Thumping

2011-05-20T16:28:00.001-05:00

While going through my son's backpack last week (on May 10th to be specific), I found a letter telling me that the Gideons would be at my son's PUBLIC elementary school on May 10th handing out bibles. The letter was dated May 6th but somehow didn't make it into his backpack until the 10th (I check it every day). So even if I had wanted to do something to prevent it, I wouldn't have been able to.

This also happened last year, while he was in kindergarten. I was outraged by it then, but didn't do anything. I just had a talk with my son telling him he didn't need to take a book if it was offered to him because we already have one at home and it was wasteful. Never mind that we all teach our kids to avoid strange men in the street handing them free things.

My problem now is, what exactly am I supposed to do about this? The letter specifically says the guy is on the street, which I'm sure makes it legal somehow. And since they do it at every school then it's not really something the principal has control over. If I go to the superintendent he'll just tell me they're not doing anything illegal.

This really pisses me off.

What's the point of it all?

2011-05-17T06:58:00.000-05:00

Sometimes things just feel so futile.

Like, when I get action notices from one of the many, many liberal advocacy groups that I seem to be on the email list for, urging me to contact my senator or representative, I know that it won’t matter if I do or not. If the issue is access to abortion, my state representative and senator are both personally against that, so it doesn’t matter what their constituents think.

My congressman is also a solid right-winger, so he’s not going to be on board with anything I write to him about. My two Senators, Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar, are pretty solidly liberal, so I can already count on them to echo my views.

It feels like if you’re a liberal living in a red-county, it doesn’t really matter what you think. The majority rules here, and the majority goes to church and thinks that gay people are “icky” so they shouldn’t be allowed to get married and raise children. What’s the point in calling my representative or senator? I already know where they stand on the social issues. My state representative (who is an anti-choice DEMOCRAT) told me on Pro-Choice Lobby Day two years ago that he has “a personal faith that guides his decisions on these issues.” How can I argue with that?

And our state senator makes his decisions based on his Christian world view. He has a gay daughter yet still authored a bill to add a constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage. How do you talk sense to a person like that?

Sometimes I just wonder what the point of it all is. Maybe I’m just having some sort of birthday existential crisis, or maybe I just need some cheerleading from my liberal cohorts. Or maybe I just need a cigarette.

Town Hall Meeting

2011-05-10T09:02:00.000-05:00

Our uber-conservative state senator had a town hall meeting on Saturday. It was attended by roughly 30 liberals and 4 conservatives. I gotta say though, he kept fairly cool for a guy who had a whole room full of people ganging up on him.

Here are some direct quotes (to the best of my memory). My italicised responses are my thoughts, but most of them were directed at the senator by various people in the group:

Responding to a question about why we aren't raising the taxes of the richest 2% of people in the state -
"Well, the thing is that we live under the system of capitalism, not socialism."
So "socialism" now means requiring that the richest people in the state pay the same percentage of their taxes as the poorest people do?
"Rich people have worked hard for their money and they deserve to keep most of it."
But I guess poor people don't work as hard for their money. All those wonderful rich people must have started out at the bottom, pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and made a fortune all on their own, huh?

In response to the onslaught of people begging him (some through tears) not to support the creation of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage-
"The purpose the state has being involved in marriage is that it brings two people together to have children."
Then why do we let the elderly get married? And why did my marriage license not come with a mandate to bear children for the state of Minnesota?
"We just need to let the good, common sense people of Minnesota make this decision and not activist judges."
You do NOT put the rights of the minority up for a vote by the majority. What if we had done that with civil rights for black people 50 years ago. And an "activist judge" usually means one you don't agree with.
"When gay marriage passed in Massachusetts, it trampled the rights of the Catholic Church and the rights of parents not to have their children taught tolerance for gay people."
So somehow, since Catholic Charities was no longer able to discriminate against gay people in their adoption policies, that was "trampling on their rights?" As far as I know, they're still allowed to NOT marry gay people in their churches. And I may be mistaken, but are parents in Mass. no longer allowed to send their kids to parochial schools to learn their intolerance?

All in all, it was fun to watch the senator sweat a little bit, but I couldn't help but think we were just talking to a brick wall. The best part of the afternoon was the liberal drinking session in the bar afterwards.

Mother's Day

2011-05-08T12:14:00.000-05:00

I must say, Mother's Day is one of my favorite days of the year. It's the one day of the year when my husband wakes up early, gets the kids up, and they all leave the house for the morning, leaving me to sleep in and then enjoy my cup of tea in peace and catch up on all of my violent TV shows instead of watching Go, Diego, Go. It's a wonderful, wonderful gift.

For all the hoopla surrounding Mother's Day though, we don't seem to give much respect to mothers in this county. We're asked to give birth to a child (usually working up until the day we deliver), and then get our lazy asses back to work after about 4 to 6 weeks. If you've ever had a newborn, you know that 4-6 weeks is not enough time to adjust to sleepless nights and spending every waking moment caring for your baby.

Every civilized country in the world has a vastly more generous policy on maternity leave than we do here in the land of the free. They recognize that motherhood is an overwhelming and life changing experience, and they honor that fact.

Here we just demand that women carry babies to term no matter what their circumstances, then provide no daycare or health care assistance to them and talk shit about them for not working hard enough when they get stuck below the poverty line.

Happy Mother's Day!

National Day to Prevent Teen Pregnancy

2011-05-04T07:20:00.000-05:00

Today is the National Day to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, so it's time to think about what we as adults can do to try to curb the epidemic of teen pregnancy in our communities.

One thing going on in my community is the Wellness Educators program. It's a program that teaches teens about various wellness issues (birth control, substance abuse, nutrition, suicide prevent, etc.) and then tasks them with mentoring the peers about what they've learned. There's also a service learning component in which they have to work for various community organizations.

There used to be a similar program (although it was just for boys) called "Wize Guyz" that was run by the local Planned Parenthood office. That one was seen by the community as a ploy by PPH to get their evil claws into our children for the purpose of teaching them how to have rampant orgies and abortions. Wellness Educators is run through Sexual Assault Services, so it's seen as more acceptable by the community. I guess sexual assault is better than planning parenthood.

I'll be heading over to the WE session tonight to help them make buttons. What will you do today to help engage the youth in your community?

Wordplay

2011-05-03T18:20:00.000-05:00

I was listening to NPR in the car earlier and they were discussing whether or not some of the info crucial to capturing Osama Bin Laden was obtained using "enhanced interrogation techniques."

Who wrote the memo telling everyone in the media that they had to use that term? Probably Frank Luntz I suppose. Is there some reason we can't just call things what they are? Jesse Ventura called waterboarding "torture." Considering he's actually had it done to him, I'm going to go ahead and take his word for it.

"Enhanced interrogation techniques" makes my mind conjure up some sort of peaceful breathing exercise. And I think that's the point. If the words we use trick our minds into thinking things are less serious than they are, then we won't take things as seriously.

The opposite is true as well. If we use words like "death panel" and "big abortion," then things seem a lot worse than they really are.

My grandmother always told me that when you speak as though you're stupid, then people will assume you're stupid. Words matter.

OsamaCare

2011-05-02T12:41:00.000-05:00

So we finally got Osama Bin Laden huh? Well it's about damn time. So conservatives, go ahead and tell me how the President did it wrong. Come on, I'm waiting. I want to hear it.

Wouldn't you just have loved to be a fly on the wall for that phone call from Obama to Bush? "Hey George, whatcha havin' for breakfast? Eggs? Great - tell Laura hi for me. Oh ya, I CAUGHT OSAMA BIN LADEN!! HA!"

I gotta say though, this whole display of people cheering in the streets is really creeping me out. It reminds me of the "death to America" scenes we always get from the middle east. Aren't we supposed to be a Christian nation? I know Bin Laden was a despicable human being, but this ostentatious celebration of a person's death seems very un-Christian. I thought we were supposed to be better than that.

16 and Pregnant (with an asshole for a boyfriend)

2011-04-28T07:06:00.000-05:00

I'm addicted to MTV's "16 & Pregnant" and "Teen Mom." I know the shows get a lot of flack for "glorifying" teen pregnancy, but I don't think they do that at all. I think they give a pretty accurate portrayal of how hard teen parenting is, even under the best circumstances.

I also think that they provide a little snapshot of the state of teen behavior in America today. And that state is depressing. On almost every episode, the girls have a discussion with their friends about what they were using for birth control when they got pregnant, and almost across the board the answer is some form of "what's birth control?"

No matter what their race, social class, or educational status is, these girls seem to know astonishingly little about contraception, and I put the blame squarely on the abstinence-only "education" that we continue to rely on, despite the plethora of evidence showing that it doesn't work.

Besides the contraception ignorance, the other thing that makes me crazy is the attitude of the boys on the show. I will say that some of the young men are decent, caring boys doing their best to rise to the challenge and be good fathers and partners. But by a sad majority, they seem to be foul-mouthed assholes content to sleep and play video games while their girlfriends do all the real work of parenting.

The way that some of these boys talk to their girlfriends is either bordering on, or all out, abusive. They say the most despicable, unacceptable things to these girls, and no one (including their own parents) seems to call them on it. I have two sons, and if I ever heard some of things these boys say come out of my sons' mouths, I think I'd have to give them a swift slap across the face (not that I advocate child abuse or anything).

Maybe along with comprehensive sex ed, we need to start teaching a class on basic respect and social behavior since so many parents don't seem to be teaching that anymore.

Birther Bashing

2011-04-27T19:42:00.000-05:00

OK birthers, let's have it. Why is the long form birth certificate President Obama released today not good enough? Is it because Hawaii's not a "real" state? Is it because it took so long to release it that he must have had it doctored somehow? Is it because there is a vast conspiracy by the terrorists that includes the Hawaiian newspapers and the Kenyan government? What is it?? I want to hear it! Really! I want to hear why Obama doing exactly what you've been saying he should do since 2008 is now not good enough for you.

When you let "science" and "facts" become optional in your society, this is what you get. Tons and tons of people refusing to believe something that is totally irrefutable. It amazes me, but I guess it shouldn't.

Bumper Sticker Logic

2011-04-25T19:33:00.001-05:00

I put a bumper sticker on my car the other day that reads "Pro-Child, Pro-Family, Pro-Choice." I'm a little nervous about it. Every time I go to the grocery store now I'm waiting for someone to come up and start yelling at me. I try to avoid bumper stickers because they don't generally change anyone's mind about anything, but I've gotten so tired of seeing pro-life bumper stickers all over town and figured maybe it would uplift some of my pro-choice neighbors to see that they're not alone (if in fact they exist at all).

Here's a rough sampling of the bumper stickers that are very common around here:
-Choose Life
-I'll keep my guns, freedom, and money. You keep the change.
-If Obama's the answer, it must have been a stupid question.
-Abortion stops a beating heart.
-TEA - Taxed enough already
-Work Harder - Millions on welfare depend on you

Not to mention the hundreds of Christian fish I'm stuck looking at in traffic every day.

You see what I'm up against?

Happy Easter

2011-04-24T12:25:00.000-05:00

Even though I'm an atheist, I thought I'd stick to a religious topic today what with it being Easter and all.

Yesterday, I watched a show on the History Channel about the Shroud of Turin. You know, the one that supposedly was used to wrap up Jesus after he was crucified. The show explored many different theories as to how the shroud could have been created. Through all the different theories, not one person ever mentioned the idea that maybe this thing was not from Jesus, but say, some other guy that was crucified.

I mean, crucifixion happened all the time back in the day. They spent all this time in the show disproving all the various ways the thing could have been faked, but spent zero time hypothesizing that maybe, just maybe, it was an authentic burial shroud, just not the one that wrapped up Jesus. Is this the level our critical thinking has come to in this country? No wonder we're all so dumb.

Enjoy your Peeps!

What Planned Parenthood REALLY does.

2011-04-23T13:04:00.000-05:00

With all the current controversy surrounding Planned Parenthood, my head has been spinning with the sheer volume of misleading and simply untrue things being said about the organization. I used to work at Planned Parenthood, so I figure I'm in a position to put at least some of these untruths to rest.

I worked in one of PPH's many small town family planning clinics. We did not do abortions at our clinic, as most PPH's don't. Only one PPH clinic in Minnesota actually performs abortions. The other 23 do pretty much the same thing as my clinic did. We provided birth control to people. As well as pap smears, breast exams, STD tests and treatment, and pregnancy tests.

I think much of the controversy surrounds what takes place after those pregnancy tests, so I'll tell you exactly how we handled them. First of all, we did the test, which took five minutes to run. Unlike the crisis pregnancy centers, we didn't tell the woman the test would take half an hour and then force her to sit in a room looking at images of fetuses.

When I was trained in to deliver pregnancy test results, here's what I was told to do:

If the test was negative, I was to encourage the woman to come back to get birth control (which usually involved getting a pap smear, which is why they would have to come back).

If it was positive, the first step was to ask them if they were surprised by the result and if they had thought at all about what they would do if the test was positive. Most of them had, since they were already there for the test.

If they said, "I want to keep the baby" then we handed them a pregnancy resources guide which had the names of maternal help organizations, along with an application for Medicaid if they weren't insured.

If they said. "I've been thinking about adoption," then we handed them the same pregnancy resources guide which also had the names of several adoption agencies in it.

If they said, "I'm thinking about getting an abortion," then we handed them the same pregnancy resources guide which also had the phone number for the Planned Parenthood clinic which did abortions. If they asked for more information on abortion, we were not allowed to give it to them. We simply pointed again to the phone number and told them to direct all their questions to the people at that phone number.

And under no circumstances, ever, were we instructed or permitted to try to influence the woman in any way as to what she wanted to do about the pregnancy. That was her decision to make, not ours. We simply provided her with the resources she asked for and let her take it from there, using her own judgement and support system.

When I hear PPH being so demonized by Michele Bachmann and her ilk, it really makes me angry. Not only because of how wrong they are in their assumptions, but also because they are defaming the many wonderful, caring people I worked with over the years. I never once met a co-worker who was there to benefit from the windfalls of "big abortion." My co-workers were genuinely warm and giving people who were there to help women (and men). They were there because they deeply believed that all people should be able to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancy. We tried our very best to prevent unwanted pregnancies to begin with, and when that failed, we allowed women to decide their own futures with whatever help they needed from us.

Redefining Marriage for the Better

2011-04-21T18:55:00.000-05:00

I've been watching a lot of historical dramas lately: Camelot, The Borgias, The Tudors, etc. Basically, you feed me an epic historical drama and I'll consume it happily. I can't get enough of them. And one thing they've caused me to ponder lately is the continually changing nature of marriage.

The Religious Right likes to tell us that we can't allow marriage equality because we wouldn't want to "redefine marriage" (god forbid!). I guess these people haven't watched enough historical programming. As it turns out (and it’s too bad they don’t teach you this in history class or something) women used to be bought and sold into marriage. Marriage was not a union of love, but one of mutual benefit for the bride and grooms’ families. For example, if your family was broke but possessed a title of some kind, and another family was filthy rich but not of noble birth, they worked out a deal to marry their children so as to benefit both families. Women (and often men) really had very little to say about who they actually wanted to marry.

More recently, the point of getting married was for a man to have someone who could bear his children, clean his house and cook his food, and for a woman to have someone to provide her with a house to clean and food to cook. It was a union of mutual survival, not love.

In fact, the idea of marrying for love has been laughable for most of human history, so I can’t figure out why we continue to buy this myth that marriage is now and has always been about falling in love and then making babies.

The reality is that these days, marriage is really all about choice. You can choose if you will marry or if you won’t. You can choose whom to marry and then whether or not you want to have kids. You can choose who will work or not work. Parenting is shared much more equally than in the past, and when you fall out of love, either party can choose to get a divorce. So what part of this picture are gay people so ill-equipped for? They can fall in love, they can raise kids, they can work and share and do all the things everyone else can do. Why are people so threatened by them getting married?

When marriage is defined by love, as it is today, then there is no valid reason at all to exclude people who simply choose to love someone other than who you would choose to love. Should we also exclude assholes from getting married? Or people with especially bad grammar? Just because YOU wouldn’t marry someone doesn’t mean they don’t deserve to get married to the person they love.

And don’t get all high and mighty and use the “slippery slope” argument. You know, the one where if we allow gay people to marry then why not marry horses or children. I think it’s pretty easy to just draw the line at two consenting adults and leave it there (polygamy is a whole different can of worms we can discuss later).

Women's Expo Wrap Up

2011-04-19T20:04:00.000-05:00

For all of you followers on the edge of your seats; yes, I did make it out of the hospital in time to staff our pro-choice booth at the local women's expo last Saturday. And what an exciting day it was. . . .

One of my favorite booth visitors was a kind old gentleman who shuffled up to our booth with his wife (I'm assuming - she never said anything). He took a look at the sign we have hanging under our banner that reads "Pro-Child, Pro-Family, Pro-Choice," and exclaimed, "Oh, good for you! This is great - what a great booth! Are you a local organization then?" I responded that yes, our group is local and fairly small as he looked over the materials on our table. He looked at the sign again and suddenly looked at me and said, "Wait a minute - that says 'pro-choice.' Do you advocate abortion?!" I replied with "No, I don't, but I think that everyone should be able to make up their own mind on the issue," and before I could even get the whole sentence out he raised his cane up, waved it at me and shouted "Oh for crying out loud!!" He backed away from the booth still waving his cane at me and shouted something about parenthood, but by then I couldn't really hear him anymore. I was thinking too hard about the powerful and thoughtful argument he had presented me with and starting to change my mind on the issue.

Another man came up to the table (he was a vendor from another booth) and also looked at our sign with approval, then bought one of our buttons that read "pro-family, pro-choice." He signed up on our email list, then told us that he had gotten into a heated argument with someone the other day over "this issue." He said that his friend was talking to him about the Planned Parenthood funding hoopla. As he was telling us this, he spit out the words "Planned Parenthood" as if he had vomited them into his mouth. He asked his friend why, if they were in favor of funding PPH, they weren't in favor of giving just as much money to Birthright? The two of us at the booth just stood there puzzled as he nodded at us and quietly walked away telling us "thank you" for the button.

Is it really that foreign to people that you can be pro-child, pro-family AND pro-choice? I think people thought that we were doing some sort of false advertising, but we really feel that the pro-child, pro-family, pro-choice thing properly describes our group. A large percentage of the people in our group are mothers, and isn't everybody "pro-family?"

Of course, what we got the most of during the day was a constant stream of young women taking a condom out of our basket, pondering it for a minute, then saying something like "it's too late for me." We heard stories all day of young mothers who had no knowledge of (or access to) birth control. One girl told me that she had worn a purity ring and then proceeded to get pregnant her first time (she had always heard that you couldn't get pregnant the first time). When I told her that there have been studies done which have proven that purity rings serve no purpose at all in delaying sex, she seemed genuinely shocked. I think that all this time she's been carrying around some kind of guilt, feeling like she's the ONLY one who ever broke the purity ring promise. I felt bad for her.

We also had a mom who was outraged that her 15-year-old daughter had been able to get birth control pills at a PPH clinic. She told us that she had "control" over whether or not her daughter got pregnant now. I asked her how she had control over that and she said her daughter was grounded.

We did however get a few cool moms who picked up some condoms to put in their teenagers' Easter baskets. One said that although she knew her precious babies wouldn't need them, maybe they had a friend they could give them to, then they all laughed. It was a refreshing bit of realism in a day filled with people wearing blinders.

Being sick sucks.

2011-04-14T12:16:00.000-05:00

I'm posting this from my hospital bed. I'm so glad they have wifi in the hospital now, especially since their TV selection sucks. For those of you who don't know, I'll give you a quick recap of why I'm currently sitting here.

I was diagnosed with Crohn's disease at 19. It's an intestinal disease and if you want to know more about it, you can Google it - don't be lazy. Anyway, no one knows what causes Crohn's although they've found that there is some sort of genetic component (my brother has it too, as do several of my cousins). So really, there's not a whole lot you can do to prevent it. I've had 3 surgeries so far, and have been hospitalized dozens of times over the years because what's left of my teeny-tiny intestines tend to get food stuck in them causing excrutiating pain that rivals that of childbirth.

Naturally, all of this makes me very sensitive to the way in which the current healthcare debate is being discussed. When people talk about the "overuse" of healthcare, they're talking about me. According to the tea party, I really should have done more to prevent this disease as a teenager. I should also be doing more to shop around for the best value in doctors and hospitals. I always find that argument laughable not only because when I'm in the throes of stabbing stomach pain I'm not thinking about how to get more bang for my buck, but also because I live in a small town. There's one hospital. Where else am I supposed to go? Believe me, if there was another option I'd go for it, because I'm sick of staring at the crucifix on the wall every time I have to come here. Sure, I could drive half an hour in any number of directions to go to a neighboring community's hospital, but again, when I'm in the throes of stomach pain, I just need to get to the hospital quickly.

The Republicans seem to think that health problems are a choice. That I chose to be sick and chose to be away from my children for days at a time and chose to rack up thousands of dollars in healthcare costs all because of my stupid intestines. Clearly, they've never dealt with a chronic illness before.

The F-Word

2011-04-12T10:00:00.000-05:00

I was watching a show the other day and they had a clip from Phyllis Schlafly plugging her new book "The Flipside of Feminism." She basically said tht feminism is totally unnecessary, and that it has made women less happy over the last 30 or 40 years. She further said that since she was able to get a college degree in 1940, then "what's the problem?"

Apparently she never studied the suffragette movement when she was in college, because if it hadn't been for the brave women who fought for the right to vote, she wouldn't be able to. I'm always amazed that we have such short memories in this country when it comes to womens' rights. It's as if society just kind of let women do all the things they wanted to do, and no one had to fight to get us those rights.

What I find the most appalling is when women such as Schlafly, or Michele Bachmann or Sarah Palin, enjoy their public lives and go out on their public speaking engagements and advance their public careers, all the while shitting on the very women who earned them the right to do those things. They can make fun of feminism all they want, but if it weren't for feminism, they wouldn't have had access to the choices they've been able to make.

Let's Talk About Sex

2011-04-11T14:53:00.000-05:00

I just finished watching the TLC special, "Let's Talk About Sex." It compares the way America deals with sexuality and the way European countries deal with it. It confirms something that I already knew, what with my background in family planning and all. European countries take a realistic approach to dealing with sexuality and thus have MUCH better outcomes when it comes to teen pregnancy and STD rates. In America, we seem to be afraid to discuss the issue at all, and when we do, we treat sex as though it's a dirty, scary thing to be avoided at all costs when you're a teen. As a result, we have skyrocketing teen pregnancy and STD rates.

We American parents cover our eyes and plug our ears and just assume that our kids are not having sex. We also assume that our kids aren't thinking about sex unless someone suggests it to them. In Europe, they talk to their kids openly about sex from a young age, because they know that sexuality is a natural part of life that ALL teenagers are already thinking about.

Basically, they use science and common sense to prevent bad outcomes for teens, and we use fear and religion. And based on the statistics, it's quite obvious which approach is the more useful one.

What is wrong with these people?

2011-04-08T12:08:00.000-05:00

So our federal government is about to shut down because the tea baggers feel so strongly that women (and men for that matter) should not be allowed to have access to birth control. Their hatred of Planned Parenthood runs so deep that they're willing to paralyze the government to shut them down. Federal law already prohibits spending federal dollars on abortion, so what more do they want? Well, I'll spell it out for you. They want everyone in America to just keep their pants on until they are legally wed and then have as many children as god feels compelled to send their way. Yes, that's realistic. Let's go with that plan. I'm pretty sure it will work out just swimmingly.

Why I'm Pro-Choice

2011-04-04T14:07:00.000-05:00

I think a lot of women my age in this area wonder why someone would be pro-choice. They've grown up on a steady stream of anti-abortion rhetoric, and have always lived in a world where abortion was legal, if not always accessible. So here it is; why I happen to be pro-choice.

Keep in mind that I'm not speaking as a representative of the pro-choice community, or for anyone else who happens to be pro-choice. I'm only speaking for me, and my views are my own.

#1 - I have a sense of history.
I am kind of a history buff in general, but when it comes to abortion, I find the history in America fascinating. What many anti-choice activists don't seem to realize (or care about) is that abortion has been around basically forever. It's not as though it started in 1973. In America, it actually was legal for quite a long time. If you want to learn about that, read "The Worst of Times" by Susan Brownmiller. I don't have time to get into it here. The point is, during earlier parts of this century, women died routinely from illegal abortion, many times leaving behind several other children. I don't see how it's humane to "save" one baby at the risk of the other 7 the woman has at home. Those children count more, in my opinion. They are already here and need to be cared for.

#2 - I don't believe life begins at conception.
Do I know when exactly life does begin? I would say birth, but obviously we get into some murky territory around the 5th month or so. However, I definitely do not equate an embryo with an infant. I believe that embryos are potential life, but not equivalant to the crying babies in the maternity ward. I also know that the Bible keeps pretty quiet on the issue, as did Jesus, and a church telling me something I should believe just because they said so does not hold much sway with me.

#3 - I've been pregnant.
I've heard many people say that they were pro-choice until they became pregnant, but honestly, pregnancy made me more pro-choice. Pregnancy is a life-changing, profound event that is not to be taken lightly. It has an enormous impact on your body and mind and is not something women should be forced into.

#4 - I don't think women are stupid.
I'm not saying there aren't stupid women out there (just look at Sarah Palin), but when it comes to childbirth, women have the capacity to make up their own minds. Noboby "stops in for an abortion" while doing their grocery shopping as Michele Bachmann so callously put it. Abortion is a serious decision, and women think seriously about it. They make up their own minds in the context of their own situation and beliefs. I'm not them, so I don't feel it's my place to tell them what to do. I don't know what they're going through, so who am I to tell them what they should do?

#5 - I value children as people.
When I see those pro-life billboards, they infuriate me because they treat babies as though they're puppies. Cute, cuddly things that you take home and play with and show off to the neighbors. I don't see babies as just babies, but as people just starting out. When you create a baby, you're creating an eventual adult, who will live a life marked by tremendous pain and suffering. Yes, that life will hopefully also contain a lot of joy and happiness, but you can't ignore that people inevitably suffer. I'm not saying life isn't worth living, but that it's a big responsibility to bring someone into the world. We shouldn't be encouraging people to do it just because babies are cute.

#6 - I don't think that life under any circumstances is always a good thing.
Yes, I do think that being aborted is a better fate than being born to abusive parents who beat you mercilessly until you die as a toddler. Sorry, I just do. Does that mean I think that every unplanned pregnancy should be terminated? No. I was the product of an unplanned pregnancy and my parents rose to the challenge, as most do, and became great parents. However, they had a great support system and a lot of help. Not everyone does. I can't assume that eveyone facing an unplanned pregnancy is as fortunate as my parents were. Had they chosen abortion, I wouldn't know any better because I wouldn't exist. It's not something I agonize over. In the big scheme of things I'm just a minor speck. Besides, there is a difference between an unplanned pregnancy and an unwanted pregnancy. I simply think that women deserve the respect to decide for themselves which they are dealing with.

The Crazy File

2011-04-01T06:22:00.000-05:00

Although it's been dormant for awhile, I thought I'd share some gems from my "Crazy File." When I first started my now defunct business, the local paper did a story on my new store. The story printed my name, obviously, and talked about our store's products in an article about several local women-owned businesses. It mentioned nothing about my political views or community activism. As soon as it was published, I started getting letters from a secret admirer. All of them were addressed to me personally at my business address. None had return addresses on them, and none were signed. Here are a few of my favorites (all emphasis is theirs, not mine):

"Ms Pro Abortion, Ms Planned Parenthood, Ms Kill Children Advocate, Ms. B.O. elect lover, What church do you belong to? Do they know, do you know, The Ten Commandments? Their not the ten suggestions! 5th. Thou Shalt NOT KILL! It's a human being with a SOUL, Not an animal, not a veggie, not a MASS OF TISSUE. Repent your ABortion! We don't need your demonic messages!"

This one was written inside a very nice sympathy card:
"Your hero and martyr and leader in the killing of babies is gone your grief must be overwhelming Poor George didn't know Our Lords 5th commandment THOU SHALT NOT KILL!!! But take consolation: you have a PRO ABORTION PRESIDENT. He advocates killing babies!"

And this one was attached to a coupon we had running in local flyer:
"Are you proud that your Obama is the pro-abortion president and chooses only pro abortion leeches for his cabinet? How many babies killed in BO's first 100 days?????"

It's really too bad that this person chose to remain anonymous. I would have loved to have engaged in a civil dialogue about our differing points of view and perhaps found some common ground. . . . . . oh, wait. . . .

I thought they were all about personal responsibility. . .

2011-03-31T09:34:00.000-05:00

Since 1971, Minnesota has had a law that allows teenagers to get reproductive medical care without their parents' consent (as well as substance abuse and mental health care). "But I have to sign a form to allow the school to give my child an aspirin" you might say. "But I don't want my child getting medications without knowing about it" you might also say. Or you might say, "But I want my child to feel comfortable talking to me about these things."

Here's the problem: your teenager doesn't feel uncomfortable asking you for an aspirin and thus will probably get the medical care they need in that situation. It seems like once you become a parent, you immediately forget what it was like to be a teenager. I don't. I vividly remember the discomfort I felt even thinking about approaching my parents to discuss sex.

But guess what? I was lucky enough to live in Minnesota where I could walk into a Planned Parenthood clinic on my own and get a prescription for birth control pills (as well as a pap smear, a UTI test and a talk with a qualified medical professional about keeping myself safe and healthy). And guess what happened? I didn't get pregnant as a teenager. In fact, I waited until I was 27 and fully ready to have a baby, and it was the most wonderful experience of my life. I've never had to have an abortion, and I've never had an STD. And even if I had, I would have been able to go and get myself treatment on my own instead of waiting around while chlamydia took my fertility away.

What's the moral of this story? Of course parents want their kids to feel comfortable coming to them when these issues arise, but most simply don't, and many have parents who would be hostile or downright abusive if their child ever tried to ask them about birth control. So isn't it better that we let them take care of themselves and prevent something bad from happening? I'll trade complete and total openess for a happy, healthy child.

Why do I bring this up you might be asking? Well, the MN GOP (at the instruction of the Family Council I'm sure) is trying to get rid of this law, and I think it would be a tragedy if they suceeded. So PLEASE contact your representative and senator to let them know that this is an important law that needs to be maintained. Tell them NOT to repeal minors' consent for health care.

I guess we're all Christians up here.

2011-03-30T10:17:00.000-05:00

My 7-year-old son came home from his PUBLIC school the other day with a book about Noah's Ark (did I mention he goes to a public school?). I asked him where he got it from and he said he got it from the "surprise box" in his classroom. The surprise box is a box full of toys donated by parents that the kids can choose from when they've done something good.

Obviously, I didn't make a huge deal out of this because he is only 7 after all, and it is just a book. But I was very bothered by the fact that another parent felt it was appropriate to donate this, and more bothered by my personal knowledge that this is just the way it is in our town. There is an assumption that that's ok because everyone here believes in the Bible, right? If I tried to donate a book about Islam or Atheism or something, there would be a huge to-do, but Bible stories are a non-issue because everyone "around here" teaches their children from the Bible. So it's just something parents don't have to think about at all.

My son and I read the book together and played with the little figurines that popped out of the book. I explained to him that this was a story from the Bible, which has a lot of good stories, but they're just that: stories.

Abortion Crackers

2011-03-29T11:23:00.000-05:00

Many of you have already heard this story (in fact, probably all of you at this point), but I figured I better get it written down for posterity anyway.

I used to own a small, specialty foods store. One day, a priest walked into my store with a woman (no, this is not the start of a joke). Despite my devout atheism, I was surprised to find that I really liked this preist. He seemed like a cool guy. Plus, he purchased pretty much everything I recommended to him. I'm not sure what this lady's relationship to him was, but she purchased a few things as well, then they both left.

The very next day, this lady walked timidly into my store carrying her bag of groceries. After a few minutes of awkwardly standing at the front of the store she approached me and asked if I was the owner. I told her I was, and after a few more minutes of hemming and hawing she asked me if I was pro-choice. I told her that I was and she immediately put her bag down on the counter and said, "I'm sorry, I have to return these." I was a little bit in shock, but I said, "ok" and began to process the return. She told me she had already eaten some of the food, but the crackers were unopened so I gave her a refund on those. I figured, she could accuse me of being pro-choice, but she couldn't accuse me of being rude or unfair. I was as pleasant as I could possibly be about the whole thing, and as she was leaving she said, "I'm sorry, I just see it as the killing of little babies," and I replied, "Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one," and she left.

Thereafter, the staff and I lovingly referred to that brand of crackers as the "abortion crackers." Needless to say, I never saw that priest (or any other priest) ever again. I guess word got around town that I was a "killer of little babies."

I guess what bothered me the most about the whole thing is that she didn't ask me if I was killing babies in the back room, or if I was giving store funds to Planned Parenthood or anything, she simply asked me if I was pro-choice. Meaning, simply the fact that I believe that people are allowed to make up their own minds on the issue is enough to boycott my store. Unbelievable.

What's that now?

2011-03-28T15:04:00.000-05:00

I had an amazing and rare uplifting moment last week. I emailed our local high school librarian to see if it would be okay if I donated a copy of Dan Savage's new book "It Get's Better" to the school library. I wasn't going to buy the extra copy if they wouldn't even allow it into the collection, but imagine my surprise when I got the following response:

"Yes, thank you. We welcome contributions. . .FYI: We have an open, progressive library collection for the young adults in our school. . . I did read some reviews of the book, and it appears it will have a place in our LGBT section."

Our high school library has an LGBT section??!! Keep in mind, I live in a school district that does NOT observe Martin Luther King Jr Day and takes almost every Wednesday afternoon off for religious release time. My jaw about fell to the floor when I read that! I couldn't have been prouder of our local high school librarian.

Pieces of Flair

2011-03-28T14:11:00.000-05:00

I had a "button making party" this weekend where a few friends of mine and I made over 100 one-of-a-kind buttons for the upcoming "Women's Expo" that our pro-choice group will be participating in. I actually really got into it and forsee making about 6,000 more on my own after the kids are asleep. Some of our favorite slogans:

"Pro-Child, Pro-Family, Pro-Choice"
"Trust Women"
"Mother by Choice"
"Pro-Faith, Pro-Family, Pro-Choice"
"Pro-Baby, Pro-Choice"

Do you see a theme here? In a community like mine, I find that many people who consider themselves "pro-life" would actually find that they are pro-choice if they just realized that you can still like babies and support abortion rights. Like I try to tell people; whether or not you're pro-choice has nothing to do with your personal stance on abortion. It's only based on whether or not you believe that other women are capable of making that decision for themselves.

You really can love your kids and be pro-choice at the same time. I do!

The start of something beautiful. . .

2011-03-28T13:54:00.000-05:00

So generally, I'm kind of anti-blog. I think there are too many of them out there, and with the exception of a precious few I find them to be repetitive and boring. So I thought, "Hey! I can be repetitive and boring too!" Basically, I just wanted somewhere to direct the constant frustration I feel over my plight of being so darned liberal in such a darned conservative area. I mean, even our Democrats are anti-choice! Come on! So, if you feel compelled to read my posts, I thank you and apologize in advance. If not, I won't hold it against you. I'm all about choice.