Bodily Autonomy

Abortion.

It’s a thorny topic. Just saying the word out loud makes most people squirm. And there are passionate people on all sides of the debate that feel equally strongly about their positions.

I was just challenged by a conservative Christian friend of mine to read a post from the “The Matt Walsh Blog” on the “bodily autonomy” argument for abortion. I read it, and now I’m responding. This post will make a lot more sense to you if you first read the original article, which you can find here. Read that first and then come back here.


Are you back? Okay, let’s get started.

First I need to point out that whoever wrote the original letter to Matt was very misguided in their use of language. Calling names and berating people does not strengthen your argument, nor does it help the person you’re having a discussion with see your point of view and take it seriously. So there’s that. I wouldn’t have written the letter in quite the same way.

But anyway, here is my point-by-point rebuttal of the rebuttal to the argument. Again, if you haven’t read the original post, or at least skimmed it, you’re going to be completely lost. So read it and follow along.


1. Matt is correct that the relationship between mother and child is different than the relationship between you and a random stranger. Of course it is. There is nothing quite so meaningful as the bond between a mother and her child. As a mother, I’m astutely aware of this. But I think the fundamental misunderstanding comes from the fact that the bodily autonomy argument isn’t necessarily meant to be an argument about morality; it’s about legality.

What we are saying when we say that a woman should have the sole right to determine what goes on inside their own body is that the government should not have a say in what you do or do not use your body for. Whether you think having an abortion is “moral” or not isn’t really the question. The question is who gets to make that decision for you? You, or the government?

A better analogy would have been this: if your child needs a kidney transplant, should the government compel you to give them your kidney? Again, keep in mind that I’m NOT asking whether or not you would do it (I think we all would if we could). The questions is, “should the government compel you to do it?” And if they should, should it only be for biological children, or adopted children as well? I cannot stress this enough: this is not about morality or what you would do in a specific situation; it’s about what the law would compel you to do, and who gets to make that law, enforce it, and carry out the punishment for it.

And before you ask, yes, I am also in favor of legalized prostitution, drugs, piercing, and pretty much whatever else you want to do with your own body.

2. How a person gets pregnant is irrelevant. Pregnancy, childbirth, and parenting should not be a punishment for having sex. It’s easy to say that everyone who has ever had sex was making a mature decision and they should live with the consequences, but that’s just not the case. Have you met a teenager recently (or ever been one)? How a person gets into the condition they’re in shouldn’t be relevant to the treatment they receive or their ability to control their own body. If I am injured while snowboarding, should I just deal with the broken leg?

3. Again, this goes back to point number 1. It’s not about the morality of the situation or what we think a “good parent” should do. It’s about whether or not they should be forced to do it by the government, or thrown in jail for it.

4. I don’t even know how to comment on the whole “natural order” thing. It assumes that there is a god that created a natural order that we always have to stick by no matter what. If that’s the case, then I guess we also can’t ever use birth control, or shave our legs, or eat Hot Pockets®. It sounds like Matt thinks we shouldn’t ever go against the “natural order,” so does that mean we should eschew dentistry too? I’m just leaving that one alone.

5. The first problem I have with this one is his terminology. The use of the term “abortionist” is specifically meant to make a doctor sound like a criminal, which I guess is his point, but it really bothers me. I’ve met abortion doctors, and they are anything but creepy, trench coat wearing butchers (although, when we make abortion illegal, we will see many more of those types around). They are doctors trying to do what is best for their patients. They are not doing it to make money (or else they would be charging a helluva lot more). I have the same problem with the term “abortion industry.” There is no abortion “industry.”

But I digress. Matt claims that abortion involves an embryo or fetus being “crushed, dismembered, poisoned, or torn apart,” which leads me to believe that he doesn’t actually know how an abortion is done. Depending on the stage of pregnancy, there are different methods, and the later the pregnancy is, the harsher the method becomes. I won’t lie; it does make me uncomfortable. But I keep coming back to the same question: “Is it the government’s job to tell another woman what she can do with her body?”

I don’t know the circumstances of every pregnancy. What I do know is that if you’re seeking a late-term abortion, you probably aren’t there because you just didn’t feel like being pregnant anymore. Often times there is a fetal defect, or a life-threatening condition for the mother. Since I don’t know what’s going on in every case, I shouldn’t be the one making the decision. And neither should my congressman. I know that it’s easy for some people to look at women who are having abortions as “careless,” and “selfish,” but keep in mind that you do not, and cannot possibly know what is going on in every situation. That’s what it comes down to.

6. He’s right. The argument does put me in the precarious position of allowing for a woman to do harmful things while she’s pregnant. I really hate it, but I don’t think it should be illegal for a woman to do reckless things while she’s pregnant. I think she should be encouraged not to do them, and assuming she wants to have a baby, she won’t do them, but at the end of the day, I don’t think she should be thrown in jail for them. Because again, it puts the government in control of what she does with her body.

7. Please refer to point number 5. Here’s where I have a problem. He uses the word “moral” again. This is not a discussion about morality, it is a discussion about legality. You may be surprised to know that I am a lot more bothered by late term abortion than by first-trimester abortion. But my solution to this is not to outlaw ALL abortion. It’s to make first trimester abortion more accessible to women who are seeking it. Unlike a lot of pro-lifers (who equate an embryo with an infant), I DO think there is a difference between a 2-day-old zygote and a 35-week-old fetus. However, since the question of “when life begins” can be a muddy one, depending on what you consider to be “life” and what your specific religion (or lack thereof) tells you, I think the most reasonable course of action in the law is to make life begin at birth. Again, we are talking about legality, not morality.

8. This one gets into the semantics of the word “body.” The bodily autonomy argument only addresses the use of your body and its parts. What Matt is talking about here is really a philosophical argument that I don’t think applies. Pregnancy requires more or less the same thing of every female body it is affecting. Parenthood does not.

For example, I could have chosen to breastfeed my children, but I didn’t. Did I get thrown in jail for it? No, because there are alternate means of feeding a child and the government doesn’t require me to use my body to nourish another person, even if I gave birth to them. It would be easy for someone to make a moral pronouncement about what a “bad mother” I am, if they didn’t know I did it for medical reasons. I was on a medication that was unsafe to take while breastfeeding. Fortunately, the government did not step in and make that decision for me. I made it with the help of my doctor, the way medical decisions should be made. And you know what? Even if I just “didn’t feel like” breastfeeding, I shouldn’t have been thrown in jail for not doing it, because it’s my body.

9. Come on. Just, come on. Really? Doing what you want with your body is not the same as doing what you want anywhere with your body.

10. See point number 8.


The crux of the issue here is that pro-lifers seem to think this is as easy as making a decision about what you would do or what a “good person” should do. But it’s not. It’s a thorny issue precisely because it has to do with pregnancy and motherhood, which are profoundly important things. But being pro-choice does not mean “I think abortions are great and I think everyone should have at least one.” Nor does it mean “every unplanned pregnancy should end in an abortion.” All we are saying is “abortion should remain legal.” At the core, that’s really it. We’re not “pro-aborts” as Matt so callously refers to us. We are people who think that the government has no place in telling us what should or should not go on in our uterus, and that our lives are complex enough that we are in the best position to make decisions for ourselves. At its heart, it’s really a Libertarian ideal, which is why I find it perplexing that Libertarians such as Ron Paul are anti-choice.

It’s hard to be in agreement on this issue because we are starting from different points. The pro-life community generally starts with the premise that every fertilized egg is a “soul” that God has sent to Earth for a specific purpose. When you’re an atheist, as I am, you don’t see it that way. You see that embryo as a potential person, but not one that is equal to the living, breathing woman that is currently pregnant. In my view, that is probably the single biggest reason that we’ll never agree on this issue. 

There are many, many other issues that cause division when it comes to abortion, but this post has already gotten extraordinarily long, and it is supposed to be focused on the bodily autonomy argument, so maybe I’ll tackle the other arguments and issues another day. You can read more about my views on abortion here.

But let me end with this statement. I really wish the pro-life community would do less judging of the women who have abortions, and work harder to prevent the need for them in the first place. Birth control, comprehensive sex-ed, assistance for people living in poverty; all of these things reduce the need for abortion in the first place, but the pro-life community in general seems so determined to NOT provide these things either. There is SO MUCH we could do together to prevent unwanted pregnancies, but when you spend all of your time trying to outlaw something that will still happen if it’s illegal, you miss the opportunity to really make a difference. And that makes me sad.

The Romney-verse

So turns out Mitt Romney's a total asshole.  I think we all knew that, but he really showed his true colors yesterday with that "secret video" that had him condemning almost half of the U.S. population. 

In the video, taken at a fundraiser, Romney says:

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax."

Many things offended me in this statement, but I'll stick to ranting about the top two.

#1. The idea that people want to be totally dependent on the government. Do you know many people who want to be on welfare?  I don't.  Everyone I know who's ever had to take government assistance did so out of sheer necessity.  They were going through a temporary hard time that they were trying to get out of.  The amount of shame tied to taking government assistance is enough to assume that most people on welfare don't want to be in that situation.  Are there exceptions? Sure.  There are exceptions to everything, but that doesn't mean you scrap the whole system for those who truly need it.

#2. The idea that you would only want a social safety net if you yourself were dependant on it.  Am I on welfare?  No.  But for some reason, I still think it should exist.  That reason is called basic human empathy.  I grew up with very little and understand what it's like to scrimp and save.  So therefore, even though I don't need it right now, I want government assistance to be there for those  who do need it, and I'm happy to pay more in taxes to make sure that happens.

So it seems to me that Mitt and the crew really have no understanding of basic human empathy, even though they are the ones  who always claim to be doing whatever Jesus would do.  And although Jesus never spoke about abortion or gay marriage, I'm pretty sure he had something to say about loving your neighbor, caring for your brother, giving away your money and not spreading falsehoods.  But what do I know?  I'm not a Christian.

Business BS

I am sick and tired of hearing people say that because Mitt Romney (or any other politician for that matter) has business experience, they are somehow qualified for public office.  Having business experience really has nothing to do with working for the government.

Businesses in general have one main goal: to make a profit.  And that's a perfectly fine goal.  I'm not saying that businesses shouldn't make a profit.  However, I am saying that the government shouldn't be making a profit.  The main goal of the government should be to look out for the general welfare of its citizens.  Paving roads, running schools, managing Medicare, providing food assistance: none of these things are supposed to be done for a profit.  They are done for the betterment of society as a whole.  If anything, an Executive Director of a non-profit corporation would make a better candidate for office than a business owner.

This seems to be the fundamental thing that Republicans just don't get.  Our country is not a business.  It should not be run like a business, and our citizens are not customers.  Our government, in essence, is us.  It's not some scary outside entity coming to get you.  It is, in fact, meant to be a force for good and a means for us to take care of each other and the things that we all need to use.

Like healthcare for example.

What's Really Wrong with Voter ID?

So, now that you've heard my views on the masses of stupid people voting (see previous post), let me tell you what I actually think about the voter ID laws that are popping up all over the country, including here in Minnesota.  I've had friends ask me what's so bad about these laws, because on it's face, voter ID doesn't seem all that unreasonable.

OK, since we can't use my nifty voting quiz to see who should get to vote, why shouldn't we use photo ID cards?  Well, for the following reasons:

1.  As much as I may sometimes disagree, voting is a right, not a privilege.  Therefore, we should be entitled to vote as easily as possible without paying to do so.  Have you ever heard of a "poll tax?"  That's when you charge certain people money to vote, and that's illegal.  Even if you distribute a "free" ID to anyone who may not have a driver's license, those people need to pay to get a birth certificate and/or passport to get that "free" ID, not to mention the transportation time and cost it will take to get those items.  Think elderly people and the disabled.

2. Voter fraud is not a problem.  Many extensive studies done recently have shown that voter fraud on any kind of large scale is simply not happening in the U.S.  If I were a real go-getter, I could post some links for you here to those studies, but I'm too lazy to google it.  The reason voter fraud is not a major problem, in my opinion, is that most reasonable people aren't willing to go to federal prison just to cast an illegal vote.  I have been an election judge as well as a recount observer, and I can tell you firsthand that we have a very efficient and safe system here in Minnesota.  So if it ain't broke, why fix it?

3. It's clearly just a ploy by Republicans to keep low-income people as well as students from voting. Why?  Because low-income people and students tend to vote Democratic. The obstacles in the voter ID laws are targeted directly at low-income people via the poll tax issue, and at students, since the laws always state that college-issued student ID's will not count as a valid ID for voting purposes.  The point is, if you put obstacles in the way of people who usually vote for your opponent (the Democrat), then you (the Republican) tend to win more, right? 

The whole thing is so ridiculous, but it's an idea that will seem completely reasonable by people who already have a driver's license and think "Hmm, this doesn't seem like such a bad idea."  And that's why it's so dangerous, and shouldn't be something that's voted on by the general public. 

Especially since they don't all have a valid photo ID.  :-)

Democracy Doubts

Like Rush Limbaugh before me, I'm going to say something deeply unpopular.  You ready for it?  Here it is:

I'm not so sure about this whole "democracy" thing we have going on in the U.S.

There's been a lot of talk about voter suppression laws lately, and it's just not an issue I can get incredibly excited about, because deep down, in a dark place I don't like to talk about, I don't believe that everyone should be voting.

Now, to clarify, I don't think that people should be kept from voting on the basis of race, class, income, party affiliation, or anything like that.  I simply think that we should weed out people based on stupidity.  If you're stupid, you should not be voting.  Simple as that.

"How would we gauge levels of stupidity?" you might be asking.  Well, of course the simplest way would be to let me decide on each and every person's ability to vote, but since that would be prohibitively time-consuming, I've devised a quick test that we could administer when people are registering to vote.  Here's my draft:

Question 1.  What are the 3 branches of government?

                    a. legislative, bureaucratic & socialistic
                    b. legislative, executive & judicial
                    c. maple, oak & pine
                    d. I thought there were only 2

If you answered a, c, or d, you don't get to vote.

Question 2.  Who is the current vice-president of the United States?
                   
                    a. Barack Obama
                    b. Dick Cheney
                    c. Joe Biden
                    d. Barack Obama is a socialist

If you answered a, b, or d, you don't get to vote.

Question 3.  Who is Kim Kardashian currently dating?
                   
                    a. Kanye West
                    b. Michael Jordan
                    c. I don't really give a shit
                    d. Who is Kim Kardashian?

Unless you answered c or d, you don't get to vote.

Question 4. Please name at least one of your U.S. Senators.

If you can't name at least one, you don't get to vote.

Question 5. Which of the following programs could be correctly defined as "socialist?"
                  
                   a. the Fire Department
                   b. the Police Department
                   c. the local public school
                   d. Obamacare

If you answered d, you don't get to vote.

We could always throw some essay questions in there just to make it a little more fair, but I think these questions would be a good start.  I'm not so concerned about who people are voting for.  My concern is that people are voting based on 30 second TV ads and then doing no further research on the issues.

My brother has a theory that our democracy is the very thing that is making our society so collectively stupid.  His theory goes that because we have so much freedom, we are free to be lazy, apathetic and uninformed.  I think he may be right. 

Am I saying we should go to an all-out dictatorship? Not necessarily.  That would only work if I were the dictator.  But maybe we should invest a little more in public information on government.  We are doing a terrible job of teaching basic civics to our children, and it has made us a more divided, divisive society, which makes me fear for our future.

"Activist" Judges

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.

Christian Republicans

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?

Entitlements

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.

Letter to the Senator

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.

 

Shutdown Time

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!!

Folksiness

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.

What is wrong with these people?

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.

I thought they were all about personal responsibility. . .

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.