"Kermit the Fraud" (horrible title I know, but I couldn't help myself)

If you haven't heard the name "Kermit Gosnell," then you're probably not paying attention to the news. So if that's the case, let me give you a quick summary of this grizzly story.

Gosnell was a "doctor" in Philadelphia who provided late-term abortions for women. Long story short, he occasionally just delivered babies and killed them post-birth (that's called "infanticide" - not "abortion"). He also killed women from lack of appropriate medical care and seemed to have no standards for basic medical hygiene. The whole thing sounds horrific, and it is.

But does this horror exemplify how awful abortion clinics are?

No. Quite the opposite. This case exemplifies everything that is wrong with abortion restrictions.

Prior to Roe v. Wade, this kind of scenario was common. Since abortion wasn't legal, women would resort to illegal abortions that were often performed by incompetent people in filthy conditions.  It would not have been uncommon in these cases for a woman to die from complications of the abortion. Many of these women were already mothers, who left several other children motherless.

When women don't have access to legal, safe abortion, they will instead turn to illegal butchers like Gosnell. And if they are not able to access first-term abortions because of draconian restrictions on their ability to do so, then they will seek out illegal, late-term abortions.  Similarly, if women get no assistance in paying for first-trimester abortions, they will likely wait until they've saved up enough money (if that's even possible) and will be in their 2nd or 3rd trimester before they have their abortion.

If we really and truly want to stop people like Gosnell, and not just make ourselves feel better, we need to ensure that women actually have ACCESS to the full range of reproductive services to begin with. Implying that people like Gosnell are a product of legalized abortion is just false. On the contrary, he and his ilk are products of the severely reduced access to abortion that faces the low-income women of this country. And until we change that, we will continue to see people like Gosnell fill the void.

The Sky is NOT Falling

It's funny. I drove in to work this morning and didn't see any houses repainted in rainbow colors. No children being forcibly removed from their parents.  No gay people having naked parades in the streets. I didn't get a notice from my son's school that they would henceforth be teaching the kids how to have the gay sex, nor did I see any churches burning down. 

You'd almost think that Minnesota's marriage equality law didn't pass yesterday. I mean, things just seem so "normal." I don't get it.

I guess the bill doesn't actually get signed until tonight, and the law won't go into effect until this August, so maybe the sky will start falling this summer instead.

Of course, this is really going to change things for my family. Now that "gay marriage" is the law of the land, my own hetero-marriage no longer means anything, so I guess we'll be getting a divorce. He will instead marry a man, and I will marry a woman.  It won't be long before our son comes home and tells us his teacher has picked out a boyfriend for him in his third-grade classroom.

And now that I have to actually explain the gays to the kids, they are going to be so confused and wonder why they even need a mom or dad. After all, the only reason we got married and had a family in the first place is because Jesus told us to. Now I just don't understand what it all meant.

I suppose now my best friend's wedding this summer will be cancelled so she can find a suitable woman to marry instead. I hope she keeps the same bridesmaid dresses though, because I already put a down payment on mine.

Yes, many, many changes are coming. It's going to be insane. You'll see. Just wait until the gays start taking over. It's going to be mass chaos on every level. Just you wait. . . .

Social Insecurity

Here's my two cents on the national Social Security discussion we're having right now.  I'll make it short and sweet. For two days, I've been listening to people on the radio and TV tell me that cutting Social Security benefits by $30 a month is "no big deal." I mean, why are people getting pissed off about that, right?

Here's why. $30 a month can buy you a lot, especially when you're trying to survive on Social Security. It will pay a monthly bill on any number of utilities, it will buy you several meals, and can pay for a medication co-pay. If you're making a good living, $30 a month is truly no big deal.  I spend more than that getting my nails done every month.  But if you're scraping by on Social Security, that $30 a month is going to be missed.

And here's a question: If $30 a month is in fact "no big deal," then why would it be a hardship to instead tax corporations and/or millionaires an extra $30 a month?  Really. I've been hearing for years that corporations and the rich are so horribly over-taxed that they can't possibly pay a penny more, but if it's only a few extra bucks a month, then what's the big deal, right? 

Fact vs. Opinion

My 9-year-old son recently brought home a routine reading assignment in which he had to read a story and then answer some questions from the story.  He gets these almost every week, but this one caught my eye because the last question on the sheet was about the difference between "fact" and "opinion."  The story was about some animal helping another animal.  I can't remember what they were, but for the purposes of this retelling, we'll call them a squirrel and a frog.  The question was multiple choice and asked the student to pick out the "fact" amongst the "opinions."  The choices were along the lines of "the squirrel was nice to help the frog," "the squirrel shouldn't have helped the frog," and the "squirrel was bigger than the frog."  My son wanted to go with "the squirrel was nice" answer, so we had a discussion about what "facts" are and what "opinions" are.

I was glad this subject was even broached in today's modern third grade classroom, and wish more adults had to do the same kind of training.  It seems like we now live in a society where fact doesn't even really matter as long as you have opinion on your side.

For example, we know that abstinence only "education" is terribly useless, and does pretty much nothing to prevent sexual activity amongst teens, and therefore does not prevent teen pregnancy or the spreading of STI's.  How do we know this?  We've studied it. And yet, many people still insist that it should be taught because they are of the opinion that teen sex is the worst thing that could ever possibly happen.  But it's just not effective.  Fact vs. opinion.

We also know that evolution happened, and that the Earth is not, in fact, 6,000 years old, despite what the bible may have told you.  How do we know this? We've studied it. And yet, many people still hold the opinion that the bible is right, and that there is some sort of "controversy" we should be teaching kids about regarding evolution.

But my biggest problem with the juxtaposition of facts and opinion these days is in the political sphere. "Obama is a communist!" No, he's not.  That's an opinion based on your dislike of his policies, but it doesn't change the definition of communism and the fact that Obama's policy decisions don't support your belief. "Obamacare is a 'government takeover' of healthcare!" No, it's not. A true government takeover of healthcare would be a British-style national health service. But that's not what Obamacare does. You can dislike it all you want, but you can't claim the "government takeover" bit as a fact. Because it's not. End of story. Fact vs. opinion.

I think the political landscape would be very different if people could agree on which things are "facts" and which things simply are not.  We would still disagree on the "right" way to do things, because we would still have our differing "opinions," but maybe our conversations would be a lot less frustrating and more productive if we agreed to rely on actual evidence.

Mother by Choice

This past weekend I went on a wedding gown shopping trip to the "big city" with my BFF, who's getting married this summer.  While we were at the hotel, I called home using "facetime" so I could say goodnight to my family.  While I was cooing and giving googely faces to my 3-year-old, my BFF was sitting on the other bed quietly laughing to herself.  When I finally got off the phone after the hundredth "nigh, nigh Mommy," she said, "If you could have seen yourself doing that 20 years ago you would NOT have believed it." 

And she's right.  Hell, if you had told me 10 years ago I'd be doing that, I would have said you were crazy. Why? Because I was never, and I mean never, going to have children.  I've never thought much of them.  I've never liked holding other people's babies, and honestly, kids have just always creeped me out a little.  Okay, a lot.

So why the big change?  What led me to making strange faces and kissing an image on an iPhone?

Choice.

I made a choice 11 years ago (and then made one again 4 years ago) to have a baby.  After a couple of years of marriage, I thought to myself, "Maybe trying out that whole 'parenting' thing would be an adventure. I mean, how badly could I mess it up, right? Other people have kids all the time and they seem to enjoy it."

So when I found out I was pregnant, it was a moment of happiness (along with a little bit of sheer terror). I never once had to consider getting an abortion.  My pregnancy was planned and at least mostly healthy.  I was not like the many women who get pregnant every day in much less desirable circumstances.

I always hear the old line "I used to be pro-choice, but then I had a baby."  As if it had never occurred to the person where babies actually come from.  But in my case, being pregnant and having children has made me even more pro-choice (if that's possible).  It's easy to talk about pregnancy in abstract terms when you've never been pregnant.  But when you have, there's a whole new appreciation for the experience to go along with the rhetoric. 

I became more staunchly pro-choice because I realized that pregnancy is no day at the park.  Aside from the obvious things like morning sickness, you don't realize what a huge impact it has on your body until you actually go through it.  I remember feeling like I was going through puberty all over again.  And because my pregnancies were both so very wanted, I was able to stick it out and put up with all the indignities of having your body not really belong to you for a little while.  But that was my choice, and no one got to make it for me.

Today my first baby turns nine, and I'm so very glad I let him share my uterus for awhile.  I'm equally as glad I let my just-turned-three-year-old rent out the space as well.  I made two choices that I'm very proud of.  But that doesn't mean my choice is the same one every woman should make.  Every woman has to weigh the circumstances of her life and her body, and she should be as free to make a choice that fits her life as I was.

The Book of Mormon

I got to go see the Broadway hit "The Book of Mormon" while it was on tour in Minneapolis two weeks ago, and let me tell you - it was hilarious.  It was as good as all the reviews and Tony awards would imply.  Part of the reason I enjoyed it so much was that as an atheist, I am entertained by ridicule of silly religious ideas.  Like a known con-artist convincing a bunch of people that he found ancient golden religious tablets in his backyard, and that Jesus visited America before ascending to Heaven.

But as Bill Maher often likes to point out, is any of this any more or less crazy than the "traditional" religious beliefs of a man born of a virgin and someone cramming two of every species on Earth onto one ship?  People like to make fun of Mormonism or Scientology because they are relatively recently formed "faiths" and the claims they make seem just so obviously insane.  But if you take away the time that has passed since the beginning of any other religion, do their claims actually stand up to scrutiny?

Not really.  And yet it shocks me that people still buy into just about everything religion says without questioning whether or not any of the claims are actually true.  As if simple tradition, oral history and the passage of time make something immune from questioning.

And none of this would bother me except for the damage that religion has caused, and continues to cause, in our modern society.  People are told they can deny basic healthcare to their children as long as they have a "religious belief."  Gay people are excluded from having full, equal rights under the law because some people have a "religious objection" to homosexuality. Science teachers are forced to teach a bogus "controversy" between evolution and creationism.  And now, even access to basic birth control is being threatened because apparently god thinks it's a no-no.  While the population of the planet is surging ever faster towards total unsustainability, people still think they need to "go forth and multiply."

And yet, if you so much as point out any of this, you're failing to properly "respect religious liberty" and are treated as a terrible person for hurting peoples' tender feelings about their religious faith (something they are so certain is the absolute truth, yet can't stand to hear any legitimate criticism of).  I do not have any respect for religion because I think it impedes our progress as a species.  But I do respect people's right to have any old idea they want, whether I think it's crazy or not.  However, when those ideas start to infringe on other people's rights, there needs to be a lot more public scrutiny than, "Well, but that's what people believe."

So in summation, go see the Book of Mormon, or at least buy the soundtrack.  You'll laugh your ass off.

Scouting for God

I was blessed on Sunday not only to celebrate my youngest son's 3rd birthday, but also to receive my annual batch of Girl Scout cookies from my niece.  My favorite is the "Lemonades."  Delicious.  I not only enjoy the cookies, but I'm happy to support the Girl Scouts which seems like a tolerant, progressive organization for girls.  Too bad I don't have any girls of my own.

What I do have is boys; two of them, and I would never let them join the Boy Scouts.  Well, unless one of them begged and made me feel bad, in which case I'd probably cave as usual, but that hasn't happened yet so I'm sticking to my guns for now.

You might think my reason for this is their exclusion of gay scouts and troop leaders.  And you'd be right. Somewhat.  I would find it repulsive to support an organization that insists on furthering the myth that all gay men are child molesters, and all gay boys are just "confused" and being influenced by the gay "predators" who are trying to "recruit" them.

But what I would find equally repulsive would be sending my boys into the care of an organization that tells them they are simply not capable of being good, moral citizens without worshipping a god.  In addition to their ban on gay members, the BSA also has a ban on atheist members.  You can be a Boy Scout so long as you acknowledge a god, regardless of who that god is.  But if you don't decide to give the glory to god, it is assumed that you are incapable of being a "good citizen."

My husband and I are trying hard to raise two responsible, compassionate, morally upright, "good" kids, who know that the reason for doing good things is the good they send out into the world; not the fear of spending eternity in hell or the expectation of a reward in heaven.  We teach them that you do the right thing because it's the right thing to do; not because there is an invisible scorekeeper in the sky keeping a tally of their rights and wrongs.

I know that the BSA takes a lot of flack over the gay issue.  And I get why.  It's a big issue.  But to me, unless they are willing to include atheist/secular kids in their ranks, I don't see how my boys would fit in.  Which is sad, because my two adventurous boys would otherwise probably gain a lot of great experience from the program.

But until the scouts realize that any boy; gay, straight, or anywhere in between, can be a great citizen, I remain much more reluctant to purchase Boy Scout popcorn tubs than I am to purchase delicious Girl Scout cookies.