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.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Monday, April 25, 2011
Bumper Sticker Logic
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?
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Happy Easter
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!
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!
Saturday, April 23, 2011
What Planned Parenthood REALLY does.
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.
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.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Redefining Marriage for the Better
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).
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).
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Women's Expo Wrap Up
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.
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.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Being sick sucks.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)