The Healing of America

Yesterday, I wrote an entire rant on how awful people have become to each other in terms of providing healthcare to their fellow human beings.  I then gave myself 24 hours before posting it in order to cool off and revise it.  However, this morning on my way to work I heard about the Supreme Court ruling that upheld the Affordable Care Act, and a little bit of my faith in humanity returned to me.

I've never been a huge fan of "ObamaCare" (or Obama, for that matter), because I think it didn't go nearly far enough in providing healthcare for people who need it (which is all of us).  But I can appreciate that it at least got the healthcare conversation started, and it's at least a step in the right direction. 

What I can't understand is why we refuse to look at the healthcare systems around the world that are working and try to learn from them.  Our American exceptionalism keeps us from admitting that there are in fact countries in the world that do things much better than we do, and healthcare is one of them.  The best book I've read on this subject is "The Healing of America" by T.R. Reid.  It was a great look into some of the systems in other countries, and it weighs all of their pros and cons.  I sometimes think that if everyone in Congress were just forced to read this book, maybe things could change, but I know better than to hope for that.

So I guess I have mixed feelings today.  I'm happy for the gains we've made, meager as they are, but still impatient for the changes we really need that can't come soon enough for real people dealing with real illness.

Activism Burnout

As you may have noticed by my general lack of posts lately, I've been suffering from some "activism burnout" lately.  This happens to me at least once every year or two. 

You can only care for so long before you start to think, "Well, if the rest of the country doesn't care about their future, why the hell should I?  If the rest of the women my age don't give a shit about their right to abortion, why is it my job to help them maintain that right?  If no one else cares about the growing wage gap in this country, why should it be my problem?  If other people think gay marriage is somehow going to ruin their life, why do I have to educate them?  If everyone else is content to just watch all their rights slowly slip away because politics isn't 'interesting' enough to keep up with, then why the hell should I care so much?"

Seriously, sometimes I feel like the fate of the world seems to fall on the maybe twenty percent of us who are paying any attention at all and actually dare to ever say anything about it.  I'll probably never need an abortion, I'll never be the victim of racism, I'm not poor, I'll never have to worry about my marital status being questioned, I don't need to worry about feeding my kids, and I live a generally comfortable life.  So why should I care about ensuring that anyone else lives a decent life?

Oh ya, because I have a conscience and compassion.  I know that being an atheist means I'm supposed to just live for myself and have no moral compass according to the fundies out there, but I really do care, and it's exhausting.  Sometimes I just want to take a nap and pretend like the only things that matter are Kim Kardashian and who's winning on American Idol.

I'll snap out of it eventually; I always do.  It just might take another month or so.  I'll let you know when my nap is over.

Double Standard

I attended the local Women's Expo on behalf of our community group, Friends for Choice, last Saturday.  Every year, we but up a booth at this thing, loaded with pro-choice pamphlets, stickers and buttons.  And every year, we get dirty looks from people who are sure we're out to kill babies.

One thing that's struck me as odd for the past few years at these events is the double standard that exists between "sex" related booths.  There always seems to be a "Pure Romance" booth set up, which sells sex toys and lotions, etc. via direct marketing (think Avon, Tupperware, Pampered Chef).  People seem to flock to this kind of thing with no problem.  I once went to Pure Romance party that was chiefly attended by middle-aged women whom you would normally think of as reserved.

The point to all of this is that when they're thinking about sex in terms of the "fun" aspects of it, people, and women in particular, seem to have no problem with it.  But when you ask them to think about the same thing in terms of responsibility or healthcare, everyone gets ridiculously squeamish about it. What's the deal with that?  Why isn't Pure Romance nearly as controversial as a family planning clinic or the pro-choice movement?

Maybe it's because everyone can put their blinders on and pretend that Pure Romance items are only being used within the sanctity of the holy marital bed, and a cotton-candy flavored body powder won't stop you from getting pregnant.

The "Mommy Wars"

This whole kerfuffle about Democratic pundit Hilary Rosen making a statement about Ann Romney never working a day in her life has me more than a little annoyed.  It has revived the non-issue of the "mommy wars" which takes time away from actual issues that affect people on a daily basis.

That being said, here's my 2 cents. Whatever you may think about the way in which Hilary Rosen chose to word her comments, she was right; Ann Romney never has worked a day in her life. 

Does this mean motherhood is not "work?"  No.  I'm a mom; I know it's hard.  But I also know that it's not something I do to earn a paycheck or put food on the table.  It's something I do because I desperately love my children and want to care for them.  It's rewarding beyond words, and a job that I enjoy despite the challenges.

Anyone who can compare raising their children to working in a coal mine or waiting tables has a questionable amount of love for their children.  Motherhood is not a "job" even though it does take work and effort.  I would gladly stay home with my kids all day before I would scrub toilets all day.

So why then do some women "choose" to take a crappy job that earns a paycheck rather than be a stay-at-home mom?  Because they have no choice - that's the point.  Most women in this country do not "choose" to work versus parenting full time.  They are merely a victim of their financial circumstances.

I work, and I enjoy my work.  Personally, I would not feel fulfilled unless I got that daily time in the "real world" that working provides for me.  Could I be stay-at-home mom? Probably.  My lifestyle would have to be severely reduced, but I could probably swing it.  Does the fact that I work mean that I look down on women who stay home with their kids? No.  More power to them.  Some women are natural caregivers and love the opportunity that being a stay-at-home mom brings.  Do I think they look down on me for working? No. I think we're all moms and we all do what we need to do and we all make our own way and that's fine.

The point that Rosen was trying to make was that Ann Romney, being a wealthy woman, has never had to scrub toilets or wait tables.  She doesn't know what it's like to do manual labor all day and then have to come home and care for your children.  She was undoubtedly in a position to hire nannies, housekeepers, and cooks, whether she chose to do so or not.  Most women don't have that luxury.

Yes, parenting is work, but it's fulfilling and fun work that we choose to take on by having kids in the first place.  We love our kids, and no matter how tough it gets, I would never trade mothering for waiting tables, or compare the two in the same breath.  It's insulting to my children.

Hunting is more important than healthcare?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Birth Control Ranting

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

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

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

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

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

Birth control is THE family value.

Contraception Calamity

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

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

Wow.

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

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

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

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

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