Just like Colorado in 2008 and 2010, we can now add Mississippi to the short list of states that are attempting a very radical form of making abortion illegal. It’s called Personhood. And just like in Colorado, this measure was defeated in Mississippi during this recent general election.

It basically takes the rule of giving a fertilized egg of a woman legal rights, in case it’s existence is eliminated in some type of aborted process. The main focus is abortion, but it also happens to include an actions that include some types of birth control and miscarriage, which in many cases, is out of the woman’s control. Yes, those who are in support of such a measure say legal challenges to birth control and miscarriages will never happen. And they do make mention to exclude a condom as an accessible form of birth control. [shockingly surprised] But the vagueness of how the measure is written is very broad and not really specific in terms of what exactly gets enforced. The very idea of birth control like The Pill, prevents a fertilized egg from attaching itself to the uterus wall. It’s a similar process for someone who uses an IUD.

This should scare any woman who wants to keep control over her reproductive system – without government interference. I get why there are people that are passionately against abortion. And there are a good number of people that are pro-choice that are ok with restrictions on abortions. But this major step in gaining more government control over a woman’s choice is uncalled for.

Color me confused. I thought the move of the ultra conservative movement was to reduce and limit government in our lives, not increase it. What’s next.. giving this zygote a Social Security Number? I’m not trying to make this into a slippery slope, but the very idea of giving rights to an egg opens up an inalienable list of protections and rights that normally are afforded to a birthed human being.

Regardless, for now, we can breath a sigh of relief. At least until the next time this Personhood movement rears it’s ugly head in another state. Until then, follow the links below to educate yourself on the consequences of this movement.

Links

No on 26: Mississippi “Personhood” measure would outlaw most birth control
Panel Recommends Free Birth Control; Anti-Abortion Groups Flip Out
Mississippi ‘Personhood’ Law Could Cause Legal Mayhem, Experts Warn
Then They Came for Your Birth Control
The next front in the abortion wars: Birth control

But federal funding is already banned and has been for almost 35 years, due to the passage of the Hyde Amendment, more than three years after the Roe v. Wade decision. Not to mention that last year’s Health Care Reform Act also bans federal funds to be used for elective abortions.

But not all abortions are banned from federal funds. To those women that have become pregnant through rape or incest or in cases where the life of the mother-to-be is in danger of being lost, federal funds can and do pay for abortions. And even in these cases, it’s still a bothersome nuisance to the anti-abortion crowd that some of their tax dollars are going to pay for something they are against.

In 2010, Planned Parenthood received an estimated $317 million in federal tax dollars. In addition to abortions performed for rape, incest and to save the life of the mother [remember, the Hyde Amendment and 2010 HCRA prohibits federal funds for electable abortions], these tax dollars also provided pelvic exams, breast exams, safer-sex counseling and basic infertility counseling.

Supporters of this bill argue for those that don’t want their tax dollars being used for abortions. And if you are religious and/or have personal beliefs that oppose abortion, I most certainly can sympathize on some levels. They argue that any individual can come up with the money themselves to have the procedure done. But what if circumstances are such that something that was not their fault and there are not sufficient funds to cover an abortion? Planned Parenthood certainly has some private donors. And anti-abortion supporters, while still not happy about any abortions being performed regardless who pays for them, can’t stop private people from funding for those that seek a safe and legal place to have their pregnancy terminated.

Unplanned

But what about those children that are born instead of aborted? Unwanted, unplanned, conceived from a molestation, rape or abusive spouse or partner… regardless of how the woman became pregnant, abortion is a legal procedure that is, and should always be, left up to being the choice of the woman.

In none of these articles or arguments does it ever factor in the cost of a child born under these circumstances that may end up on some type of public assistance. I have heard several stories of children born into less than sufficient households where the amount of financial need [paid for by tax payers] throughout this child’s life is staggering. So if it’s money that’s of concern, why not also cut out programs that provide care for those children? If it’s really about where your tax dollars go to, then why stop at abortion? The average cost of an abortion at $350 vs. the average cost to of how much public assistance a child could receive [some average it's around $11,000/yr] shows quite the financial gap, when properly amortized.

Again, those that are pro-life will argue it was worth it to save an unborn child from abortion. Adoption is a valid option in these cases. And while adoption is used a lot, regardless of other legal options, it’s not always the most cost effective, as adoptions can take a considerable amount of money and time to complete. Granted, at little or no cost to the mother giving up the child, but still the adopting party needs to prove that they are responsible enough to raise a child.

But let’s say the mother doesn’t offer up her child for adoption and factor in what kind of life that child may end up having if it ends up staying with it’s biological parent. Hopefully, it will be a good one. But depending on the living conditions of that child, what if it turns to a life of crime? Or runs with the wrong crowd? Or experiences abuse from others? All speculation, yes. But remember, from the beginning, this child was not planned.

Cutting Off All Services

Mike Pence will argue that this bill will “close the loophole that has forced millions of pro-life Americans to subsidize the nation’s leading abortion provider…”. But won’t this also mean that NO federal funds will go to any family planning services – including abortions done for rape, incest and to save the life of the mother? In my reading of the bill, all funding to any family planning center that also happens to perform abortions, will be pulled. So in an effort to cut off Planned Parenthood, they also cut off funding to anyone under the Title X part of the Public Health Service Act that was originally designated by President Nixon for the purpose of low-income individuals and families that needed family planning services.

In an effort to cut off the nose to spite one’s face, this is a big blow to family health care. Nonsense, say those who support Pence. Just pay for the services yourself. Stop using public funds for something I don’t agree with. Go get a job and get health care. All valid options that not everyone may be able to have access to. But not every HMO plan you get from your employer covers all of the necessary procedures that a place like Planned Parenthood offers. Paying individually for each one of these services can add up for anyone, including those that are at or below the poverty income level in this country.

Contraception

And I’ve not specifically mentioned contraception and birth control, which also carries some levels of opposition by those who are also against any type of abortion. In the logical sense, preventing a pregnancy also prevents an abortion. Most get this, some refuse to [for varying reasons that boggle my mind]. And a place like Planned Parenthood provides counseling to those seeking options to prevent a pregnancy. While abstinence is the best way to avoid pregnancy, controlling the collective public’s access to when they have sexual intercourse is impossible.

Summary

Regardless of my position, I get why people are against abortion. I have never met nor talked to anyone in my life that was pro-abortion. It’s not always the choice we would want for someone. But that’s not for us to decide. That’s the woman’s choice. And since 1973, it’s legal in just about every state and in varying forms and circumstances. And while some may not want their tax dollars going to pay for any abortion, there are some cases that exist where having the child isn’t always the best option. I know there are many zealots, politicians and religious fanatics [mostly male, I might add] that don’t agree, but you are not the ones carrying this child. Again, the woman is. And in the voice of those women that have had abortions and why they had them, I trust their words over any male trying to legalize and limit their opinions.

Cutting off all federal funding creates new issues, financial, emotional and physical, where an unwanted child is born to an environment that can’t properly raise and support the child, turning to the government for assistance. Which is where this argument comes full circle: tax dollars going for something you don’t agree with.

It’s expected that this bill will not pass the Senate, but if it does, President Obama has already promised to veto it. So a temporary sigh of relief for those relying on centers like Planned Parenthood for family planning, but it’s not the last time this will be an issue. And when it rears it’s head again, I hope that more will be willing to think for the needs of the living, not just the unborn.

Relevant Article Links

This Is What Pro-Life Means?

Defunding Planned Parenthood – Not a GOP Family Value?

Getting taxpayers out of the abortion business

Abotion Fuels Intolerant Thinking

This Sunday is one of the biggest days for advertisers. It’s Superbowl Sunday and people pay attention to the ads – sometimes more than the game itself.

One of the ads that will be shown is from the conservative group Focus on the Family. Their $2.5 million will buy them 30-seconds to tell the story of Pam Tebow and her son, Heisman Trophy winning quarterback Tim Tebow from the Florida Gators. The tag line of the ad is “Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life”, with the word abortion never being mentioned.

But whose version of Family are we celebrating with this ad?

The details have been told numerous times over the last month, but in summary, Pam was a missionary in the Philippines, pregnant with her son. She fell ill and was given the option by doctors to either continue with the pregnancy or abort it. Her choice is obvious and the focus on having a successful son in sports is celebrated.

Never mind that since 1930, abortion has been illegal in the Philippines and remains that way to current day. So in 1987, when Pam was pregnant with Tim, her doctor was recommending something illegal to her, according to her telling of the events as they played out. Also factoring into the decision was her belief system, which is obviously pro-life. So under logical thinking, Pam’s decision to both follow her beliefs and not break the law of the country she was in at the time, resulted in the birth of her son.

The birth of a child is to be celebrated, especially if it was planned. But not all pregnancies are planned. And the woman who becomes pregnant should be allowed the option of terminating her pregnancy, taking into consideration the legal status of abortion where she resides. But I’m not here to advocate abortion. Personally, I think it’s an option that I wish most women would not choose. I am not going to force my personal opinion on others. And neither should anyone else. That means no government, no religious person, no conservative organization, no right-wing radical or anyone that is passionate about their stance on abortion should take away the decision to abort a child away from any woman for any reason.

This makes me pro-choice, which some have re-labeled that to mean “pro-abortion”. Um. Read the above again if you are one of these people. Being pro-choice does not make someone pro-abortion. Neither should I, or anyone else that is pro-choice, be labeled a “baby killer”. The rules are simple. A woman makes her own reproductive decisions without involvement or interruption from anyone, with the exception of her doctor she is consulting with.

And being pro-choice shouldn’t be just some political stance or something that makes you feel better about yourself or a way to fit in better. If you are pro-choice, you need to really let the woman choose for herself, regardless of how you personally feel about the practice.

But when media people like Sally Jenkins from the Washington Post say they are pro-choice, labeling a group of people pro-abortion pretty much dilutes their announced stance. I really don’t believe there is anyone out there that is pro-abortion. Even women that choose abortion as an option are not skipping happily to the abortion clinic, smiles on their faces and exclaiming, “Yeah, I get to have an abortion today.” Abortion is a tough choice and it’s an emotional disconnect. Having talked to women that have had abortions before, it is a decision that was not easy for them to make.

No, these groups are more about not wanting the majority rule – regardless how specific or generic the message – to dominate the discussion of choice. Sure, Pam had a choice. She choose to have the baby. But at the same time, what was her decision doesn’t apply to every one else. This is called supporting the woman’s right to choose for herself.

Mad about the Ad?

So given all of that, CBS certainly should be allowed to pick and choose what ads they want shown on Superbowl Sunday. They are in the business to make money. But they also should be under scrutiny when they allow one ad based on content, yet reject an ad based on similar content rules they recently lifted. As a for-profit business, playing favorites while proclaiming they are not, will open up discussions on fairness in advertising. Allowing an ad promoting a general pro-life message, yet rejecting a gay dating service, at the same time airing ads with beer and boobs, their argument about “not within the Network’s Broadcast Standards for Super Bowl Sunday” starts to lose credibility.

After everything I’ve said above, I’m ok with the ad being broadcast, but I do question several things. One, are women that watch the game and viewing the ad going to consider its message the next time they have sexual relations? Two, will this spur other companies to consider next year’s big game for placing their 30-second conservative message to the masses? And three, will CBS actually consider running other ads from the likes of gay dating services without using their standard “network broadcast standards” rejection message?

Only time will tell. For this pro-choice viewer, in the midst of the majority rule, I’ll be placing all of my bets on the underdog minority. Go Saints!

UPDATE

Here’s the Mancrunch ad that won’t air during the Superbowl:

For President

I am a life long Democrat. I make no bones about it or try to hide it. But, I do not vote straight ticket, as I think there are many other qualified candidates that can put aside their personal vendettas and other divisive thoughts to represent the people their jurisdiction covers. I want to see more independent candidates on the ballots, for I think they could very well help erase a divide in this country and get people to really be concerned about true issues that affect all Americans.

As I always do, I researched the candidates, fairly and unbiased [which is not an easy task] and tried to see all of their positions and what kind of changes they would bring to the table. Let’s face it, the country is in tailspin of bad shit. Economy, the environment, human rights… there’s a lot that needs change. For almost the last eight years, we’ve wasted fuckloads of money in a country we don’t belong in, focused our efforts on issues that shouldn’t be issues anymore, allowed corporate greed and corruption to give large sums of cash to walking CEOs while wiping out the working class investments and threatening any chances of a stable future. Sure, we’ve made some progress, but in my opinion, it’s been minimal and it’s time we found someone to help guide this place to a better future. We can’t erase the past, but we can elect someone that will help both houses of Congress and other elected officials to get back on track.

Bob Barr

I had some discussions with one of my friends, a frequent commenter here, on the presidential candidates. Bob Barr was brought up as a potential option. Mr. Barr is a Libertarian, who’s party stands for less government intervention. I’m very much for less government in our lives. Although, we do need checks and balances and regulations set up, I think that could be managed a lot better than it is today with less than it has been for the last thirty years. But as I researched Mr. Barr’s positions, I found that he really didn’t have much of a history of pushing for less government. He started the whole impeachment process against Bill Clinton. Not for the “blow job” issue but for campaign fundraising issues. When the impeachment proceedings continued on, not on the fundraising concerns, but the lying under oath about Ms. Lewinsky’s actions on Mr. Clinton’s johnson, that was very off track and wasting taxpayers money and government time . Add to that a list of other “more government” meddling: Defense of Marriage Act, The War on Drugs, voting for the war in Iraq. To me, this is a Republican, which at the time of these positions he took, he was one. In late 2006, he moved to the Libertarian party and has since changed some of his positions. Sorry Bob, it’s a little too late. Leopards don’t change their spots over night and two years in the political scheme of things is considered over night.

John McCain

Enter John McCain. Decorated war hero, POW and an all around nice guy [on most days]. He’s been in the Senate for over twenty years and seemed to have some moderate views like stem-cell research and concerns for the environment. But red flags go up everywhere right away when you look at his voting record – over 90% of the time with George W. Bush. Then there’s the lack of support he gives to POW/MIA war veterans. Dave from Blogography has been very vocal about this over on his blog and explains Mr. McCain’s position [or lack of one] very well. And watching his campaign implode into a series of hate-filled rallies and racial epithets [although to McCain's defense, he did try to tell people "that's not very nice"] and focusing on what a bad guy his Democratic opponent is, turned me off even more. His meager offering for health care reform was to give a $5,000 tax credit to help add to your helath care and HMO coverage. At least they were upfront that this $5,000 would be taxable. Tell me how someone who makes $25,000 a year is going to come up with an additional $5,000 during the year for health care costs, then have to wait till April to claim it on their taxes, only to be taxed on that amount in the end. If I am reading this right, it means you are being taxed on money you spent only to write it off and be taxed on it. Not very logical or helpful unless you make a decent amount of money. And even then, $5,000 doesn’t even begin to make a dent into any emergency hospital visit. Adding to this his involvement in the Keating Five, which doesn’t give much hope for correcting these economic failings we are having. And I’ve not even mentioned his choice for a running mate, which could extend this blog post longer than I would like it to be. So I have to say a big “NO” to John.

Barack Obama

Which brings us to Barack Obama. First off, let me outline what I don’t like about Obama. As a junior senator from Illinois, I do think there is some lack of experience here. Not a lot, mind you. But being president can be tough. It requires some know-how and being able to negotiate terms and make decisions that can and do affect over 300 million people. Some of the promises he made to the people of Illinois were never put forth. I can understand that not all campaign promises are kept, but there were some innercity programs that could have had more attention. I wish he had the guts or balls to say he supports gay marriage. If it’s a personal decision, fine. But I think it’s a cop-out to say you support something that gives rights to same-sex couples, but than wanting to call it something else. Marriage is a civil right, not something exclusive to any religion. I will talk more about this later, but don’t appease for the sake of being nice.

What’s that you say? Why didn’t I mention other negatives like his middle name or that he “palled around with terrorists” or that he “wants to take everyone’s guns away” or that he’s not eligible to be president because “his birth certificate is a fake and he wasn’t born in this country”??? Because all of those issues are not negatives. They are fucking red herrings that people chase to ignore their focus on real issues like job creation, clear air, alternative fuels, health care, ending a useless war, financial stability and getting back our positive outlook to the rest of the world.

Lots of people have middle names that could scare up a controversy or two. If you focus on Mr. Obama’s middle name, you are being racist and just trying to incite fear. Bill Ayers is a well respected professor at a university. It’s been years since he was a violent protestor. It’s not like he was on the news last year for killing people. People do change over thirty years. The government is not going to come into each and every home and take all of your guns away. Do you really think that 37 states are going to ratify an appeal to the second amendment? This is about controlling illegal assault rifles and keeping them out of hands of kids and adults. Responsible gun owners will never be affected, despite the lack of Obama’s moose-hunting skills. And finally, how many birth certificate experts are there on the internet? Obviously, there’s hundreds of you. You are so well skilled at PhotoShop that you can spot a forgery a mile away. What the fuck ever. Get over your self and read this link or this one.

Casting The Vote

I voted this last Thursday in early voting. I waited in line for over twenty minutes. It was a line I didn’t mind waiting in. As I walked up to the voting machine, I placed my vote for Barack Obama for President. While I have reservations about his experience, I have enough confidence that he can focus on the imperative issues and what needs to be done in this country to help get us back on track. The Bush years fucked us over pretty bad. Ultra religious zealots running around trying to sway the vote and inject fear into getting people to vote their way. It’s not about winning that matters. It’s about someone standing up and wanting to take charge and give this country back to the people. If you have to use dirty tricks and fear and other forms of discouragement to win an election, we really don’t want you in office. That just means you’ll use the same tactics to get your way once you are elected. That only helps selected individuals, not the entire population. I want unity, not diversity. That’s why I voted for Obama. He is the strongest candidate to bring unity back to this nation. Will it happen for sure? I don’t know, but I think he’s got a good shot at making it happen.

——————————————————————————

Civil and Human Rights

There are two issues that I feel that should be removed from the political landscape: abortion and gay rights. While I mentioned above that I wished Obama wouldn’t beat around the bush for an alternative solution to gay marriage, I do wish it didn’t even have to be brought up at all. The whole religious vs. non-religious divide is doing nothing to help anyone in this country. To focus all of your efforts to save the unborn or deny someone their rights shows how short-sighted and selfish your views are. While they may be important to you, let’s face it… making abortion or gay marriage illegal does nothing to help or hurt you in your life. Your marriage stays intact. Your choice to not get an abortion never changes. If all it does is help you sleep at night or help you to know you are controlling someone else’s life’s decisions, then those are not valid reasons.

Plain and simple… abortion should be a medical decision between a woman and her doctor. Marriage should be a decision between two people that want to legally commit their lives together. Human and civil rights should NEVER be put to the vote of the people. Each and every time, the majority will vote away the rights of the minority, especially when it comes to subjects that border on religious beliefs. Now I’m not against anyone’s religious beliefs, just when they affect everyone. Again, it’s a majority vs. minority issue.

If you live in California, Florida, Arizona or Arkansas, you may be familiar with propositions that are intended to remove, deny or eliminate rights for GLBT citizens. Arkansas and Florida even effect foster or adopted children. I’ve already done a recent blog post on voting No on Proposition 8 in California. Marriage isn’t some exclusive right only for people that get married in a church. Marriage is civil. It’s a legal right. People get married without being religious or belonging to a particular sect. My wife and I got married on a beach in Lake Tahoe, Calif. Hardly a church [but some place I would consider spending my Sunday at]. And tradition…. what tradition? Marrying for property rights? Shotgun weddings? Divorce rates? Get it a rest. Remove your bias. Throw out your cherry-picked bible verses. Stop listening to the fear about what will happen if gays are able to marry. No church is forced now to marry anyone. Why would that change with same-sex marriage being legal? Any church has the right to deny who they want to marry. It happens with heretosexual couples, it will happen with same-sex couples. Nothing changes and people go find another venue to get married in. Just vote NO on each one of these propositions. It will prove that you really are not bigoted and biased and can let others live their lives, even if you don’t like it. Because at the end of the day, we are all human.

———————————————————————————-

Vote

I cannot stress how important it is to vote. Even if you disagree with me on each of the issues and positions I discussed above, at least exercise your right to vote. And stop finding ways to deny others to vote. That’s a fucked up way of trying to get your person elected or initiative passed. It’s a right we earned and each and every eligible person over the age of 18 should never be stopped from voting.

That’s all until Wednesday morning, when we will see what the outcome will be of all of this.