Sunday, June 25, 2006
Well, the past weekends have been so hectic. I know I haven't kept up with this, but as a few of you know, I've been rather preoccupied. Last Thursday my dad had a heart attack and I rushed down to Kansas. He's doing great now, hardly any damage and it looks like the doctor fixed what could be fixed. He's been having some problems lately anyway, so he's not out of the woods yet completely, but things are much better. Of course, I got back on Monday evening and the next day had a horrible head cold. So I felt bad most of the week - but better by Friday when Nick's parents came for a visit. It was really fun to see them. His mom and dad are really cool. I think they kinda miss having him around. And they're extremely sweet. Anyway, things are going good now. Dad's feeling better, I am too. That's all for now.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Finally, a new post
So, this is my new post and the first one I've done since moving to Iowa. We pulled in last Thursday, already exhausted of course, and began to unload. The cats had been drugged so they were no problem the entire way - they slept most of the day in their carrier. It was really kinda of heartwarming. Everything is pretty much unpacked, although there are a few areas that need to be organized..noticeably, my desk and study space. Nick and I have been walking and exploring a lot of places. I've even gone on a run around the park near our apartment. It's a great little town, and the university is only 4 miles away. I have a job interview on Saturday at Victoria's Secret - please, everyone, keep fingers crossed that I get it. They said it's only part-time, but that's better than nothing, and I have a feeling I can cram in some more hours by taking over some other girls' shifts. IF I get hired..so just think good thoughts ok? Nick has a job starting in August at the Reference Desk at the University Library. Really good opportunity, and at least he knows it's there for him, so we may struggle a bit, but by August things should be on an upswing. I'm already missing the excitement of classes and new professors and such - I may audit a class in the fall, just for fun. After I finish my thesis of course! Well, I guess that's pretty much it. Oh, and people - read the book The Devil Wears Prada, before you see the movie...it's hilarious!!!!
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Iowa!
I know that it has been a long time since I last posted, but wow, moving is apparently more difficult than I thought. Our apartment is a mess...I am also taking my niece Alyssa with me, so she can meet up with her mom for the summer. She's a good traveler, so it should be kinda fun! So far, the biggest news is this: we bought a couch together...it's really cool, and green, and I am extremely excited! I can't believe how much fun it is to share expenses, despite being poor, of course. I really dig the equality..it was so totally unlike my ex-husband to be that way, but that's another blog. Sara and Brad, congratulations again!!!! I will talk to all of you later, when life is less hectic and I will be in IOWA! Moving is still scary, even though I do have family close by. Maybe it's cause I will miss out on some stuff that normally I wouldn't, plus it's a new state..and I have to find a job and get settled. I am nervous! I will really miss the family I have here...and I think some of my nervousness stems from feelings that only my dad, sister, and stepmom really care that I'm leaving. I kinda get the feeling that Rick and Charlene have kinda written me off...but maybe that's cause we haven't really settled anything. I am really gonna miss my niece and nephews! Well, it's the last packing and loading day. Gotta go!
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
Well, lately life is hectic. I worked out for 2 hours yesterday to relieve stress and of course, get my nice body back the one that is less dumpy and more toned. Oh, and we're moving next Thursday. We already have our address and phone number so whoever wants it email me! I will probably send out a mass email anyway! Packing is hectic! Our apartment is a mess. I am spending time with the families, and that's fun. Oh, and of course, thesis research. Wow! That is dragging for right now, cause all I'm really doing is copying microfilm so that later I can analyze it. Tedious work, but it will be worth it. Anyway, not much else going on. I went to the zoo with my sister and niece yesterday - Taylor's field trip. What a fun group! Kay - remember hanging out with parents or whatever and singing whenever we felt like it without being embarrassed..the girls did cheers! In the middle of the zoo. They were so excited and wound up, I don't know if they actually saw any of the animals. Ahh, the zoo. Penguins next summer!!!! Anyway, that's all.
Friday, May 19, 2006
New Editorial
I know it's another editorial, but some people took offense that it was a Planned Parenthood editorial the last time, so here is one from the St. Petersburg Times. Has the Pope actually commissioned a study? I will find out, but I think Kristi, you would know this? I will try to find out. I merely find it interesting, since AIDS is such a huge problem in Africa, and this would at least allow partners, in MARRIAGE I mean, to protect themselves.
Vatican shift on condoms
With millions of AIDS deaths in Africa, a change in policy would be welcome.
By Times editorial
Published May 7, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is too early to tell whether Pope Benedict XVI is prepared to relax Roman Catholic doctrine and sanction the use of condoms to combat the spread of HIV/AIDS. Benedict has asked the Vatican to study whether condoms are acceptable for married couples as a means to prevent the transmission of HIV. Such a move would carve away long-held Catholic teaching that artificial contraception violates the dignity of human life. It also could save countless lives, especially in Africa, where the United Nations classifies HIV as "the single greatest threat" to security and economic development.
Many Africans implored Benedict, on his election last year as pope, to find a middle ground to ease a pandemic devastating the church's fastest-growing region. Since the 1980s, the United Nations reports, 50-million in Africa have been infected with HIV and 20-million have died. AIDS has deprived Africa of parents, an able-bodied work force and much of the means to grow economically or even feed itself. Of the 5-million new infections reported worldwide last year, according to U.N. figures, 64 percent were in sub-Saharan Africa. In June, speaking to African bishops, the pope recognized the "epidemic" but said the "contraception mentality" should not unhinge the tradition of abstinence. It is unclear whether this study signals a change or hardening of Benedict's position.
Either way, having senior Catholic clergy refer to the practice as "a lesser evil" brings the debate forward from only several years ago, when the Vatican condemned condoms as ineffective against HIV. It also shows Benedict capable of opening the church to freewheeling public controversy, a confidence detractors did not expect from the conservative German cardinal. Benedict may have focused the issue narrowly on whether condoms should spare spouses a deadly disease. But any doctrinal change would surely be seen as a broader retreat on contraception. Likewise, Benedict forced a more honest debate about the many factors, apart from condoms, that contribute to the spread of HIV in Africa, from the weaknesses in the continent's health care system to societal attitudes toward women that encourage high-risk sex.
By calling attention to its own role in shaping prevention efforts, the church has raised the stakes for itself to do more to help governments and people worldwide make responsible decisions. As many as 80-million people could die from AIDS in Africa by 2025. That makes condoms a life issue. It is good the church sees it so, enough to wade through moral distinctions that could make a difference.
[Last modified May 7, 2006, 09:33:46]
Vatican shift on condoms
With millions of AIDS deaths in Africa, a change in policy would be welcome.
By Times editorial
Published May 7, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is too early to tell whether Pope Benedict XVI is prepared to relax Roman Catholic doctrine and sanction the use of condoms to combat the spread of HIV/AIDS. Benedict has asked the Vatican to study whether condoms are acceptable for married couples as a means to prevent the transmission of HIV. Such a move would carve away long-held Catholic teaching that artificial contraception violates the dignity of human life. It also could save countless lives, especially in Africa, where the United Nations classifies HIV as "the single greatest threat" to security and economic development.
Many Africans implored Benedict, on his election last year as pope, to find a middle ground to ease a pandemic devastating the church's fastest-growing region. Since the 1980s, the United Nations reports, 50-million in Africa have been infected with HIV and 20-million have died. AIDS has deprived Africa of parents, an able-bodied work force and much of the means to grow economically or even feed itself. Of the 5-million new infections reported worldwide last year, according to U.N. figures, 64 percent were in sub-Saharan Africa. In June, speaking to African bishops, the pope recognized the "epidemic" but said the "contraception mentality" should not unhinge the tradition of abstinence. It is unclear whether this study signals a change or hardening of Benedict's position.
Either way, having senior Catholic clergy refer to the practice as "a lesser evil" brings the debate forward from only several years ago, when the Vatican condemned condoms as ineffective against HIV. It also shows Benedict capable of opening the church to freewheeling public controversy, a confidence detractors did not expect from the conservative German cardinal. Benedict may have focused the issue narrowly on whether condoms should spare spouses a deadly disease. But any doctrinal change would surely be seen as a broader retreat on contraception. Likewise, Benedict forced a more honest debate about the many factors, apart from condoms, that contribute to the spread of HIV in Africa, from the weaknesses in the continent's health care system to societal attitudes toward women that encourage high-risk sex.
By calling attention to its own role in shaping prevention efforts, the church has raised the stakes for itself to do more to help governments and people worldwide make responsible decisions. As many as 80-million people could die from AIDS in Africa by 2025. That makes condoms a life issue. It is good the church sees it so, enough to wade through moral distinctions that could make a difference.
[Last modified May 7, 2006, 09:33:46]
Thursday, May 18, 2006
What do you think?
The Church and Condom Sense
by Laura Lambert
05.17.06
Will the Roman Catholic Church lift its ban on condoms?
The Vatican has been steadfast in its official opposition to condoms, as part of its overall stance against contraception. The use of condoms, the Vatican has said, is immoral. But in the wake of the global HIV/AIDS pandemic and amidst growing outcry within certain ranks of the church, the Vatican has been pushed to reexamine the issue. Pope Benedict XVI himself recently commissioned a council to study the acceptability of condoms in the fight against HIV/AIDS — though through a narrow lens, focusing on the issue of HIV/AIDS within heterosexual marriage.
While conflicting reports make it unclear whether such a study presages a formal change in the Vatican's stance, or merely an internal exploration, it has brought the issue of the church and condoms to the forefront.
"Abstinence is fine as an ideal, but it does not work in all circumstances. What about the vulnerable women who don't have that option?"
What happens when the church's "culture of life" and the death toll of HIV/AIDS collide? Can condoms be considered an acceptable "lesser evil" in the time of HIV/AIDS? Which will prevail — disease or doctrine? It is, as stated in a recent New York Times article, "one of the most complicated and delicate [issues] facing the church."
Humanae Vitae
The modern history of the Catholic Church and its stance on condoms can be traced to the 1968 encyclical letter of Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, subtitled "On the Regulation of Birth." In it, Pope Paul VI prohibits all means of artificial contraception — reaffirming the church's age-old teachings.
Humanae Vitae emerged in the early days of the birth control pill and changing notions about sex and sexuality. According to polls from that era, an increasing number of Catholics believed the Vatican should sanction birth control — by 1965, the rate was 63 percent. And there were signs of change within the church, as well.
An internal study carried out in the mid-1960s by Vatican-appointed theologians and laymen overwhelmingly found that birth control was not, in and of itself, evil. The commission agreed that Catholics could be allowed to choose for themselves whether and when to use birth control. Nevertheless, Pope Paul VI rejected the majority opinion and cemented the church's official ban with his 1968 decree.
Straight away, Catholic bishops throughout the world — from Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United States — spoke out, stating that circumstances existed in which a Catholic's conscience could prevail against the ban on contraception — if a woman's life were in danger, for instance.
But the beliefs set out in Humanae Vitae held — and it has remained the official prevailing doctrine since. Then, in the 1980s, HIV/AIDS began to change the world, and many Catholic leaders began to see condoms in a different light.
Catholic Leaders on Condoms
Catholic leaders began to speak out about condoms and HIV/AIDS as early as 1989. That year, the French Bishops Council encouraged widespread HIV/AIDS education, stating decisively, "Prophylactic measures exist." Cardinal Archbishop of Paris Jean-Marie Lustiger recognized that those with HIV/AIDS infections who could not live in chastity should use means to "prevent infection of others."
Four years later, the German Bishops Conference agreed that condoms could be appropriate within a marriage touched by HIV/AIDS, saying "The church ... has to respect responsible decision-making by couples." And in 1996, the French Bishops Council condoned condom use for individuals at risk for HIV "for whom sexual activity is an ingrained part of their lifestyle."
In 2000, Bishop Eugenio Rixen of Goias, Brazil, stated that the Catholic principle of "the lesser of two evils" justified the use of condoms, deeming it "less serious, morally speaking, than getting infected or infecting other people with the AIDS virus." Then, in 2001, Bishop Kevin Dowling, of Rustenburg, South Africa, challenged the Vatican's ban outright, having seen, firsthand, the plight of women and men stricken with HIV/AIDS in a poor mining town in South Africa.
And yet, even as these views bubbled to the surface, other church leaders sought to drown them out. Some went so far as to blame condoms for the HIV/AIDS pandemic.
Archbishop of Nairobi Raphael Ndingi Nzeki has called condoms "a licence [sic] for sexuality" and suggested that HIV/AIDS had spread so quickly and so far because of the availability of condoms. And, in 2003, Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family, falsely suggested that condoms were not reliable for safer sex, alleging that the HIV virus could pass through "pores" in the latex — despite consistent scientific findings to the contrary. In his 2003 document, "Family Values Versus Safe Sex," Trujillo states that condoms, instead of inhibiting the spread of HIV/AIDS, promote it.
In lieu of acknowledging that condoms can prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS, the church has emphasized abstinence until marriage and fidelity within marriage. Just last year, Pope Benedict XVI underscored that point in a speech to African bishops, claiming that abstinence and fidelity were the only "fail-safe" ways to prevent HIV/AIDS.
But what about when abstinence and fidelity fail — as they so often do? "Abstinence is fine as an ideal, but it does not work in all circumstances," said Bishop Dowling, in an interview with The Washington Post. "What about the vulnerable women who don't have that option?" he asked. "What about realizing that the official church in circumstances of human living does not respond to that reality?"
Between Doctrine and Disease
The issue now at hand at the Vatican is not contraception, but disease prevention. As certain leaders, such as the Brazilian Bishop Rixen, and, more recently, former Italian Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, have suggested, condoms could be seen as a "lesser evil." "Certainly the use of prophylactics can, in some situations, constitute a lesser evil," Cardinal Martini said, in the Italian newsweekly L'Espresso. "There is, then, the particular situation of spouses, one of whom is affected by AIDS."
Others who have publicly spoken in favor of condom use in cases where one partner in a marriage is HIV-positive include Swiss Cardinal George Cottier, Belgian Cardinal Godfried Danneels, and Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor of Westminster, England.
Both the public and Catholic priests seem to be in favor — not just of condom use in light of HIV/AIDS, but also of birth control in general. In a recent poll of Catholic priests in England and Wales, 65 percent of those surveyed believed condom use to curb the spread of HIV/AIDS was acceptable. Forty-three percent said it was time for the church to reexamine its view on contraception as a whole. And a 2005 Harris poll found that 90 percent of Catholics — and 93 percent of Americans — support contraception.
The actions and voices of the public, church leaders, and the pope himself, taken as a whole, seem to suggest that the lifesaving potential of condoms may soon be officially recognized by the Catholic Church. For many, this kind of "condom sense" has been a long time coming.
Laura Lambert is a writer and editor in the PPFA Editorial Services Department.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Laura Lambert
05.17.06
Will the Roman Catholic Church lift its ban on condoms?
The Vatican has been steadfast in its official opposition to condoms, as part of its overall stance against contraception. The use of condoms, the Vatican has said, is immoral. But in the wake of the global HIV/AIDS pandemic and amidst growing outcry within certain ranks of the church, the Vatican has been pushed to reexamine the issue. Pope Benedict XVI himself recently commissioned a council to study the acceptability of condoms in the fight against HIV/AIDS — though through a narrow lens, focusing on the issue of HIV/AIDS within heterosexual marriage.
While conflicting reports make it unclear whether such a study presages a formal change in the Vatican's stance, or merely an internal exploration, it has brought the issue of the church and condoms to the forefront.
"Abstinence is fine as an ideal, but it does not work in all circumstances. What about the vulnerable women who don't have that option?"
What happens when the church's "culture of life" and the death toll of HIV/AIDS collide? Can condoms be considered an acceptable "lesser evil" in the time of HIV/AIDS? Which will prevail — disease or doctrine? It is, as stated in a recent New York Times article, "one of the most complicated and delicate [issues] facing the church."
Humanae Vitae
The modern history of the Catholic Church and its stance on condoms can be traced to the 1968 encyclical letter of Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, subtitled "On the Regulation of Birth." In it, Pope Paul VI prohibits all means of artificial contraception — reaffirming the church's age-old teachings.
Humanae Vitae emerged in the early days of the birth control pill and changing notions about sex and sexuality. According to polls from that era, an increasing number of Catholics believed the Vatican should sanction birth control — by 1965, the rate was 63 percent. And there were signs of change within the church, as well.
An internal study carried out in the mid-1960s by Vatican-appointed theologians and laymen overwhelmingly found that birth control was not, in and of itself, evil. The commission agreed that Catholics could be allowed to choose for themselves whether and when to use birth control. Nevertheless, Pope Paul VI rejected the majority opinion and cemented the church's official ban with his 1968 decree.
Straight away, Catholic bishops throughout the world — from Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United States — spoke out, stating that circumstances existed in which a Catholic's conscience could prevail against the ban on contraception — if a woman's life were in danger, for instance.
But the beliefs set out in Humanae Vitae held — and it has remained the official prevailing doctrine since. Then, in the 1980s, HIV/AIDS began to change the world, and many Catholic leaders began to see condoms in a different light.
Catholic Leaders on Condoms
Catholic leaders began to speak out about condoms and HIV/AIDS as early as 1989. That year, the French Bishops Council encouraged widespread HIV/AIDS education, stating decisively, "Prophylactic measures exist." Cardinal Archbishop of Paris Jean-Marie Lustiger recognized that those with HIV/AIDS infections who could not live in chastity should use means to "prevent infection of others."
Four years later, the German Bishops Conference agreed that condoms could be appropriate within a marriage touched by HIV/AIDS, saying "The church ... has to respect responsible decision-making by couples." And in 1996, the French Bishops Council condoned condom use for individuals at risk for HIV "for whom sexual activity is an ingrained part of their lifestyle."
In 2000, Bishop Eugenio Rixen of Goias, Brazil, stated that the Catholic principle of "the lesser of two evils" justified the use of condoms, deeming it "less serious, morally speaking, than getting infected or infecting other people with the AIDS virus." Then, in 2001, Bishop Kevin Dowling, of Rustenburg, South Africa, challenged the Vatican's ban outright, having seen, firsthand, the plight of women and men stricken with HIV/AIDS in a poor mining town in South Africa.
And yet, even as these views bubbled to the surface, other church leaders sought to drown them out. Some went so far as to blame condoms for the HIV/AIDS pandemic.
Archbishop of Nairobi Raphael Ndingi Nzeki has called condoms "a licence [sic] for sexuality" and suggested that HIV/AIDS had spread so quickly and so far because of the availability of condoms. And, in 2003, Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family, falsely suggested that condoms were not reliable for safer sex, alleging that the HIV virus could pass through "pores" in the latex — despite consistent scientific findings to the contrary. In his 2003 document, "Family Values Versus Safe Sex," Trujillo states that condoms, instead of inhibiting the spread of HIV/AIDS, promote it.
In lieu of acknowledging that condoms can prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS, the church has emphasized abstinence until marriage and fidelity within marriage. Just last year, Pope Benedict XVI underscored that point in a speech to African bishops, claiming that abstinence and fidelity were the only "fail-safe" ways to prevent HIV/AIDS.
But what about when abstinence and fidelity fail — as they so often do? "Abstinence is fine as an ideal, but it does not work in all circumstances," said Bishop Dowling, in an interview with The Washington Post. "What about the vulnerable women who don't have that option?" he asked. "What about realizing that the official church in circumstances of human living does not respond to that reality?"
Between Doctrine and Disease
The issue now at hand at the Vatican is not contraception, but disease prevention. As certain leaders, such as the Brazilian Bishop Rixen, and, more recently, former Italian Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, have suggested, condoms could be seen as a "lesser evil." "Certainly the use of prophylactics can, in some situations, constitute a lesser evil," Cardinal Martini said, in the Italian newsweekly L'Espresso. "There is, then, the particular situation of spouses, one of whom is affected by AIDS."
Others who have publicly spoken in favor of condom use in cases where one partner in a marriage is HIV-positive include Swiss Cardinal George Cottier, Belgian Cardinal Godfried Danneels, and Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor of Westminster, England.
Both the public and Catholic priests seem to be in favor — not just of condom use in light of HIV/AIDS, but also of birth control in general. In a recent poll of Catholic priests in England and Wales, 65 percent of those surveyed believed condom use to curb the spread of HIV/AIDS was acceptable. Forty-three percent said it was time for the church to reexamine its view on contraception as a whole. And a 2005 Harris poll found that 90 percent of Catholics — and 93 percent of Americans — support contraception.
The actions and voices of the public, church leaders, and the pope himself, taken as a whole, seem to suggest that the lifesaving potential of condoms may soon be officially recognized by the Catholic Church. For many, this kind of "condom sense" has been a long time coming.
Laura Lambert is a writer and editor in the PPFA Editorial Services Department.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IOWA
Well, Nick and i spent one day in Iowa. We found an apartment - it takes cats..but, it is 100 feet less than ours, no balcony (it's groundlevel) and doesn't have a fireplace. Plus, it's about 140 dollars more. Good times. Anyway, we will be moving in 2 weeks - on June 1! I am nervous and excited. Also, I applied to a bunch of places for work, so keep your fingers crossed everybody...cause I really need a job. In other news, ummm...the DaVinci Code comes out tomorrow - Jacks, Nick and I are going to see it. I am hoping for wacky Christian protesters. YAY! I guess that's all. Judy - I'll probably see you in a month! You know, two weeks til we move, then a few weeks to get settled. Yay. Oh, and I need my hair cut hehehehe :-)
Sunday, May 14, 2006
I PASSED!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, I passed my comps. Yay me! Yay me! Sorry it's been so long since I posted...I will do better. Anyway, been busy - graduation was Friday and we all got together. I didn't walk or anything, since technically I graduate in December, but Nick and I went to cheer on all of our friends who did walk. Then, we ate Mediterranean food at a party, had everyone come over to our place and I proceeded to get drunk on Amaretto sours and beer. Yum! Oh, and Saturday was awesome despite the hangover..the RiverFest is going on and they had the book sale, I got tons of books including, Kay: The Berenstein Bears! I love those. I read the six or so that I got yesterday in 10 minutes or something. Anyway, gotta go. Talk to you later.
Monday, May 08, 2006
Well, it is about the time that I will be taking my comprehensive exams. I have reviewed what I hope will be enough...it is an impossible exam to study for, and I hope I am ready. Nerves! Aggh! Nick passed his foreign language equivalency exam so that is good news and if I pass, we will celebrate. Oh, and my older sister passed her exams too! Congrats! People are just passing things left and right and therefore I must pass as well. Also, I recommend seeing the movie Hard Candy if you want a stressful, yet thought-provoking afternoon/evening. Don't go alone. Oh, and be prepared for some major heart attack type moments. Good movie. Not exactly cheerful though. Anyway, gotta go.
Thursday, May 04, 2006
Well, it's the end of the semester. My last true semester at WSU. I am glad to be going to Iowa, studying Native American issues, maybe getting a teaching certificate..maybe a phd..whatever. However, I'm a little sad. I will be leaving my favorite professors, friends, students I care about..a department that is friendly and small. Plus, I will be leaving Jerry. I told you all about Jerry Shaw, the instructor I have been working for since my second semester here. Today, he showed his appreciation for all I've done (which I don't feel is that much, considering what he gave me: confidence, a friend, new things to think about, study, etc.) and gave me a very beautiful, BLUE!, Pendleton blanket. I now have two - he gave me one for the wedding last year, and that is something special I actually was able to keep. And now, I have this one. To tell you the truth, I actually felt honored, like I'd made a difference. The students clapped and thanked me for helping them..etc. I will really miss SI and Jerry especially (although we will definitely stay in contact and visit and such). Well, that's about all.
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
Not as interesting but...
Everyone really liked hearing about that talk from yesterday..I wish I had more interesting things like that to post. I think that Jerry (he's the instructor of Native American studies that I've been an SI leader for, for like 5 years) is planning something like a going away party for me. Yesterday one of my acquaintances that also knows him asked me what my favorite color was. I replied of course, "blue" and she was all relieved and was like, that's what I told him. She said not to worry about it, don't think, etc. So something is up..I just don't know what. Oh and I was working on my biographical paper on Elaine Goodale Eastman, but sadly, the middle part of her life, because she got married, is all about her husband and so I'm having trouble finishing it...it's due today so my last 4 pages are gonna be really rough. I hate it when I don't have time to edit. Also, does anyone want to start a truth game? We could email each other questions and answers..but it won't be nearly s fun, now that I think about it. I guess we'll just have to wait for summer, eh girls?
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Ernst Michel
The breakfast/talk was so very enlightening and interesting. I hated to miss class, but Ernst Michel was friendly, nice..etc. He managed to survive Auschwitz and covered the Nuremberg Trial as a journalist. He even had a chance to meet Goering, but said that he couldn't do it, come face to face with him. It's good that he is able to talk about his experiences in the Holocaust. Not many people can, I think, and those that can, are dying out. Witnesses are getting old and dying. On NPR today, they reported that the German govt. is actually opening up ALL documents from WWII. How cool is that! Maybe even more history will be found, and some questions answered a bit more. Anyway, it was exciting and sad to hear him speak, but I am so glad I went.
Monday, May 01, 2006
So, I have officially decided that I will have to have a new blog, because no one else does. So, um...I have a paper due on Wednesday that I have barely started, par for the course I suppose, because the topic is broad and I have to narrow it down and I just don't really care. Tomorrow morning I get to have breakfast with a man visiting the history department - he's a holocause survivor. It should be really fascinating, plus the breakfast is free. Oh, gosh, let's see...went to see the movie Stick It! with Nick and my sister Jackie - it was stupid and cute and he thinks he killed brain cells. The theatre was covered with preteens, so that was a lot of fun ...making fun of them. Remember being 13 girls? we were so stupid and yet had so much fun. :-) Well, that's all for now, I really just wanted to be able to say that I had blogged and no one else had. Heehehe
Friday, April 28, 2006
Ahh..deep thoughts..and Dave Barry
If I lived back in the wild west days, instead of carrying a six-gun in my holster, I'd carry a soldering iron. That way, if some smart-aleck cowboy said something like "Hey, look. He's carrying a soldering iron!" and started laughing, and everybody else started laughing, I could just say, "That's right, it's a soldering iron. The soldering iron of justice." Then everybody would get real quiet and ashamed, because they had made fun of the soldering iron of justice, and I could probably hit them up for a free drink.
To me, clowns aren't funny. In fact, they're kind of scary. I've wondered where this started and I think it goes back to the time I went to the circus, and a clown killed my dad.
Many people think that history is a dull subject. Dull? Is it "dull" that Jesse James once got bitten on the forehead by an ant, and at first it didn't seem like anything, but then the bite got worse and worse, so he went to a doctor in town, and the secretary told him to wait, so he sat down and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and then finally he got to see the doctor, and the doctor put some salve on it? You call that dull?
Turbulence: This is what pilots announce that you have encountered when your plane strikes an object in midair. You'll be flying along, and there will be an enormous, shuddering WHUMP, and clearly the plane has rammed into an airborne object at least the size of a water buffalo, and the pilot will say, "Folks, we're encountering a little turbulence." Meanwhile they are up there in the cockpit trying desperately to clean water buffalo organs off the windshield.
To me, clowns aren't funny. In fact, they're kind of scary. I've wondered where this started and I think it goes back to the time I went to the circus, and a clown killed my dad.
Many people think that history is a dull subject. Dull? Is it "dull" that Jesse James once got bitten on the forehead by an ant, and at first it didn't seem like anything, but then the bite got worse and worse, so he went to a doctor in town, and the secretary told him to wait, so he sat down and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and then finally he got to see the doctor, and the doctor put some salve on it? You call that dull?
Turbulence: This is what pilots announce that you have encountered when your plane strikes an object in midair. You'll be flying along, and there will be an enormous, shuddering WHUMP, and clearly the plane has rammed into an airborne object at least the size of a water buffalo, and the pilot will say, "Folks, we're encountering a little turbulence." Meanwhile they are up there in the cockpit trying desperately to clean water buffalo organs off the windshield.
Wearing Pink
I am proudly wearing pink today. It's actually not one of my favorite colors, but I found this absolutely cute t-shirt at Target. It's basically a plain, basic t-shirt. Except it's salmon pink and I had to have it. I think it must have been a hormone surge or something. Also, give me props cause I did 30 minutes on the elliptical machine yesterday and then ran 2 miles...Of course, I have found out that the pain in my toe isn't from some weird toe muscle, I have a blood blister, which is gross and painful and sorry for talking about it at all! I scheduled my comprehensive exams!! I will be taking them a week from Monday, so please, please cross everything you can cross and wish me luck!
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Freshman year
I was reading about my friend Nathan's experience as a college freshman, then read Kristi's comment that she hated her freshman year as well, and decided to reflect on my own freshman year and give everyone a break from the heated debate over women's rights. I didn't hate my freshman year at all - except for the fact of having an extremely insecure boyfriend who couldn't bear to have me not come home for a weekend. Despite all the good things that happened at Southwestern, I wish I'd decided on Hawaii instead - then I wouldn't have been able to come home every weekend, which ended up kinda sucking instead of being cool. Anyway, my roommate was awesome! I couldn't have done a better job of picking her if, well, if I'd picked her myself. Dalene and I had so much in common, besides majors and we had a great time. The high points: eating M&Ms while studying for every zoology exam we ever took late at night, and laughing because we couldn't remember which genus went with which class...or was it the other way around?? Getting into a squid tentacle fight with A.J. and some of the others in our lab, once we were finished dissecting the squid and they were fairly useless...and extremely smelly. I smelled like that for a week. So did Dalene. Having our Wednesday night ritual of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Dawson's Creek, and pizza. Freshman year would have been even better if on weekends we could have explored, but again, I was stupid. So, basically, there it is. Fun, despite the scariness. If I weren't so dumb in math I would probably be working on a research ship right now, or training orcas or something. I wish you guys hadn't hated your freshman years so much. Kay - how 'bout you?
Last Post
Well, I did warn people that the article I posted last time would make people unhappy. As I understand it, one person couldn't even finish. I read all the comments and well, I was commenting and realized how long that was taking so I decided to post my viewpoint. Apparently, the safety of abortions was questioned so I looked at the Alan Guttmach Institute, which is a non-profit organization that focuses research on sexual and reproductive health. I am sure this won't be enough for some but I did want to do some outside research: So, I copied their research findings. There are abortion complications, as there are complications in every other medical procedure.
Safety of Abortion
How safe is abortion?
The risk of abortion complications is minimal when the procedure is performed by a trained professional in a hygienic setting; fewer than 1% of all U.S. abortion patients experience a major complication. (The risk of death associated with abortion is one-tenth that associated with childbirth.) [70] However, 68,000 women in countries where abortion is illegal die each year of abortion complications, and many times this number are injured by unsafe procedures. [71]
How many abortion-related deaths are there each year in the United States?
In 1999, there were four deaths related to legal abortion in the United States. [72]
How many U.S. women die each year from pregnancy-related causes?
In 2000, a total of 396 women in the United States were reported to have died of maternal causes. The number of maternal deaths does not include all deaths in pregnant women—only those in which the cause reported on the death certificate is related to or aggravated by pregnancy or pregnancy management. [73]
Does the rate of abortion-related deaths differ between developed and developing countries?
In developed countries, where the procedure is usually legal, abortion mortality is low (0.2-1.2 deaths per 100,000 abortions). But in developing regions (excluding China), where abortion is often illegal or highly restricted, abortion mortality is hundreds of times higher (330 deaths per 100,000 abortions). [74]
How safe is abortion in the United States?
Fewer than 1% of all abortion patients experience a major complication. [75] The risk of death associated with abortion is one-tenth that associated with childbirth. [76]
back to top 20 questions
This resource was developed with support from The David and Lucile Packard Foundation and The Educational Foundation of America.
© copyright 2005, The Alan Guttmacher Institute
Okay...if you skipped it or are now reading this, the next problem that people had was the story of the 13 year old girl who was pregnant. Apparently, it doesn't matter how she got pregnant (she was apparently raped by her mother's bf) the minute she became that way she was a mother. I disagree with this statement for a variety of reasons, and they have nothing to do with whether life actually begins at fertilization rather than implantation or 'quickening' or any of that. Actually, if the only criteria for being a mother was pregnancy, there's be a lot of abusive, horribe "mothers" out there. I personally believe that motherhood, being a mother, involves more than pregnancy,it involves maturity, compassion, patience, acceptance, love, laughter, and a whole host of other touchy-feely things... especially when that pregnant woman is actually a 13 year old kid herself, I don't think we can call her a mother. She doesn't automatically become a mother,,she automatically becomes pregnant. Now as for the whole force thing - yeah, telling a 13 year old that she has to carry the baby to term and then go through labor - or a c-section if that is necessary is force...13 year old bodies are just not that equipped for labor, although thousands do it every year. But that doesn't mean it's good. Also, I really dislike the idea that because some guy decided to force her to have sex, SHE has to bear the consequences and have the baby, endangering her life through childbirth which can be risky for even a mature woman, and then forcing her to make the decision to raise the child or give it up...a 13 year old. Please remember that she's 13 and raped.
Now, on to the health question: how is it healthy to have salt or forceps, or a vacuum healthy on a uterus? Well, doctors have been using outside implements in the body for years; I imagine that a brain heart surgeon would take offense at finding out that all these years he's been doing something unhealthy by using a vacuum, or a needle, or a scalpel to remove tumors, fluid from lungs, or sewing up wounds. I am generalizing here, but sometimes the most gruesome things are done to preserve health. I think doctors actually have more training than pro-lifers in deciding what is the best procedure.
Okay, next post was about the safety of abortions - yeah, I bet all of those things happen. But why is abortion the only medical procedure that is expected to be 100% safe and error free? If another type of doctor were to make a mistake or if something were to go wrong in another type of procedure there are consequences - malpractice for one, or maybe that form that people sign, outlining the risks of any procedure (i had to sign one to get my wisdom teeth taken out) are something that women freely read and sign. I'm not saying accidents and bad things don't happen, but risks are there in any kind of medical procedure. As for the next one...who forces girls to get an abortion - the parents? Well, maybe if she didn't need a parent's consent then they couldn't do that...she could make the decision on her own. After all, she's apparently mature enough to have the baby and either keep it or deal with an adoption, why shouldn't she be mature enough to have an abortion on her own? It would certainly take care of those fathers/boyfriends etc who would rape a woman, or a girl, and then force her into an abortion..they wouldn't have to know she was pregnant, and they wouldn't have to know if she had an abortion. I don't think that counselors at a clinic would force her. And doctors have to report suspected abuse - if a 13 year old is pregnant, and she trusts her doctor or counselor enough to explain how she got that way, then they're legally obligated to report it. I don't know all the particulars though, so I'm going to stop now.
Safety of Abortion
How safe is abortion?
The risk of abortion complications is minimal when the procedure is performed by a trained professional in a hygienic setting; fewer than 1% of all U.S. abortion patients experience a major complication. (The risk of death associated with abortion is one-tenth that associated with childbirth.) [70] However, 68,000 women in countries where abortion is illegal die each year of abortion complications, and many times this number are injured by unsafe procedures. [71]
How many abortion-related deaths are there each year in the United States?
In 1999, there were four deaths related to legal abortion in the United States. [72]
How many U.S. women die each year from pregnancy-related causes?
In 2000, a total of 396 women in the United States were reported to have died of maternal causes. The number of maternal deaths does not include all deaths in pregnant women—only those in which the cause reported on the death certificate is related to or aggravated by pregnancy or pregnancy management. [73]
Does the rate of abortion-related deaths differ between developed and developing countries?
In developed countries, where the procedure is usually legal, abortion mortality is low (0.2-1.2 deaths per 100,000 abortions). But in developing regions (excluding China), where abortion is often illegal or highly restricted, abortion mortality is hundreds of times higher (330 deaths per 100,000 abortions). [74]
How safe is abortion in the United States?
Fewer than 1% of all abortion patients experience a major complication. [75] The risk of death associated with abortion is one-tenth that associated with childbirth. [76]
back to top 20 questions
This resource was developed with support from The David and Lucile Packard Foundation and The Educational Foundation of America.
© copyright 2005, The Alan Guttmacher Institute
Okay...if you skipped it or are now reading this, the next problem that people had was the story of the 13 year old girl who was pregnant. Apparently, it doesn't matter how she got pregnant (she was apparently raped by her mother's bf) the minute she became that way she was a mother. I disagree with this statement for a variety of reasons, and they have nothing to do with whether life actually begins at fertilization rather than implantation or 'quickening' or any of that. Actually, if the only criteria for being a mother was pregnancy, there's be a lot of abusive, horribe "mothers" out there. I personally believe that motherhood, being a mother, involves more than pregnancy,it involves maturity, compassion, patience, acceptance, love, laughter, and a whole host of other touchy-feely things... especially when that pregnant woman is actually a 13 year old kid herself, I don't think we can call her a mother. She doesn't automatically become a mother,,she automatically becomes pregnant. Now as for the whole force thing - yeah, telling a 13 year old that she has to carry the baby to term and then go through labor - or a c-section if that is necessary is force...13 year old bodies are just not that equipped for labor, although thousands do it every year. But that doesn't mean it's good. Also, I really dislike the idea that because some guy decided to force her to have sex, SHE has to bear the consequences and have the baby, endangering her life through childbirth which can be risky for even a mature woman, and then forcing her to make the decision to raise the child or give it up...a 13 year old. Please remember that she's 13 and raped.
Now, on to the health question: how is it healthy to have salt or forceps, or a vacuum healthy on a uterus? Well, doctors have been using outside implements in the body for years; I imagine that a brain heart surgeon would take offense at finding out that all these years he's been doing something unhealthy by using a vacuum, or a needle, or a scalpel to remove tumors, fluid from lungs, or sewing up wounds. I am generalizing here, but sometimes the most gruesome things are done to preserve health. I think doctors actually have more training than pro-lifers in deciding what is the best procedure.
Okay, next post was about the safety of abortions - yeah, I bet all of those things happen. But why is abortion the only medical procedure that is expected to be 100% safe and error free? If another type of doctor were to make a mistake or if something were to go wrong in another type of procedure there are consequences - malpractice for one, or maybe that form that people sign, outlining the risks of any procedure (i had to sign one to get my wisdom teeth taken out) are something that women freely read and sign. I'm not saying accidents and bad things don't happen, but risks are there in any kind of medical procedure. As for the next one...who forces girls to get an abortion - the parents? Well, maybe if she didn't need a parent's consent then they couldn't do that...she could make the decision on her own. After all, she's apparently mature enough to have the baby and either keep it or deal with an adoption, why shouldn't she be mature enough to have an abortion on her own? It would certainly take care of those fathers/boyfriends etc who would rape a woman, or a girl, and then force her into an abortion..they wouldn't have to know she was pregnant, and they wouldn't have to know if she had an abortion. I don't think that counselors at a clinic would force her. And doctors have to report suspected abuse - if a 13 year old is pregnant, and she trusts her doctor or counselor enough to explain how she got that way, then they're legally obligated to report it. I don't know all the particulars though, so I'm going to stop now.
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Another New Post
Okay, again WARNING: Contents under pressure..may make people angry. Oh and I talked to Kay last night, it was so fun to just chat - we should so do it more often. And Kay, Sara - we really need to email more on our trip! That's all I'm gonna say.
This article was not, NOT written by Planned Parenthood, although it is pro-choice.
It is emotional and again, I just wanted it on my blog for my own personal satisfaction. It is an editorial; I realize this is not like a Watergate exclusive news story...but it is really sad whether you are pro-choice, pro-life, or not.
Copyright 2006 Chicago Sun-Times, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
Chicago Sun Times
April 24, 2006 Monday
Final Edition
EDITORIALS; Pg. 37
733 words
Who decides fate of 13-year-old rape victim?: I hope that politicians and voters will consider the facts about abortion.
Melissa Simon, Special to The Chicago Sun-Times
I was appalled when I heard South Dakota's governor declare that he signed an abortion ban into law because "unborn children are the most vulnerable and helpless persons in our society." As an obstetrician-gynecologist working at a major teaching hospital in Chicago, I treat women and girls every day who are in desperate need of reproductive health care services, ranging from abortion to counseling about contraceptives and prenatal care. One day is seared in my memory forever as an example of why the services we provide -- including safe, legal abortions -- are so essential.
My first patient that day was a scared, 12-year-old girl who was 22 weeks pregnant and wanted an abortion. She came into the clinic sucking her thumb and gripping her mother's hand. The girl claimed to have a boyfriend in the eighth grade. She had no knowledge of or access to contraception and had never been taught about sex either at school or at home.
Next, I treated a pregnant 13-year-old who had been raped by a 19-year-old man. She came to our clinic accompanied by her mother, while her seven younger brothers and sisters were in school. I will never forget the shame and fear in this young girl's face as she clutched her teddy bear and told me her story.
My third patient was another 13-year-old, who had been molested by her mother's boyfriend and was 23 weeks pregnant. She was brought into the clinic by a cousin. As I listened to this girl's story, I began to cry.
When I think about "the most helpless and vulnerable people in our society," I see the faces of the three young girls I treated in that one heartbreaking day. What compassion are we showing when we force a frightened girl to become a mother at age 13? When we prevent girls and boys from learning about contraception, setting them up for unintended pregnancies that could easily have been prevented? These girls need empathy and treatment, not laws and regulations that prevent them from getting the health care services they need.
A small but powerful group of extremely conservative politicians is working to ban abortion, deny emergency contraception to victims of rape, and teach young men and women that abstinence from sex is their only option to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. If these trends continue, I expect I will face many more heartbreaking days treating women who are the victims of policies that deny them access to safe, evidence-based health care.
Here are some facts that I wish more politicians would consider: Abortion is one of the safest medical procedures performed in the United States. Because abortion is so contentious, it has been widely studied and scrutinized, and we know that the risk of death or complications from either medication or surgical abortion is very low -- lower, in fact, than the risk of dying from childbirth. Mental health concerns are often raised as an objection to abortion, but while some women report feelings of sadness or guilt after having an abortion, their most prominent response is relief. We know from examples around the world that banning abortion only hurts women by driving the procedure underground and increasing the risks of substandard care.
Thirteen states are currently considering laws similar to South Dakota's ban on abortion. As these bills are debated in statehouses across our country, I hope that politicians and voters will consider the facts about abortion. We need to step away from political rhetoric and religious orthodoxies, and ensure that all Americans continue to have access to safe health care. The decision to have an abortion is a highly personal one and should be made by a woman, in consultation with her family and her doctor. When politicians decide what health care a 13-year-old rape victim can receive, they do nothing to resolve the problems that led to her pregnancy.
I agree that our society has an obligation to protect our most vulnerable and helpless persons. But banning abortion is not the solution. It is time for Americans to stand up in support of comprehensive sexuality education, access to contraceptives and scientifically based medicine. Let our society be remembered for its compassion and objectivity, not for the harm we have caused to countless women and girls.
Melissa Simon is an obstetrician-gynecologist specializing in family planning, and a member of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health.
This article was not, NOT written by Planned Parenthood, although it is pro-choice.
It is emotional and again, I just wanted it on my blog for my own personal satisfaction. It is an editorial; I realize this is not like a Watergate exclusive news story...but it is really sad whether you are pro-choice, pro-life, or not.
Copyright 2006 Chicago Sun-Times, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
Chicago Sun Times
April 24, 2006 Monday
Final Edition
EDITORIALS; Pg. 37
733 words
Who decides fate of 13-year-old rape victim?: I hope that politicians and voters will consider the facts about abortion.
Melissa Simon, Special to The Chicago Sun-Times
I was appalled when I heard South Dakota's governor declare that he signed an abortion ban into law because "unborn children are the most vulnerable and helpless persons in our society." As an obstetrician-gynecologist working at a major teaching hospital in Chicago, I treat women and girls every day who are in desperate need of reproductive health care services, ranging from abortion to counseling about contraceptives and prenatal care. One day is seared in my memory forever as an example of why the services we provide -- including safe, legal abortions -- are so essential.
My first patient that day was a scared, 12-year-old girl who was 22 weeks pregnant and wanted an abortion. She came into the clinic sucking her thumb and gripping her mother's hand. The girl claimed to have a boyfriend in the eighth grade. She had no knowledge of or access to contraception and had never been taught about sex either at school or at home.
Next, I treated a pregnant 13-year-old who had been raped by a 19-year-old man. She came to our clinic accompanied by her mother, while her seven younger brothers and sisters were in school. I will never forget the shame and fear in this young girl's face as she clutched her teddy bear and told me her story.
My third patient was another 13-year-old, who had been molested by her mother's boyfriend and was 23 weeks pregnant. She was brought into the clinic by a cousin. As I listened to this girl's story, I began to cry.
When I think about "the most helpless and vulnerable people in our society," I see the faces of the three young girls I treated in that one heartbreaking day. What compassion are we showing when we force a frightened girl to become a mother at age 13? When we prevent girls and boys from learning about contraception, setting them up for unintended pregnancies that could easily have been prevented? These girls need empathy and treatment, not laws and regulations that prevent them from getting the health care services they need.
A small but powerful group of extremely conservative politicians is working to ban abortion, deny emergency contraception to victims of rape, and teach young men and women that abstinence from sex is their only option to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. If these trends continue, I expect I will face many more heartbreaking days treating women who are the victims of policies that deny them access to safe, evidence-based health care.
Here are some facts that I wish more politicians would consider: Abortion is one of the safest medical procedures performed in the United States. Because abortion is so contentious, it has been widely studied and scrutinized, and we know that the risk of death or complications from either medication or surgical abortion is very low -- lower, in fact, than the risk of dying from childbirth. Mental health concerns are often raised as an objection to abortion, but while some women report feelings of sadness or guilt after having an abortion, their most prominent response is relief. We know from examples around the world that banning abortion only hurts women by driving the procedure underground and increasing the risks of substandard care.
Thirteen states are currently considering laws similar to South Dakota's ban on abortion. As these bills are debated in statehouses across our country, I hope that politicians and voters will consider the facts about abortion. We need to step away from political rhetoric and religious orthodoxies, and ensure that all Americans continue to have access to safe health care. The decision to have an abortion is a highly personal one and should be made by a woman, in consultation with her family and her doctor. When politicians decide what health care a 13-year-old rape victim can receive, they do nothing to resolve the problems that led to her pregnancy.
I agree that our society has an obligation to protect our most vulnerable and helpless persons. But banning abortion is not the solution. It is time for Americans to stand up in support of comprehensive sexuality education, access to contraceptives and scientifically based medicine. Let our society be remembered for its compassion and objectivity, not for the harm we have caused to countless women and girls.
Melissa Simon is an obstetrician-gynecologist specializing in family planning, and a member of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health.
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
This is for my benefit.
I know that some of you who read the blog will not like this so I'm giving you warning. This is only for my benefit. I want people to read it if they want to - it's about abortion rights - or if they don't want to. I DO NOT want to make people angry or even have a bunch of debating posts because I think readers may be tired of it. I am worried about this issue though, because there are good clinics that do help teenagers that are in trouble and this gives them a bad name. I am pretty sure that there is a Catholic one here in Wichita - I do not think it would ever be this bad, and so I wanted to make sure I said that. Again, warning. DANGER WILL ROBINSON!!!
--------------Here's the story — Spread the word!--------------------
An Indiana mother recently accompanied her daughter and her daughter's boyfriend to one of Indiana's Planned Parenthood clinics, but they unwittingly walked into a so-called "crisis pregnancy center" run by an anti-abortion group, one that shared a parking lot with the real Planned Parenthood clinic and was designed expressly to lure Planned Parenthood patients and deceive them.
The group took down the girl's confidential personal information and told her to come back for her appointment, which they said would be in their "other office" (the real Planned Parenthood office nearby). When she arrived for her appointment, not only did the Planned Parenthood staff have no record of her, but the police were there. The "crisis pregnancy center" had called them, claiming that a minor was being forced to have an abortion against her will.
The "crisis pregnancy center" staff then proceeded to wage a campaign of intimidation and harassment over the following days, showing up at the girl's home and calling her father's workplace. Planned Parenthood's clinic director reports that the girl was "scared to death to leave her house." They even went to her school and urged classmates to pressure her not to have an abortion.
The anti-choice movement is setting up these "crisis pregnancy centers" across the country. Some of them have neutral-sounding names and run ads that falsely promise the full range of reproductive health services, but they dispense anti-choice propaganda and intimidation instead. And according to a recent article in The New York Times, there are currently more of these centers in the U.S. than there are actual abortion providers. What's more, these centers have received $60 million in government grants. They're being funded by our tax dollars.
A bill has just been introduced in Congress to stop the fraudulent practices of fake clinics, but it desperately needs more support. Tell your representative to take a stand: anti-choice extremists must not get away with this any longer!
Go to: http://www.ppaction.org/campaign/fake
--------------Here's the story — Spread the word!--------------------
An Indiana mother recently accompanied her daughter and her daughter's boyfriend to one of Indiana's Planned Parenthood clinics, but they unwittingly walked into a so-called "crisis pregnancy center" run by an anti-abortion group, one that shared a parking lot with the real Planned Parenthood clinic and was designed expressly to lure Planned Parenthood patients and deceive them.
The group took down the girl's confidential personal information and told her to come back for her appointment, which they said would be in their "other office" (the real Planned Parenthood office nearby). When she arrived for her appointment, not only did the Planned Parenthood staff have no record of her, but the police were there. The "crisis pregnancy center" had called them, claiming that a minor was being forced to have an abortion against her will.
The "crisis pregnancy center" staff then proceeded to wage a campaign of intimidation and harassment over the following days, showing up at the girl's home and calling her father's workplace. Planned Parenthood's clinic director reports that the girl was "scared to death to leave her house." They even went to her school and urged classmates to pressure her not to have an abortion.
The anti-choice movement is setting up these "crisis pregnancy centers" across the country. Some of them have neutral-sounding names and run ads that falsely promise the full range of reproductive health services, but they dispense anti-choice propaganda and intimidation instead. And according to a recent article in The New York Times, there are currently more of these centers in the U.S. than there are actual abortion providers. What's more, these centers have received $60 million in government grants. They're being funded by our tax dollars.
A bill has just been introduced in Congress to stop the fraudulent practices of fake clinics, but it desperately needs more support. Tell your representative to take a stand: anti-choice extremists must not get away with this any longer!
Go to: http://www.ppaction.org/campaign/fake
Monday, April 24, 2006
No title really, just catching up
Well, it has been awhile. I've been a busy little bee. Friday our apartment had to be sprayed by pest control, because of the apartment complex's directives. So, Nick and I spend Thursday in a preview of moving to Iowa by boxing food, dishes, etc. up. Probably wasn't necessary, but we're not dwelling on that. Then, we had to put everything back up again that night. My niece Alyssa stayed the day and night Saturday and Sunday. We all went shopping, Alyssa and I tried on prom dresses, which was silly and fun, and Jackie met us for dinner. Then on Saturday, Nick and I took her to our usual breakfast at Panera and walked through Riverside Park..went to the Art Museum. It was all fun. Dalton, me youngest nephew had a birthday party so Alyssa and I headed into Andale for cake and ice cream. It was quite a blast; but I am tired! It's a stormy, stormy day today, and the perfect type for sleeping in or just curling up and reading. No can do - the end of the semester means more work. But I will certainly manage to do some reading! So far nothing new on the ex-husband front. I don't know if I will get my things back or not. I am doing fine without them, and trying not to miss certain items. Maybe it will happen, maybe not. I could hire a lawyer and fight (and probably win, thanks to new laws) the bankruptcy thing. I don't know exactly what money he could get with my high school diploma, or the notes I had from, I think 5th grade on from Kay and the rest of my friends, but who knows! He also has all my track medals, which pissed off my dad. All in all, I'm not happy about it, but I guess I will live with it if I have to. Things seem to be going pretty good right now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)