An Absence, A Decision, And The Fate Of My Blog

Well, it's been a while since I've written here. This blog started when I was laid off from my first writing job after college as a way to give myself something to do while I looked for work and to keep my skills somewhat sharp. This was before I knew anything about blogging or internet marketing, so I figured no one would even read it - which didn't matter, since it was a personal project.

But then I learned about both. And I lost the time I had to write the kinds of things I wanted to. And I became a little frustrated that I wasn't doing more with the space on the internet I rent.

So, I made a new year's resolution (twice) to make my little blog a priority. And this year that resolution included buying real estate - buying a new domain, hosting it, and giving it a complete makeover: new name, new look, new focus.

Well, it's the end of June and not only has that not happened, but I haven't even kept up with writing in a few months. At first I was blaming being busy. To be fair, this had some truth to it: working full time, training for a half marathon, and trying to do all the normal day-to-day stuff like make dinner and see the boyfriend and friends, something just had to give. I don't read very much either and honestly don't spend a whole lot of time goofing off on the internet since I spend my whole day at a computer. Blogging just wasn't happening.

But the other reason it wasn't happening – which is related to me wanting a new focus – is because everything I wanted to write about was depressing. I have saved posts, email drafts, articles in Pocket, and ideas in my head... none of which have been published. At the end of my day the last thing I want to do is spend an hour or two writing about the plight of elephant poaching and how I'll very likely watch them go extinct, the plight of women around the world and how it's still our fault when we get raped, the total asshattery of our country and how the people we elect to get things done sit around like 5 year olds arguing over baseball rules ignoring things that really matter. 

But when I think about the focus I want, there isn't anything else I want to write about. I don't like writing about my personal life because 1) it's boring 2) who the hell cares. But what I'm really passionate about is the things that are hard to read about and frustrating to write about. 

So... I don't really know what I'm going to do. I don't want to stop writing, but I also know that in order to do what I want I have to make a much bigger commitment, and I'm not sure I can do that. Now that my writing also includes a food blog (that I do want to grow and which has a lot of potential), I guess I have a decision to make.

Why Interracial Marriage Should Be Legal

 This is what my Facebook looks like.

Oh wait, I mean gay marriage. You were probably thinking something along the lines of, "Whaaaaaat? But interracial marriage is perfectly legal! Why would anyone argue otherwise?"

Which is exactly my point. Why would anyone argue otherwise? Why wouldn't interracial marriage be legal?

So, what's the difference with gay marriage? Why would anyone argue that gay people can't marry one another? Why wouldn't gay marriage be legal?

As WTF as this seems now, it's the same thing.

Interracial marriage has been legal since the late 1960s. My parents were alive then. Alive and old enough to know what that meant. That's really not that long ago.

Maybe I'm spoiled having lived my whole life in relatively liberal Southern California, or maybe I'm just a young, flaming liberal who was ruined in college and now likes going against tradition for the sake of being rebellious. But I'm going to be able to marry my boyfriend, who is of a different race/ethnicity/color/whatever feature you want to focus on, and it'll be OK because he's also a different sex than I am. No one will bat an eye at our colors because it won't matter to anyone. 

Interracial marriage has been legal for 45 years; long enough for most people to accept that it is a little ridiculous to prevent two people who love each other from getting married just because they have different skin colors.

Beyonce is awesome.

Here are the most ridiculous arguments against gay marriage:

• Gay marriage is icky! (Gay people don't think so. Actually, a lot of people don't think so.)
• The Bible says gays shouldn't marry! (That's nice, but it has nothing to do with the law or my beliefs.)
• Once gays can marry, pedophiles can marry children! (Children are not consenting adults and therefore cannot make those kinds of decisions about their lives.)
• Once gays can marry, anyone can marry anything! (Dogs, inanimate objects, and anything outside of a consenting adult is, again, not a consenting adult and therefore cannot make those kinds of decisions about their lives/shelf lives.)
• Gays can't have kids! (Some straight couples can't have kids. Or don't want kids. That doesn't affect their ability to marry. Or adopt.)

Stunningly, our Supreme Court is dedicating an extraordinary amount of time debating whether or not laws that bar same sex couples from marrying is constitutional. Which seems really silly, doesn't it?

When the United States of America was in its infancy, all sorts of people came here from all over the world looking for freedom (in fact, they still do). They come here because the laws say "all people," "created equal," "liberty and the pursuit of happiness," and no where in any law, any proposition, any part of the Constitution say "except for." Nothing that says "except for gays." Or "except for [insert qualifier here]." It's equality this, and equality that, and freedom and liberty and opportunity and unalienable rights and blah blah blah.

So... since when is it OK to discriminate against gay people? When did that suddenly change? And why is this something that needs debate?

Have a gay day!

Vegas For Business

The Strip!

So, February was a whirlwind month. But March 1 sent me to fabulous Las Vegas, Nevada! Vegas!!!

Course, I was only going to give a presentation, with my boss, to one of my clients on Google+. But still, Vegas! And since the company pays for a night in a hotel when traveling for business I got to stay.

Feelin' like a big shot.

It was the first time I was in a plane by myself, too. And not just my first time in the Las Vegas airport alone, but the first time in that airport ever. I ended up going to the wrong pick up area and was trying to explain to my boss, who was trying to pick me up in a rental car, where I was. When he finally did find me we had almost 2 hours before our presentation time and decided we should grab some lunch and settle in and maybe talk about the presentation. But then we thought it'd be better to go to the hotel where the conference was at and get our bearings before doing the lunch thing.

The conference was in The Orleans, a giant hotel that's nowhere near The Strip. It's on the other side of the 15 and looks like it's been there quite a while. To borrow the words of my boss the hotel "is bigger than North Park." We maneuvered the structure (which also has an arena) and found the site of the conference. At the check in area my boss mentioned we were speaking on Google+ and the lady knew exactly which room to send us to. And then she told us we had 15 minutes to go.

Wait... 15 minutes? We thought we had more than an hour to go.

Apparently there was some miscommunication about when we were going on because we'd arrived with exactly enough time to give our presentation. Since we'd planned on getting lunch first and it was clear we now did not have that opportunity, my boss asked if there was food we could have before we started. We were shown to a simple buffet style set up in a massive conference room that had probably two dozen booths set up with information and products to sell, and took about 12 minutes scarfing down lunch. Then we walked in to our conference room exactly on time (but with not enough time or privacy to change my shoes... I went up there in flip flops).

It turned out we had to give the presentation to two different groups: one at 2:30 and one at 3:30 (which probably contributed to the miscommunication). The first half of the presentation was given by my boss, which introduced the concept of Google+ for businesses to a crowded room of 50+ franchise owners. Then he introduced me and I gave my presentation - something I created especially for this group of business owners. There were lots of questions (most of them good ones), which I was glad for because it made me feel there was a lot of genuine interest that might linger until they all got home. My boss helped me with the questions I couldn't answer, which was helpful when the questions and conversation turned away from the points I was making, and a few people came up to us after for more in depth questions.

With just a few minutes of a break we dove in give the presentation again, though our crowd was far smaller the second time around (which was kind of nice). I had thought with fewer people there would be more time for questions, but like with the first group I felt like I talked too quickly and glossed over some very important parts just to try and finish each slide. But there were just as many questions, and again most of them were really good, so people were still paying attention. 

After we finished up my boss had to catch his flight back and he had just enough time to take me to my hotel first, saving me a cab ride. I was supposed to stay at The Orleans because of the conference discount my company would have gotten, but due to a fortunate error with the booking website I was given a room in The Westin, which was just a couple of blocks off The Strip. The hotel had a distinct older feel to it (perhaps because it smelled more like perfume and cologne than cigarettes, which I was grateful for), but it was beautifully decorated and the room was exactly what I was hoping for - clean look and feel, comfortable bed and sheets, and a few nice upgrades. 

I felt really lucky to be in such a fun city in exchange for just a few hours of work (not including actually developing the presentation...). The point of me going was twofold: to inspire my client to take a more active role in their social media and local search presence and to give me a taste of presenting before I have the opportunity to present to a much larger group of peers, which is something my company encourages within the industry. This presentation went well, so I imagine when the day comes to go to one of our industry conferences I'll know a little bit more of what to expect.

The Truth Behind Choice: Part 2

In my last post I wrote about two interviews on the 40th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision; one with a woman who had an abortion and one with a woman who ran an anti-abortion pregnancy center

I admit that the interviewer, despite being on NPR Fresh Air, was asking very pointed questions at both women and she clearly had a bias. However, I will also say that it would be like interviewing an evolution-denier and trying to find legitimate questions... So I get it.

I remember hearing about the woman in the first interview, a journalist named Carolyn, when she had her abortion in 2011. She and her husband had wanted a second child, but got an abortion halfway through the pregnancy when it was discovered the fetus was severely deformed and would likely die. And while it's commendable that she's so open about her horrible experiences and willing to talk about them in order to change things, her situation is not the typical situation for women seeking an abortion. Medically necessary abortions are (almost) always given exceptions during debates about abortion, just like rape and incest: it's not the woman's fault that she needs one, so she should be allowed. But a woman who simply had sex and became pregnant, which I'd be willing to wager is the large majority of abortions, is something we're eager to debate for decades.

So few women who have gone through the abortion process are willing (or able) to be so vocal. Carolyn is able because she wanted her pregnancy, was hoping and trying for a baby and was crushed when she learned she would have to abort or condemn her child to a short life of suffering. Obviously hers was the logical, loving decision. But a woman who simply cannot afford to care for her baby, or who never wanted children and wouldn't make a good mother, or who isn't ready yet, or who just doesn't want the enormous responsibility of raising a human being is looked down upon as scum. We don't ask why women choose to have children, we just assume they should and that it's natural when they do. But it's the only thing a person will ever do that will forever alter their lives, and when half of all pregnancies are unplanned it seems it should be discussed a little bit more. I'd love for a woman to come forward in such a public manner and talk about her elective abortion. But I doubt that will ever happen.

There were a bunch of issues I had with the second interview, mostly because the interviewer was trying to get a straight answer on a few things and the woman, another Carolyn, was doing her best to paint her practice in the happiest of lights. Her pregnancy center, which counsels young girls and women on everything but abortion, advocates abstinence as the only way to prevent pregnancies. They will discuss other methods of birth control, even after a woman has given birth to her unplanned pregnancy, but tell her that they're not that good or don't do enough to prevent pregnancy. (As a woman who has relied exclusively on one method of birth control at a time for years and has had zero pregnancies I can tell you they work real well.) 

But to tell women they should only be having sex if they want to get pregnant is just ignoring reality, nature, and human habit. No one tells men that they shouldn't be having sex unless they want to get someone pregnant. Plus, these centers don't discriminate against married women, which means that even if you're married they'll tell you not to have sex with your husband unless you're trying to procreate. Which means sex once every few years until you want to stop having children, then no more sex until menopause. This is ridiculous. It stands to reason that if you're not planning on having children you should never have sex. And if you're never going to have sex or have children there's no point in getting married. Or dating. Or falling in love. 

I can't help but put myself in these situations in my mind and imagine being told these things. I don't want to have kids and I'm ill prepared to have one right now. Should I become pregnant now or in the next few years I would be unable to care for it financially, but also make too much money to qualify for assistance. Even if I were poor enough to qualify for government care, telling me I should have a baby because I'd get food stamps is ridiculously irresponsible. Plus, I do want to get married. Just because I don't plan to reproduce doesn't mean I don't deserve to spend my life with someone I love. I thought the point of marriage was to commit your life to another person that you're deeply in love with, not to lock someone else into parenthood.

So, it seems like we're still running in circles around somewhat ridiculous arguments around abortion. Until politicians and ideologists realize that everyone has sex, including the politicians and the ideologists, we can make better decisions about abortion, child care, and health care in general. But until then it looks like we're stuck telling women to stop being whores for sleeping with their husbands and boyfriends. Like normal goddamn people.

The Truth Behind Choice: Part 1

Today is the 40th anniversary of the groundbreaking Roe v Wade decision that allowed women in America to legally obtain an abortion. The decision no doubt saved lives (which is slightly ironic) and provided a way for women to move up in society, rather than begrudgingly be burdened with a child she does not want or cannot care for.

You wouldn't know it, however, if you looked at politics today. For whatever reason, 40 years later abortion is a huge issue. People who have not had abortions, especially people who physically cannot have abortions, are trying very hard to dictate what those who need and want them can or not do. The amount of outright lies, in addition to the extreme ignorance surrounding abortions is disgusting. Men (and the women who back them, for whatever reason) who advocate abstinence only and pro-life in every scenario are at the height of hypocrisy: if over 95% of American adults have had sex and 20% of women (just women, mind you) are choosing to remain childless, that points to a bit of an overlap. That means there are women out there who are having sex without the intention of becoming pregnant (gasp!). In this day and age, too. Women are educated just as much as men are (sometimes more), are earning almost as much as men are, and are found in every manly profession. We're getting married later, making more important decisions, and are pretty much real people now. And some of us are having abortions. And those abortions are helping us maintain our status in life, which often is being in a position to care for the children we already have.

Today on NPR's Fresh Air two very different women were interviewed. The first woman decided with her husband that it was time to have a second child and became pregnant, only to discover halfway into the pregnancy that the fetus had a severe developmental problem that would lead to certain suffering. The second woman runs a pregnancy center called Involved For Life, which counsels pregnant women on every option except for abortion. Both women live in Texas, a state that recently made it mandatory for women seeking abortion to undergo a sonogram (women in early pregnancy endure a transvaginal sonogram because it picks up a better picture), wait 24 hours, and listen to government propaganda.

Here's a (pretty comprehensive) summary of both of the interviews:

In America there were more abortion restrictions passed at the state level in 2011 than in any prior year, and 2012 had the second highest number of state level abortion restrictions. This is a country that made it legal in every state for any woman to receive an abortion for any reason 40 years ago, and is now back tracking, making it harder and harder for women to do so. The first woman, a journalist named Carolyn, wanted her pregnancy. Thanks to modern healthcare she was able to plan when she got pregnant and made a conscious decision with the help of her husband to have a second child when they were both ready. When they went in for the sonogram (the "jelly on the belly" kind) that was supposed to determine the sex of the baby, the doctor noticed an problem. The fetus had a major neurological flaw that caused his brain, spine and legs to not develop correctly. The doctor said he wasn't sure the baby would survive. If he did, he would live a life of crippling pain and be in and out of hospitals until he died. He would always suffer.

Carolyn says in the interview that any parent understands the innate impulse to protect your child from any pain. She and her husband realized that by bringing this child into the world they would be causing him a lifetime of pain and suffering. She says that the decision to have an abortion was "a terrible, a heart wrenching choice, but also a simple choice." She wanted to prevent him from knowing a life of pain, which made it a relatively quick decision, an "almost instinctive response." But it was heart breaking.

Two weeks earlier Texas passed a law that required any woman seeking an abortion to undergo a sonogram first, and then wait 24 hours. It turns out that women seeking an abortion due to rape, incest, or medical necessity (as was Carolyn's case) do not have to endure a sonogram, though her doctor didn't know that at the time. But the rest of the state requirements still apply, no matter what reason a woman is seeking an abortion, and these include:

• a 24 hour waiting period
• requiring the same doctor to perform the sonogram and the abortion (which can create a scheduling nightmare, which can result in delayed abortions) 
• the doctor must describe the fetus' characteristics to the woman
• the doctor must play the heartbeat for the woman
• the doctor must read a state-written script about the risks of abortion (that includes two parts that have been discredited) 
• the doctor must read a script describing in graphic detail the abortion process
• the doctor must read a script that informs the woman that the father is required to pay child support even if he wants the abortion and that the state may pay for maternity care.

Quite a bit of effort, no? Could you imagine going through this if you'd been raped?

Carolyn said having to hear that her baby had 4 healthy heart chambers was traumatizing. It was the only part of him that was healthy and her doctor was required to describe it to her. She said nothing anyone said or could have said swayed her in the slightest - she was making the right decision by not bringing him into a world of nothing but pain and suffering. But she noted that politicians want women to have a sonogram so they can see the life they're about to end. It's completely ideological, has no medical purpose, and does not belong in the doctor's office. After a while she couldn't take it any more - she wanted her baby and was devastated to have to have the abortion, and these state laws were horrible. The nurse in the room noticed her distress and turned up the radio. The doctor apologized for having to follow these new orders - no one in the room wanted to do this. How could someone who has no say in her personal decisions invade her private life, reduce her dignity, and give her such injustice? It still makes her angry, and that's why she writes about it so openly.

Obviously the goal of all of these obstacles is to get women to reconsider abortion. Texas slashed the family planning budget to two thirds of what it used to be in order to try to starve out Planned Parenthood. Instead, 60 small town clinics that served the poorest Texans went out of business. These clinics didn't just offer abortion services or birth control, they provided women who had no other means of health care with breast cancer screening and well woman visits.  State legislators are budgeting for an extra 24,000 births for 2014 and 2015, and need hundreds of thousands of extra dollars in their budget. (That's saying nothing about the cancer cases that won't get caught in time...)

Instead, Texas is giving the funding it used to give to clinics that performed abortions to Crisis Pregnancy Centers, which are usually Christian run anti-abortion centers. These centers claim to provide women in need with alternative options. As if the first thing women think of when they find out they're pregnant is "must...get...abortion." The centers convince women (most of their clients are low income women 15-24 years old) to keep their unborn children rather than have an abortion, telling them that abortions aren't the right decision for them. Medical professionals criticize these centers for giving women incorrect, inaccurate or incomplete information in order to get them to keep their pregnancies.

The state of Texas takes money away from family planning centers and gives that money to centers that encourage more births to women of all ages, abilities and incomes. Oh, and those centers are not required to discuss contraception with women seeking abortion (whether or not they go through with it), and the centers most often do not provide any detailed counseling on birth control options. Seems totally counterintuitive. Abstinence is 100% effective, so anyone not willing to immediately give birth to a child should not have sex at all. Even married women.

The centers, one of which is run by the second woman (also named Carolyn), offer alternatives to abortion, counseling, ultrasound, STD screening and treatment, and parenting classes. They also have mobile sonogram units, which they park in front of abortion clinics, and offer free sonograms to women. The second Carolyn says their goal is to provide nothing but education for women. She says that often women don't know their options (a claim I find impossible to believe), and the centers provide the support these women so desperately need. I agree that women who find themselves unexpectedly and unhappily pregnant do need loads of support... but the misleading half-truths these centers are known for telling are not the kind of support women can rely on once that baby comes. Carolyn says "we do not ever mislead;" they are up front about their unwillingness to perform abortions or even refer women seeking one to a qualified doctor. In fact, she tells stories of women who become successful even after "unplanned circumstances." But a pat on the back and go-getem-girl does not raise a child...

One of the most surprising parts of the second interview was when Carolyn (the second one) said that they have to point out on the sonogram what is a baby. They actually point to the image on the screen (which she says the women say is blurry and not clear in the abortion clinics and hospitals) and tell them that is a baby. And apparently the women are surprised that that's what's growing inside them. If that's the case we need to put a lot more money into Texas schools... Carolyn seems to have her heart in the right place, which is wanting to help women, but her ideals keep getting in the way. She says, "I don't think the Supreme Court had any idea that there would be thousands and thousands of women who regret that they ever had an abortion." Yes, women must regret their abortions. If I had one I know I would. But it would be far more regret that the abortion had to happen, not that I had one. If I were in these women's shoes I imagine I would know it was the right thing to do, not just for me but for the child I would unfairly be bringing into the world. Of course there would be regret... I imagine that's almost unavoidable. But regretting the situation and regretting my actions would probably be two different things.

Carolyn, the journalist, talked about a pamphlet that these centers give out to women called "A Woman's Right To Know" which describes the abortion process in unnecessary, graphic, upsetting detail. Women are told that now that they're pregnant they're already a mommy.

Women may have a legal right to have an abortion, but those rights are being chipped away by the states. Federal funding is not allowed to go towards abortions (family planning clinics that provide abortions are in a pickle), so any clinic or center that does want to provide safe abortions to women must charge for it. Which puts the poorest women at a significant disadvantage. Oh, and birth control funding is cut, too. Carolyn, who runs the Crisis Pregnancy Center, applauds the "progressive" nature of Texas schools that make it easier for young single mothers to stay in school by providing day care, but is this not something that could be prevented with education and access to birth control? Is that not the type of information these pregnancy centers mean when they talk about providing women with resources?

The moral of the story, here, is don't have sex unless you actively want a child; don't get raped; and no matter what don't have an abortion.

Here's Part 2.