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.

No Excuse for Abortion

A person.

A proposed law in Mississippi will make it illegal to have an abortion except to save the mother's life. The new law will define "personhood" as a fertilized egg. Not even a growing fetus- a fertilized egg, two cells that haven't even implanted yet, which haven't even grown and don't have any nourishment in order to have a life. A fertilized egg will have full legal protection according to the law, which means it has the same rights as you and I and a person can be prosecuted for harming a fertilized egg. Including the mother carrying the fertilized egg.

So what if she has a natural miscarriage? Will it seem suspicious if she's unmarried? Or what if she does harmful things (drinking, eating mercury-laden fish) because she doesn't realize an egg has been fertilized? Sometimes women go weeks or even months before realizing they're pregnant, and if a fertilized egg is a person then a woman could be jailed for unknowingly harming or killing a "person."

What about birth control methods that prevent a fertilized egg from implanting? Or medical treatments that are lifesaving for a person but damaging to a fertilized egg? Even IVF is going to be sketchy under this law (and IVF is for people who want to have babies): an egg is fertilized outside of the uterus and then inserted in the hopes of implantation. Several eggs are used at once to increase the odds that one will implant and turn into a fetus and then into a baby. But what happens to those extra eggs? This new law will make it illegal for them to be discarded, which could mean parents who really want one baby might be forced to have several at once.

What about rape or incest? This new law insists that a resulting pregnancy will be more blessing than reminder of the rape, that women who go through with the pregnancy are happy they did, women who choose abortion regret it, and hey, there's always adoption (because there are so many families just waiting for an unwanted rape baby). One woman is standing up in favor is this proposed law, saying she is a rape survivor and regrets the abortion she had 13 years ago. Her words? "Rape is no excuse for abortion." She believes that what she did to her baby (the two cells that found each other in her uterus much like a tumor) was far worse than what her rapist did to her. And maybe it was. Maybe her 31 year old self is now regretting the baby she could have had at 18. But at 18 years old could she really have been in a good position to raise a baby she was forced to have? Does he really believe forcing other 18 year old women to have their rapists babies is for the best?

My biggest gripe with people who are so anti-abortion/pro-life as to want to legislate it and make it a crime for others to choose a different outcome is that adoption is always used as a fall back. Just have the rape baby and give it up for adoption, as if a life in foster care is good enough.

Maybe I'm just biased because I grew up knowing I was planned for, wanted (at least by one parent), provided for and taken care of, but I think all children deserve the same chance I got. Growing up in foster care, or in poverty because the mother had no choice but to give birth at a time she wasn't ready, or knowing you're unwanted and a burden, doesn't make for healthy productive adults. Sure there are those success stories of people who started out in shitty childhoods and became something great but they're not the majority. Shouldn't all kids be wanted? How would it feel to grow up in foster care because your mother couldn't bear looking at you because half your DNA and physical features belong to her rapist? How would you feel knowing our father was a rapist and probably has no idea you even exist? It doesn't seem reasonable to me. And that's why I believe the option to abort a fertilized egg or fetus should remain legal. It just means there's a choice, it doesn't mean that legal abortion becomes mandatory. If you want to have the baby you conceived after being raped you can, but if you decide that's an undue punishment you don't have to, and if you don't want an abortion but don't want a baby you can give it up for adoption. Three options to choose from, since no one chooses to be raped.

But that's just me. And if this thing passes Mississippi will be even more missable.

Louder Than Words

People are really good at telling others how they are. I've been hearing a lot of it lately, and the more I hear it the more I believe it's not true. When I was in high school and all the girls were wearing shirts that said ridiculous things like "Mrs. Timberlake," or "Caliente" it was blindingly obvious that the people buying and wearing them were anything but. I'm well into my 20s now and not only am I hearing it more, but I'm hearing it from people who are older than me and should know better. But they're still wrong.

When I started at my current job the office manager would talk about how her husband makes 6 figures and only works because she gets fulfillment out of making a company grow, something she's done in the past. But certain things make me think maybe she really does need the work: working 10+ hours a day in a highly stressful environment for little money, wearing clothes with holes in them or clothes that don't quite fit, bad spending habits in the past, and her mother-in-law lives with them in their apartment in a shady neighborhood. Granted, some of these things I do too (hell, my apartment has bars on the windows), but I'm not claiming that I don't absolutely need to work, and all of these things make me question whether that's really true for her.

I've also heard "friends" go on about how important friendship is, how much they value others, how they want others to value their friendship, too. Proclamations like these aren't true but I get the feeling that the people saying them likely want them to be true, at least for the time being. A couple years back I was friends with a coworker who said these things all the time and I fully believed it. Then I left that job and realized he was using me for a ride to work and a couch to sleep on. When I started hearing those same proclamations some months back from a different friend I was skeptical. Turns out I had a right to be. Certain people have different ideas of what friendship is, and when your ideas on your respective roles in that friendship differ it's hard to maintain a relationship. Fortunately for me it was good to get out of that first friendship and not too hard to let the second one slip by.

We judge others all the time, but I think our worst and least accurate judges are ourselves. We're so quick to tell others what we're like instead of letting others find out for themselves. And why don't we actually live up to what we say we are? Show your friends, coworkers and acquaintances what you're really like with actions, not with empty words.

In Which I Am 4

How I feel most of the time.

When I get discouraged about the world, especially if I don't have a job, the first thing I do is stop listening to or reading the news (and why I turn to Fark and Reddit for my news more than ever). The news can be really depressing, and if you're spending weeks and months looking for a job or stability hearing how the economy might be double dipping isn't very encouraging.

Even though I have a job the news is still discouraging. The somewhat recent Rupert Murdoch scandals and the political turmoil over the United States debt makes me feel like people in high places are just as out to get us as anyone else. And now there's even more games in our government with the upcoming debates and elections, now the only word on our minds is "jobs" and we're throwing away our environment because the jobs are worth it right now. Which makes me wonder, like a child, why do people do bad things to other people? Am I just naive to think that people, especially those in higher positions, should be good and decent? Is it really silly to think that the people we hire and elect to protect us and our interests should actually protect us and our interests?

I haven't decided if I'm an idealist or just naive, but I don't think it's very hard for the world to be a better place. Children should all be wanted and have good lives, leaders should protect their people and not starve or kill them, and people everywhere should act like people, not wild animals. But we have greed and corruption all over the world that make it near impossible for the honest people to get a leg up, or even keep going. Sometimes it feels like the bad people overwhelm the good ones. It'd be nice if everyone could be good and we could all get along.

Maybe I am 4 again.

Moving To Canada

If I ever become Canadian I'm getting this tattoo. I think I've said this before...

Canada is looking better and better the more I learn. Two news stories between yesterday and today made me absolutely disgusted with America.

The first was a story about the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) decision to not alter wording in a regulation that prohibits the broadcast of false or misleading information. Canada actually has a rule that says you can't fucking lie on TV or radio. Apparently this whole thing is being called into question because back in 1992 (yeah, almost 20 years ago) some guy said the Holocaust never happened and argued that his right to freedom of expression meant he couldn't be charged for disseminating false information. Now they want to change the wording so it only applies to broadcasters who know the information is false or misleading and when "reporting it was likely to endanger the lives, health or safety of the public." But that's not journalism; anyone who uses his or her position in the broadcasting industry to deliberately report false or misleading information, especially when it could cause damage to lives or industry, should at the very least lose his or her job and possibly even be jailed, depending on how severe of a lie it is. It is the responsibility of journalists, in radio, print and TV, to double check the accuracy of the statements and stories they report and be confident enough to stand behind their research. This new wording would allow someone to report misleading or inaccurate information and hide behind the "I didn't know it wasn't true" loophole. If journalists aren't doing their jobs where does that leave us?

Enter Fox News.

Widely touted as the "only fair news source" by right-wing crazies who insist our president is an African-born Muslim (also the Antichrist... are they still on that?), Fox News has been caught red handed in a number of lies, the most recent one in which the president, Roger Ailes, convinced a number of employees to lie to Federal investigators about an affair that would have embarrassed Ailes buddy Rudy Giuliani in his presidential bid. Fair and balanced? Oops.

Canada calls Sun TV News "Fox News North" for it's "fair and balanced" agenda, and it's easy to see the connection with a tag line like "Hard news and straight talk." Sun TV has been trying to get into Canada, and this new rewording of the regulations would allow them to hide behind the law in their attempts at creating chaos. Here in America we have 2 parties who will do anything to embarrass the other, creating a near-impossible situation for genuinely fair reporting. Luckily, the people of Canada have spoken up against this rewording; they don't need or want lies over their airways.

The second story making me want to move to Canada is one from the good ol' US of A. Turns out 4 years ago House Democrats started a Green the Capitol movement to start environmentally friendly habits. According to their website they've saved nearly 1,500 trees in 2009 just by sending electronic faxes, 46 million gallons of water each year from using low-flow toilets, and 240,000 meals every month served with compostable utensils. Now that the Republicans are in control they're saying "the new majority, plastic ware is back." The good news is not all of the green measures are getting cut, but many are. Compostable utensils are out because they're not strong enough (which I don't get because I used compostable utensils all the time at the Park and they were great), but LED lights get to stay. The bottom line is many environmentally friendly habits end up saving money while also reducing our carbon footprint. Cutting them because they have an up-front cost and opting for initially cheaper (but with higher long-term costs) isn't saving anyone any money. I can't help but feel like taking away green initiatives are more about the Republicans asserting their authority and pissing off the Democrats simply because they can, neener neener neener.

It's so hard to read or hear any piece of news without being skeptical. I find myself asking who's behind the story, what angle are they working and who benefits from this information. It's not about informing the public, no matter which side is doing the talking. It's about being better than the other side. And it's getting embarrassing.

On the other hand, Canada does have one blemish I'm really disappointed about: metered Internet. WTF CANADA? Since when is this an option? We have unlimited calling and texting but now you're trying to take away unlimited Internet? This means people will not have access to basic websites if they can't afford the flash that website decides to put up. Of all the things there is now to fight for, if the US decides to follow in our northern neighbor's footsteps I will protest that to the end. I can't imagine our president, who uses fucking YouTube to broadcast his weekly address to the public, would support limiting who can visit certain websites, but I didn't even know this could ever be an issue. (Though to be fair, I also didn't know we had to have laws that say you can't broadcast a lie, so now I just don't know what to think.)

I never thought, in this day and age, in this country, that we'd be dealing with some of the issues we're dealing with. They just seem so... duh.

Abstinence Only

Recycled, but still awesome.

Here's a novel idea: let's take morals and misinformation out of abstinence-only sexual education.

Gasp! No! Think of the children!

Surely kids will just go out and fuck like bunnies if we don't tell them sex is bad and evil and condoms are the tool of Satan. Or, like this one study may suggest, maybe they'll actually delay having sex for another year or two.

It's certainly an interesting concept. We've been so used to associating abstinence-only with religion and often hear outright lies that make us cringe. But, stay with me a minute, what if we told kids to wait until they're really ready for the very real consequences of sex, rather than telling them they'll die if they don't wait until marriage? It's like telling your kids they can't date until they're married. And, by the way, didn't you (yes, you) have sex before you were married, to someone not your spouse? If you say no you're either lying, Steve Carell, or you got married before you were 21.

Or you were conceived immaculately.

It's pretty common knowledge, even among the uber-religious, that kids are interested in, curious about and willing to have sex. Teens still need to know how to properly obtain and use birth control, because a pregnant 17 year-old is no better than a pregnant 15 year-old, and abstinence-only, even when used properly, will only delay sex by a couple years at best. Sooner or later teens will have sex; if they've never heard about the effectiveness of birth control or know how to obtain it they'll just risk it.

Schools are no doubt in a difficult position because much of sexuality should be handled by parents before their children's sexuality even becomes an issue. By the time puberty sets in and kids experience those embarrassing changes they've already noticed the opposite sex in that way. Parents ought to be giving their kids a heads up about the next couple years, let them know their opinions on sex, and hope and pray they've done a good job raising responsible sub-adults. But parents are pussies.

I'm not sure if people still think the mere mention of sex will turn chaste children into sex fiends, but unless you're raising your kids in a cave without any communication with the world (including Bambi) and you and your spouse are also celibate, sex is going to come up eventually so you may as well be prepared to discuss it. Sure, sex is designed for procreation, and teenagers have no business procreating, but we're one of the lucky animals who have sex for pleasure (and us ladies even have a whole organ for the sole purpose of pleasure!), and pleasurable sex is a good quality for a spouse to have. Humans are the only creatures who turn sex into something dirty, and I wish we'd just be honest about it, not only with our kids but with ourselves.

Lies. All Lies.

From the time I was in preschool until I graduated high school every adult in my life told me I could do anything I wanted in my life, I could be anything I tried to be, I could have any career I loved. All I had to do was get a degree.

Now it sounds like a get rich quick scheme.

The truth of the matter is a bachelor's degree doesn't mean squat anymore. The bachelor's degree is the new associate's degree- a little something to make you feel like your time in college meant something. A bachelor's degree lives up to its name: the preliminary certificate you get before you start your adult life, before you get a master's or doctorate, the jumping off point to the serious stuff. Women used to get bachelor's degrees just to attract an man who was looking for an educated woman so she could stop working and raise his kids.

And you know what? With the economy as shitty as it is I can see why women might still do that. Don't like your job? Marry your boyfriend and start popping out babies. Not finding something satisfying in your field? Marry someone with a well paying job and work on your post-baby body.

Then there was the "there's money in what you love, no matter what that is" lie. They told me about the man who moved to Maui and started a business teaching people and their dogs to surf. Fantastic, but he had to have some money in order to actually move to Maui and start the business. He had to know about starting a business in the first place.

My last job was originally supposed to be temporary- redo the training program in a year and move on. My current job is temporary- drive for the summer while there's work to be had. My next job? In this economy I don't see the trend moving towards permanence anytime soon. The Mad Men days of growing 30 years with one company are dead and buried.

It also doesn't help me that I don't have a clear idea of what I want to do: do I be practical and stay my writing course and hope it works out in the end or do I stray and try going for my first dream? I'd love to be a magazine editor. I also want to build a sanctuary for elephants. Maybe I should marry rich after all...