To Any and All Who May Want An Abortion

Dear Reader:

I appeal to you if you are young, afraid, feel unsupported and feel that abortion is your only option.

I appeal to you if you find yourself pregnant and no one in your family wants you so.

I appeal to you if you have a girlfriend or wife in an unplanned pregnancy to which abortion seems the only solution.

I appeal to you if your family is full but you are, again, unhappily pregnant.

I appeal to you if you have a daughter or son who is now faced with a crisis pregnancy.

I appeal to you if you are happy in your career and find a pregnancy has interrupted it.

I appeal to you, male or female, who have no money, home or job but are dealing with a pregnancy.

I appeal to you if others are making you get an unwanted abortion, especially parents or your partner.

I appeal to you if you suffered rape or incest and see no option but abortion.

I appeal to you if the unborn child you are carrying, in testing, was found to have a "birth defect."

I appeal to you if you are dealing with an unwanted pregnancy for any reason or under any circumstances.

I know that culture is declaring that the solution to end your distress. Yes, I know it is legal. I know that, at least in the short run, it seems to be the solution. I know that many among us in the Christian community have shouted that it is wrong and are busy defending the humanity of the child in the unwanted pregnancy, but often we offer no more. That is why so many facing crisis pregnancies have made the choices they have, because they saw abortion as their only option. They may have been bullied into it, shamed into it, or talked into it. In many cases, we have failed to show love and compassion and give such people the help and support that they needed, to carry their babies to full term. On behalf of us in the Christian community, I apologize for our actions. We can and should do better, so that abortion will become unthinkable and so that other options will look more attractive to those of you for whom this post is intended.

You may have heard that it is your body and that it is a private matter, between you and God. I agree that your choice is between you and God What you do may seen only at a clinic, by a few staff and by you. But it will also be seen by God. I know that abortion may seem to "end" your distress over a crisis that you may desperately want out of your life. But it will create another set of problems. It will leave you with a sense of guilt that you have ended a human life, an innocent human life. Many who have experienced abortion may suppress or repress this guilt, and will not express any sorrow over their children lost to abortion. This culture forbids such grief. But if you turn to abortion, you will likely experience this grief that this culture will not approve of you expressing. Do you want that?

Whatever sort of crisis pregnancy you are dealing with and the circumstances facing you, there is help available for you. Please do not do anything rash or that you will forever regret and be unable to do over. The child inside you is a child created by God, with purposes, gifts and a destiny. Whatever your circumstances, God planned your child. You, your loved ones, and most of all, your child, deserve better than abortion. Please choose life. It will not be easy. But your child will appreciate you choosing life for him or her. What if your mom had not chosen life?

Please Visit Right Here To Find Help Now

Created Equal: What Do We Really Mean?

Those of us who have followed the case of the Trayvon Martin death investigation, saw that it took peaceful protests and a Change.org petition to bring charges against Martin's killer, and then followed the trial, have taken note of the painful lessons from that case and an acquittal that many disagree with. The deep divide that this case has caused, which was deepened by the "Not Guilty" verdict, indicate that many people do not see that the inequalities that exist in our entire system, toward those who are marginalized. This includes those who are poor, disabled or belong to minority racial or ethnic groups. This case is not just about racial inequality but also about the use of guns but it shows that there are deep inequalities in the justice system. This was seen in that the victim, Trayvon Martin, was vilified and maligned as I have not seen any other victim be maligned, not only during the trial but to this very day. Martin was as much on trial as was his killer, Zimmerman; the verdict of "Not Guilty" only deepened the conviction of many that Trayvon's Martin's life was not seen is as valuable as that of a Caucasian person if they had been killed in that same scenario. Martin is now seen as a symbol of how many minority, poor and other marginalized persons are not always treated as equal. That is, the system does not often go by the famous "All men (and women) are created equal."

           Here are fictitious (but true to life!) instances of this same painful lesson that came out of that above-mentioned trial:

          A boy from an affluent home shows learning and behavior problems so his parents take him to professionals, who research his issues. He is diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome; he is sent to the finest private schools where he receives top-notch services. Today he is a respected, successful writer. His peer, from a poor family, also shows similar learning and behavior issues. His single mom takes him to a professionals, who conclude, with little research, that this boy is "emotionally disturbed" and has a "personality disorder." He is sent to public "alternative" schools with watered-down curriculums, learns little, loses hope and, unemployable, he falls into deep depressions and enters the mental health system.

          A pretty teen from an wealthy family vanishes. Her dad and other relatives, blessed with the resources to keep her story in the media, keep her case high-profile; she's found alive months later and today is successful and much-esteemed. Another, younger girl, from a poor family, vanishes at about the same time. Her family lack the resources and support to get her any media attention. Today, years later, this girl is still missing.

          An affluent woman is diagnosed with cancer and is, of course, quite upset and distressed. Her mom tells her about a top-notch cancer treatment center in a nearby state. As money is not an issue, this woman and her family move so she can take advantage of this center's excellent care; today she remains cancer-free. Another woman, who uses government-funded health insurance, also is diagnosed with cancer and also is devastated. However, she "freaks out," as most health care providers and doctors won't take her insurance due to lousy government re-imbursement. After much searching, she finds care but not before her cancer has spread.

          In a wealthy city, you can find a private neighborhood where the streets are gated, crime is very low, people drive fancy cars, children can play in the streets, people can ride bicycles and homes are large, beautiful and well-built. Nearby, another neighborhood features many small, crumbling, drab "dumps." Crime, including drug dealings and violent crime, are commonplace. Drivers don't stop as this is a public neighborhood; children dare not play in the streets or people ride bicycles.

          A celebrity begins a Facebook account for self-promotion. He has very little trouble "adding" people to his page, thanks to his name recognition. His product sells very well. His peer, an "ordinary" man, who is seeking justice for his brutally murdered sister whose killer is up for parole, also sets up a Facebook account. Desperate to raise awareness about his sister and to get support, he seeks to "add" people to his page. Multiple times, Facebook warns him of "abusing" it, blocks him from adding other users (longer each time) and finally de-activates his account. He has to "start all over again" to shore up enough support to circulate a petition to the parole board to keep the murderer in prison.

          A boy from an affluent home attends the finest private schools, gets a top-notch education and, after graduate school, he starts up a business that soon becomes hugely successful and has made him a billionaire. His peer from a poor home, equally bright and talented, goes to mediocre public schools, drops out and sees little hope for his future. Desperate, he turns to drug-dealing to get his cash.

          A celebrity is accused of a brutal murder; he is able to afford a "dream team" of high-powered, fast-talking lawyers. He is acquitted. His peer is accused of "assault on a police officer" without evidence. Unable to afford a private lawyer, an overworked, underpaid public defender is assigned to his case. After a short trial, this guy is sentenced to years in prison and to years of parole upon release.

          A bright, motivated, well-trained woman with epilepsy applies for the career of her choice, having prepared her resume and done all she could to make a good impression. To "keep it real" and avoid being accused of dishonesty, she discloses her epilepsy on her application. She never hears back; it takes her months to find a job. Her peer, a nondisabled person, equally prepared, lands a job with little trouble; self-disclosure and discrimination are not issues.

           A caring, respected, bright, well-educated woman, diagnosed with autism and epilepsy, is unable to conceive and searches out agencies, hoping to adopt. She discloses her challenges but feels that her credentials would more than make up for her disabilities. Wrong. Agency after agency turn her down. Her peer, without disabilities, and also possessing a good reputation, a big heart and an education, easily is approved and soon her empty arms are filled with a beautiful baby and, months later, with another baby.

          For each of these example there are many more instances of inequality and there are many other examples that I could have given. We often hear the phrase "All people are created equal." But I wonder, judging from every area of our system and from our culture and actions, if we actually believe this. We can see the way that resources are so UNEVENLY distributed in every area of society and culture, in health care, education, the criminal justice system, our social class rankings, our wealth and income distribution and in our social relationships.

          Yes, I know that when it comes to functioning, we are definitely not equal. There are those in positions of power and authority who tells us what to do and can make decisions for us that affect our lives. There are the greater number of us who must follow their orders and live with the consequences of their decisions. There are our lawmakers who create our system and the rest of us who must live with this system that we did not create. There are the "1 percent" of the "Wall Streeters" who own and control most of our wealth and the rest of us who may live in decent comfort, struggle to make ends meet or exist without enough to eat or clothe ourselves. There are the majority of us without disabilities who are pretty much able to live and function as we wish. There are those who disabilities, visible or invisible, whose impairments greatly limit their options in many areas of life and who must live with limitations. And on a world scale, there are those of us in North America who own (or at least experience) most of the word's wealth. And there are many, many more people on the other side of the world, who often exist in deep poverty, hunger, want and destitution; many, including children, die of hunger or disease.

          Yet we are all created equal in personhood, when it comes to being. This truth is not only according to our own experience but according to the Scriptures. We all have the same basic needs for safety, food, clothing and shelter. We all want to be happy and to be loved. When we are hurt, we all inwardly are stung. Our bodies bleed when we are cut. We all get sick. We laugh when we are amused (and maybe uncomfortable). We cry when we are heartbroken. We feel guilt when we have done wrong. We all are born. We all will die. According to the Bible, we have all sinned and we all need a Savior; we all have equal access to God's grace and favor though faith in Christ.

          But it is because of our inequalities in functioning and our ignorance, prejudices and intolerance, that cause so many of us to treat each other as unequal persons not just in functioning but as unequal persons also in personhood. Even in churches, where our congregations formally claim to serve and worship a God Who has created all of us as equal, we see exclusion, snobbery and cliques. I can say this from experience because I have experienced these at the hands of fellow parishioners; I'm sure many other people can share similar stories of their experiences in churches. Yes, I know there are many wonderful people in every congregation but even people of faith are human. And I see cliques and exclusion on Facebook, where many in my social networks talk only to each other and ignore everyone else. Cliques, snobbery and exclusion are when people stick only with those who are "their kind" and ignore everyone else.

          Over a year ago, I saw this status update on Facebook, "All people are created equal." Underneath this status, a person commented, "Too bad they don't stay that way." This blog has been my lament of this person's comment on the status. Actually, it seems that we all start out as equals in that we come into the world "in our birthday suits" and we become equal, one again, only when we leave the world, to slip into eternity and stand before our Creator and answer to Him about what we have done with our lives.

          This is the core of what adversity, sorrow and tragedy do for us: They re-enforce the truth that we are indeed created equal. But as many of us survey the recent Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case, we wonder if even tragedy does this for many of us.  We need to change hearts as well as laws that are on the side of the more fortunate and privileged rather than in favor of marginalized persons.
     Photo courtesy of MorgueFile.com Photo by Richard b This photo can be found here

Life, Choice, or Both?

          There is an issue that was not any major source of political debate in campaigns or elections in the recent past, certainly not in Presidential campaigns. Not to the degree that we are seeing now! I'm talking about the issue of reproductive rights in relation to religious liberty and what role contraception should have in health care. This holds true especially for women's access to oral contraceptives which many on the "far religious right" strongly oppose.
          Contraception as an issue is not the same as abortion, as abortion is the choice to end a life that has already been conceived (or, as many would call it, a potential human life). Contraception is a choice to prevent conception from happening in the first place. My observations of the current political debate, especially carried out by the candidates campaigning for a the spot as the Republican challenger against President Obama, is that time around, reproduction vs. religious liberty, seems to be the central issue to be reckoned with. We therefore needed to deal with it if we are to make an informed choice about the then-Candidate of our choice. Even if you are outside the US and in an area where this isn't being politicized, you will need to deal with the question of contraception, especially if you are married and in your childbearing years or if you are raising teens who are or want to be sexually active. And there are some health care settings where you must deal with it. We still need to deal with this even though the debate is not raging at this time, as these things do not go away even when Elections are won or lost.
         I have great admiration for those families who, because of their beliefs and their life circumstances, like the well-known Duggars, refuse to use any kind of contraception and keep adding one child after another to their family. The Duggars take the Biblical instruction to "Be fruitful and multiply" seriously; they are devout people of faith who believe that every child is a gift from God and should be welcomed as such. Yes, the Duggars have the resources, including the proceeds from a TV show and apparently good physical health, to be able to bear and raise a huge family. They have been in the position to have an unrestricted number of children, which we are told is around 20 children. In most cases, money will be an issue because most of us do not have unrestricted wealth and many of us may have health issues or relationship issues that make bearing and raising many children unwise, irresponsible or even risky. These factors, especially if you have more than one of these factors in operation, will limit how many children you can bear and raise or should bear and raise responsibly or safely. So, for most of us, even if we would want to have huge families, contraception is an issue. Unless you are unfortunate enough to be infertile and CANNOT bear children, there is no other way to limit family size other than sexual abstinence. And in marriage, that is NOT a good idea!
          In my own case, after I married, contraception was an issue because, from the beginning, I was discouraged from conceiving. This was not only because of our financial situation but because of my epilepsy and my Marfan's Syndrome making pregnancy risky for both a baby and me. So my spouse and I used contraception faithfully. Then I became unexpectedly pregnant and after the shock wore off, I was happy and excited. I did have to take an anti-convulsant during my pregnancy. Thank God, our beautiful, precious daughter was born healthy even though she was diagnosed with "Pervasive Development Disorder" which is a subtype of high-functioning autism. I have been unable to conceive again and have been strongly discouraged from bearing any more children. Today, for her sake, I'm much disappointed that we are being forced to raise our daughter as an only child though we are very pleased with her.
          The former political Candidate who started this debate during last year's Presidential Primaries,  Sen. Rick Santorum, is a devout person of faith who strongly opposes not only abortion but also birth control, especially oral contraceptives. I respect his personal choice to bear and raise a large family and to continue to add to his family. But finances and apparently health and relationships, are not issues for him or his wife. These things are issues for so many of us who have financial, health, or family problems. So, I don't think Sen, Santorum (or anyone) should put a guilt trip on anyone who feels the need to limit family size. Family size, whether it is large or small, is not right or wrong. What is a moral issue is respecting other people's choices and not judging them. Big families are fine as long as a couple have the resources, energy, health are support system to bear and raise lots of children responsibly, effectively and safely. Since most of us  have one or more reasons why we can't or don't feel comfortable bearing or raising lots of children, we will need to use contraception during some or much of our childbearing years. The debate is: Should it be the government's role to make it available? For contaceptives can be costly if one must pay for them out-of-pocket.
          What about contraceptives for unmarried people, including teens? The Bible is clear about that: It should not even be an issue, as contraceptives  are only needed if one is sexually active. And the Scriptures forbid sexual activity outside of marriage; it holds that sexual intercourse and bearing children are best reserved for the permanence, commitment and legal protections that marriage offers. As a child who was born to a teen mom and outside of marriage, I can testify from experience that teen parenthood means much hardship for a young mom and a life of permanent disadvantage for the child. And I have seen and read about many others who have had the awful experience of teen pregnancy. Many will say, "Use protection." I'm here to tell you that contraceptives do not always protect one from pregnancy and they often don't protect one from sexually transmitted diseases. I do not recommend contraceptives for young people; the ideal is to strongly encourage teens to save sex for marriage, for their own emotional, physical and spiritual well-being and that of their future spouse. It sounds old-fashioned but it is true; the best wedding gift one can give a spouse is one's virginity. Whatever your views on sexual intercourse and contraceptives for unmarried people, including youth, I encourage you to check out a website which discusses these matters in a sensitive, informative and truthful matter and is directed to young people. Please visit: Love Matters. If you are married and want to check out a website about contraception for married people and the ethics of using them as well as find other information that is truthfully and sensitively given, the following website: Christian Family Planning
          The reason that oral contraceptives like the birth control pill and emergency contraception, "the morning after pill," can be controversial is that they are considered by many to be abortifacients, that is, they don't always prevent conception; when they don't, they work by ending a life already conceived, mainly by preventing the conceived embryo from implanting in the pregnant woman's uterus. Therefore, many people of faith strongly shun them. What these opponents don't seem to realize is that so many women use birth control pills to treat female gynecological issues like various menstrual irregularities. It angered me as a woman, as is has so many other, that the recent high-profile panel discussing contraception did not have even ONE woman on the panel. I also hate it that this issue tends to come off as one where men are telling women what to do with our bodies. It should not be this way! Birth control, bearing children and raising them, are as much a man's responsibility as a woman's. Can this be one big reason there are so many abortions of the unborn as well as abuse of so many born children, because women are doing the "heavy moral lifting" of these matters without male support? I think so!
          Whatever your view on abortion or contraception, because so many health care providers see abortion and even certain forms of contraception as very wrong and against their consciences, any political debate on reproductive rights and legislation on the availability of government funds for them, should always include a religious liberty or conscience clause. This is so that health care providers of faith or who simply believe that life begins at conception will not be forced to go against their principles and have to pay for or provide pills or procedures for their patients that they oppose. As long as we are talking tolerance, shouldn't we have tolerance for those of faith?
          There is the raging debate about whether many people, because of criminal or child abuse tendencies, should even be permitted to bear ANY children. Especially if you are unable to bear children or have seen or experienced child abuse, seeing or even hearing about people so easily bearing children and then hellishly abusing and even killing them, is infuriorating. Should contraception be made available? I say it should, but if they are unmarried, abstinence is by far the best choice. Many people declare that contraception reduces both abortions and child abuse, but I don't see that this is happening. There is no easy answer.
          What about the availability, even the mandate, of ultrasounds for women about to have abortions? What about vaginal ultrasounds? This raging debate, started by Sen, Rick Santorum, shows no signs of letting up. The argument for vaginal ultrasounds over abdominal ultrasounds is that the vaginal form is more accurate. But vaginal probing is invasive and makes the woman feel very vulnerable, as she must wear skimpy clothes with her legs falling apart in cold metal stirrups. When this is forced on her as a government mandate, this seems like a rape. No wonder there is such bitter opposition to vaginal ultrasounds! I agree that women who are about to have a serious, permanent procedure like abortion ought to be warned about the risks of this procedure and about what they are about to abort. They should be able to make an informed choice. Many post-abortive women have experienced tremendous grief and guilt and bear lifelong emotional scars from their abortions. If ultrasounds, even less invasive, abdominal ones, would save more of them from that and save their babies' lives, isn't this worth it? And they should be able to consent to this ultrasound, like any procedure. Still, I cannot see why every other medical procedure requires parental consent if done on minors. Abortion is a major procedure and its effects can never be reversed. They will last forever. So ought not parents know when their minor children are getting this procedure?
          Even though Sen. Santorum did not win his party's nomination as the contender for the White House against President Obama, and this has been taken off center stage in the current political debates, contraception vs. religious liberty remains a force many of us must reckon with. I disagree with Santorum and other strong pro-life, "anti-abortion" advocates on many other issues that it seems so many of them are inconsistent on, and that need addressing which may reduce abortions through making it less tempting or attractive to seek them.
          Abortion and contraception are like other "hot-button" issues; they are surrounded with strong codes of silence and those who are affected by them personally often wrestle with shame, stigma, prejudice, fear and even hopelessness. These kind of issues make most of us uncomfortable and are usually not easy to talk about. It's easy to live our lives so as not to offend people who vehemently disagree with us on issues deemed to be controversial, including abortion. But lives may depend on it.
As far as religious liberty goes, I read a most alarming statistic, just today, that over 70 percent of those females of those girls and women who seek abortions come from churches, where their pastors or priests are largely silent. Folks, wherever we stand on a "hot button" issue that affects the lives of people, nothing is worse than silence. Not even the position we may hold on the issue.

        Photo Courtesy of MorgueFile.com Photo by RoganJosh This photo can be found here.

Political Issue or Human Rights Issue?

This year, as in no other recent year, what are known as "life issues" vs. "choice issues" have been brought before us as has not been seen in recent campaigns for re-election, and now, in President Obama's second term in this year 2013. You know this if you follow the news. The issues I'm talking about are those that seem to be viewed by many as the "central" battleground life or choice" issues. I'm talking about mainly abortion and, to a lesser degree, euthanasia or physicial-assisted suicide (lesser because there is somewhat, I think, less controversy surrounding end-of-life issues than beginning-of-life issues). It began last year, last summer, during the primaries when some candidates called for legislation that would make contraception illegal and for the mandating of vaginal-probe ultrasounds for women considering abortion. I know that there is very strong emotion wrapped up in these issues on both sides and that differences are seen as personal attacks. I find this quite unfortunate. But, with the possible exception "marriage equality for LGBT people, nothing divides us more than the issue of abortion. Just this past week, there were demonstrations in Washington, DC, including the annual March For Life.

How is it that abortion and euthanasia came to be seen as the cental "battleground" life issues, especially the former? I don't think that abortion would ever been politicized and become so polarizing had it not been for the Roe vs. Wade ruling by the US Supreme Court in 1973 and became legal. And since then, the Church of the people of faith and many nonprofit organizations have seen ending abortion as the "primary moral or "life" issue of the day and everything else has been seen as only secondary. The argument has always been, "We are talking about our right to life in the womb and unless this right is kept safe for all of us, all the other rights we want and cry out for become meaningless." These hard-core "right-to-life" advocates do have a point, that our lives as unborn humans must be kept as safe and sacred as our lives outside the womb should be. My question is that are our lives outside the womb actually so sacred or so safe anymore, either? I wonder. Our murder rate is the highest of any country in the developed world. Many born children die daily, from things as varied as card accidents, drowning, serious childhood illness and even murder at the hands of adults or peers. This is not to mention all the other deaths that occur daily of teens and adults that are untimely and unnatural. Why does not anyone talk about being "pro-life" about these most serious matters? And poverty typically breeds crime, including murder. And it causes much hunger and illness and lack of access to health care and all of thse can kill. Why do we not use the word "pro-life in reference to poverty and related issues like access to health care for all?

I know what the argument is by confining abortion as the life issue of focus. The argument is: "The most vulnerable person is the unborn because he or she is totally helpless and totally unable to speak of for self." This is true, that the unborn are 100 percent unable to advocate for themselves. The argument that hard-core "right-to-life" advcates give for not treating the lives of others as top priority is this: "At least they are alive and are able to cry out for themselves." Well, up to a point they can. But we know that society makes it very hard to "find your voice" if you lack money or social connections. I am seeing this firsthand as I daily struggle to gather signatures for my petition for a group of people whose needs, in many ways, are going unmet because of ignorance and lack of resources. My frustration is that, to support a certain candidate and political party, and support the life issues that they oficially stand for, we have to withdraw support for the other candidate and for the life issues that they support. To stand for conservatives, we protect the unborn and infirm, dying people. But we withdraw support for the protection of the lives of everyone else from birth to old age. To support liberal candidates, we protect human life from birth to old age. But we withhold support from the protection of unborn human life and from those who are infirm or dying. I find this most frustrating and confusing. It has made me just want to stay at home on Election Day. I find it almost impossible to choose, pitting some lives against others.

I happen to belong to a Church body that, like so many others, has implicitly, if not explicitly, sent a strong message that to be true to God and His teachings, we should be "conservative" and this implies that we vote conservative. And to do that means to vote for Republicans and to support Republican "values." We are told in such church bodies, "Protect the unborn with your votes." Well, which party is oficially "anti-abortion"? The conservatives in the Republican party (there are liberal Republicans who support abortion just as there are conservative Democrats who oppose abortion). Those in the Republican party have, especially since 1973 and Roe vs. Wade, made the lives of the unborn their central life issue through for calling for restrictiong abortion, even criminalizing it. The official stance of Democrats has been to safeguard all life from birth to death, through government programs and funding of vital services for the public's protection. Those who are "pro-choice" (whether democrats or Republicans) are more convinced that life in the womb may be "potential life" as opposed to "actual life" and therefore, that the expectant mom should, in crisis situations, have "choice" available. Even hard-core "pro-choice," liberal Democrats are NOT "pro-abortion" in the sense that they affirm this procedure as the best "choice" for anyone. They simply, for the most part, believe that this "choice should be available" for those who find themselves in difficult or crisis situations. Yes, there are hard-core "abortion-on-demand" proponents but I see them as being in the minority. Even "pro-choice" people merely see abortion as an unfortunate "choice" of last resort. As I read it in my Bible, I see that the lives of ALL people, at all stages of development, are equally vluable and sacred to God. So what does this mean for electing candidates where we have to pit some lives against others? And God, unlike "pro-choice" advocates, definitely sees unborn human life not as potential humanb life but as ACTUAL human life.

In the Church body to which I belong, the life issues espouses by the Democrats are seen as "secondary issues." The "primary issue" as seen by my Church body, is ending abortion and defending the unborn. We should be doing this! But what about all those other lives that are just as important and sacred to God? This question was posed to a prominent Christian leader who appeared on a major news network. The Host asked this Christian leader something like,"What about the Republican attempts, through their proposals, to cut back on services like firefighters, law enforcement, teachers, veterans, the elderly and the disabled?" His response to that was, "Those are secondary issues." The main issue? "We need to defend traditional marriage and defend the lives of the unborn." For purposes of this post, I will NOT be going into GLBT issues but only into the "life issues." Who is to determine what lives are "primary" and which are only "secondary"? I know that Catholic nuns and others who call themselves "progressive Christians" have been speaking out against the Ryan budget plan which calls for cuts in essentail services which we need and which benefit all of us, especially the most vulnerable among us: the poor, senior citizens, veterans and those with disabilities. But I see the almost TOTAL silence on the part of those among "conservative Church bodies, Christian leaders and pastors about the Ryan plan, as disturbing and depressing. It seems that most in conservative "religious right" circles are refusing to see the moral big picture and see it reduced to just two issues: protecting the unborn and safeguarding tradional marriage. We ought to do this, I fully agree! But what about all the other moral issues that are embraced by "liberals" such as poverty, justice/injustice, education, ending corporate greed and political corruption, health care for all, and the other important issues? Must thse go begging if we embrace one set of moral values? Why must we choose?

I find it most unfortunate that abortion is seen along political party lines, with Republicans being officially "against abortion" and Democrats being "proabortion," with Republicans being "prolife" and Democrats being "prochoice." Many years ago, I was listening to a denominational radio show where the talk show host was taking live phone calls. One person was discussing abortion and was saying, "We should not call the proabortionists prochoice; we should call them pro-death." At a former congregation where my spouse and I had attended, a member had a bumper sticker which read, "Friends do not let friends vote Democrat." For one things, many people, including in politics and who are Republicans, lean toward "prochoice" views. And many people, including in politics, are Democrats who lean toward the "prolife" view. So the stereotype of either party being for one view or the other is most unfortunate. So is lumping all "prolife" people as those who do not like women, think their only role is in the home and should keep being "barefoot and pregnant." Nor should all "prochoice" people be lumped together is being "anti-family people who desire to put  all children in day care centers, destroy families and trash men, and stop population growth.

I have heard it proposed that abortion be removed from the political arena and placed in the human rights arena. I agree with this totally. As long as this keeps being seen as a hotly divisive political issue, I do not see that the "culture wars" surrounding it will ever end. I know that there are very strong feelings on both sides, one being a people group's right to full, private autononmy over their lives and bodies, the other people group's right to life even when the person (the mother or her family) does not want to let that happen. As long as both sides, the "life" side and the "choice" side continue to declare how right they themselves are and do not listen the the concerns and objections of the other side, there will always be a bitter debate. When abortion comes up for discussion, especially on TV or in politics, one cannot help but see how each side is screaming about how right I am and how wrong you are and you better listen to me! Each side has very valid points that the other side needs to consider. The unborn have the right to live and their human right needs to be defended from those who would take it away. Their mothers have the right to be offered all the support and guidance they need so that they are not even tempted to go to the most available abortion clinic because they could not find support and resources to not only complete their pregnancies but for years afterward. And the "hard cases" of rape and incest? I would not wish on anyone a a rape, much less one that results in conception! Those who advocate that babies conceived of sexual assault also deserve to live are correct, but one politician was not only scientifically incorrect but offended many when he said, "During a legitimate rape, the female body has a way of shutting that whole thing down." Putting our feet in our mouths when engaged in controversies like this does nothing for such debates.

So, when I went  to the polls on November 2, as always, I was be torn and conflicted. I know that many people fall solidly on the side of liberal or conservative and that, if they exercise their right to vote, their minds will be made up. In fact, many of such people may already have their minds made up at this moment. That is fine. What is NOT fine is when people, whether individuals, Church bodies, Christian leaders or organizations tell me how I "should vote." I do not tell anyone else how they should vote and they should not tell me how to vote. And how can Christian leaders or Church bodies make any claims that God has any monopoly on any political party, that He is Republican or Democrat? Oh, they never come out and say it like that; they just say, "But Biblcal values are consistent with what Republicans stand for." That is true of SOME of the things that this party stands for. But this same things can be said about SOME of the things that the Democrats stands for. And There are things about BOTH parties that are not consistent with Biblical values. Call me biased, but I see most of the hate and nastiness, whether you talk about the political campaigns or their supporters, as coming from the "Tea Party" element of the Republican party.

As I stated in an earlier post, someone in my social networks saw a past status update of mine and told me to state my political party for all to know. I will go on the record as saying that I am what some would call a Pro-life Democrat, a moderate, and an Independent who supports many Democratic values. I believe that we should shout out about what we are FOR, as the Bible does, whether than scream about what we are against. I see far too much screaming and railing, from politicians and from so many in "real life" and online. Even the nicest and most rational and proper of people can, if they get on political or politicized issues like abortion, find themselves engaging in nasty, uncivil, bullying, hateful and bullying behaviors. This is the reason why abortion needs to stop being seen as a political issue and instead be seen as a human rights issue, with the human rights of both the mother and the child being equally as important. This same holds true of any other "life issue." And I want to shout for what is called a "consistent life ethic" that upholds and affirms ALL life, starting from concetion to death.

Consistent Life.
This website is set up for a nonprofit of people who seek to pull together all life issues and to unite people from all poltical viewpoints and to declare all life as sacred. This site is full of information, it educates and links to other helpful resources.

Which of the Presidential Candidates is Truly Pro-Life?
This article examines how both the past Presidential candidates actually relate to life issues, especially abortion and gives perspective. Photo Courtesy of MorgueFile.com Photo by Alvimann. This photo can be found here.

About Reproductive Rights and Religious Liberty

          There is an issue that was not any major source of political debate in campaigns or elections in the recent past, certainly not in Presidential campaigns. Not to the degree that we are seeing now! I'm talking about the issue of reproductive rights in relation to religious liberty and what role contraception should have in health care. This holds true especially for women's access to oral contraceptives which many on the "far religious right" strongly oppose.
          Contraception as an issue is not the same as abortion, as abortion is the choice to end a life that has already been conceived (or, as many would call it, a potential human life). Contraception is a choice to prevent conception from happening in the first place. My observations of the current political debate, especially carried out by the candidates campaigning for a the spot as the Republican challenger against President Obama, is that time around, reproduction vs. religious liberty, seems to be the central issue to be reckoned with. We therefore need to deal with it if we are to make an informed choice about the Candidate of our choice. Even if you are outside the US and in an area where this isn't being politicized, you will need to deal with the question of contraception, especially if you are married and in your childbearing years or if you are raising teens who are or want to be sexually active. And there are some health care settings where you must deal with it.
          I have great admiration for those families who, because of their beliefs and their life circumstances, like the well-known Duggars, refuse to use any kind of contraception and keep adding one child after another to their family. The Duggars take the Biblical instruction to "Be fruitful and multiply" seriously; they are devout people of faith who believe that every child is a gift from God and should be welcomed as such. Yes, the Duggars have the resources, including the proceeds from a TV show and apparently good physical health, to be able to bear and raise a huge family. They have been in the position to have an unrestricted number of children, which we are told is around 20 children. In most cases, money will be an issue because most of us do not have unrestricted wealth and many of us may have health issues or relationship issues that make bearing and raising many children unwise, irresponsible or even risky. These factors, especially if you have more than one of these factors in operation, will limit how many children you can bear and raise or should bear and raise responsibly or safely. So, for most of us, even if we would want to have huge families, contraception is an issue. Unless you are unfortunate enough to be infertile and CANNOT bear children, there is no other way to limit family size other than sexual abstinence. And in marriage, that is NOT a good idea!
          In my own case, after I married, contraception was an issue because, from the beginning, I was discouraged from conceiving. This was not only because of our financial situation but because of my epilepsy and my Marfan's Syndrome making pregnancy risky for both a baby and me. So my spouse and I used contraception faithfully. Then I became unexpectedly pregnant and after the shock wore off, I was happy and excited. I did have to take an anti-convulsant during my pregnancy. Thank God, our beautiful, precious daughter was born healthy even though she was diagnosed with "Pervasive Development Disorder" which is a subtype of high-functioning autism. I have been unable to conceive again and have been strongly discouraged from bearing any more children. Today, for her sake, I'm much disappointed that we are being forced to raise our daughter as an only child though we are very pleased with her.
          The political Candidate who started this debate, Sen. Rick Santorum, is a devout person of faith who strongly opposes not only abortion but also birth control, especially oral contraceptives. I respect his personal choice to bear and raise a large family and to continue to add to his family. But finances and apparently health and relationships, are not issues for him or his wife. These things are issues for so many of us who have financial, health, or family problems. So, I don't think Sen, Santorum (or anyone) should put a guilt trip on anyone who feels the need to limit family size. Family size, whether it is large or small, is not right or wrong. What is a moral issue is respecting other people's choices and not judging them. Big families are fine as long as a couple have the resources, energy, health are support system to bear and raise lots of children responsibly, effectively and safely. Since most of us  have one or more reasons why we can't or don't feel comfortable bearing or raising lots of children, we will need to use contraception during some or much of our childbearing years. The debate is: Should it be the government's role to make it available? For contaceptives can be costly if one must pay for them out-of-pocket.
          What about contraceptives for unmarried people, including teens? The Bible is clear about that: It should not even be an issue, as contraceptives  are only needed if one is sexually active. And the Scriptures forbid sexual activity outside of marriage; it holds that sexual intercourse and bearing children are best reserved for the permanence, commitment and legal protections that marriage offers. As a child who was born to a teen mom and outside of marriage, I can testify from experience that teen parenthood means much hardship for a young mom and a life of permanent disadvantage for the child. And I have seen and read about many others who have had the awful experience of teen pregnancy. Many will say, "Use protection." I'm here to tell you that contraceptives do not always protect one from pregnancy and they often don't protect one from sexually transmitted diseases. I do not recommend contraceptives for young people; the ideal is to strongly encourage teens to save sex for marriage, for their own emotional, physical and spiritual well-being and that of their future spouse. It sounds old-fashioned but it is true; the best wedding gift one can give a spouse is one's virginity. Whatever your views on sexual intercourse and contraceptives for unmarried people, including youth, I encourage you to check out a website which discusses these matters in a sensitive, informative and truthful matter and is directed to young people. Please visit: http://www.lovematters.com/. If you are married and want to check out a website about contraception for married people and the ethics of using them as well as find other information that is truthfully and sensitively given, the following website: http://www.christianfamilyplanning.org/.
          The reason that oral contraceptives like the birth control pill and emergency contraception, "the morning after pill," can be controversial is that they are considered by many to be abortifacients, that is, they don't always prevent conception; when they don't, they work by ending a life already conceived, mainly by preventing the conceived embryo from implanting in the pregnant woman's uterus. Therefore, many people of faith strongly shun them. What these opponents don't seem to realize is that so many women use birth control pills to treat female gynecological issues like various menstrual irregularities. It angered me as a woman, as is has so many other, that the recent high-profile panel discussing contraception did not have even ONE woman on the panel. I also hate it that this issue tends to come off as one where men are telling women what to do with our bodies. It should not be this way! Birth control, bearing children and raising them, are as much a man's responsibility as a woman's. Can this be one big reason there are so many abortions of the unborn as well as abuse of so many born children, because women are doing the "heavy moral lifting" of these matters without male support? I think so!
          Whatever your view on abortion or contraception, because so many health care providers see abortion and even certain forms of contraception as very wrong and against their consciences, any political debate on reproductive rights and legislation on the availability of government funds for them, should always include a religious liberty or conscience clause. This is so that health care providers of faith or who simply believe that life begins at conception will not be forced to go against their principles and have to pay for or provide pills or procedures for their patients that they oppose. As long as we are talking tolerance, shouldn't we have tolerance for those of faith?
          There is the raging debate about whether many people, because of criminal or child abuse tendencies, should even be permitted to bear ANY children. Especially if you are unable to bear children or have seen or experienced child abuse, seeing or even hearing about people so easily bearing children and then hellishly abusing and even killing them, is infuriorating. Should contraception be made available? I say it should, but if they are unmarried, abstinence is by far the best choice. Many people declare that contraception reduces both abortions and child abuse, but I don't see that this is happening. There is no easy answer.
          What about the availability, even the mandate, of ultrasounds for women about to have abortions? What about vaginal ultrasounds? This raging debate, started by Sen, Rick Santorum, shows no signs of letting up. The argument for vaginal ultrasounds over abdominal ultrasounds is that the vaginal form is more accurate. But vaginal probing is invasive and makes the woman feel very vulnerable, as she must wear skimpy clothes with her legs falling apart in cold metal stirrups. When this is forced on her as a government mandate, this seems like a rape. No wonder there is such bitter opposition to vaginal ultrasounds! I agree that women who are about to have a serious, permanent procedure like abortion ought to be warned about the risks of this procedure and about what they are about to abort. They should be able to make an informed choice. Many post-abortive women have experienced tremendous grief and guilt and bear lifelong emotional scars from their abortions. If ultrasounds, even less invasive, abdominal ones, would save more of them from that and save their babies' lives, isn't this worth it? And they should be able to consent to this ultrasound, like any procedure.
          Even if Sen. Santorum does not win his party's nomination as the contender for the White House against President Obama, and this is taken out of the raging debate, contraception vs. religious liberty remains a force many of us must reckon with.
    

         

Does Society Value Some Lives More Than Others?

          We may loudly claim, "All persons are created equal" and "No person is more valuable than another," but as a society our actions often condradict these words. There is no getting around it. Yes, we are indeed created equal by God  but the sad fact is that in this world countless inequalities exist.
          To illustrate my point, this very morning of the day I am writing this, I received a "no" response in the mail to an earlier request to have my vitamin supplementation continue to be covered by my insurance carrier. Currently, I'm almost past my childbearing years. In my prior appeal letter, I pointed out that my long-term use of anti-convulsants for seizure control put me at an increased risk for osteoporosis and liver failure than the average person. I also pointed out that I was diagnosed with Marfan's Syndrome which affects one's heart, eyes and connective joints. Throughout the years, my insurance carrier had covered my request for vitamin supplementation by covering prenatal vitamins. I was, after all, a woman in her childbearing years and was able at any time to bear another life. My insurance carrier had denied my request to be switched to a more age-appropriate vitamin supplement simply because of my age. My point? Because I am "getting older" and "can't get pregnant," my life was not as valuable as it was when I was younger.
          This sad phenomenon for us to value some lives over others is seen in the eugenics movement, which pushes for the prevention of any life deemed as less worthy than others. Those with disabilities are sometimes discouraged, even by their doctors, from getting pregnant because their offspring "may inherit what you have," and this gives the unspoken but very hurtful message that the lives of disabled people are less worthy than the lives of those without disabilities. The push to offer certain prenatal tests to certain pregnant women for the purpose of identifying certain "birth defects," and to encourage abortions in the case of "birth defects," is the most glaring example of this! During my childbearing years, I was discouraged from seeking pregnancy. When I did get pregnant, abortion was "offered"  to me as an "option." And now autism is being added to the mix of "birth defects" that mark a life as less worthy! According to history, women with special needs were often sterilized against their wills or given cerain forms of birth control. Today, this may no longer be done but certain groups of people are still asked or told to not reproduce "their own kind." I realize, first-hand, that having special needs and raising children with special needs, are both difficult and can often be heartbreaking. But that does not mean that these don't come with rewards if we receive these with grace, courage and maturity.
          Poor and low-income people are often discouraged from reproducing "their own kind," and like disabled people, they are much more likely to be "offered" abortion as an "option" to carrying to full-term. When Nadia Suleman, the "Octomom," gave birth to octuplets (8 babies in one pregnancy), there was  outrage over this. Suleman was a low-income young woman and in debt, with outstanding student loan debt and already she had six other children. I understand the outrage over this and the concern that these children will probably know lives of lasting disadvantage. And in many other cases of poor women choosing to have large families, there has been outrage. I would not ever want to minimize the difficulties that children born to poor and disadvantaged parents face and the lifelong disadvantages that such children often face. For I know of this from experience. My point is that all lives are equally valuable, no matter what the circumstances of conception.
          It's clear that if you are young, attractive, healthy, under age 40, talented, white and successful, your life is seen as somehow more valuable. This certainly holds true in searches for missing people. On Facebook, for many weeks I had been sharing a page that is devoted exclusively to bring missing children home. Since people generally value the lives of children and are touched by their vulnerabibility and their cuteness, we tend to take children's disappearances more seriously than the disappearances of adults. Thus, I saw the numbers on this page climb at a good clip as people joined it and shared the page with their own social networks. On the other hand, for monts I have been sharing a Facebook page that is devoted exclusively to missing adults. I saw the numbers on the page climb much more slowly because fewer people joined the page or shared it. And whenever I shared that page, I would include a text header like: "Every missing adult is also someone's missing child and loved one!" As for missing persons, I recall that about a year ago, the case of a certain man tugged at my heart as he was said to be suicidal and to have a seizure disorder. I would post and repostthe link to this missing man's photo and information on Facebook. I saw few signs that my posts on this man were circulated. Then one day, someone commented under one of my posts simply that "He was found deceased" and gave the date. It was like this man's life somehow did not matter because he was an adult, male, and had a stigmatizing medical condition and mental health issues at the time of his disappearance. I've seen this sort of response toward especially missing adults when they they are over 40, have special needs, troubled pasts, or are male or Black. On the other hand, many of us take acute interest in the disappearances/murders of those who are young, attractive, talented, successful, and Caucasian. Isn't this why certain names of certain people (Elizabeth Smart, Jaycee Dugard, Chandra Levy, Polly Klaas, Laci Peterson, Caylee Anthony) are household names? How many people are familar with names like Alexis Patterson, Jameshia Conner, Toni Lee Sharpless, Khoi Vu, Michael Weinkoop, and the names of so many other missing or murdered persons?
          This phenomenon of valuing some lives above others is true in health care. Top-notch health care, like that found at the Mayo Clinic or at the Cancer Treatment Centers of America, benefit what kind of patients? Those with the money or with good insurance who can pay for this excellent care! Who generally gets the finest health care, especially preventive care? Those who can afford to pay for it or who have good insurance! In other words, the wealthy can afford to assign top value to their own lives by their unlimited health care options. The health care that US polticians get is said to be the best. In stark contrast, what sort of health care do so many poor and marginalized people get? Often they get none at all because they can't afford insurance or because so many doctors and health care settings will not participate in their state's Medicaid program. This is understandable because of low government re-imbursement and government "red tape." But this is so unfortunate for so many poor people, as so many of them are more likely than more affluent people, to die of preventable diseases because of their lack of access to affordable health care. In plain terms, you can die from the lack of health care!
          This sad tendency to prefer some some lives over others is seen in the dollar amounts in settlements. In one case, years ago, one woman stepped in front of a train, waiting for the train to run over her. However, she survived. Claiming postpartum depression as her defense, she won a huge settlement of $13 million! On the other hand, I have seen cases of wrongful death suits where the plaintiffs won far smaller settlements of $100,000 or less! Why? The deceased persons involved were older and had underlying medical or mental health issues. Message? Our lives are seen as more valuable when we are young and healthy.
          This sad phenomenon is seen in the ever-present tendency of life insurance companies to deny coverage to applicants who have underlying health issues or unhealthy lifestyles. I can understand denying coverage to those who choose basically unhealthy lifestyles. But medical conditions are not the choice of the applicants or the choice of those whom they are taking out life insurance policies for. The sad fact is that medical conditions are seen as financial liabilities for life insurance companies and so their lives seen as less valuable. And this is also seen in the tendency of many health insurance companies to to deny coverage to any person with a "pre-existing condition." President Obama's health care plan is set up to address this, as when "Obamacare" takes effect, as expected, in 2014, health insurance companies are expected to accept new members with pre-exising conditions and not make them go through a waiting period.
          This phenomenon is seen in our criminal justice sytem. Who are able to hire to best attorneys to represent them and to compel judges and juries to rule in their favor? To net them the biggest cash settlements? To defend them in criminal cases? To spare them the death penalty, long prison sentences or even any prison? The wealthy and celebrities! O. J. Simpson is the prime example of an accused murderer who was able to avoid a murder conviction because he could afford to hire a "dream team." Yes, he is now in prison because he was convicted of an armed robbery. On the other hand, many poor people, especially those who are minorities, with invisible disabilities, find themselves convicted much more often than their counterparts. Also, they are much less able to afford good attorneys and othen have to use public defenders in criminal cases. Sadly, it is they who are much more likely to be wrongfully convicted and imprisoned. Currently, a young man with autism and friom a poor family of color, Reginald "Neli" Latson, is serving prison time, being convicted of assault on a police officer. This is even though Neli steadfastly maintains that he did not have a gun in his possession and was acting in self-defense. He is just one such example.
          Death shows us that we are all equal, as every one of us, no matter who we are, will die. As I write this, the singer, Whitney Houston, has been dead for hours and at the age of 48. This is today's ultimate illustration that we are all equal, not only when we are conceived but when we die. It is too bad that it takes tragedy to make us see things more clearly and most of all, to see people as they really are. And even more, it is sad that it takes tragedy to get us to see our need for God Who has created us as equal.
          The death of Whitney Houston is tragic, not because she was a very talented celebrity with a gorgeous voice but first of all, because she was a human being. Just as would be and is the case with each of us.
      

1-800-273-TALK (8255) And My Thoughts on Suicide and Life

           Suicide. It is not a topic we like to talk about, like so many other crucial topics. It is all too easy, when people make suicidal remarks, to ignore these remarks or to tell them, "Oh, you should not even think about doing that." On Facebook, months ago, it was brought to my attention that an individual in my network had posted a status update that contained thinly-veiled suicidal references and mentioned about being "in Heaven" or something to that effect. I had not seen that post until another person mentioned that "We need to love each other better" and mentioned how this person did not get enough comments on his suicidal post (thank God, the person seems to be doing okay and occasionally posts on Facebook). But it causes me to think how we need to show each other that we care, listen to each others' concerns and not wait for a tragedy to happen. By then it can be too late!
        In the world of pop music, there are songs that casually allude to suicide. There is the "Don't Fear the Reaper" song with lyrics that make suicide appear to be an option to dealing with life when it gets to hard. In the world of so-called medicine, the late Dr. Jack Kavorkian lived to promote his particular brand of physician-assisted suicide. And over and over again, the media bring to us the heart-wrenching stories of children and young people who take their own lives as a result of the vicious bullying they experience. And suicide contributes to the epidemic of missing and unidentified people.
        In my own life, I was midiagnosed with "anxiety disorder" because the autism spectrum disorder" diagnosis (another topic) did not exist. Aside from having to take medications for to control epileptic seizures, when I was in my teens, psychiatrists placed me on a number of "anti-anxiety" drugs that produced in me deep depression, bizarre physical symptoms and, ultimately, erased inhibitions that resulted in behavior that, to this day, I cringe to even think about. And I entered the mental health system, and had suicidal thoughts because of these medication side effects, the way I responded to these meds and the way people responded to me. Because of my misdiagnosis and the inappropriate interventions I was subjected to for almost all my youth, I am much sensitized to the stigma of things like mental illness and other related disorders.
       Yes, I know that there are many other issues that surround suicide, like bullying (another topic I want to cover later), addictions, eating disorders, crime, domestic violence, human trafficking, and more, including, as already mentioned, mental illness and missing/unidentified people. Oh, and I should mention homelessness. I'm sure you can add others I have not thought of.
       There is a fine organization that exists to prevent and end suicide through education, intervention and a 24-hour hotline. The organization is called National Suicide Prevention Hotline "1-800-273-TALK (8255)." This hotline is available 24 hours a day and, according to posts I have seen on their Facebook page, you may not be able to reach anyone right away, due to the number of other callers. But you should ultimately be able to get through. This service is available to the public.
      You can get to their Facebook page at: https://www.facebook.com/800273TALK
      Now let's get more positive here. I don't want to end this on such a gloomy, doomy note. For no matter how grim, discouraging, or even hopeless things may look, know that you have a Creator and He loves you and has a plan for you. You may not be able to see it now. Whatever you believe about God, killing, including killing one's self, is no answer to solving any problem. I feel for the families and friends of those who have lost loved ones to suicide and, months ago, I actively advocated for the families of soldiers who have lost their lives to suicide, that they should receive condolence letters from the US government, same as all the other families of troops who have given their lives for our freedoms. Like the person in my network posted earlier this year, we need to love each other better so that people will not take their lives because they don't feel cared for.
      Life is precious.