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.

How Free Should Free Speech Be?

          A few months ago, on Facebook and on both my accounts, I sent many people in my social networks invitations to a Facebook cause called "Join in the Fight to Stop Dishonoring the President." I was gratified to get a good response to this cause, though many simply ignored it. Always, I attached a message with the cause, stressing that it was nonpartisan, not agenda-driven and with a focus to restore honor to the office of the Presidency despite past Presidents' unPresidential conduct that has disgraced the office. However, many still saw this cause as controversial and offensive and let me know it. They sent me messages, telling me angrily, "Don't ever send send this to me again! Don't ask me to support HIM!" or "I'm not about to support this PIG!" One person declared, "This is it! I'm unfriending you now! No Obama supporters will stay on my page!"
          Even more recently, I had posted about a very popular, even "cool" child abuse awareness movement that sponsored many awareness events, complete with a host of festivites during the month of April. Though I, like any person of good will, am gratified when people work to help children in distress and seek to protect all children (I'm a mom, after all), I felt a vague unease about the Founder of this movement and how this Founder was going about it all. Also, the tight financial situations of most of those close to me made fund-raising unrealistic. However, I agreed to raise awareness and was the top recuiter to their cause on the Facebook Causes site, much of because well-meaning people seemed to see adding their names to this cause as somehow the "cool" thing to do to show their support and help abused children. Eventually, on Wednesday, March 21, I published my blog about this movement, targeting those who knew nothing about it and mainly with them in mind. I mentioned my concerns about the cost-effectiveness of all the awareness efforts of this movement and mentioned that the media was "hyping it up." I ended my blog with a challenge to people to not limit their help of abused children to involvement in this movement but to get involved on their own. I had provided the toll-free 24/7 child abuse hotline in conclusion. Proud of my effort, I erred in sending the link to this blog to the Founder as well as to the (now former) Public Relations person. This backfired almost immediately! For the following morning, I was aghast to see that the Public Relations (PR) person, who showed me much support, sent me an angry message, hitting me hard with this person's angry accusations about the blog's unfairness and bias and lack of background research. She referred to a few of my past posts, accusing me of  of "snarky" expressions of "vitriol" toward the Founder. I couldn't send her a reply and saw that she had removed me from her friends list. Apparently, this PR person, in her anger, went back to the Founder, as this person totally blocked me on Facebook so that this Founder became invisible to me. My membership in this movement was abruptly terminated!
          On my end, I have encountered many, many people who, in-person and online, have made it clear that they hold views that strongly oppose my views. Many months ago, I sent invites to many people, inviting them to see a video called "God's Love Letter." A person whom I sent the invite to, sent me a message saying,  "Don't sent me religious stuff anymore. I don't do God." On Facebook, I have seen many posts defending gun ownership rights, especially in the wake of high-profile shootings. Because we are in the time of Presidential campaigns, on both my accounts, more and more people have made it public which Candidate they support or oppose, knowing, I'm sure, that they will offend many with opposing views. Myself, I have never ended relationships becaue of opposing views though I have lost many Facebook "friendships" over mine.
          There is a Facebook cause and there are a few Facebook pages called "Spread the Word to End the Word," meaning stopping the practice of any future use of the word "retarded." "Homophobia" refers to fear and hate of anything in reference to homosexuals and homosexuality, but this word has been extended to saying anything negative about homesexuality and other related sexual orientation issues even out of one's deep religious convictions. Also, to emphasize the wrong of actually hurtful speech, we have coined the term "verbal abuse" and when it's done online, we call it "cyberbullying."
          All of these examples and many more, refer to the question of how many free speech rights we are entitled to until they cross the line into speech that hurts others, even scars them for life. It seems that we all extol the virtues of the First Amendment until others exercise their own free speech to the point of offending us with their opposing views. So many friendships and other relationships have been harmed or severed because of the inability to respect the free speech rights of others or because of confusing free speech with with abusive speech. According to my research, the most common reason for Facebook "unfriendings," especially among women, are posts that they see as offensive, anything ranging from opposing political viewpoints to pornographic photos.
          At home, when we have had our TV on  political programming, frequently members of the opposing political party from the one our family supports, speak on talk shows and in campaign ads. And let me tell you, the name-calling can get heated! When members of the opposing party take opposing postions from those we hold dear, I will keep quiet, knowing these people have the same First Amendment rights that those of my own party do even though I DO NOT LIKE what they are saying. Others, though, seeing these positions as personal attacks on them, will often yell things like "Shut up!" and "We don't want to hear ANYTHING you have to say!" and attack the motives of the opposing party. While I have not indulged in name-calling this opposing party, I have (certainly in my thoughts) and aloud, have accused this party of wrong motives.  But, even though politicians and their outspoken supporters say things that may anger us and offend us, must this always become a hostile shouting match? Even when people say things that offend us, whatever it's about, as long as what they say is respectful and clean, shouldn't it be considered as protected free speech? Yes, there are many times, at home, when we have taken offense when the opposing party has indulged in name-calling and verbally abusing our party, attacking our motives, indulging in hate and mean-spiritedness. Though it's so easy to attack the motives of those who oppose our deeply cherished views, especially in politics and religion, it shouldn't be done, as the opponents' view is just as real to them as ours is to us.
          Then there's the matter of whether people have the right to hold postions on contoversial issues they aren't close to or can't relate to, personally. For example, very recently, in Congress, an all-male panel met to to discuss access to contraception for women vs. religious liberty; this has angered many woman, as no women served on this panel. Also, for months, politicians, all male, have been arguing for the need to limit women's access to contraception. The basis of female anger at all this is because this effort comes across as another effort at male dominance and "men telling women what to do with their bodies." This seems so offensive, in light of the fact that it's women's bodies that get pregnant and women who have to deal with pregnancy's consequences. In untimely pregnancies, it's usually the woman who has to make all the tough decisions (single-parenting, adoption, abortion) and then live with permanent consequences, regardless of the choice made. The arguments men make is that women's choices in contraception and pregnancy do affect them, especially when they learn about aborted children whom they had fathered and saw that they were left out of the decision-making process. Also, many men want to control the size of their families. Along the same lines on another issue, many parents resent advice from those who aren't raising children, forgetting that everyone has once been a child themselves. And so on and on with other issues. Lack of closeness to or experience of an issue doesn't mean that one can't have and express opinions on it, as long as the opinions are expressed with respect and without profanity.
          Returning to the topic of my recent March 21 blog about the popular child abuse awareness movement and the consequences I experienced because of it, the PR person for this movement said that I had no right to opine about a topic that I had not researched. When I was drafting my blog, I searched the Founder's entire website, which I had visited multiple times and saw that it lacked most information needed for accountability and transparency. Over a week later, allegations against this Founder came out that were worse than my suspicions, which were based on this Founder's lack of transparency and accountability and the many posts on this Founder's Facebook page and business page, including personal "glamor shots" and apparent narcissism. The PR person for this movement announced on that person's business page the need to resign involvement in the movement though that person has never reconnected with me. Lesson? When we use free speech we need to be ready to take the consequences, which are often unwanted.
          But many forms of speech clearly cross the line into abuse, because of profanity that distracts others from what we really want to say or or exploits others in the making of it, like pornography or wounds people emotionally. We have heard of many bullycides where kids were so hurt by relentless verbal bullying that they didn't want to live anymore. We have heard of many killers who have, in the past, viewed pornography or other such destructive material. And many break-ups and divorces happen because many partners and spouses are so hurt by chronic verbal abuse that they want out of the relationship. Words can indeed hurt, often for life.
          Want free speech rights? Allow others to exercise theirs and use yours with clean language and with all respect.