I was just reading Monkey Girl’s blog, a favorite progressive blog of mine, and she has been hassled as of late with a name-calling neo-con. Monkey Girl runs a great blog; she’s fair-minded and loves a good debate. But when it comes to the “A word” (AKA the abortion issue), the guy's apparently one of those men who thinks women can’t think or reason. She took a stand, made the rules clear, and has continued to fight the good fight in an entirely above-board manner. I applaud Monkey Girl, standing up for her beliefs, and remaining the consummate professional. Way to go, Girlfriend.
While posting a comment on her site, I realized it was time to get back on the ol’ political horse and comment on the Bush Administration’s last minute dirty tricks – the legislation they’re trying to push through, in a way that makes changing them as difficult as legally possible.
Once again, they’re trying to limit Roe v. Wade in the only way they can. The so-called, “Rule of Conscience,” gives all sorts of providers the right to opt-out of providing services they find “morally objectionable.” This opens up many more issues than that of limiting a woman’s choice. According to The Washington Post, “it will be a major obstacle to providing many health services, including abortion, family planning, infertility treatment, and end-of-life care, as well as possibly a wide range of scientific research.” Think about that. Not only can your pharmacist proselytize at you that the pill is wrong, your HMO doctor has the right to tell you he won’t perform an abortion, even if your life is threatened. Want your son to keep his foreskin? Find another doctor. Can’t have children? Tough, must be God’s will. And stem cell research, a cure for Alzheimer's or Parkinson's? Tell your Dad he's outta luck. Not going to happen in a lab that's getting Federal dollars. By the way, this ruling includes health plans - your HMO can decide a procedure is immoral (read: too costly!) and not support it on "moral grounds." This is simply a big ol’ Christmas present to the right wing conservative Christian base. Because, hey, there’s nothing more in the spirit of Christmas than restricting the rights and religious beliefs of others, at least by this administration’s way of thinking. The fact that this could be written so broadly and slipped under the rug so conveniently is an abominable, underhanded and disgraceful act. No wonder the Bush Administration thought of it!
The thing that blows me away about the comments of Monkey Girl’s “stalker,” for lack of a better term, (please, check out her blog – she handles him beautifully…), is that it’s such a hypocritical stance he takes. Right now, millions of kids are “timing out” of the foster care system. I don’t know about you, but I have yet to see an anti-choice, neo-con lined up to adopt older kids. Or special needs kids. Everyone wants to adopt cute little babies. No one wants the kids 5 and older. I don’t know any Republican friends or acquaintances who’ve given special needs kids a home. However, many of my gay and lesbian friends have adopted special needs and older children. They’ve created loving families for kids who would normally be in foster care until 18 and then kicked out to fend for themselves in society, with no family support. It surely appears that the Gay and Lesbian adoptive families are acting as Christ would have wanted us to act. “Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me.” Christ did not say to love the cutest and littlest, not those who are easy to love. He said the least, those looked past by others, those society has forgotten. But hey, if God meant for you not to have kids, we have a new law that says we can reject you for fertility treatment so you can wait to adopt just cute little babies and ignore other foster kids. No problem. Hypocrisy? You be the judge.
The other thing that really irks me about this whole issue is the idea that abortion is a choice any woman would want to have to make. It is clearly a choice she is forced to make. In my profession, I have seen children who are neglected, abused and unloved. Victims of incest, kids with no food on the table, or little ones who come to school with black eyes or cigarette burns. Kids given up to foster care because they’re unwanted or removed from the parents because Mom’s on drugs and Dad’s in jail, or just not wanted anymore. What is the more moral choice? To subject these innocent little people to abuse and neglect, or wait until such time that a child will be loved, cared for and wanted? I know that many men will never understand the agonizing choice this is for a woman to make. But I assure you, it is not a choice anyone wants to make. Those of you who are my "frequent flyers" know that I am a Catholic. While I can’t say that I think I could ever choose to have an abortion, (honestly, until I am put in that position, I can't say for certain what I would do), I most adamantly believe it is not my right to legislate away a choice other women may need to make. Period.
Anyhow, I am not up for a huge debate on the issue. This is not a resolvable issue, or one where minds are changed by discourse. But I felt compelled to speak out after commenting on Monkey Girl’s recent hassles with her neo-con stalker-dude. She’s right: speak out and be heard regarding the recent Bush legislation, the chipping away of Roe v. Wade and the pushing of an American theocracy. Or you can face the alternative: living under one for good. So, you go, Monkey Girl. And this is one sistah who’s behind you a hundred percent.
Sex work and solidarity
1 day ago