Broun vs. Board

Rep Paul Broun (R-GA) is campaigning to make 2010 the Year of the Bible. Politico reports that Broun has introduced the bill to the House of Representatives for history's sake. A commemoration, if you will.

“This doesn’t have anything to do with Christianity,” he said in an interview with POLITICO. Rather, he says, it seeks to recognize that the Bible played an integral role in the building of the United States, including providing the basis for our freedom of religion that allows Muslims, Hindus and even atheists to vocalize their own beliefs.

Well, if you want to get technical, the Bible itself didn't have anything to do with providing that freedom of religion. The way that people were interpreting the Bible did. People were discriminating, killing, and marginalizing other people who had different beliefs about Christianity. That's just counting the Christian conflicts over religion in Europe. I'm sure there were other sects of religion that made the journey over to America.

I am not arguing the Bible does not provide solid doctrine for tolerance of other people, and brotherly love, ect., ect., because if I did argue that, I would be an idiot. I am saying that the way this argument is formulated, it makes one think that the Christians who came over here from England to escape persecution weren't running from people using basically the same Bible.

But the point is, most of our founding fathers were Christian. It was the dominant founding religion. So if Broun wants to argue that the Bible had influence over their thought process, lives, ect., and therefore had influence over how they started the country and made laws, fine. It probably did.

This whole "Year of the Bible" thing sounds a bit fluffy to me though, and doesn't seem like it's going to serve any particular purpose.

Is it going to be like Black History Month? Are Universities going to host seminars on the different sects of Christianity that developed or migrated to America? Are they going offer lecture series about Irish-Americans who were discriminated against for their Catholic beliefs? Will there be History Channel documentaries on The Faith of Our Fathers, discussing how Thomas Jefferson chopped up the Bible to remove any reference to Jesus' divinity and how George Washington stopped going to church on communion days?

Probably there will be all of these things, and then some, but those events would have taken place anyways without the help of the Year of the Bible.

While the bill probably won't ever pass (currently it finds only 15 co-sponsers), it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, and in the end probably won't be much more than a laugh, it still seems like it's being pushed forward only as a bone to Christian supporters of Broun. But I can't blame him. He is a representative of Georgia, and we do reside in prime Bible-belt real estate. Perhaps the reason the bill doesn't sound so monumental to me is, if you go to the right areas where I live, every year is the Year of the Bible.

War on Drugs

In the continuing wacky adventures of The Decider before he graciously steps down, MSN has decided to cover Bush's proposal of a bill that would "protecting health-care workers who object to abortion, and to birth-control methods they consider tantamount to abortion".

The Department of Health and Human Services is reviewing a draft regulation that would deny federal funding to any hospital, clinic, health plan or other entity that does not accommodate employees who want to opt out of participating in care that runs counter to their personal convictions, including providing birth-control pills, IUDs and the Plan B emergency contraceptive.

This reminds me of a story that ran in USA today last August (coincidentally enough) about a lesbian couple who had been denied access to artificial insemination because the doctor objected on moral grounds. They sued, not because the doctor rejected the mother-to-be, but because he refused refer them to a hospital where the procedure could be carried out. The article also quoted single mothers who had faced a similar challenge.

As a Christian, I can understand that there are a lot of moral conflicts that could meet any person in any work environment, and for that reason, these proposed regulations could have their pros. However, I fear this:

The regulation would apply to anyone who participates in "any activity with a logical connection to a procedure, health service or health service program, or research activity. . . . This includes referral, training and other arrangements of the procedure, health service, or research activity."
Critics argue that the broad definitions of abortion and the types of workers who could object would cover everyone from the top doctor at a hospital to the janitor.

And this:

The regulation could trump dozens of state laws that require health plans to cover birth control, pharmacists to fill prescriptions for contraceptives, and hospitals to offer emergency contraception to women who have been raped, critics said.

"You could imagine a group of people with less than honorable intentions seeking to get hired at a family planning clinic with the specific objective of obstructing access. Under this regulation, there is little you could do about it," said Jill Morrison of the National Women's Law Center.

Most importantly, this:

Others said the rule could have additional implications, including justifying discrimination against gays, single women or others seeking health care.
"As soon as you have a definition in one part of federal law, it can become the inspiration for the reinterpretation of other statutes," said R. Alta Charo, a lawyer and bioethicist at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.

Because of this:

The most controversial section defines abortion as "any of the various procedures -- including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action -- that results in the termination of life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation."
That definition would include most forms of hormonal birth control and the IUD, which most major medical groups believe do not constitute abortion because they primarily affect ovulation or fertilization and not an embryo once it has implanted in the womb.

Here's where I try to make suggestions, knowing that drafting a bill that doesn't infringe on some person's rights is problematic at best, and that this particular government has been trying for ages to negate the rulings of Roe vs. Wade without thinking about the implications to women's health (see previous post on John McCain's view on current issues).

I'd like to say that if you work in a public institution, you should know that your duty is to serve the people in the best manner possible, and if you cannot provide a service, you should refer that person to someone who can. But I know that some people probably wish to get out of the public heath care system and into a private institution.

All I can say is that restrictions on contraception, abortion, and other things that apply to planned parenting should be limited to private institutions, who can make up their own rules and owe nothing to the public or the government. Governmental institutions should serve the people.

Though military workers may disagree with the war that is currently being fought, it is generally considered their duty to follow orders as long as those orders are lawful. Lawyers are expected to make inquiries into the guilt or innocence of their clients so that no guilty men or women are set free, and no innocents detained, and they are expected to do their best to uphold the law despite personal feelings. Medical workers are expected to uphold their duties, which is to help people solve their health concerns. This does not mean they always have to go against their beliefs, but if they work in a public location they should at least be required to give the people a resource for what they choose to do. The path to contraception should not be closed off for any one party's interest. That doesn't mean that consideration for each party's feelings can't be considered in full.

Let's Do the Timewarp Again

McCain's campaign has recently released videos accusing the media of being in love with Obama, and with good reason. Very rarely in this tempestuous season have the issues that McCain stands for or against been addressed -- even in his own speeches. Often in the CNN televised speeches given by McCain, he spends at least half of his time talking about his opponent's weaknesses...and not about what he believes or will do. I believe that McCain plans to win on a scare tactic: "Obama will bring more taxes, will not solve the economic crisis, and will continue our dependence on foreign oil".

Georgia Women Vote made the comment that McCain's website even is Obama central.

So to remind myself what McCain stands for, besides back lashing, I went to his campaign website and took a look.

One of the first things that caught my eye was his plan to repeal the decisions of Roe vs. Wade and return verdict to state level. His ultimate goal in abolishing abortion is outlined, containing quips like "the fight for life will be one of courage and compassion - the courage of a pregnant mother to bring her child into the world and the compassion of civil society to meet her needs and those of her newborn baby". The way he phrases it, it makes it sound as though society has forced these women to abort their pregnancies. One of his first tactics is to relieve individuals of responsibility and make it a philosophical fight rather than what it would be if abortion were made illegal again: a medical one.

His next issue outlined is adoption. While adoption is fantastic, I love the subtle hint to abortion, yet again, in his plan to " promote adoption as a first option for women struggling with a crisis pregnancy". The next time I meet someone who plans on having an abortion, I'm going to encourage them to call it a "crisis pregnancy".

McCain seems to encourage a time warp of sorts -- back into the time when contraception was illegal, when abortion was punishable by law, and when women had to go to back alleys or endanger themselves with coat hangers. By repealing Roe vs. Wade, we put an entire generation of work in danger, and we put ourselves in danger. We are already in the middle of a food shortage globally. We cannot afford another age of baby boomers. We cannot afford to continue on our path of abstinence only education. We cannot afford an age where condoms are not available, and STDs spread more quickly because people do not know how to protect themselves.

I encourage voter's to go to each candidates website, especially the three leading: Bob Barr, John McCain, and Barack Obama. Only by understanding the issues from each candidates perspective can we vote intelligently and bring ourselves forward, rather than backtracking into the past, or (what could be considered worse) continuing on the fruitless path we're on. Everyone needs to vote in November. Rights are endanger, and policies that are negative to the health of our country are being proposed.

I'll Only Go to Capital Hill with Confirmed I.D.

I found this interesting. As a resident of the South, I want to know what laws are in place that keep black voters from the polls. And the quote from Brian C. Bosma (R) was a little ridiculous. Of course most people intend to vote more than once.

But really, overall, I have to say I agree with the Senate's decision (hear that, Alex? I agree with the majority Republican vote). Most people have some form of I.D. these days. Even if you don't have a driver's licence, chances are you have work I.D., school I.D., a library card, a birth certificate...go to CVS or Walgreen's and get a passport. Something. It does not take that long.

Plus there has only been one confirmed case of voter fraud entered into the case since 2004, and the only other evidence they have at hand consists of voter fraud in the late 1800s, and 19 ghost votes cast in 2004. That really doesn't speak well for the importance their case holds. Obviously if anyone is being inconvenienced by the strict voting laws in Indiana, they aren't coming forward in droves.

Also, the last time I checked, you needed I.D. to purchase alcohol and cigarettes. You know, those lovely "we card" signs that decorate most convenience stores and Wal-marts? Are you telling me that out of all of these families that are affected by this law, none of them drink? Not a one?

And if indeed at least one of these homes contains alcohol (as many of the homes in America do, regardless of their income), I want to know where they are getting it. The black market? The local speakeasy?

The whole argument seems a bit contrived.

The Second Head Makes Up For Lack of Intelligence in the First One...

I'm not a big fan of chain letters. I can't possibly tell you why. Maybe it's the fact that no matter how many times I read a passage that assures me I will drop dead if I do not forward it in thirty seconds to fifty people, I always stand alive at the end of the prescribed time. Maybe it's because they waste my time. Maybe it's because they sometimes carry trojans and such (and worse than that, misleading information that can only fuel ignorant thought). But my sister sent me one that sparked my interest:

Dear Friend,

On Wednesday, Senate Republicans filibustered the Lilly Ledbetter Fair PayAct, a law that would have overturned an appalling Supreme Court decision that practically abolished remedies for gender-based compensation discrimination in the workplace. In opposing this legislation, Senator John McCain said that if women want better-paying jobs, they just need more "education and training." Then, he didn't even show up for the vote. Let's tell Senator McCain that should stop blocking an up or down vote on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act if he wants to ensure equal rights for women under the law. Please have a look and take action. http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/mccain_vs_ledbetter/?r_by=27-1292351-NI2TzN&rc=mailto

Thanks!

So, of course, I fact checked. This presidential race has gotten pretty ugly in the past, and damaging rumors have been spread, such as Obama being a Muslim. I still find it unreasonable that we were willing to consider a Mormon and a bigoted preacher for the nomination, but not a Muslim --who turned out to actually be Christian, no less. Who knew?

Just anyone who actually cared to check their sources. Anyways, back to the subject.

Yahoo! News provided me with the necessary proof (thank you Associated Press!). After reading the entire article, and understanding under what circumstances the statement was made, I am even more appalled than I was originally. Alex, my closest friend and surrogate sister said that things like this make the Femi-nazi in me come out blazing. Well, she-Hitler is furious. On several occasions Alex and I have had conversations about McCain, and often I have stated that he creeps me out, but I didn't know why. Well, now I know that it's more than the fact that he sounds just like Dubya unless you're facing the television.

"I am all in favor of pay equity for women, but this kind of legislation, as is
typical of what's being proposed by my friends on the other side of the
aisle, opens us up to lawsuits for all kinds of problems," the expected GOP
presidential nominee told reporters.

-Yahoo! News and AP

Translation: yeah, I understand that companies are taking advantage of women and making the pay gap an even greater divide. I understand that the actions I take against this bill is another set back against the ERA being ratified, which would guarantee that women cannot be discriminated against. To hell with the poverty and the single mothers. Why fight it?

I really don't know why, but I expected something more from McCain than this show of chauvinistic behavior. What does he mean, "women need more education"? We need more education than a man to do the same job he is doing? Why doesn't he need the extra instruction? Is he special just because God gave him two heads?

"They need the education and training, particularly since more and more women
are heads of their households, as much or more than anybody else," McCain
said. "And it's hard for them to leave their families when they don't have
somebody to take care of them.
"It's a vicious cycle that's affecting
women, particularly in a part of the country like this, where mining is the
mainstay; traditionally, women have not gone into that line of work, to say
the least," he said.
-Yahoo! News and AP

Well, that explains everything then, doesn't it?

Out of curiosity, does McCain know that the percentage of female valedictorians often outweighs the male? Does he know that more and more females are receiving distinctions and honors from college over men? In that one little blurb, I can see that he implies that physical labor such as mining is only "alternatively" taken up by women rather than "traditionally" and that women neglecting their duties to stay home and take care of their children, like any good June Cleaver mother would.

If mining is a "main-stay" in that province, then more than likely women are involved. If women need more education and training to earn the same pay that men do, then really isn't he just telling women to equip themselves to take over the country? After all, in that case their intellect would further outstrip the up-starts that make more based on their genitals rather than their degrees.

But it's okay. I'm sure the GOP will find further ways to keep the women-folk in line.