two minas

Murder? Or just her right to choose?

2007-09-06T08:57:00.001-07:00

I've been following the disturbing case of the Maryland woman who hid the bodies of her deceased infants in her home, including the body of her recently stillborn child.

The facts are bizarre and scant but authorities have charged the mother, Christy Freeman, with first degree murder, second degree murder, and manslaughter---all for the death of the most recent infant. They say they need to determine if the remains of the other infants also belonged to Freeman and what the causes of death were before determining if more charges wlll be brought.

Apparently, the prosecutor has accused Freeman of causing the stillborn birth.

Again, the facts aren't all in, but if it does turn out that she played a role in the death of her infant(s), I'm all for throwing the book at her. The part I can't understand, is how she can be charged at all? The charges are being brought under a 2005 law that makes it illegal to kill a viable fetus. The law makes an exception for abortion and also reads, "Nothing in this section applies to an act or failure to act of a pregnant woman with regard to her own fetus". And further notes, "Nothing in this section shall be construed to confer personhood or any rights on the fetus". It looks like the MD Legislature was very careful to make killing a pre-born child a crime only if the mother did not want the child killed.

According to a Fox News article, the exception regarding the pregnant woman's action was put in to protect a woman's right to abortion, even though another execption more explicitly mentions abortion. If this is the case, and the law was not intended to protect a woman who intentionally, physically, harms her own fetus, then I'm curious about the rationale behind such a law. How is it that an abortion is ok, but doing it yourself is not? Of course I'm glad for any prosecution, even if it is inconsistent.

I don't know how this law and the charges will shake out, but I'm waiting for the uproar from the pro-aborts---she had every right to kill her baby before it was born didn't she? Whatever the reason, I'm glad this woman is being charged, and I hope (naively I'm sure) that it might cause some to recognize that causing the stillborn birth of a viable fetus is no different from performing an abortion in the hospital or in a clinic.

I am pleased to note that VA's fetal homicide bill is more comprehensive since it does not require that the fetus be viable in order for a crime to have ocurred. However, since the law reads, "kills the fetus of another", I wonder if a woman would be charged for killing her own fetus in VA. Anyone know?

What's in a name?

2007-09-06T08:55:00.000-07:00

I just heard about a bill in congress to recognize drug and alcohol abuse as an addiction. S.1011 and H.R.1348 both move to change the names of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) to the National Institute on Disease of Addiction and the National Institute on Alcohol Disorders and Health respectively.

A Slate article by Sally Satel and Scott Lilienfeld brought this bill to my attention, and I agree with their position that viewing addiction as a disease is a bad idea. (Read the article here)

The text of the Senate bill reads in part, "Addiction is a chronic, relapsing brain disease that is characterized by compulsive drug seeking and use, despite harmful consequences."

Renaming the two institutes might be a fairly benign action that goes unoticed by many, but this establishes some bad principles. Calling something a disease removes personal responsibilty allowing someone to play a victim to his/her "disease" of addiction. And though the bill indicates that the term "abuse" is pejorative and can prevent someone from seeking treatment, I would think that calling something a disease might lead someone to think the cure was another's responsiblity and further hinder the chance of getting sober. I'm sure there is legitimate debate about these terms, but I wonder why Congress needs to take a stand?

I consider also that new addictions seem to be cropping up all over the place---I have heard of video game addictions, of TV addictions, even carb addictions---and of course addiction to pornography. Will we eventually be asked to consider all of these diseases? I wonder also how such a move might affect employment hiring and firing practices. If one's addiction is a disease, might the employer be obligated to provide sick leave or other benefits for behaviors that would otherwise lead to firing?

False Advertising?

2007-09-06T08:51:00.000-07:00

Recently, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) introduced the Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women's Services Act (H.R. 2478). According to Maloney's website, this bill is necessary to

crack down on the brazen false advertising tactics of some deceptive, radical anti-choice Crisis Pregnancy Centers, or CPCs. Some federally funded crisis pregnancy centers have been proven to advertise false information about the services they provide in order to lure women seeking abortion information and then talk them out of the procedure.

Let me be clear---I object to any pregnancy center that uses deception to get women through the door. However, I wonder how many such centers can really be found, and I would be interested to see this "proof". Undoubtedly there are some centers that engage in deception, but most centers are honest. They are affiliated with larger organizations, like CareNet and Heartbeat International, that insist on honest advertising.

Is this bill really about a handful of dishonest centers out of thousands of honest ones? Maloney has a radical pro-choice position so it is hard for me to believe this bill has reasonable aims. Consider some of the other quotations from Maloney's site regarding this bill,

“People need to know the truth about Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs). Most do not offer comprehensive reproductive health care options or medically accurate information,” said Vicki Saporta, President and CEO of the National Abortion Federation (NAF).

“New York City has seen firsthand how crisis pregnancy centers deliberately confuse women by establishing themselves near legitimate reproductive health care centers. These fake clinics have opened in close proximity to our Brooklyn and Bronx centers, misleading clients seeking the unbiased care that Planned Parenthood provides...As health care providers you need to be honest with your patients. Fake clinics are not honest. They are not health care providers and they need to stop pretending to be,” said Joan Malin, President and CEO of Planned Parenthood of New York City.

Yes, I'm sure we can all agree that Planned Parenthood has an unbiased perspective---afterall, they don't have any monetary stake in a woman's decision do they? And actually, many pregnancy centers do offer medical services---professional pregnancy tests, STD testing, and ultrasounds. They are trained by medical professionals to offer medically accurate information, and the resources they use list references for all the medical facts. Many centers also offer ongoing support, parenting education, material aid such as diapers, clothes, furniture and numerous community resources. They do all of this free of charge. Hmm, sounds like a good deal---no wonder Planned Parenthood is concerned.

Maloney's site also offers background for this bill, linking it to Henry Waxman's (D-CA) 2006 report on pregnancy centers.

Waxman’s investigation detailed how some federally-funded CPCs misled investigators about the consequences of abortions. Staff at these centers told investigators, who posed as pregnant 17-year-olds, that abortion leads to breast cancer, infertility, and mental illness.

Actually, all of these claims are supported by numerous studies. Linking this new bill with Waxman's study demonstrates where this bill is coming from and what the purpose is. This bill is not about protecting women from deception, it is about preventing pregnancy centers from offering their services. Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers are businesses, this bill is an attempt to protect their profits, not women.

VA. county fights illegal immigration

2007-07-16T08:19:00.000-07:00

As a former resident of Prince William County, I have been following the new illegal immigration proposals there with interest. On Tuesday, lawmakers unanimously approved the new measure aimed at discouraging the presence of illegal immigrants in Prince William County.

The new measure (read portions here) has several components, but one crucial aspect is that county workers will verify that individuals are legally present before providing services. According to the measure, the county will have 90 days to study which services will be denied and how the program will be implemented.

The coverage on this measure yields predictable responses. A Washington Post article got comments from an illegal woman,

Outside a county health clinic yesterday, Millie, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because she is undocumented, started to tremble when told of the resolution. She moved to Prince William 15 years ago and overstayed her visa. "I don't know how people will live in this country," she said. "Your house will be like a prison. People will be dying of fear."

When Millie questions how people will live in this country, she unknowingly hits on the point---we don't want illegal immigrants living in this country. And the fear she speaks of is a fear anyone who breaks the law should feel: fear of being caught. Currently, with so little enforcement many illegals have nothing to fear.

The Post also made sure to hit that other predictable response: opposing illegal immigration makes one hate filled and racist.

"There's a lot of hate in this county," said Tulio Diaz, a native of Puerto Rico who has lived in Prince William since 1972. He also suspects another motive behind the measures. "It's an election year, and it's a great wedge issue," he said. "So who do you pick on?"

The Daily Press article on the new measure quoted one woman with a concern about education,

"I am here because it's against justice," said Maria Hernandez, a U.S. citizen and former illegal immigrant from El Salvador... "How is it possible that our children won't have an education because they are illegal?"

It is uncertain whether the new measure will be applied to education, and if it is there will be a court battle since currently children of illegal immigrants are guaranteed access to public education. But I am curious that Ms. Hernandez doesn't see the illogic in her question. I could ask, "How is it I can't rob a bank because it is illegal?" "How is it I can't have access to recreational drugs becasue they are illegal?" It looks like I answer my own question---because it's illegal.

Unfortunately, many politicians in this country don't see the illogic. And fortunately, the leaders in Prince William County do.

Remembering the principle

2007-07-10T15:48:00.000-07:00

I recently came across a great article on embryonic stem cell research. The author, Dr. Jennifer Morse brings up some true, but too infrequently mentioned facts about this controversial branch of stem cell research.

In fact, stem cells from adults and umbilical cord blood have been used in the treatment of over 70 different diseases and medical conditions. Embryonic stem cell research is still in its, well, embryonic stages.

She notes that embryos are not as easy to come by as some argue:

Advocates of unlimited experimentation on human embryos often claim that 400,000 frozen embryos would just go to waste unless they are made available for research. Yet few couples sign the waiver allowing their unused embryos to be donated for research. A 2003 Rand Corporation report found that only 2.8 percent, or 11,000 frozen embryos are available for research that involves their destruction.

Indeed, this lack of embryos has resulted in concerns about women selling their eggs--often poor women who will sacrifice their health and future fertility (harvesting the eggs does have risks) for the large sums of money they are offered.

Dr. Morse also encourages the reader to follow the money:

Big bio-tech companies stand to make money from government subsidy of embryonic stem cell research. By contrast, the use of stem cells from non-destructive sources has already produced cures, and will ultimately be cheaper to the health care consumer...However the embryos are obtained, someone, somewhere must maintain a genetically diverse “bank” of embryos, waiting to be used for therapeutic purposes. This would be more expensive than maintaining a blood bank of umbilical cord blood...But for some people, that expense is exactly the point. Significant economic interests are at stake in doing the research, maintaining the embryo bank, and patenting the embryonic material.

These are all excellent points and Dr. Morse helps answer the common sense question: if other forms of stem cell research yield better success and more hope for the future, why the fixation on stem cell research?

However to me, the facts Dr. Morse highlights are a 'bonus' in the embryonic stem cell debate; they should not form the foundation of the argument. The foundation of the argument against embryonic stem cell research is that it destroys a human life. If we knew that embryonic stem cell research would produce a cure for cancer, Alzheimers, and Parkinsons, I would still be against it. The ends do not justify the means, and to debate the research on the grounds of which form is more effective misses the moral principle.

A recent column by William Saleton on Slate demonstrates where such "anything to save a human life" thinking takes us--of course such thinking only applies to those lives society deems worth saving. His column talks about chimeras--animal/human combinations that are used in research. The newest forms of this involve giving human elements to mice brains.

This is the logical path society takes when it defines what "life" means, which life is more valuable, and whose life should be sacrificed for the good of others. This is at the heart of embryonic stem cell research and that is why I am against it, no matter how many lives it saves.

Rights misunderstood

2007-06-23T19:43:00.000-07:00

A new bill has been introduced in Congress--The Access to Birth Control Act was introduced last Wednesday. I've always thought that birth control took place before intercourse so I think this bill is misnamed since it deals with the Morning After pill. This bill would require pharmacies to carry the Morning After pill (also called Plan B)

This bill is perceived as necessary since apparently not all pharmacies carry these medications. NARAL recently conducted a survey in N.C. and found that about 40% of pharmacies there did not carry the pills. (see the article)

The logical conclusion for NARAL and those who are sponsoring this bill is that pharmacies must be mandated to provide the Morning After pill for women seeking it. I wonder if after achieving this they would seek to mandate how close such pharmacies need to be, ensuring that a woman is never more than say 1 hour from a pharmacy?

Those pushing for this law make the illogical jump from an existing right (which I dispute) to mandating that others provide the right. Such thinking is a perversion of rights. My right to free speach does not mean you must listen to me. My right to bear arms does not mean the government must provide me with a gun, nor does it mean stores must be mandated to sell them.

This bill is scary for many reasons. It tramples the religous freedom of any pharmacy that has a religous objection to dispensing these medications. It impedes any pharmacy that might wish to withold the MAP for health concerns. It seeks to violate the freedom of the pharmacies to conduct business as they wish.

But besides all this, it turns the concept of rights on its head--declaring that a right not only guarantees my freedom, but impinges on yours.

The abortion business

2007-06-08T07:18:00.001-07:00

The debate is back--not the pro-choice/pro-life debate, but the debate between pro-lifers who want to fight abortion incrementally and those who take an all or nothing approach. A recent L.A. Times article 'explored' this new evolution of the debate. According to the article, the all or nothing pro-lifers are accusing the incremental camp of using the pro-life movement to make money. Apparently they object to pro-life groups calling the Supreme Court decision on partial birth a victory and using it as a fundraising tool since the decision does not save any babies. (Of course keep in mind this is according to the L.A. Times, it is anyone's guess how accurately they have portrayed the dispute.)

Personally, I think the incremental approach is best because I believe laws help shape opinions and attitudes. Our abortion-on-demand laws provide moral cover and justification for many seeking abortions. "It must be ok, it's legal". Consider the UK's abortion laws--according to their 1967 law, women could get abortions after receiving permission from two doctors and up to 28 weeks of pregnancy (full term is 38-40 weeks). In 1990, the law was further restricted, making it illegal to get an abortion after 24 weeks unless the mother's health is endangered. It is still the law that women must get permission from two doctors. Incidentally, I don't think it's a coincidence that the UK has more restrictions on abortion, and the laws are predicated not on a woman's right to choose, or right to privacy, but on her health. Such a foundation leaves room to roll abortion back, and so in the UK it looks as if the incremental approach has made a difference.

Back to the abortion business--I hope the dueling pro-life movements will remember who the real moneymaker is when it comes to abortion: Planned Parenthood. PP is still the most frequent provider of abortions, and though the number of abortions has been decreasing nationwide in recent years, at PP the number is going up. According to PP's own 2005 report, abortions account for only 3% of their provided services, however the revenue from abortions makes up approx. 30% of their clinic income. (They don't publish this info, it is an estimate based on the number of abortions they performed in 2005 multiplied by the Guttmacher Institute's estimate of the average cost of an abortion.) And this *non-profit* organization turned a profit in 2005 of $55.8 mil. --getting more than $300 mil. from the government...

Which brings us back to VA, which also funds Planned Parenthood. It's worth noting that a 2004 budget amendment to defund PP failed in the State Senate by just 4 votes--elections matter.

Cause for alarm?

2007-05-24T12:54:00.000-07:00

Despite the positive title of the recent Pew study on American Muslims, "Middle Class and Mostly Mainstream", I found some responses considerably alarming.

When asked about who was responsible for carrying out the 9/11 attacks, 28% said it was not Arabs, and 32% said they did not know or refused to answer.

When asked, "Can suicide bombing of civilian targets to defend Islam be justified?" 8% said often/sometimes, 5% responded rarely and 9% did not know or refused to answer. That makes 22% of respondents who did not have a strongly negative response to suicde bombings targeting civilians.

Certainly these are low percentages, and the majority of respondents gave more "mainstream" responses. However, I find it alarming to hear of anyone in our country who can justify suicide bombing, let alone 14% who feel this way. I also find myself curious about the non-responders in this survey. I can understand someone not having an opinion on an elected official, but suicide bombing seems likes a topic everyone should be able to respond to.

When asked about al Qaeda, 15% had a favorable or somewhat unfavorable response, with don't know/refused to answer coming in at a whopping 27%.

Also of interest, the study asked respondents if they thought Government should do more to protect morality in society (59% thought it should) but since many Christians would feel the same way, I think a more pertinent and revealing question would center around the role of Islamic law in our society.

Certainly there were encouraging numbers in here, and granted the U.S. appears to be in the best shape (Great Britain is in the worst) but I still find myself alarmed...And I wonder if the FBI has the addresses for those who thought suicide bombing was justifiable.

The difference between fair and legal

2007-05-21T16:08:00.000-07:00

I recently read an article in the Washington Post which restored my hope in the justice system--well, one judge within one circuit anyway.

At issue was a Howard County wheelchair athlete who has been fighting to have points from her wheelchair races count toward her school's state standings. The judge ruled that it would be unfair for points from the wheelchair races to count since so few schools have wheelchair races. The student would essentially be earning uncontested points for her school to use to advance their standing. The decision had nothing to do with the validity of wheelchair racing and everything to do with making competition among the schools fair. However, what restored my hope was one little sentence:

"The state athletic association's policy toward wheelchair racers might be unfair, Davis (the judge) suggested, but it's not unlawful."

This seems like such a simple concept, yet it is often missing from court decisions. It appears this judge agrees with what my parents told me all those years growing up: life isn't fair. And the fact that it is not fair is not reason to sue someone or write a law. Sometimes things just aren't fair.

According to the article, the Howard student doesn't plan to give up her battle, and there's probably a good chance that she can find a judge who feels that unfair does indeed equate to illegal. But for now I'll cheer for this little bit of common sense.

No choice?

2007-05-21T06:30:00.000-07:00

I recently came across a distressing opinion column in the LA Times–in it, the author talks about the decision he and his wife made to abort two of their four babies 15 weeks into the pregnancy.

At first the column reminded me of another piece a few years ago in the NY Times about a “selective reduction”. At the time I marveled that someone would share her own experience in aborting two of her three babies–abortion is rarely something women are proud of, particularly when the decision is made for such seemingly selfish reasons (the author complained about how should would have to move to Manhattan and buy vats of mayonnaise).

The LA Times column strikes a different note though. The author asserts several times that he and his wife were forced into this decision, and if they did not abort the two, he risked loosing his wife and all the babies. He makes an emotional and anecdotal argument for abortion.

There are many elements of the column that bother me–the author seems capable of great forsight looking down the road to the horrors to come because of the recent S.C. ruling on partial-birth abortion, but does not see the danger that can come from his own reasoning about eliminating babies with fetal abnormalities or autism. He further mischaracterizes the partial-birth abortion debate and mentions that these are midterm abortions that take place between 12-28 weeks, when they typically take place between 20 and 24 weeks (20 weeks is just 3 weeks shy of viability).

But probably what bothered me the most was the author’s logic. He contends that it was necessary, and even warns pro-lifers that one day they may face infertility and find themselves in the same situation. He seems blissfully unaware that he opened this door when he and his wife initially told the doctor they were ok with selective reduction. He indicates that a pro-life individual would lose his/her convictions when faced with a difficult situation.

As a pro-life woman who is familiar with the infertility struggle, I can say that convictions are formed before the difficult situation arises. And again I am struck by the irony of someone from the pro-choice side feeling as if there is no choice. Why does he insist that he had no choice in asserting his “right to choose”? Because so often pro-choice isn’t really about choice, it is about abdicating and refusing to face responsibility. There is always a choice, sometimes it is made in advance, and sometimes it isn’t easy–but there is always a choice.

What does religious freedom really mean?

2007-05-21T06:27:00.000-07:00

You might have noticed some of the stories coming out of Minnesota lately--the Target cashiers who refused to ring up pork products, and the airport cabbies who would not transport individuals who were carrying--or were suspected of carrying--alcohol. I think there is genuine cause for concern, and I find the link between these instances and CAIR's operations in Minnesota interesting.

However, I also see a similarity between the debate over Muslim's having the right to uphold their religious convictions and the debate over pharmacists having the right to uphold their religious convictions--many pharmacists have refused to fill prescriptions for emergency contraceptive (also called Plan B and the morning after pill). In the case of the pharmacists, many people have argued that they should be able to refuse to fill the prescriptions if it violates their moral or religious views. In the case of the Muslim cashiers and cab drivers, I have a feeling those same people would argue that this is not a Muslim state and they should not force their religious views on our society.

I think it's important to apply principles consistently, and two important principles for me are religious freedom and the free market. It is inconsistent to argue that pharmacists should be able refuse to fill some prescriptions and still keep their jobs, while also arguing that Muslims should leave their religion at home and conform to our practices. I think the pharmacist has a right to refuse to fill any prescription he or she desires, and the Muslim has the right to refuse to touch pork and to refuse any fare. In every case, the employer also has the right to fire them.

Religious freedom does not mean that I am free to practice my religion any way I please and you have to pay me to do it. This debate is not about religious discrimination--the cashier and the pharmacist aren't being fired for their beliefs, they are being fired for not doing their jobs. (Though actually the pharmacists are the ones being fired, not the cabbies or the cashiers.)

I am against any law that would mandate a pharmacist or pharmacy prescribe the morning after pill. I am also against any law that would prevent a business from firing an individual who refused to do his/her job. Target should be able to fire a cashier who refuses to scan bacon, and Kroger should be able to fire a pharmacist who refuses to fill a prescription. Now if these companies can work out another solution, reassigning duties or some other arrangement--I think that's great. But the government should stay out of it.

Where do we get the idea that standing up for our religious and moral convictions should be a state-sponsored enterprise? Where do we get the idea that we should be able to take a stand and not face any consequences? As a student in college, I decided I was not going to do any school work on Sundays--occasionally this meant that all my work was not completed on Monday. I faced the consequences for my decision in an intermittent low grade. The low grade was not religious discrimination, it was the consequence for my religious belief.

I don't want the government getting in the business of regulating the practice of religion in the free market. Today it might seem good by allowing pharmacists to take a moral stand without facing consequences; tomorrow it might not sound like such a good idea when a worker can take a two hour prayer break or my niece's teacher can refuse to teach about the holocaust.

Why the debate?

2007-05-21T06:14:00.000-07:00

After the Supreme Court decision upholding the partial-birth abortion ban last week, I was curious how the pro-abortion faction would spin things. The partial-birth abortion is such a barbarous act that *most* reasonable people, even those in favor of abortion, have a difficult time defending it.

How silly of me to think the activists would pause for even a second before beginning their shrill defense. The response of choice is that this decision is a set-back for women’s health. According to Nancy Pelosi,

“This isn’t really an abortion issue. This is about a procedure that any parent would want her daughter to have access to if she needed it. And to frame it as an abortion issue is doing a disservice to medicine and to our young women and our country…This Supreme Court is deciding what medical procedures are necessary for child-bearing women.”

An appeal to women’s health is always good for votes, but in this case, as so often happens, Pelosi has the facts all wrong.

According to the AMA, “There does not appear to be any identified situation in which [it] is the only appropriate procedure.” And Dr. Pamela Smith, Director of Medical Education, Dept. of Ob-Gyn at Mt. Sinai Hospital in Chicago, has stated: “There are absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered in this country which would require partial- birth abortion to preserve the life or health of the mother.” Dr. Smith also notes several serious risks and complications that can result from the procedure. And another clear statement by Dr. Boehm of Vanderbilt University Medical Center, “There are no medical circumstances in which a partial-birth abortion is the only safe alternative.”

The evidence is clear that this procedure is not medically necessary, nor necessarily “safe”. Consider also that while the partial-birth (D&X) procedure is now banned, the Dilation and Evacuation (D&E) is still allowed, as well as an induction. Justice Ginsburg herself alluded to this when she noted that not a single fetus would be saved by this ban.

So what are we arguing about? From the pro-life side, any movement against abortion is good. The partial-birth procedure was banned because it truly is not medically necessary, but also because it went too far–killing a baby that is entirely out of the womb except for the last few inches is just too much for most reasonable human beings. The debate might rage about when exactly the fetus becomes a person, but most people agree that at the point of birth at least it is a life.

It is this point that makes the pro-abortion side so angry. They might be screaming about women’s health issues, but what really upsets them is the idea that people are willing to draw a line and declare something a life. They aren’t truly that upset that an unnecessary procedure has been eliminated, but they are furious that anyone would view a *technically* unborn child as a life.

What we see is an angry defense of anything abortion related. Even from the days of the ghastly portraits of back alley coat hanger abortions the argument has never been about health. It has always been about defending the indefensible. The greatest lie of the abortion debate is that the baby is not a life, but the second lie, almost as big as the first, is that abortion doesn’t hurt women. Abortion does hurt women, and deeply hurt individuals often respond in anger. Behind the angry response of the pro-abort side, I believe, there is an army of hurting women, desperately seeking to believe they did the right thing and hysterically trying to justify their actions by promoting abortion at all cost.