During the 2008 election campaign, I remember the VP candidate, and “pro life” cheerleader for the GOP, grinning broadly from a beige loveseat, the furry remains of an open-mouthed bear draped across the back. Word had it Sarah Palin proudly hunts Alaskan game from airplanes; those animals don't stand a snowball's chance. She says Alaskans eat what they kill. So, what they don't eat is—decorative? “Predator control...population control” she says, ignoring that these creatures are--or were-life.
“Every life is sacred,” is the mantra. Every life? Maybe we should aim for accuracy and re-brand this movement “pro fetus.” The most vocal among the extreme-right Republican constituency—from politicians to clergy to the Republicans next door—have great interest in life from conception to birth. After that, not so much. Once born, babies and growing children, especially those with limited resources (translated “living in poverty”) get little to no help from these zealous activists.
For politicos, being “pro life” is campaign-convenient in certain districts. Every time I see a male politician denouncing a woman’s right to privacy, I’m reminded of a quote--can’t remember what wise woman said it: “If men could become pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.” Amen. [It was no surprise that the 2012 Republican platform rejected pregnancy termination in every instance, including rape and incest.]
Pro-lifers speak passionately in favor of Roe v. Wade reversal, and even more passionately when railing against social programs designed to benefit the very babies and children they so fervently seek to “save.” Big bias in favor of the fetus, I tell you. Even some who claim strong “family values” actually view the disadvantaged infants and children in our culture with contempt. To them, birth apparently transforms infants born into poverty—presto!—from helpless victims to instant citizens who should carry their own weight, should damn well pull themselves up by their baby bootee straps.
I once heard a Republican state senator argue against funding a breakfast program for economically disadvantaged elementary school children, many of them homeless. It was a modest budget item. In his cavalier remarks, he declared with conviction that homeless kids don’t go to school. Heartless, ignorant, and dead wrong. (Wonder if he’d be willing to feed some of those hungry kids at the ivory tower where he lives?) Having volunteered for, and served on the board of, a family shelter for several years, I've seen these kids and their families up close; I've heard their stories. They're very real people, not just a demographic; they deserve compassion, not contempt.
Besides the hypocrisy, I’m also sick and tired of mindless and misleading words used to pigeon-hole and divide us. If we continue to insist on labels, for God’s sake let’s get them right. Pro Life, for instance. Everyone I know is pro life. Some are even vegetarians! And they also believe in a woman’s right to privacy, believe that no woman or man should be subjected to laws that govern one's body. So, they/we are called pro choice even when we are also, in fact, pro life. I’m beyond angry over the rigid Right’s misrepresentation of a usually torturous decision to terminate a pregnancy; they act as if it’s something decided as casually as making a Netflix selection.
Here’s a request for “pro fetus” advocates: Try ginning up some compassion for women/families who find themselves in the excruciating dilemma of a pregnancy they are unable--for whatever reason--to carry to term. These women probably would appreciate your support far more than the recipients of the Bibles you hand out in other countries. (After you’ve done your sermonizing on salvation, most converts probably go right back to celebrating the God their ancestors worshiped for centuries anyhow.)
There’s so much contradiction around the “pro life” label: Ask people who profess to be “pro life” whether they believe in the death penalty. Go ahead, ask. The vast majority will say yes. So then, how can they say, “All life is sacred?” Does this thinking not defy all logic?
How many pro lifers joined in the massive protests against the invasion of Iraq? Many don’t blink over the huge number of humans killed—brave men and women, doing their duty by their country, following orders of their Commander-in-Chief. Mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, making the ultimate sacrifice for all of us. And I’ve seen pro-lifers totally blow off the significance of the thousands of Iraqi lives lost, many, many of them infants and children. All life is sacred?
What about the enormous “pro life” fight that was mounted, successfully, against putting discarded embryonic stem cells to good use in research? Even though science says these cells are most likely to be key in finding cures for cancer, diabetes, MS—the possibilities are limitless. But the “pro life” folks would rather see the discarded stem cells discarded rather than used to benefit humanity. I’m pretty good at seeing at least two sides of most issues, but this is an exception. It’s just too bizarre.
It’s been mind-boggling, as well, to see hordes of Americans swarming to retail firearms outlets and gun shows (no background, and in many cases no ID, checks there) to arm themselves against--what exactly? Many of these weapons are not for deer hunting by any stretch of the imagination, but are automatic weapons guaranteed to kill large numbers of humans really fast. Remember Virginia Tech? What about Dr. George Tiller? In the instance of Dr. Tiller’s murder-- for performing legal medical procedures-- I actually heard people say Dr. Tiller was a ‘murderer” and that he “had it coming.” Murder in the interest of “preserving” life. Chilling, isn’t it? [Flash forward to October 2010 and the shooting in Tucson that killed six people including a little girl named Christina Taylor Green. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and about a dozen others were seriously injured. Meanwhile police officers are killed while making routine traffic stops....and on and on.]
I heard recently that a Christian right-to-life relative of mine, fishing in her purse for lipstick, declared herself the proud owner of a“cute little handgun.” Where’s her faith, I wonder, that she feels a need to carry a gun? Why such fear? The faith question aside, I can tell you this woman leads a low-risk a life. (To me, carrying a weapon says, "I just might take a life.") My son made me proud saying he doesn’t own a gun because, even if someone threatened his life, he wouldn’t kill another human being. People, that’s pro-life.
I don’t own a gun. In fact, at my house, cockroaches and spiders are rescued instead of being killed for breaking and entering. (I keep my safari jar for the capture, then release the critters outside. I know: Some come back later.) I don’t approve of the death penalty or wars of choice. And I don’t see how we could ever ignore the miraculous medical potential of embryonic stem cells. Thanks to sensible President Obama, discarded stem cells now go into laboratories instead of the trash. [If the "Personhood" bill ever passes Congress, stem cell research will be outlawed again. VP Nominee Paul Ryan voted for the Personhood Act, and Governor Romney has said he supports it. That bill would, in many instances, also outlaw birth control.]
Like most people, I believe abortion should be legal, safe, and rare. And I believe in teaching sex education—including information on STD’s and birth control—in public schools. Studies showed the “abstinence only” approach was productive only in the sense of producing more pregnancies. As a former Surgeon General said, "Vows of abstinence are broken far more easily than latex condoms."
Here’s my wish: That we take a breath and re-think the meaning of the words we use. Enough with the hypocrisy and the downright erroneous “pro life” label, given that so many who claim to fit the label clearly do not. And those of us who actually do fit the label also believe in a woman’s right to dominion over her own body. So what’s the opposite of pro life? Pro-death? I can't imagine anyone—anyone not suffering a severe mental illness—who is NOT pro-life.
Will those on the right who consider yourselves “pro life” please turn off Fox News long enough to think about all this? Really think. Please. And as to those who talk about, and get elected talking about, having “family values,” take a close look at the goings on around the house on C Street. That brick and mortar structure on C Street has been the home-away-from-home to some of the biggest “family value” hypocrites, right in the heart of our nation’s capital. That frat house—a secret “Christian men’s fraternity"— is classified as a church for tax purposes!
We won’t explore that subject now, but if you want to look into it, I'd recommend The Family by Jeff Sharlet. Right now I have a mission. An optimistic cockroach is hoping to enjoy my a.c. on this sizzling South Carolina day, and I feel morally bound to return him to his outdoor habitat.
[Note: This essay was originally written several years ago...but "pro life" zealots in Congress and the GOP Presidential and VP candidates are doing their best to circumvent women's rights. So, I'm sharing the essay again , with a few updates.
Congressional Republicans have crafted legislation to ensure that private insurance companies don't cover abortions. And they are plotting to de-fund Planned Parenthood, the go-to nonprofit for family planning and women's health services, including cancer screenings, in America. At this writing, the Republican Congress is slashing any funding that assists indigent women and infants (such as the WIC program). As I said about three years ago, pro-lifers' compassion generally covers only the period from conception to birth. Who said The more things change, the more they stay the same?]
“Every life is sacred,” is the mantra. Every life? Maybe we should aim for accuracy and re-brand this movement “pro fetus.” The most vocal among the extreme-right Republican constituency—from politicians to clergy to the Republicans next door—have great interest in life from conception to birth. After that, not so much. Once born, babies and growing children, especially those with limited resources (translated “living in poverty”) get little to no help from these zealous activists.
For politicos, being “pro life” is campaign-convenient in certain districts. Every time I see a male politician denouncing a woman’s right to privacy, I’m reminded of a quote--can’t remember what wise woman said it: “If men could become pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.” Amen. [It was no surprise that the 2012 Republican platform rejected pregnancy termination in every instance, including rape and incest.]
Pro-lifers speak passionately in favor of Roe v. Wade reversal, and even more passionately when railing against social programs designed to benefit the very babies and children they so fervently seek to “save.” Big bias in favor of the fetus, I tell you. Even some who claim strong “family values” actually view the disadvantaged infants and children in our culture with contempt. To them, birth apparently transforms infants born into poverty—presto!—from helpless victims to instant citizens who should carry their own weight, should damn well pull themselves up by their baby bootee straps.
I once heard a Republican state senator argue against funding a breakfast program for economically disadvantaged elementary school children, many of them homeless. It was a modest budget item. In his cavalier remarks, he declared with conviction that homeless kids don’t go to school. Heartless, ignorant, and dead wrong. (Wonder if he’d be willing to feed some of those hungry kids at the ivory tower where he lives?) Having volunteered for, and served on the board of, a family shelter for several years, I've seen these kids and their families up close; I've heard their stories. They're very real people, not just a demographic; they deserve compassion, not contempt.
Besides the hypocrisy, I’m also sick and tired of mindless and misleading words used to pigeon-hole and divide us. If we continue to insist on labels, for God’s sake let’s get them right. Pro Life, for instance. Everyone I know is pro life. Some are even vegetarians! And they also believe in a woman’s right to privacy, believe that no woman or man should be subjected to laws that govern one's body. So, they/we are called pro choice even when we are also, in fact, pro life. I’m beyond angry over the rigid Right’s misrepresentation of a usually torturous decision to terminate a pregnancy; they act as if it’s something decided as casually as making a Netflix selection.
Here’s a request for “pro fetus” advocates: Try ginning up some compassion for women/families who find themselves in the excruciating dilemma of a pregnancy they are unable--for whatever reason--to carry to term. These women probably would appreciate your support far more than the recipients of the Bibles you hand out in other countries. (After you’ve done your sermonizing on salvation, most converts probably go right back to celebrating the God their ancestors worshiped for centuries anyhow.)
There’s so much contradiction around the “pro life” label: Ask people who profess to be “pro life” whether they believe in the death penalty. Go ahead, ask. The vast majority will say yes. So then, how can they say, “All life is sacred?” Does this thinking not defy all logic?
How many pro lifers joined in the massive protests against the invasion of Iraq? Many don’t blink over the huge number of humans killed—brave men and women, doing their duty by their country, following orders of their Commander-in-Chief. Mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, making the ultimate sacrifice for all of us. And I’ve seen pro-lifers totally blow off the significance of the thousands of Iraqi lives lost, many, many of them infants and children. All life is sacred?
What about the enormous “pro life” fight that was mounted, successfully, against putting discarded embryonic stem cells to good use in research? Even though science says these cells are most likely to be key in finding cures for cancer, diabetes, MS—the possibilities are limitless. But the “pro life” folks would rather see the discarded stem cells discarded rather than used to benefit humanity. I’m pretty good at seeing at least two sides of most issues, but this is an exception. It’s just too bizarre.
It’s been mind-boggling, as well, to see hordes of Americans swarming to retail firearms outlets and gun shows (no background, and in many cases no ID, checks there) to arm themselves against--what exactly? Many of these weapons are not for deer hunting by any stretch of the imagination, but are automatic weapons guaranteed to kill large numbers of humans really fast. Remember Virginia Tech? What about Dr. George Tiller? In the instance of Dr. Tiller’s murder-- for performing legal medical procedures-- I actually heard people say Dr. Tiller was a ‘murderer” and that he “had it coming.” Murder in the interest of “preserving” life. Chilling, isn’t it? [Flash forward to October 2010 and the shooting in Tucson that killed six people including a little girl named Christina Taylor Green. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and about a dozen others were seriously injured. Meanwhile police officers are killed while making routine traffic stops....and on and on.]
I heard recently that a Christian right-to-life relative of mine, fishing in her purse for lipstick, declared herself the proud owner of a“cute little handgun.” Where’s her faith, I wonder, that she feels a need to carry a gun? Why such fear? The faith question aside, I can tell you this woman leads a low-risk a life. (To me, carrying a weapon says, "I just might take a life.") My son made me proud saying he doesn’t own a gun because, even if someone threatened his life, he wouldn’t kill another human being. People, that’s pro-life.
I don’t own a gun. In fact, at my house, cockroaches and spiders are rescued instead of being killed for breaking and entering. (I keep my safari jar for the capture, then release the critters outside. I know: Some come back later.) I don’t approve of the death penalty or wars of choice. And I don’t see how we could ever ignore the miraculous medical potential of embryonic stem cells. Thanks to sensible President Obama, discarded stem cells now go into laboratories instead of the trash. [If the "Personhood" bill ever passes Congress, stem cell research will be outlawed again. VP Nominee Paul Ryan voted for the Personhood Act, and Governor Romney has said he supports it. That bill would, in many instances, also outlaw birth control.]
Like most people, I believe abortion should be legal, safe, and rare. And I believe in teaching sex education—including information on STD’s and birth control—in public schools. Studies showed the “abstinence only” approach was productive only in the sense of producing more pregnancies. As a former Surgeon General said, "Vows of abstinence are broken far more easily than latex condoms."
Here’s my wish: That we take a breath and re-think the meaning of the words we use. Enough with the hypocrisy and the downright erroneous “pro life” label, given that so many who claim to fit the label clearly do not. And those of us who actually do fit the label also believe in a woman’s right to dominion over her own body. So what’s the opposite of pro life? Pro-death? I can't imagine anyone—anyone not suffering a severe mental illness—who is NOT pro-life.
Will those on the right who consider yourselves “pro life” please turn off Fox News long enough to think about all this? Really think. Please. And as to those who talk about, and get elected talking about, having “family values,” take a close look at the goings on around the house on C Street. That brick and mortar structure on C Street has been the home-away-from-home to some of the biggest “family value” hypocrites, right in the heart of our nation’s capital. That frat house—a secret “Christian men’s fraternity"— is classified as a church for tax purposes!
We won’t explore that subject now, but if you want to look into it, I'd recommend The Family by Jeff Sharlet. Right now I have a mission. An optimistic cockroach is hoping to enjoy my a.c. on this sizzling South Carolina day, and I feel morally bound to return him to his outdoor habitat.
[Note: This essay was originally written several years ago...but "pro life" zealots in Congress and the GOP Presidential and VP candidates are doing their best to circumvent women's rights. So, I'm sharing the essay again , with a few updates.
Congressional Republicans have crafted legislation to ensure that private insurance companies don't cover abortions. And they are plotting to de-fund Planned Parenthood, the go-to nonprofit for family planning and women's health services, including cancer screenings, in America. At this writing, the Republican Congress is slashing any funding that assists indigent women and infants (such as the WIC program). As I said about three years ago, pro-lifers' compassion generally covers only the period from conception to birth. Who said The more things change, the more they stay the same?]
No comments:
Post a Comment