Showing posts with label CHOICE. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CHOICE. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Fighting for peace
Here in the United States, we have a volunteer military. It wasn't always this way. Right now our military is stretched thin, and a draft in the near future is possible. I hope it doesn't come to that, but it is possible. *Maybe not kicking the gays out would help*
In Israel, serving in the military is required, for both men and women. I think the requirement is 2 years, but I'm not sure about that. This has been part of the Israeli culture for many decades.
Today, I was introduced to Omer Goldman, via Ed Asner. There is a new generation of young Israelis standing up to the government. They believe in a better, more peaceful future for themselves and for Israelis and Palestinians, and they are refusing to join the Israeli army. They're in jail, holding strong against immense pressure from family, friends and the Israeli government.
Omer's own words:
I never took my right to stand without my hand over my heart during the Pledge of Allegience for granted. NEVER. In fact, the very first fight Keith and I ever had was about that very subject. My religion forbade me certain things, and I was grateful that others had given me those rights so I didn't have go to prison. JWs in other countries weren't always so lucky. Hell, during the draft days, many of the JWs DID go to prison for refusing to serve in the military. Or, like my father, used the loopholes in the system to keep their names from coming up.
I think the draft has it's place, honestly. And the next time it is used, I hope they start including women. I don't think it's fair in this day and age to exclude them.
But I don't think military service should be mandentory all the time. Only when it's needed. And everyone should have the choice, no matter what country they live in. Everyone should have the choice to stand up for what they believe in.
In Israel, serving in the military is required, for both men and women. I think the requirement is 2 years, but I'm not sure about that. This has been part of the Israeli culture for many decades.
Today, I was introduced to Omer Goldman, via Ed Asner. There is a new generation of young Israelis standing up to the government. They believe in a better, more peaceful future for themselves and for Israelis and Palestinians, and they are refusing to join the Israeli army. They're in jail, holding strong against immense pressure from family, friends and the Israeli government.
Omer's own words:
I first went to prison on September 23 and served 35 days. I am lucky, after 2 times in jail, I got a medical discharge, but I'm the only one. By the time you read this, many of my friends will be in prison too: in for three weeks, out for one, and then back in, over and over, until they are 21. The reason? We refuse to do military service for the Israeli army.I grew up with the army. My father was deputy head of Mossad and I saw my sister, who is eight years older than me, do her military service. As a young girl, I wanted to be a soldier. The military was such a part of my life that I never even questioned it.
Earlier this year, I went to a peace demonstration in Palestine. I had always been told that the Israeli army was there to defend me, but during that demonstration Israeli soldiers opened fire on me and my friends with rubber bullets and tear-gas grenades. I was shocked and scared. I saw the truth. I saw the reality. I saw for the first time that the most dangerous thing in Palestine is the Israeli soldiers, the very people who are supposed to be on my side.
When I came back to Israel, I knew I had changed. And so, I have joined with a number of other young people who are refusing to serve - they call us the Shministim. On December 18th, we are holding a Day of Action in Israel, and we are determined to show Israelis and the world that there is wide support for stopping a culture of war. Will you join us? Please, just sign a letter. That's all it takes.
Everyone should have the choice to serve or to not serve. Everyone should have the choice of promoting peace without resorting to war.
Jewish Voice for Peace is the U.S. group heading things up for the Shministim. Sign the petition here if you want to stand up for Omer and those like her.
I never took my right to stand without my hand over my heart during the Pledge of Allegience for granted. NEVER. In fact, the very first fight Keith and I ever had was about that very subject. My religion forbade me certain things, and I was grateful that others had given me those rights so I didn't have go to prison. JWs in other countries weren't always so lucky. Hell, during the draft days, many of the JWs DID go to prison for refusing to serve in the military. Or, like my father, used the loopholes in the system to keep their names from coming up.
I think the draft has it's place, honestly. And the next time it is used, I hope they start including women. I don't think it's fair in this day and age to exclude them.
But I don't think military service should be mandentory all the time. Only when it's needed. And everyone should have the choice, no matter what country they live in. Everyone should have the choice to stand up for what they believe in.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Because even ONE death is one to many...
Even if you're not in one of the States that voted on this, you might be in the future.
So much for Pro-Life.
So much for Pro-Life.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Monday, October 20, 2008
Less Government, Please!
Medical choices should not be up to lawmakers. EVER. You cannot legislate morality.
To all the ultra religious conservatives out there who think they have the right to tell me what I can and cannot do to my body, I give you a big FUCK YOU.
Friday, September 19, 2008
For those that don't think women's reproductive rights aren't under attack...
Blocking Care for Women
By Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democratic senator from New York,
and Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America
LAST month, the Bush administration launched the latest salvo in its eight-year campaign to undermine women's rights and women's health by placing ideology ahead of science: a proposed rule from the Department of Health and Human Services that would govern family planning. It would require that any health care entity that receives federal financing — whether it's a physician in private practice, a hospital or a state government — certify in writing that none of its employees are required to assist in any way with medical services they find objectionable.
Laws that have been on the books for some 30 years already allow doctors to refuse to perform abortions. The new rule would go further, ensuring that all employees and volunteers for health care entities can refuse to aid in providing any treatment they object to, which could include not only abortion and sterilization but also contraception.
Health and Human Services estimates that the rule, which would affect nearly 600,000 hospitals, clinics and other health care providers, would cost $44.5 million a year to administer. Astonishingly, the department does not even address the real cost to patients who might be refused access to these critical services. Women patients, who look to their health care providers as an unbiased source of medical information, might not even know they were being deprived of advice about their options or denied access to care.
The definition of abortion in the proposed rule is left open to interpretation. An earlier draft included a medically inaccurate definition that included commonly prescribed forms of contraception like birth control pills, IUD's and emergency contraception. That language has been removed, but because the current version includes no definition at all, individual health care providers could decide on their own that birth control is the same as abortion.
The rule would also allow providers to refuse to participate in unspecified "other medical procedures" that contradict their religious beliefs or moral convictions. This, too, could be interpreted as a free pass to deny access to contraception.
Many circumstances unrelated to reproductive health could also fall under the umbrella of "other medical procedures." Could physicians object to helping patients whose sexual orientation they find objectionable? Could a receptionist refuse to book an appointment for an H.I.V. test? What about an emergency room doctor who wishes to deny emergency contraception to a rape victim? Or a pharmacist who prefers not to refill a birth control prescription?
The Bush administration argues that the rule is designed to protect a provider's conscience. But where are the protections for patients?
The 30-day comment period on the proposed rule runs until Sept. 25. Everyone who believes that women should have full access to medical care should make their voices heard. Basic, quality care for millions of women is at stake.
*********************
Federal financing includes medicaid and medicare, fyi. So any hospital or doctor that accepts medicaid and medicare patients are included in this.
When the republicans stop trying to take my medical rights away, I may start voting for them. Small government, my ass.
In case it needs to be said: If it's against your personal beliefs to give someone birth control or their HIV medicine, DON'T BECOME A DOCTOR OR A PHARMACIST! It's really that simple. If you're not smart enough to choose a field that doesn't offend your personal morals, that's too damn bad.
By Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democratic senator from New York,
and Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America
LAST month, the Bush administration launched the latest salvo in its eight-year campaign to undermine women's rights and women's health by placing ideology ahead of science: a proposed rule from the Department of Health and Human Services that would govern family planning. It would require that any health care entity that receives federal financing — whether it's a physician in private practice, a hospital or a state government — certify in writing that none of its employees are required to assist in any way with medical services they find objectionable.
Laws that have been on the books for some 30 years already allow doctors to refuse to perform abortions. The new rule would go further, ensuring that all employees and volunteers for health care entities can refuse to aid in providing any treatment they object to, which could include not only abortion and sterilization but also contraception.
Health and Human Services estimates that the rule, which would affect nearly 600,000 hospitals, clinics and other health care providers, would cost $44.5 million a year to administer. Astonishingly, the department does not even address the real cost to patients who might be refused access to these critical services. Women patients, who look to their health care providers as an unbiased source of medical information, might not even know they were being deprived of advice about their options or denied access to care.
The definition of abortion in the proposed rule is left open to interpretation. An earlier draft included a medically inaccurate definition that included commonly prescribed forms of contraception like birth control pills, IUD's and emergency contraception. That language has been removed, but because the current version includes no definition at all, individual health care providers could decide on their own that birth control is the same as abortion.
The rule would also allow providers to refuse to participate in unspecified "other medical procedures" that contradict their religious beliefs or moral convictions. This, too, could be interpreted as a free pass to deny access to contraception.
Many circumstances unrelated to reproductive health could also fall under the umbrella of "other medical procedures." Could physicians object to helping patients whose sexual orientation they find objectionable? Could a receptionist refuse to book an appointment for an H.I.V. test? What about an emergency room doctor who wishes to deny emergency contraception to a rape victim? Or a pharmacist who prefers not to refill a birth control prescription?
The Bush administration argues that the rule is designed to protect a provider's conscience. But where are the protections for patients?
The 30-day comment period on the proposed rule runs until Sept. 25. Everyone who believes that women should have full access to medical care should make their voices heard. Basic, quality care for millions of women is at stake.
*********************
Federal financing includes medicaid and medicare, fyi. So any hospital or doctor that accepts medicaid and medicare patients are included in this.
When the republicans stop trying to take my medical rights away, I may start voting for them. Small government, my ass.
In case it needs to be said: If it's against your personal beliefs to give someone birth control or their HIV medicine, DON'T BECOME A DOCTOR OR A PHARMACIST! It's really that simple. If you're not smart enough to choose a field that doesn't offend your personal morals, that's too damn bad.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Daily political rant....
Actually, I'm just practicing for November's NaBloPoMo...
Anyway, an interesting tidbit on Governor Palin.
Basically, the Governor of Alaska (while Palin was Mayor of Wasilla) signed a law protecting victims of sexual assault from being billed for tests to collect evidence of the crime.
WTF? There has to be a law about this? Why?
The hell????
Wasilla was charging RAPE VICTIMS the cost of the rape kit? Are you fucking kidding me?
Do you see anything wrong with this? Oh, and btw, Palin is against rape victims having access to abortions. So the VICTIM of a CRIME gets to pay for the crime kit, and, if made pregnant, has to carry the child to term, doing untold damage not only physically but mentally. Who pays for all the maternity care?
And this is the woman that would be one heartbeat away from being our leader if McCain wins (who, btw, is 77 years old, and has a 1 in 3 chance of dieing before his term is up.)
Anyway, enough about Palin. On to Obama!
I've already posted John McCains record regarding our troops, let's see what Obama's record shows. You can go to thomas.gov to check and compare the two yourself, if you'd like to be an informed voter.
From They Gave Us A Republic and The Zoo:
Worked across bi-partisan lines, of course.
And what about our veterans and our troops?
Anyway, an interesting tidbit on Governor Palin.
Basically, the Governor of Alaska (while Palin was Mayor of Wasilla) signed a law protecting victims of sexual assault from being billed for tests to collect evidence of the crime.
WTF? There has to be a law about this? Why?
Because Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon does not agree with the new legislation, saying the law will require the city and communities to come up with more funds to cover the costs of the forensic exams.
The hell????
Wasilla was charging RAPE VICTIMS the cost of the rape kit? Are you fucking kidding me?
That police chief was Charlie Fannon, Palin's appointee (she fired the previous one when she was elected). One can only assume that she supported Wasilla's policy of billing rape victims for their own rape kits--the kits police and hospitals use to collect evidence after a rape--not only because Fannon was her appointee, but also because this was four years into her tenure as mayor and because, let's be honest: in a town of that size, the mayor doesn't get to plead ignorance of policies or public statements of her own chief of police.
What was Fannon's rationale? He didn't "want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer."
Palin was willing to raise taxes to build a sports complex. Her police chief was unwilling to use public funds to investigate rapes.
Do you see anything wrong with this? Oh, and btw, Palin is against rape victims having access to abortions. So the VICTIM of a CRIME gets to pay for the crime kit, and, if made pregnant, has to carry the child to term, doing untold damage not only physically but mentally. Who pays for all the maternity care?
And this is the woman that would be one heartbeat away from being our leader if McCain wins (who, btw, is 77 years old, and has a 1 in 3 chance of dieing before his term is up.)
Anyway, enough about Palin. On to Obama!
I've already posted John McCains record regarding our troops, let's see what Obama's record shows. You can go to thomas.gov to check and compare the two yourself, if you'd like to be an informed voter.
From They Gave Us A Republic and The Zoo:
That's just what he's done in the US Senate. What did he do while he was a State Rep for Illinois?Senator Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored 570 bills in the 109th and 110th Congress.
Senator Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored 15 bills that have become LAW since he joined the Senate in 2005.
Senator Obama has also introduced amendments to 50 bills, of which 16 were adopted by the Senate.
His record is in fact quite impressive for a junior Senator from Illinois.
Most of his legislative effort has been in the areas of:
- Energy Efficiency and Climate Change (25 bills)
- Health care (21 bills) and public health (20 bills)
- Consumer protection/labor (14 bills)
- The needs of Veterans and the Armed Forces (13 bills)
- Congressional Ethics and Accountability (12 bills)
- Foreign Policy (10 bills)
- Voting and Elections (9 bills)
- Education (7 bills)
- Hurricane Katrina Relief (6)
- The Environment (5 bills)
- Homeland Security (4 bills)
- Discrimination (4 bills)
Worked across bi-partisan lines, of course.
And what about our veterans and our troops?
In short, Obama supported our troops while McCain did NOT.13 addressed the Needs of Veterans and the Armed Forces:
- Improve Benefits (117)
- Suicide prevention (479)
- Needs of homeless veterans (1180)
- Homes for veterans (1084)
- GI Bill enhancement (43)
- Military job protection
- Dignity in care for wounded vets (713)
- Housing assistance for low income veterans (1084)
- Military children in public schools (2151)
- Military eye injury research and care (1999)
- Research physical/mental health needs from Iraq War (1271)
- Proper administration of discharge for personality disorder (1817, 1885)
- Security of personal data of veterans (3592)
Thursday, July 17, 2008
*sigh*
It's only birth control for women, it's not like they think the pill causes abortions or anything. Right?
This is how important this subject is to McCain:
Personally, I don't see why the left haven't gotten the pharmaceutical companies on their side for this issue. Money talks, and the pharma's will lose a lot of money if they take away oral contraceptives.
This is how important this subject is to McCain:
Personally, I don't see why the left haven't gotten the pharmaceutical companies on their side for this issue. Money talks, and the pharma's will lose a lot of money if they take away oral contraceptives.
Monday, June 23, 2008
rudely woken up this morning
So the kids managed to drag me out of bed a bit before 8 am this morning (they were HUNGRY), and sitting at the table watching them eat their oatmeal, listening to the radio, trying to fall back asleep, I heard the most awful news. I think I'm going to cry.
Pro-life, Anti-woman:
Religion is bullshit:
10 Commandments:
Bye, George.
Pro-life, Anti-woman:
Religion is bullshit:
10 Commandments:
Bye, George.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Meet Emily X.
Every year about this time, the Catholic church across the street from where I live does their 40 Days for life cross display. They have a big sign stating how many abortions are done every day, and rows of little white crosses made out of white plastic tubing.
I think what angers me the most about the pro-life crowd is that they are not about life at all. They don't give a shit about the woman who needs birth control, or a pap smear, or has an UTI. They think that every woman going into Planned Parenthood is there for the 'evil abortion'. That is NOT what Planned Parenthood is about!
The way to prevent abortions is NOT by protesting the abortion clinics! Shocker, I know. To prevent abortion, we have to prevent the actual unintended PREGNANCY. That means BIRTH CONTROL, people.
I have a Catholic friend who miscarried her first child at around 20 weeks or so. She was devastated. Her and her husband had so been looking forward to having a child. A week or so after her daughter was born, I was talking on the phone to her about it. She couldn't understand why someone would willingly terminate such a perfect being. I refused to say anything besides comforting words to her, because that would have been SO uncouth of me, but I was thinking "what about all the single girls who had no means of supporting a child? Don't they get a choice? It's their bodies after all, not yours. Just because you and your husband, who are financially stable, btw, choose to have as many children as you can and never use birth control, what right do you have to take that choice away from someone who isn't in your shoes?" And.... my (very Catholic) friend used birth control up until the day she got married.
Don't talk to me about the evils of abortion until you show me the money you've put into helping women PREVENT pregnancy. Don't talk to me about the evils of abortion until you show me the receipts for all the women you've provided neo-natal care for since they couldn't have an abortion. Oh, and show me how many children you have adopted that would have been aborted otherwise.
There are over 800 Planned Parenthood clinics in this country. Every day, during the "40 days for life", Emily X is posting how many protesters she(they) see going into work every day. If you can, make a pledge.
Get some education about what Planned Parenthood does for women in this country, it may be the most important thing you ever do.
I think what angers me the most about the pro-life crowd is that they are not about life at all. They don't give a shit about the woman who needs birth control, or a pap smear, or has an UTI. They think that every woman going into Planned Parenthood is there for the 'evil abortion'. That is NOT what Planned Parenthood is about!
The way to prevent abortions is NOT by protesting the abortion clinics! Shocker, I know. To prevent abortion, we have to prevent the actual unintended PREGNANCY. That means BIRTH CONTROL, people.
I have a Catholic friend who miscarried her first child at around 20 weeks or so. She was devastated. Her and her husband had so been looking forward to having a child. A week or so after her daughter was born, I was talking on the phone to her about it. She couldn't understand why someone would willingly terminate such a perfect being. I refused to say anything besides comforting words to her, because that would have been SO uncouth of me, but I was thinking "what about all the single girls who had no means of supporting a child? Don't they get a choice? It's their bodies after all, not yours. Just because you and your husband, who are financially stable, btw, choose to have as many children as you can and never use birth control, what right do you have to take that choice away from someone who isn't in your shoes?" And.... my (very Catholic) friend used birth control up until the day she got married.
Don't talk to me about the evils of abortion until you show me the money you've put into helping women PREVENT pregnancy. Don't talk to me about the evils of abortion until you show me the receipts for all the women you've provided neo-natal care for since they couldn't have an abortion. Oh, and show me how many children you have adopted that would have been aborted otherwise.
There are over 800 Planned Parenthood clinics in this country. Every day, during the "40 days for life", Emily X is posting how many protesters she(they) see going into work every day. If you can, make a pledge.
Get some education about what Planned Parenthood does for women in this country, it may be the most important thing you ever do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)