Friends,
I live in Michigan, in one of the 31 counties represented in the U.S. House of Representatives by none other than Mr. Bart Stupak, a Democrat. You've probably never heard of him. He's a pretty quiet guy, a former Michigan State Police trooper who boldly decided to run some 18 years ago as a Democrat in a rural part of Michigan that votes almost exclusively for Republicans (yes, I know -- what am I doing here? I'll save that story for a future letter).
His voting record is pretty conservative for a Democrat, but he's had a few shining moments. In the wake of the Columbine shootings, he voted for some gun control, a not-too-popular position to take here in northern Michigan. The NRA came after him with all they had in 2000.
But the good people of this area knew Bart's story and understood: He's been touched personally by gun violence. In a terrible tragedy, his teenage son, depressed and confused from the medication he'd been prescribed, killed himself with the family's .38 revolver. Despite the NRA's best efforts, Bart was returned to Congress by an overwhelming margin.
Yet, here we are, just days before a weak, simple-minded, but now ultimately necessary health care bill has a chance of making it through Congress -- and Bart Stupak is threatening to derail it because he wants to make sure that no woman who buys her own insurance with her own money is able to have a medically-insured abortion. We're not talkin' about federally-funded abortions -- those were stupidly outlawed long ago. Bart Stupak doesn't like that the Democrats' bill doesn't prohibit private insurance programs, set up for those whose employers don't provide it, from providing abortion coverage if they get any federal funding -- even to an individual woman paying without any government help. That's it.
A group representing most of America's 59,000 Catholic nuns has written to Congress and said that Obama's health care plan should be passed. Stupak, instead, has chosen to diss the nuns. Last night he went on TV and dug his heels in -- he said he intended to stop this health care bill and he didn't care what anyone had to say.
Now, it would be easy for some to just pass this attitude off on his Catholicism -- he believes what he believes and you have to respect him for that, even if you don't agree with him. But it's not that simple. It turns out that Stupak has been living in a subsidized room in the "C Street House," run by the infamous right-wing Christian cult "The Family." It was in this former convent that GOP Rep. Chip Pickering (according to his former wife) carried on the affair that ended his marriage. It's where South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford sought refuge as his marriage fell apart thanks to his affair. And then there's C Street roommate Sen. John Ensign of Nevada, who cheated on his wife with the wife of one of his top staffers. (The Justice Department is currently investigating whether Ensign committed a felony while paying off his aide to keep him quiet.)
C Street is where power, money, sex and religion meet. So am I led to believe that Bart Stupak lives in a brothel and belongs to a cult? He says he was just renting a room there. But that just doesn't ring true. Something stinks to the high heavens here, and Stupak sees no irony in taking his holier-than-thou position while living in a house that should be dubbed "Hypocrites' Hideaway."
If Stupak were truly pro-life then he'd vote for this bill. Right now, a mother in the U.S. has a ten times greater chance of dying in childbirth than a mother does in Ireland. If you really wanted to reduce abortions, you'd have to ask yourself this question: Why does godless France, where abortion is nearly free (it's covered by their universal health insurance), have 20% fewer abortions per capita than we do? What's even more amazing about that statistic is that you can't even get an abortion in America in 87% of our counties because there isn't one single doctor in those counties who will perform one! 87%!! The Right has scared them to death -- sometimes literally -- out of performing an otherwise legal, safe procedure. So, you can say women have "choice" in this country, but the reality is the "choice" doesn't exist in the majority of the nation. "Right to Life" has essentially won this battle. (My personal position: I don't get to have a position -- I don't have a uterus. If a Senate that was 90% female told me I couldn't have a vasectomy or made it a crime to leave the toilet seat up, I guess I might object.)
What is "life"? An egg is life, a sperm is life. Those sperm aren't running on a battery pack. They are living creatures, as is a fertilized egg. But they're not "human beings." A human being is something that can exist outside the womb of a mother. If you think a fertilized egg is a human being, then I respectfully ask you to go down to the DMV today and have them change your birthday on your driver's license to 9 months older than what you've been telling everybody.
So back to my question. Why do we have an abortion rate 20% higher than France's (and more than twice as high as Germany's), especially considering most doctors here won't perform them? The answer is any country that has universal health care, where contraception is free, where child care is free or inexpensive, where there is less poverty because people don't become bankrupt over medical bills -- those societies are simply going to have fewer unplanned and unwanted pregnancies.
And there the mask gets pulled off the Bart Stupaks and the "Christians." If the statistics show that countries with government-provided universal health care and nearly-free abortions are, in fact, the countries with the fewest abortions, then why on earth wouldn't the Right be the first in line to support universal health care?
Because it isn't about "universal health care." It's about controlling women, period. It's about sticking your nose in other people's business. It's about pushing your religious beliefs on everyone else because voices in your head tell you your Jesus is The One -- even though your Jesus never said one single solitary word in any of the four gospels of the Bible about abortion or fertilized eggs being human. You've just gone and made it up about "life beginning at conception." Jesus never said that. The little voice in your head said that, the same little voice that wants your grubby paws on women's uteruses. You need help. Please get some help and leave the rest of us alone, Mr. Stupak and friends.
After all, isn't it enough that women can't get an abortion in any of the 31 Michigan counties you represent in Congress? There is not one single abortion provider here in the north of the state, according to Planned Parenthood Mid and South Michigan. Hey, Bart -- you've already won! Women's rights have been stamped out in your entire Congressional district! Woo hoo!
So why don't you leave the rest of the country alone, step out of the way, and let them have the minimal health coverage this bill will give them? You wouldn't really crush the sick and infirm because of your own personal agenda, would you? What would Jesus do?
In the meantime, Bart, my neighbors and I are going to make sure a real Democrat runs against you in August's primary here. One of our religious beliefs in these parts is to never impose our religious beliefs on others.
Yours,
Michael Moore
MMFlint@aol.com
MichaelMoore.com
Join Mike's Mailing List | Follow Mike on Twitter | Join Mike's Facebook Group | Become Mike's MySpace Friend
Follow Michael Moore on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MMFlint
And yet you would think Tea Party conservatives who cry "Don't steal our Freedom!" would want the government to stay out of our reproductive, relationship and recreational substance lives. Obviously they don't, and so this is really just a Religious squares vs. the Godless Hippies battle. The lines are drawn, the passions flair, and sides engage, either losing or gaining ground, twisting every larger issue into something that has wedge issue components (read Stupak, healthcare and abortion).
Makes moderate independents like me want to just step aside... so tired of it all.
Join my FB group: Bart Stupak keep your hands out of my uterus and my Congress
http://groups.to/misogynist.com/
And what about genetic disease and severe developmental disorders? Would you force a mother to give birth to a child that would die within a short time of being born, that was basically conceived with no chance at life? Is this enough of a hardship to allow a woman to choose? There are tests to find out if the parents are carriers, but what if you don't find out until the doctor sees something wrong with the fetus? Shouldn't the family have a right to make this heartbreaking decision without a bunch of politicians telling them that they are murderers for considering it? If a family knows it cannot handle a child with an extreme genetic disease or developmental disability, would you force them to have the child anyway? Again, in this situation, adoption would be great; however, with many healthy children in need of homes, what happens to a child that needs constant expensive medical care? It is a tough decision, and ought to be a personal one.
87% of all counties in the USA cannot receive a legal, medical procedure is an outrageous statistic to be proud of!!
As a young woman, do you think people of your generation take sex seriously? Are your choices to have sex weighted with the knowledge that the person you are committing that act with is the person you love and what to spend the rest of your life with and would in the future like to have children with or is it just for fun? Aside from pregnancy, there are so many STDs, so wouldn't it make more sense, instead of looking for confidential birth control in the form of the pill, to be bold and just make sure you keep yourself in stock with plenty of condoms?
I think if kids want to be adults (I know I wanted to be an adult), they certainly shouldn't be shy about protection, as there are things you catch today that will effect you later on in life that are way, way worse than children. Our society has been desensitized to sex, yet there is still so much stigma surrounding protection... It's ludicrous.
Re: condoms and birth control, it's better to be on both versus just condoms. If the condom fails, and you have no back-up method in place (hormonal or not), then it's just as bad as having unprotected sex. BOTH condoms and hormonal birth control should be easily available to teens and adults, not just condoms. Nevermind that hormonal birth control is more effective and more reliable than condoms. A person can use a condom with a non-hormonal method of birth control, like a diaphram or a contraceptive sponge, but again it's not as effective as a condom paired with a hormonal method of birth control.
Lastly, I think you're totally right. Society has been largely desensitized to sex, but there's still a lot of stigma and myths being perpetuated. It's ridiculous.
Are you trying to advocate for abstinence if the young adult isn't in love and wants to spend the rest of their life with their preferred sexual partner? My point being IMHO someone can be serious about the ramifications about sex *and* also engage in it for the simple pleasure of it or self discovery. One (love) is not required for the other (protection).
As a society, when are we going to get real & pragmatic about protecton and hopefully reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions? Leave the parenting (abstinence) to the parents (if that is what they want to teach their children).
Discriminate Dumping of Toxins is killing "Life" all over this wonderful Planet of Ours ...
Choice?
"Only morality in our actions can give beauty
& dignity to our lives." - Albert Einstein
This is an absurd argument. First of all, location does not determine personhood. Personhood is no more defined by being in the womb than it is defined by you being in your house. Secondly, there are many aborted babies that CAN exist outside the womb. And for those that cannot, abortion is STILL unjustified because dependency or level of development has nothing to do with personhood either. There are many people long since born that cannot live without help or are underdeveloped, but we don't advocate killing them, do we? What about the person on a respirator? Or on dialysis? Without that support, they would die, right? Do we advocate killing them? Or what about the developmentally disabled teenager that has the developmental level of a 5 year old? Do we advocate killing them?
The bottom line is that there is NO argument made in support of abortion that could not be applied to a person already born.
What is ridiculous is the notion that a sperm or an egg is a living thing that's sentient-- something that's self-aware and can function as an independant organism outside of the testes or uterus.
Eggs and sperm are collections of highly-developed and specialized cellular structures. They cannot survive on their own.
By your argument, it's possible to say that dandruff is murder. Cutting your fingernails or your hair is mass-murder.
There is NO arguement made in support of anti-abortion that doesn't boil down to either the notion that God's gonna send you to hell without an electric fan or that you're engaging in some sort of eugenical crusade. The anti-abortion groups have spent years and millions of dollars equating the "right to choose" with eugenics. (Eternal Damnation has now taken the second tier.)
The sad thing is that if they'd have spent that time and money helping people make intelligent choices with regard to reproduction and reproductive rights, we'd be in a much better place.
You are correct in one sense, though. There isn't any geographical instance in this argument. This is about control, pure and simple. Power, if you will. It makes some people feel good to bend other people to their will, no matter how specious or foolish the pretext.
I strongly agree that banning abortion will not end abortion, women should not feel as though having a child will destroy their life and that's what many of the policies in place today encourage. It is often those that decry abortion who also decry food stamps, welfare, and housing subsidies for the women who have children they otherwise can't afford. There is a great deal of hypocrisy there but that doesn't mean that having an abortion is like cutting off a fingernail. Is it murder? Probably more like manslaughter but still, it's not a great option for the woman. Most women who have abortions experience profound psychological trauma if not physical trauma to their fertility.
That's a straw man argument. Nobody is arguing that a sperm or an egg are a sentient human being. Most pro-lifers believe that life begins at conception, not before.
"You are correct in one sense, though. There isn't any geographical instance in this argument. This is about control, pure and simple. Power, if you will. It makes some people feel good to bend other people to their will, no matter how specious or foolish the pretext."
That's another absurd, made-up argument. I have NEVER heard a single pro-lifer argue that their real motivation is control of other people. If you really believe this, then you either are ignorant of reality or just choose to ignore it. Or, you just make this up as a way to demonize pro-lifers in your own mind.
Again, there is NO argument made in support of abortion that could not be applied to people already born.
A woman's body belongs to her and her alone. If a man is so concerned about a woman terminating a pregnancy - put a cap on your little fellow and skip the problem.
When does an individual "life" begin? The religious believe early, the less religious believe it's very late. If the latter ever prevailed by a preponderant majority, they would not force abortions on those who don't wish them.
Mixing politics of the body with spiritual speculation is guaranteed to trample rights. It's a short walk from ending choice to the chador.
If we're truly interested in cutting abortions, we'd have more effective sex ed programs, readily available birth control for the young, and privacy laws shielding young women from over-zealous families. We'd also make sure that sexually active youth are completely aware of emotional, social and economic consequences of unwanted births.
Many American parents shirk their responsibility, avoiding the simple discussion that reads, "Look, I know you're going to have (or are currently having) sex. I just don't want you to get pregnant or impregnate someone. Here's how you avoid doing so." That's how we cut down on abortions. Not with sanctimonious preaching and attacks on women's unalienable rights.
http://nyliberalstateofmind.blogspot.com/2010/03/republican-lost-weekend-and-some-advice.html
Consider this for a moment:
If we allowed abortion to be legal (and perhaps even compulsory in cases where it is obvious that the parent(s) would be ill-fit to raising a child), but made it mandatory to serve nine months in prison for committing abortion as punishment for having unprotected sex, would it change the attitudes of people toward the act of human creation? In other words, does the prospect of prison deter crime in the first place, and if we made it a crime to indiscriminately create life would people be more likely to take the act of sex with more reverence and responsibility?
1) Since we all agree that no fetus chooses the circumstances of his/her/its conception, why should pregnancies resulting from tragic circumstances of rape, terrorism, or incest be any different than ones resulting from sex by choice?
2) If as the Religious Right claims, life begins at conception, why do we not see street protests against all forms of birth control which do not allow the implantation of , or otherwise result in the destruction of a fertilized egg (a "baby", in the view of anti-choicers) That includes quite a few methods!
3) And, if fetal life always supersedes that of the mother carrying it, why are even usually fatal tubal pregnancies allowed to be terminated before they kill the mother? "What happened to 'where there's life there's hope, so choose life' "? What happened to "expect-a-miracle"?
1) Some people believe it wrong to have an abortion in rape/incest situations, some dont. I believe in those cases, the mental health of the mother is fragile and to put her through the pregnancy would be a worse crime than the abortion.
2) There are certainly many in the right who decry the use of pills that could prevent implantation. It's a matter of extremity in your views. The forms of BC that stop implentation are "potential" but not definite abortion drugs unless used for that purpose. The pill *generally* stops ovulation but in rare instances, if ovulation occurs, implantation is prevented- but it's scientifically difficult to pinpoint if that's happened at all. You can take any argument to the extreme.If you think that a baby isn't human until it's born, you'd probably make exception if the mother was full term, yet says "I want an abortion."
3) Most pro-lifers wouldn't say that the fetus supercedes the life of the mother, but it's more like a siamese twin situation. It sucks to have an unwanted body attached to you but you can't order it killed just because you don't like it.
Hope that clarifies it from someone who holds a moderate pro-life stance.
Re 1): So now "fragile mental health" is an OK reason for abortion? Rape is horrible, yes, but who decided it's more horrible for every woman, than extreme poverty, fatigue, or clinical depression? Or a toxic, even deadly, abusive relationship with the significant other? What right does anyone have to attempt to draw that line for me and all other females?
Re 2): There are birth control methods other than "The Pill" which act to prevent pregnancies primarily by thwarting implantation of fertilized eggs (zygotes?) . I do believe all intra-uterine devices work in this manner. Again, whomever drew that line, drew it arbitrarily and not regarding facts.
Re 3) Consider the many thousands of women who give birth under less-than-ideal circumstances, and are essentially blamed and mistreated because they brought another baby or a particular person's baby...into the world. Until every pregnant woman is put on a bankety-blank pedestal by our society, regardless of the circumstances of pregnancy, I will not buy your third point. Can't have it both ways, B.E.!
Haven't you ever heard of "The Pill Kills?" Scary stuff.