The Dialogue, Part 2

 Ok, let's talk about abortion. Put down the gun and pitchfork, let's just talk. Here's some facts: Abortion peaked in 1990 with 1.6 million abortions legally performed. In 2019 (the latest year complete data is available) the number was between 630,000 and 890,000, depending upon who you ask- the CDC or the Guttmaker Institute. Either way, the number is down 50%. The raw number is down, even as the population continues to increase. To me, that shows the effectiveness of sex education, the availability of contraceptives, and the involvement of both partners. That's all good news.

The bad news, in my opinion, is all of this talk about "right to life" and "protecting unborn children" that comes from the mouths of Republican politicians is so much bull byproduct as to make one puke. The Republicans are no more interested in right to life than they can fly; if you want evidence look at all the attempts to destroy the Affordable Care Act. You are likely to suffer greatly from the lack of medication or die a from easily preventable disease if you don't have insurance. Review the Republican efforts to keep the minimum wage artificially low; if you can't afford to buy food and pay the rent, well, that's too bad for you. If you are a veteran of the U.S. Armed Services (thank you for your service), only 1 Republican Senator (Marco Rubio-FL) has your back-all the rest are against the Honoring Our PACT Act, relative to the damage caused by burn pits. Right to life, indeed. One plan discussed by Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) would cut benefits to Social Security by 1/3, raise the eligibility age, and threaten Social Security with defunding every five years. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) fearing the wrath of Senior Citizen Voters, took that page out of the bill.

Right To Life?

I'll skip the fine print and go right to the heart of the matter: in 2022, there have been 218 mass shootings, with a sad total of 221 dead and 831 wounded but survived. This data covers January 1, 2022 to May 29, 2022, and include the shooter if wounded or killed. Congress moans, prays, and sends condolences; but nothing of value happens. Congress could act, but no, this is not abortion we are talking about here. It's only 221 living people -you know, the ones already born- dead because Congress won't do it's part.

My point? Abortion is not a right to life matter for the hypocritical morons in Congress; it is much more important than that. It is a control issue; the mostly white, mostly male congress demands to control what a woman does, or does not do, with her own body. Please don't bother to mention religion in reference to this issue, the 1st Amendment to the Constitution takes that off the table. Don't try to tell me that a woman cannot be responsible for her own choices; women are no more or less responsible actors that males.

No, it is a control issue; and as long as the voters elect these same sad Republican congressmen hypocrites, they will continue to demand control over a woman's body, and the right to make her own choices. Now that Roe vs Wade is in danger of being overturned, the choice of our Congressmen will become more important than ever.

Personally, I don't want Congressmen hypocrites making decisions for my wife, children, and grandchildren. They are smart enough to make their own decisions.

Thank you for reading; as always, your comments, thoughts and opinions are welcome. Please click on the pencil below to make a comment.

R.M. "Bob" Hartman

The Dialogue, Part 1

 In our lives there are times, events, and phenomena which, while we may understand why they occur, cannot be reconciled with any aspect of truth or even reality. They are of such magnitude and depth that comprehension is impossible.

Events like these destroy our underlying beliefs in a number of ways; the shattering of norms, of concepts of human dignity and compassion; an abrupt changing in the rules of law we have come to accept and adopt as human rights.

Perhaps it is our own fault, for we have come to believe and trust in an America where right prevails over might; where the individual matters; where we celebrate freedom of thought and action (violence towards others not included).

America's system of government, slow, laborious, and time-consuming as it is, works as well or better than any other; yet it is a relative newcomer to the world stage. If it is viewed on a timeline progressing towards Jefferson's "more perfect union", we can see progress; not so much on a daily or even yearly basis, but as an overall effort, moving inexorably toward a time and place where all mankind will be equal, one toward another.

Our current elected officials, on every level of government, are failing us; the violence, hatred, and fear consume every news cycle, the senseless killing continues unabated. No, there is no one size fits all, one bill will fix everything solution; the problems are of great magnitude and will require great statesmen to begin the process of correction.

With minute exception, "our" elected senators and congressmen are not ours, they are owned lock, stock, and opinion by the despicably wealthy donors they have courted. This, in and of itself, is more than adequate reason to void the Supreme Court's ruling on Citizens United; an action that can only be undertaken by Congress itself. But, that is a discussion I will hold for another post.

The murder of 21 human beings in Uvalde, Texas has brought out the best, I suppose, in our public leaders. They have all offered sympathy, condolences, prayers, and tears. But, and it is a big BUTT, that is all they are going to do. Until such time as voters make Senators, Representatives and Governors feel the danger of not moving gun control forward, nothing will change.

So, you might ask, why won't voters make congressmen take action? Three words, alphabetically:

Abortion

God

Guns

These three immovable planks of the Republican party are the great dog whistles of our times. The mere mention of any of the holy trinity of politics will rile up the base; get them out and voting, not for any one candidate in particular, but against "them;" the ones who will put an abortion clinic on every corner, abolish all religion, and take away your guns. The Republican party has been very adapt at focusing American voters on fear, without ever using the word; they provide on our television screen, a dismal picture of the future if we elect "them."

Short of the reversal of Citizen's United, it will take a strong, principled, self-funded Republican to stand up to the gun lobbies millions and do the hard work demanded to pass meaningful gun control regulation in the United States of America. Frankly, I don't see Congress wiling to take on Citizen's United in the near future; and I am not holding out for a true statesman to come forward from the Republican party.

The most demanding work in politics is always left to the American voter, that is, you and I. Only by studious attention to detail and records, can we filter out the good from the spoils. We must decide what we want America to look like, not only to the world, but to our children and grandchildren and then act in accordance to our decisions. We must decide how many more human beings we want sacrificed on the alter of "gun rights"; how many more lives we can afford to lose as a poor example to the world of American Greatness, as an example of democracy at work.

Thank you for reading; as always, your comments, opinions, and thoughts are welcome. Click on the pencil below to leave a comments.

R.M. "Bob" Hartman

A Macro Kind of Guy

 I've always been a big-picture type of person, you know, the type that looks at a subject like education as being more than just teachers and students in a school. 

To me, being pro something means you are in favor of it, whole-heartedly.  For example, being pro-education means you want the best education for the greatest number of people possible, so they can succeed and contribute to society in the greatest conceivable way. 

Which is why I think of pro-life in a variety of delineations. For example, a truly pro-life senator would work to rein in exorbitantly high drug prices so all Americans could enjoy the life-improving effects they provide. As a side note, this would also improve his standing with the voters. 

A for-real pro life congressman would stand up and say, "Enough is Enough," and work to enact and enforce gun control measures, because being pro-life means not getting shot up in a shopping mall. The lives he saves with this effort could vote for him in gratitude. 

The House and Senate, working together on a pro-life stance, would increase Head Start and SNAP benefits, programs designed to give less fortunate children a better shot at succeeding in life. When those children grow up, they can talk about the positive life-changing effect those programs had on them as youth. 

The direct correlation between education and a better life is well-proven. How great would it be if the pro-life Senators and Congressmen came together and improved the funding for all levels of education, even so far as providing free community colleges? It sounds like a win-win to me, the building and construction trades are begging for trained employees, and those jobs provide good pay and benefits. It would indeed improve life and provide a way out of poverty for so many people! 

And yes, pro-life does mean providing world class pre-natal and maternity benefits to women, regardless of martial status. It also means providing them a path to adoption or safe, unfettered access to abortion if desired; no government intervention is required, because the woman's life and future are also an integral part of "life." 

I'm looking forward to your comments and opinions! Thanks for reading.

R.M. "Bob" Hartman

   

 

Shadows and Straws

It never ceases to amaze me, the deep shadows and thin straws used by those who would project their version of morality and life-style choices upon others in order to deny the constitutional right of marriage to same-sex couples.

Attorney Gene Schaerr authored a commentary, posted on the website of the Heritage Foundation’s The Daily Signal, outlining an amicus brief he had filed with the Supreme Court, wherein he claims that allowing same sex marriage will (a) devalue heterosexual marriage, (b) reduce the percentage of women who are married, and (c) increase the number of induced abortions.

Mr. Schaerr is best known as the lead attorney hired by the State of Utah to defend Amendment 3 of the Utah Constitution, which defined marriage as existing only between one man and one woman. The State of Utah, not surprisingly, lost the appeal, and same sex marriage is now legal in Utah. (I posted my reply to Utah’s court filing on this blog.)

Certainly Mr. Schaerr is entitled to his personal and religious beliefs. He is very well known for his membership in, and support of, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which opposes SSM on religious grounds. However, he is not entitled to his own facts, nor should he be allowed to use those beliefs to deny any American his or her constitutional rights.

To quote Attorney Schaerr:

“For example, an “any-two-adults” model of marriage implicitly tells men (and women) that a child doesn’t need a father (or mother), thereby weakening the norm of gender-diverse parenting. Other norms, such as the value of biological bonding, partner exclusivity, and reproductive postponement until marriage, will likewise crumble.”

Unfortunately for Mr. Schaerr’s opinion and amicus brief, that train left the station a long time ago. The Pew Research Center has studied census data from 1960 to 2013; here are the numbers: In 1960, only 9% of children were living in a single parent household; in 1980, 19% were in single parent households; and 2013, the figure was 34%. From this data, I conclude that the “norms” Mr. Schaerr speaks to have already crumbled. Traditional marriage was the norm in 1960, but it is certainly not the norm in 2015. For Mr. Schaerr to conclude that same sex marriage will devalue traditional heterosexual marriage seems to fly into the face of facts; traditional marriage has been declining (devaluing?) for decades.

As quoted by The Washington Post, the PRC analysis of Americans age 25 and older who have never been married details the following facts. In 1960, 8% of women and 10% of men in this group have never married. The number of never married men and women dropped slightly in 1970, to 8.5% and 9%, respectively, and has increased since; the rate in 2012 was 17% of women and 23% of men. On the surface, this increase of unmarried women and men would seem to support Mr. Schaerr’s arguments, but the details seem to have escaped him. In the PRC analysis, those who are same-sex married (in those states that allow SSM) are considered as married, and therefore are not part of the increased number of those who have never married. I therefore respectfully disagree with Mr. Schaerr regarding the supposed effect of same-sex marriage on the percentage of women who never marry. 

Regarding abortion, Mr. Schaerr stated in his brief that allowing SSM will increase the number of abortions. He is statistically incorrect; the Guttmacher Institute reports the number abortions performed in the United States has declined from a peak in 1981 of 29.3 per 1000 women of child-bearing age to 12.3 per 1000 in 2013. Same sex marriage was not legal in anywhere in the U.S. in 1981, when SSM did not exist; by 2013, 37 states and the District of Columbia legally allowed SSM. And yet the number of abortions has fallen to historic lows. Perhaps Mr. Schaerr should go back to school?

I think that a majority of us have longed, at one point or another, for “the good old days,” when Mom stayed home and raised the children, Dad worked one good-paying job, and everybody was June and Ward Cleaver happy. Reality, however, was not always that sunny. People of color were regarded as inferior; many women (and some men) stayed in abusive, destructive relationships because divorce for any reason was frowned upon by society, or not a legal option; family planning and reliable birth control were not discussed, and women could not apply for credit without their spouse’s approval.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, the rise of social knowledge of (and disgust for) spousal and child abuse, the availability of higher education to both men and women, the availability of reliable birth control, and the acceptance of women as men’s equal in the workplace and the home allowed society to move forward and, albeit slowly, accept changes in the mores of American life. (These are just a few of the changes, used only as examples.) The actual acceptance of these changes has taken, and will continue to take, time to become a true reality for all Americans. But as a nation, as a people, we are moving in the right direction.

Now, as a society, we are on the cusp of another major paradigm shift; one which I view as a positive change in America’s social network. When the Supreme Court rules on same sex marriage in June, it is my hope, and my belief, that the constitutional right of all couples to marry as they desire will become the law of the land. 

As always, your opinions and comments are valued.

R.M. Hartman

Sources:

The Daily Signal http://dailysignal.com/2015/04/17/forcing-states-to-recognize-gay-marriage-could-increase-number-of-abortions/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social retrieved April 23, 2015

Pew Research Center:http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/22/less-than-half-of-u-s-kids-today-live-in-a-traditional-family/

The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/09/24/i-do-no-thanks-the-economics-behind-americas-marriage-decline/ 

Guttmacher Instutite: https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

The 800 pound Gorilla

While doing campaign work (knocking on doors) for a Democratic candidate in the last election, I stopped by a young family doing yard work. I offered my pamphlet to the father, and one of his children asked, “Dad, who are Democrats?” His reply still rings in my ears. “They are the ones who want abortion and gun control, not good for us.”

This article is about the 800 pound gorilla in the room, abortion. (I promise to talk about gun control later.)

I am sorry that this oft-spoken position is the (incorrect) opinion of Democrats as a whole. The candidate in question was very much pro-life. But it begs the bigger question, what about abortion? This has been a controversial subject for many years, on all sides of the political spectrum, and it has come up again with the rise of Willard “Mitt” Romney, who is now the Republican candidate for the office of President of the United States of America.

October 25, 1994: In Senate election debate in Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy accuses Romney of being "multiple choice" on abortion. Romney denies the charge, saying that he has supported abortion rights consistently since 1970 when his mother Lenore ran as a pro abortion rights candidate for the U.S. Senate candidate in Michigan. He linked his support for abortion rights to the death "many years ago" of a "dear, close family relative" following a botched illegal abortion. "You will not see me wavering on that," he adds.

October 29, 2002 "I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose."
— Mitt Romney, Massachusetts Governor election debate.

December 8, 2005: Romney reverses an earlier decision on the advice of his counsel and orders all hospitals in the state to make the "morning after" pill available to rape victims, over the protests of Catholic hospitals, who argue that this goes against their religious beliefs. A Boston Herald editorial says that Romney has "executed an Olympic-caliber double flip-flop with a gold medal-performance twist-and-a-half on the issue of emergency contraception."

June 15, 2007: Addresses National Right to Life convention. Says that even though he was "always personally opposed to abortion," he decided to support "the law as it was in place" as governor of Massachusetts. "I was wrong."

August 5, 2007 "Every action I have taken as governor of Massachusetts has been pro-life."
— Mitt Romney, Republican Debate

October 8, 2011. (Value Voter Summit, Washington DC.) Mr. Romney took the opportunity to talk about some of his positions on social issues.
“Now, the foundation needed for a strong economy and a strong military is a people of strong values,” Mr. Romney said, recalling that he was blessed to be raised by happily married parents whose example “led me to marry and have children, and now to bask in the joy of 16 grandchildren.”
He promised to support the Defense of Marriage Act and to appoint Supreme Court justices who would help overturn Roe v. Wade.
“We know that marriage is more than a personally rewarding social custom — it’s also critical for the well-being of a civilization,” Mr. Romney said. “That’s why it’s so important to preserve traditional marriage, the joining together of one man and one woman.”
On abortion, he said, “Our values must encompass the life of an unborn child.”
“The law may call it a right, but no one ever called it a good, and in the quiet of conscience, people of both political parties know that more than a million abortions a year can’t be squared with the good heart of America,” he said. “And I will nominate judges who know the difference between personal opinion and law. It is long past time for the Supreme Court to return the issue of abortion back to the states by overturning Roe v. Wade.”
Mr. Romney, I respectively disagree with your side-swapping. It begs the larger question of what you would do as president of the United States of America. Will you be a man of principle, or of political gain?

This issue, abortion, is a charged issue, no doubt. I would rather that my wife, child, or grandchild never had to make this weighty decision. But I would rather that she could make it knowing it would be safe, unfettered, and made between her, her doctor, and her conscious, rather than made in Washington by men who do not know her reasons. Mr. Romney, get the politicians out of this discussion. The privilege to use, or not use birth control is a personal decision. A right to the availability of birth control should not be made by you, or any other politician. The right to have, or not have, an abortion does not need to be made by individuals not involved in the choice. This is not a decision to be made by you, by any president, or by any person aspiring to that office. It is a decision that needs to be made by the persons involved.

Your comments are welcome, as always.
RMH

Breast Exams, Birth Control, and Republicans

Two recent news articles have me very concerned relative to health care for American women. Both of these situations revolve around women’s rights, particularly the right to reasonably priced and available reproductive health care. I realize I am stepping into very volatile territory here. It is my belief that, in America, women should enjoy the same rights, freedoms, and protections that men enjoy. Your comments and criticisms are welcome, as always.

First, the Susan G. Komen Foundation announced they would no longer provide funds to Planned Parenthood Federation of America, citing a potential congressional review of Planned Parenthood’s financial practices. This review is headed by Representative Cliff Stearns, R-FL, and is encouraged by anti-abortion groups. Planned Parenthood provides, among other services, free or low-cost breast examinations, and ob-gyn examinations, for women without insurance or the ability to pay “full price” for this service. The funding Susan G. Komen Foundation provides is earmarked for these service, and its’ monies cannot be used for abortion. The question being raised in the review runs along the lines of determining if monies given to Planned Parenthood for non-abortion services are being used to provide abortions. In my opinion, this is a red herring, as Planned Parenthood's financial and operational practices were investigated in 2005 by the Bush Administration’s Department of Health and Human Services. The investigation found no irregularities in the organization’s finances or practices. In fact, Planned Parenthood Federation of America serves 3 million people annually, and only 3% of its services are abortions. After a huge public outcry, Komen reversed the decision and the funding will stay in place, for now.

Second, a policy from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services requires all employers who provide employee health insurance to cover contraceptive methods, including but not limited to birth control pills, Plan-B and permanent contraceptive procedures such as sterilization, effective August 1, 2012. Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have both come out against this policy, saying it is unfair to require employers (citing the Catholic Church as an example) to be “forced” to provide insurance for items that, if used, violate religious beliefs on birth control for women. For example, if a (non-Catholic) employee of a Catholic-operated hospital, covered by employer-provided health care, wishes to purchase birth control, it is not covered by insurance. The new regulation simply mandates that this coverage be included in the health care policy. It does not demand that anyone use birth control. Bowing to political pressure, the Administration has granted a waiver to religious-based organizations (such as Catholic-operated hospitals). This waiver, in my opinion, is a step backward for the Obama Administration and a major defeat for women wishing to control their reproductive lives.

So why am I concerned about these news items? I fear that these two examples illustrate a Republican party out of touch with America, and indeed with itself. In 1970, President Richard Nixon (a Republican) signed into law the the Family Planning Services and Population Research Act. Title X of that law provides funding for family planning services, including contraception and family planning. This was passed in Congress with wide-spread bipartisan support. Liberals saw it as increasing families’ control of their lives, and conservatives saw it as a way to reduce the number of people on welfare. President Nixon stated “no American woman should be denied access to family planning because of her economic condition.” In a scant 40 years, Republicans have gone from supporting policies that would reduce the number of people on welfare to arguing that women should not have the right to determine when or if they bear children.

It is commonly accepted that proper health care, including screenings for cancer, is much less expensive that treatments for medical conditions gone unchecked. Cancer of any type is a devastating condition, physically, mentally and financially. At it’s “best”, it causes severe emotional and financial stress, at it’s worst, a painful death. It is also true that preventing unwanted pregnancies is much less expensive than having children born into families that cannot support them, or the mental, physical, and financial price of abortions. In framing the decision (to include birth control in employer-provided health care) as “forcing” women to use birth control, and “forcing” employers to include contraception in insurance polices, the Republicans are spinning this regulation as government interference with business. In doing so, they are implying that women cannot make a decision (to use birth control or not) regarding their own physical and religious beliefs. There is nothing-nothing at all- that says a woman must use birth control. The regulation does require businesses that provide insurance to include birth control in the policies. The choice-to use birth control or not-is left to the individual.

During 1999–2008, the reported abortion numbers, rates, and ratios decreased 3%, 4%, and 10%, respectively. (Source: CDC Reproductive Health, data and statistics, Jan 12, 2012). In 2008 (latest complete data year) 825,564 medically-induced abortions were performed in the United States. Slightly less than 300,000 were at Planned Parenthood clinics nation-wide. (Planned parenthood is the only nation-wide provider of abortion.) I will argue that there were 825,564 abortions that should have been prevented by availability and proper use of birth control methods. However, Republicans and “religious right”, you cannot have it both ways. Either you allow women the right to low- or no-cost birth control, or you have abortions. If you have abortions, you can choose safe, legal abortions, or we can regress in time to the “back-alley” abortions.

In the final analysis, this is one more Republican attempt to “play to the base”, to argue that the current administration, and Planned Parenthood, is pro-abortion. Nothing can be further from the truth. No one is “forcing” women to use birth control, and no one, including Planned Parenthood, is promoting abortion. All that is being done is to require employer-based plans to include the availability of birth control, and for women to have the right to a safe abortion, if that is necessary.

On a very personal basis, I would hope that if my daughter, or granddaughters, were “sexually active”, they would have access to good, truthful information regarding birth control, and if they decided that an abortion was necessary, it would be available in a safe, legal, and accepting environment.

Thank you for reading and understanding.