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

Utah's Legislature is Hurting our Children

Ah, children! The joy of every parent’s life; the happiness they bring to grandparents. We all want our children to grow up safe, healthy, and loved. To accomplish this, we teach them from a very early age to eat well, dress warmly, and wear their seat belts. Our physicians inoculate and vaccinate them, and attend to their various illnesses. As they progress through school, our educators add to the wealth of information that can assist our children to lead happy, productive, and healthy lives.

Unfortunately, there is also pressure to ignore what the parents, doctors, and teachers advise. Peer pressure can lead children into gangs, drugs, alcohol, and sex. As parents, we don’t want this to happen, and we try to educate our children to avoid risky behavior. We rely on the schools to re-enforce the principals we stress repeatedly to our youth.
Why then, would the Canyons School District in Utah physically remove pages 398-417 from the brand new health textbooks for its five high schools? (Rolly, Tribune)
Brand new textbooks, costing $76.19 each, had pages cut out of them by the school administration. Why?

Could it be because our legislature is afraid to have our children taught about sex? They think that if we teach children about sex, they will run out and start copulating like rabbits. Perhaps it is time to send our legislators back to school, to teach them some facts, some reality. Here’s what they need to learn: Utah teenagers and young adults are having sex now, without enough knowledge of how to protect themselves from unintended pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases. And that, my dear readers, is not good.

Utah had a teenage pregnancy rate in 2011 of 23.1 per 1,000 women. The national average that same year was 31.3 per 1000, so we are doing better than some states, but not as well as others. However, the pregnancy rate is only part of the problem. What life-changes occur when teenage girls become pregnant? Here are some scary national statistics: 79% of teenagers who become pregnant are unmarried; 34 % of sexually active teenagers have at least one pregnancy before age 20, and 80% of teen mothers end up on welfare, for at least some period.

Utah has some scary statistics of its own to worry about, and they are not just about becoming pregnant. There are four major sexually transmitted diseases, and Utah has its share of them. The data here is all from 2011, and all supplied by the CDC. (The links are at the end of this article.) When I use the term population, I am referring to the 15-24 age groups, not the entire population.
Chlamydia, the so-called silent epidemic, is the most common STD in Utah; it was diagnosed in 4740 teenagers in 2011. That is a rate of 1059 for every 100,000 teenagers/young adults. The second most prevalent STD in Utah is gonorrhea, in 2011 there were 119 new cases confirmed in the 15-24 age grouping. The rate for gonorrhea was 26.6 per 100,000 of our teenage/young adult population. Next on the list is syphilis, which was diagnosed in two cases in 2011, for the same population, this puts it at .4 for every 100,000 young adults. Are you concerned about our children’s health yet?

You should be very concerned, in fact we all should be. Here is a statistic that should really frighten you. In 2011, 81 new cases of HIV infection were reported in our target group; and, even more frightening, 2091 of our 13-24 teenagers/young adults were living with the HIV infection.
Let’s do some simple math: in 2011, 5,377 unmarried teenagers/young adults gave birth (23 were under 15!); 4,740 teenagers/young adults were diagnosed with Chlamydia; 119 with gonorrhea, 2 with syphilis, and 2172 had the HIV infection.
Twelve thousand, four hundred and ten of our teenagers/young adults had their lives dramatically changed. 12,410 lives negatively affected in 2011 alone. So why do I want the legislature to go back to school?

The laws in Utah, created by our head in the sand legislature, do not allow discussion, by the teacher or in the textbook, about contraception, STD’s, sexual arousal, masturbation or alternative life-styles. Our legislature believes that teaching about sex in school may violate a parent’s right to control what information (about sex) their children receive. Remember, we are talking about high school students here, students that regularly use the internet, with wireless devices that connect them to the internet 24/7/365, provided by the parents. Well, mom, dad, and legislature, here is a news flash for you. Johnny and Sally are having sex, whether you like it or not. You don’t want to think Utah’s children are in any way sexually active, but that is obviously incorrect. You want to believe that if we raise our children in good homes, and don’t tell them about sex, they won’t get curious, they won’t experiment. Sadly, that is not reality, that is not what the data shows. That is the reason, however, why Canyons School District cut the pages out of 315 textbooks. (Canyons had originally ordered textbooks for 3000 students, so they have now gone back to the publisher to have the textbooks re-created without the offending sections.) It is ridiculous, it is wrong, and it is unfair to our children. It also means that there will not be new health books for the high school students until the next school year.

This legislative session in Utah, the legislators will consider SB31, which will raise the legal age to buy tobacco products in Utah from 19 to 21. The senator proposing this law says that this will prevent 4,740 teenagers/young adults from smoking. That is a good, albeit questionable motive. (If you are old enough to die for your country, I think you are mature enough to decide if you want to smoke.) If the good senator is concerned about the health of our young adults, should not the health of 12,410 teenagers/young adults be a greater concern than that of 4,740?

There are ways to reduce teen pregnancy and STD transmission; they include education at home and at school, availability of effective birth control, and good parenting/mentoring. The CDC has a program to reduce teen the number of pregnancies, here is one of the components that bears strongly on this discussion:
“Providing teens with evidence-based teen pregnancy prevention programs, including youth development and curriculum-based programs that reduce teen pregnancy and associated risk factors.”
Twelve thousand, four hundred and ten of our teenagers/young adults had their health, and their lives, put at risk due to our state-sponsored policy of “Don’t Tell.” It’s time to change that policy, and educate our children.

Thanks for reading my thoughts. Please feel free to add your comments, just click on the pencil to open the comment box!

Paul Rolly’s Tribune article is here: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/57506243-90/district-books-sexual-policy.html.csp

Utah birth rates are here: http://health.utah.gov/vitalrecords/2011bx_UpdatedFinal_03292013.pdf

CDC Statistics are here: http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/by-age/15-24-all-STDs/state/2011/UT11.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/HSSR_MSA_2013-PDF04.pdf

CDC program to reduce teen pregnancy: http://www.cdc.gov/TeenPregnancy/PreventTeenPreg.htm

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.