The Covenant School Mass Shooting Event

 The Covenant School, in Nashville Tennessee, now takes it place in a long line of sorrow. The United States of America witnessed its 129th mass shooting on Monday, March 27, 2023, with three adults and three children gunned down, and then the shooter killed by Nashville police. (A mass shooting is defined by the FBI as an incident in which four or more individuals are murdered by firearms involving one or more shooters.)

Where is the public outrage?

Covenant School, a private K-6 institution, instructs about 200 students. Now three students are dead. The shooter, who apparently planned the attack with some degree of accuracy, was armed with an assault-style rifle, an assault-style pistol, and a handgun, according to police on the scene.

Why does this keep occurring?

A friend of the shooter has told police she received a text about 1 hour before the event, in which the shooter explained she was going to die by suicide today, and it would be in the news. The friend called Nashville police to report the incident. It has not been made public yet how the police responded to that information.

The President and other government officials have, as usual offered "thoughts and prayers."

Three 9-year old children and three middle-aged adults are dead. Shot by a person who may have had some mental instability, armed with assault-style weapons and "a massive amount" of ammunition.

Jim Jordan wants to investigate Hunter Biden's laptop.

There are no simple one and done solutions to the gun violence issue in the United States of America. It is inconceivable to me in a country with the ability to divide the atom, put a man on the moon, and lead the world's democratic nations, we cannot even begin to have a logical, solution-oriented discussion on this subject.

In stark contrast to the Uvalde shooting last May, the police were on the scene and killed the shooter within 14 minutes of the first active shooter phone call. Truly, a remarkably fast and effective response; they deserve congratulations for a job well done, in a very difficult situation.

What is so difficult to understand? The American public is tired of mass shooting events.

The typical, reliable, non-effective non-responses will be forthcoming. Thoughts and prayers will come from every politician's lips, and empty promises of action. Some will proclaim it is a mental health issue, others will proclaim it a gun control issue, and nothing-absolutely nothing-will be done. Congress, in a fashion we are well schooled in, will not upset its donors or vocal minorities.

It's of paramount importance to defend America against woke ideologies.

As I said earlier, there is no one and done on this issue. There are definite, concrete steps forward that will begin to reduce the mass shootings in this country; they sadly will require two items Congress currently doesn't have.

Leadership and testicles.

It "only" took 15 ballots and 4 days to elect Kevin McCarthy Speaker of the House. According to Speaker McCarthy, this shows that republicans know how to govern. WHAT?

You all know I have opinions, some of which you might not agree with, but I encourage and look forward to that polite dissent. So here is my laundry list of items for Congress to enact.

The Second Amendment states, and I quote; "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Nothing I propose here is designed to interfere with the Second Amendment, nor do I propose to interfere with that document.

All of these should be introduced as single line bills, that is, the only issue on the bill is (this one). In this manner, a Congressman's constituents will be able to judge where he or she sits on each issue.

Just prior to the voting on each bill, the Congressman or woman will state for the record the total amount of money he or his campaigns have accepted from any gun lobby, weapons manufacturer, sporting groups, or any pro-gun organization, for the entire time he/she has been in politics.

The first item on Congress' to-do list is to mandate health insurance companies to provide, at the same rate as physical health, mental health checkups and treatment.

The next item would be to enact national red flag laws; this would alleviate a person not eligible to own a gun in one state from purchasing one in another state.

Next, institute universal background checks, including gun shows and individual sales, to refuse the sale of firearms to those not qualified to possess them.

Congress shall mandate all weapons manufactured after the enactment of this bill shall have biometric trigger locks installed at the time of manufacture.

Trigger locks shall be required on all pre-owned firearms sold by any person or firm.

Repeal the "Firearm Owner's Protection Act" of 1986; then institute a mandated national registry of firearms sold by any source from this date forward.

Liability insurance shall be mandated for all firearms owned.

Renew the assault weapons ban, and place a ban on high-capacity magazines.

Well, there you have it, my partial solutions to the gun violence issue in this country. I am not supportive of confiscation of firearms (except under lawful mandate of the court); nor am I anti-gun-ownership. I enjoy target shooting, have enjoyed hunting, and see not reason for others not to enjoy the same. I am also realistic enough to understand the probability of any of the above happening is slim to none. But, what the heck, I thought I'd put it out there anyway.

Thanks for reading, I am looking forward to your responses. To leave a comment, just click the word "comment" in the space below.

R.M. "Bob" Hartman

Ten Hot Summer Days

Ten hot summer days. In that space of time, 34 people were killed in mass shootings, and another 63 were injured. The alleged (?) shooters were white males, between the ages of 19 and 24. Two of the shooters are dead, the third is in jail. Although different guns were used, they all were high-capacity "assault rifles," and all were purchased "legally;" however, there is some evidence they may have been illegally transported across state lines. We may never know if the three gunmen knew each other, though some evidence suggests the killer in the El Paso murders may have been influenced by the Dayton shooting. Certainly, we will never positively know what factors drove the Dayton and Gilroy shooters to commit their crimes, as they are dead; but we may gain some insight into the thought patterns of the El Paso killer; he is still alive.

None of the above facts will bring back the 34 victims of these killers, nor will they erase the images captured in the minds of those wounded or who witnessed the shootings. And none of the above facts will do anything to stop the carnage that seems to be overwhelming our country.

There are things that can be done to reduce the risk of these types of mass murders re-occurring, and while they are small steps, they may be a beginning to some solutions. I'd like to express my thoughts on some of those ideas. You may say, after reading this, these ideas won't work, and I agree they will not solve all the problem. But, what we have been doing so far certainly hasn't worked very well, has it? It's time for some critical thinking.

The first, and perhaps the easiest one to implement, is to require national registration at the time of purchase or transfer of any and all firearms. This includes sales at gun shows, pawn shops, and sales by private individuals, including collectors. Believe it or not, only six states and the District of Columbia currently require firearm registration; and not all firearm types need to be registered, even in those states. Currently, seven states completely prohibit the registration of firearms. The other 37 states neither require or prohibit registration. This legislation should also include an insurance clause; that is, you must be able to prove liability insurance for the firearm. The legal age to purchase any firearm should be the same in all 50 states, and the District of Columbia. This does not mean that young Sally and Johnny cannot learn how to handle a firearm, or hunt; it just means they cannot purchase or own a gun.

I said this idea would be easy to implement, but the "Firearms Owners' Protection Act" of 1986 prohibits a national registry. So, this portion of the Reagan-era law would have to be overturned.

Some say this is the first step toward confiscation of privately owned firearms. Get real, people. You are required to register and insure your vehicles, which are also capable of killing and wounding people. It's not that different after all.

The three shootings under discussion meet the federal description of domestic terrorism, to wit: they are a)"dangerous to human life"; b) intended to "intimidate or coerce a civilian population;" or c) influence government by "intimidation or coercion" or "mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping." While federal law defines domestic terrorism, it does not make it a federal crime to commit acts of domestic terrorism. Wait a minute, we have a law defining acts of domestic terrorism, but no federal penalty for committing such acts? Yep, you got it. The FBI can become involved to assist state agencies, but the individuals responsible for these acts can only be prosecuted under state laws. Why does this matter? First, the FBI does not have to get involved in cases of this type, although I understand they are involved in these three. Second, the FBI can look beyond state borders at the relationship these types of criminals may have with other like-minded individuals, and bring charges where appropriate. Third, if domestic terrorism is a crime under federal law, stiffer penalties are a distinct possibility.

The second thought I propose then, is to pass a law making domestic terrorism a federal crime. Congress, can you stop pointing fingers at each other long enough to get this done?

Third, and this thought strikes very close to home for all of us: every person in America should demand of our elected officials that they do not denigrate populations of social backgrounds, wealth, country of origin, race, or sex as a whole. That is to say: Our President, and other elected officials, should never say or imply that all people from Pluto are murderers, rapists, or thieves; or that those with green skin are low-lifes, losers, or pathetic. This type of speech is antithetical to American ideals.

Besides, speech of this nature makes simple-minded people self-righteous, and then they do bad things. Very bad things, which can affect all of us in ways we cannot fathom.

Thank you for reading; as always, your comments are welcome.

R.M. "Bob" Hartman

Data on firearm registration taken from https://ballotpedia.org/Firearm_registration_requirements_by_state

Retrieved August 6, 2019; it is "as of Jan 1, 2019"

USA PATRIOT ACT, 2001

And we have a Winner!

It’s great, folks, really great! The House Republicans have passed, and sent to the Senate, the American Health Care Act. This bill will reduce health-care related costs and taxes by $5640 annually for those Americans who make $200,000 or more each year. Companies that employ 50 or more full time workers will no longer be forced to offer health insurance to the employees. This will definitely help make America great again.

Now, if you have winners this big, you naturally are going to have some losers. But who are they? The losers are you and I, the American people. Here are a few facts for your consideration.

If you make $10,000 annually, your health costs will rise by $1400 yearly. Those fine Americans that make $50,000-$72,000 will only see health costs increase by $60 annually, unless you get pregnant or have a pre-existing condition.

We are going to get rid of some of those pesky regulations that Obama put in the ACA. We are going to start by allowing insurance companies to charge you more, or deny you coverage entirely if you have any pre-existing conditions, such as being a victim of rape or domestic violence, pregnancy, cancer, or heart conditions, to name a few.

Insurance companies are corporations, and corporations are people, too. They don’t want to be forced to cover pregnancy, mental health care, or cancer screenings as essential services. The American NoHealth Care Act gives them the choice of covering them or not. I’m no expert, but I really don’t expect the insurance companies to willingly cover them any more as essential services.

If your insurance lapses for 63 days or more, say when you are unemployed, insurance companies can charge you higher premiums for pre-existing conditions than before.

Medicaid, including CHIP, is a health program that provides basic services for low income Americans. This program will be capped under the American NoHealth Care Act, which will force people close to the poverty line out of the program. They will then have the option of paying more than they can afford for health insurance, or just get sick and go to the emergency room. Now, that is what is known as freedom of choice? NOT!

These are just a few of the facts relating to the American NoHealth Care Act. Here’s a couple more, and they might hit home with you. This bill was passed without any Democratic votes, and in fact 20 Republicans voted against the bill. Are you represented in the House by a Republican? (Sadly, I am, and I am not happy about her vote. I voted for her opponent in the election.)

Did you vote for that Republican?

Think about it.

As always, thanks for reading. Please feel free to post comments or thoughts.

R.M. "Bob" Hartman 

Amazed, But Not Amused

Wow, where do I begin? The State of Utah filed its brief, outlining the State’s position on denying same-sex marriage rights in Utah, on Monday, February 3rd at 11:30 PM. (A scant 30 minutes before deadline.) I’ve spent a good part of yesterday and today reading the brief, looking up references, making notes; and I must admit my amazement. I’ve listed the major points, as I see them, here; and I have added my own comments. If you want to download the brief, it is available here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/204554071/State-of-Utah-ban-on-same-sex-marriage-brief#download, you do have to create a sign in for Scribd.com, but it is free. All page references made refer to the brief as submitted to the court.

What happens if Utah allows same-sex marriage, on an equal footing with opposite-sex marriage?
“Same sex marriage creates. . .(2) a risk of increased fatherlessness (and motherlessness), with all the emotional, social, and economic damage that has been shown to create.
(3) A risk of reduced birthrates, with the demographic and economic crises that could bring.” (Pages 2-3)
These are certainly interesting viewpoints. I would like to see the peer-reviewed papers that create both of these positions; none were cited in the brief. I fail to see how the presence of two loving committed adults in a relationship creates an increased risk of fatherlessness or motherlessness for the children. How will allowing same-sex marriage reduce the birthrate? If same-sex marriage is allowed, will opposite-sex couples stop creating children? That is an extremely doubtful outcome! Should same-sex marriages be denied, it is highly unlikely that the individuals involved will decide to engage in opposite-sex marriage and procreate. It is much more likely the participants will simply choose to cohabitate, without the legal benefit and protection of marriage. The two terms, fatherlessness and motherlessness, really? Who created those terms?

The voters in the general election held in November of 2004 passed Utah Amendment 3. Article 1, Section 29 of the Utah State Constitution now reads:
“(1) Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman.
(2) No other domestic unions, however denominated, shall be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.”
I have covered this, in depth, in a previous article. Suffice it to say, due to all of the uproar and rhetoric on both sides, our Governor and some in the legislature are now openly talking about allowing “civil unions” for same-sex couples, which they would not consider before. It’s too late for that, Governor. The horse has left the barn, at a gallop. The point the Governor and his supporters are not accepting is that civil unions do not provide all of the benefits accorded to married couples, as per existing federal and state laws. Separate but equal has been tried before, it failed then and it will fail now. Additionally, providing now for civil unions would invalidate paragraph 2 of this section, and as that is a constitutional change, it would have to come before the voters.

Under a section titled “Summary of Argument”, the State argues, among other things, that:
“. . . maintaining the man-woman definition increases the likelihood that children will be raised by their biological mothers and fathers-or at least a mother and father in intact families.” (Page 26)
I cannot follow that argument; if a heterosexual couple is raising their children now, how will allowing same-sex marriage decrease the likelihood they will continue to do so? Is the State saying, if we allow same-sex marriage, fathers or mothers in existing marriages will run off to be with a same-sex partner? Personally, I do not think so. I do not think it will matter to the parents at all, I cannot see same-sex marriage destroying any existing marriages/relationships. Characteristically, Utah is again tilting at windmills.

“. . . maintaining the man-woman definition helps to insure adequate reproduction by parents willing and able to raise their children in stable homes. . .The state has a compelling interest in ensuring adequate reproduction. . . ” (Page 27)
It is a biological fact that procreation requires involvement of opposite sexes. However, I do not understand how allowing same-sex marriage will reduce adequate reproduction by opposite-sex parents. Furthermore, what is the “compelling interest” the State has in ensuring adequate reproduction? The decision to reproduce, or not, belongs to the prospective parents, not to the State. Is this a behind the back maneuver to outlaw birth control in Utah? Could the State be saying, you must reproduce or your marriage is not valid?

“And although sex between men and women naturally- and often accidentally-produces children, it does not necessarily produce stable families dedicated to protecting and nurturing those children” (Page 52)
Well, here is a statement I can understand and agree with. Producing children does not mean a stable relationship, not by a long shot. Given the current number of single parent households in Utah, either because of divorce, desertion, or lack of commitment on the part of either parent, I think this statement is a no-brainer. My real question is, what does this statement have to do with the issue at hand, that is, same-sex marriage?

“Because of its critical social functions, marriage is also one of our most important social institutions.” (Page 53)
“Marriage (n): the state of being united to another person as a usual contractually relationship according to law or custom” (Merriam-Webster) It is indeed one of our most important social institutions, and as such, how would the State benefit by not allowing individuals to marry the person they wish to contract with? When two people decide to marry, to form that contract, they are formalizing their joint desire to enter into a long- term commitment to each other, for better or for worse, as the saying goes.

“. . . the law often supports social institutions, in order to give them formal recognition, bring legal and administrative arrangements into line with them, facilitate their use by members of the community who wish to do so, and encourage the transmission of belief in their value to future generations.” (Pages 55-56)
Let us then allow formal recognition of same sex marriages. Let those who wish to marry, to make a contract with another person, do so without segregation by race, creed, national origin, language, or sexual orientation. Provide all marriages the same legal and administrative arrangements currently enjoyed by opposite sex marriages. As I understand it, that is at the crux of the argument for same-sex marriage.

Utah has listed seven arguments against “redefining” marriage as the union of two people (as opposed to the current wording, one man and one woman.) The State refers to this as genderless marriage. Here are Utah’s seven arguments:

“First, redefining marriage in genderless terms would break the critical conceptual link between marriage and procreation. . . the redefinition ordered by the district court would tend to encourage more parents to raise their existing biological children without the other biological parent.” (Pages 72-73)
This argument has some serious flaws. What is the critical conceptual link between marriage and procreation? Many couples enter into marriage knowingly without the ability or desire to procreate. Further, the State offers no peer-reviewed documentation or studies that conclude allowing same sex marriage would encourage more parents to raise children without the other biological parent involved. Is the State trying to blame a shadow-figure for the incidence of single-parent households? That bucket doesn’t hold water, we already have children being raised in single-parent households and we currently do not have genderless marriage.

“Second . . . the loss of the State’s clear message in favor of biological mother-father parenting within marriage would likely result in a higher percentage of couples conceiving children without the stability that marriage would otherwise bring.” (Page 73)
I agree that the ideal situation for raising children is a two-parent, financially secure, loving household. The State does not explain how allowing same-sex marriage will cause that “clear message” to be lost. Nor does, or can, the State demonstrate how same-sex marriage will encourage couples to conceive children without marriage. Where did they come up with this argument?

“Third. . . would undermine the existing social norm that often leads parents in acceptable but not ideal marriages to make self-sacrifices and remain married to the parents of their children.” (Page 73)
Ok, sadly, I have heard this one before. The State is encouraging parents to stay married for the sake of the children. It wants parents to remain in a perhaps loveless or tumultuous relationship for the sake of a theoretically existing social norm. To keep up the (false) appearance of Utah as a family-centered state, the State expects and desires parents to remain in a relationship that may be damaging to their mental or physical well-being. This is not just a bucket-load of cattle by-product; instead, it is a whole trainload! All of which having been said, how does this social norm bear on the subject at hand, which is the recognition of same-sex marriage? I cannot make that connection, no matter how hard I try.

“Fourth . . . would also undermine the current social norm (weakened though it may be) that those who wish to have children-or engage in conduct that could lead to children-should get married. “ (Page 75)
Let us remember what this lawsuit is about, the validity of same-sex marriage. These same sex couples want to get married. They want to raise children, if any are involved, in a two-parent, loving household. If anything, they want to strengthen the social norm of being married when raising children. I am beginning to wonder about the validity, and appropriateness, of the State’s arguments.

“Fifth, and most obviously, a genderless definition of marriage would likely increase the number of children being raised by same-sex parents. That could happen because the couple decides to raise together an existing child of one of the partners. Or it could be the result of the conception of a new child through surrogacy or sperm donation.” (Page 76)
For this to be a valid argument against same-sex marriage, the State needs to demonstrate (which they haven’t) how this arrangement would be detrimental to the State, or to the children involved. Previously, the State has argued that is it important for children to be raised in a two-parent household; a two-parent household provides a better environment for the children. Why, then, does the State not want to support marriage? This sounds like circular reasoning, and not very good reasoning at that.

“Sixth. . . it would likely lead to other innovations. . . for starters, if homosexual marriage is OK, why not group marriage?” (Page 77)
Ah, the good old slippery slope again. Let’s all go out to the slide in the playground. Polygamous marriage is not legal under current Federal law, although that law is currently being challenged in federal courts. Polygamy, however, is not the question here. Is the State creating a diversion because they don’t feel they have a strong enough argument in this case? If so, Utah should remember that it had to renounce and outlaw polygamy in order to gain admission into the Union.

“Seventh. . . a court-ordered redefinition of marriage could well lead to its wholesale “privatization”-for example by enactment of a civil union regime for all couples, with religious and other organizations being free to offer the title of “marriage” as they see fit.” (Page78)
The individual(s) responsible for this paragraph needs to go back to law school! In order to be legally married, the couple-opposite-sex or same-sex- must first obtain a marriage license from the state. This license creates a legal, binding contract between the two people; if they wish a religious component to the marriage, they can be wed in a ceremony by a faith that allows that marriage. Conversely, they can be wed by the county clerk, or by a justice of the peace, even Elvis, if they wish to go to Las Vegas. Is the State, not too subtly, suggesting that marriage require a religious component? Given this is Utah we are talking about, that is not a big stretch of the imagination.

The State continues to focus on the fertility rates, arguing that:
“By implicating endorsing the adult-centric model of marriage, a genderless redefinition would send a powerful message that it is entirely appropriate-even expected-for adults to forgo or severely limit the number of their children based upon concerns for their own convenience. “ (Page 88)
This argument shows arrogance, sheer unadulterated arrogance on the part of the State. It is altogether appropriate for adults to consider their own circumstances in the decision to have children, and how many children to have. Career, financial, health, and lifestyle choices can and should be an important part in the educated decision to have, or not have children, and in the decision of how many children to have. It is my observation, having lived in this state for almost 40 years, that many people feel it is their (religious) duty to have children quickly, and frequently, regardless of their ability to support the children, or their personal desire or physical/mental condition to have children. This “duty” can, and in some cases does, cause severe social/economic stress on the parents, and on society as a whole. Our overcrowded, under-funded educational system comes to mind, but that is a discussion for another day.

“Preserving Utah’s marriage definition furthers the State’s vital interest in accommodating religious freedom and reducing the potential for civic strife.” (Page 90)
I believe we have finally arrived at the core of the State’s position. The very predominant religion in the state of Utah is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints; the Church does not accept or condone same-sex relationships or marriages. Its position is that homosexuality is a sin, and a choice; a choice that can be “corrected” by faith, prayer, fasting, and marriage to a person of the opposite sex, with procreation following. The Church maintains this position regardless of the mounting scientific evidence that homosexuality is a biological factor that is decided while the child is in utero; that it is not the “fault” of the mother or the father, and that it is not genetically related.
No logical, thinking individual could or should deny the Church its right to its beliefs. Nor will that same individual deny the members of the Church their right to practice their religion, insofar as that practice does not conflict with the rights of those who do not believe the same.
In reference to the quote above, the State does have a vital interest in promoting religious freedom and reducing civil strife. That religious freedom, however, is a double-edged sword. The sword does protect the right of a church, and its members, to believe and practice as they wish. It also protects others in the same fashion; that is, they have the right to believe and practice, according to their own personal dictates and conscience.

The narrow issue in this matter before the court is civil rights, or equality. There are no less than 15 Supreme Court decisions that have delineated marriage as a civil right, beginning in 1888; the latest decision was US vs. Windsor. (The following quote is from Lawrence vs. Texas., 2003)
“[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”(Lawrence vs. Texas)
The majority of Utah’s citizens are members of the LDS church, and support and participate in the Church to varying degrees. That is fine, but majorities do not decide or control civil rights. The laws and courts of our nation are there to protect the civil rights of minorities as well as majorities. In this particular matter, it is the civil right of homosexual persons to be married, the same as heterosexual persons, and to enjoy the rights, benefits, and responsibilities of marriage, that is under discussion. This case is not a discussion of procreation, though the State would like to make it that. Nor is it a discussion of morals, because morals are as individual as you and I are. It is a matter of the rights of individuals to marry as they choose, and to enjoy the protection and benefit of marriage.

After reading and studying this brief, I have several opinions. (Surprise!)
First, the State has failed to show why or how same-sex marriage will harm the State, its citizens, or the children. In constructing this document, the State refers to the incidence of single-parent families, and attempts but miserably fails to connect same-sex marriage to single-parent households.
Second, the State has raised the specter of same-sex marriage causing a decrease in the number of children born in Utah, without demonstrating causation. This thinking flies into the wall of reason, and falls hard to the ground. I hope that it will stay there. It certainly does not deserve reincarnation.
Third, the State has claimed, without justification, that same-sex marriage will increase the number of children born of causal, non-committed sexual congress. Excuse me, how did the “crack legal team” hired by the Attorney General come up with this idea? Marriage will lead to an increase in childbearing casual sex? Anyone following that road deserves to drive off the cliff.
Fourth, and in my opinion most dangerously, the State has tried, however subtly, to inject majority religious opinion into secular law. I know this is Utah, but come on; we are in the 21st century, not the dark ages. Religion –any religion-does not belong in secular law!

Finally, patient reader (I know this has been a long document, even for me), I believe the State has wasted good money on this brief, and indeed is wasting money on this entire case. That is money that should go to education, for education is the best defense of civil rights, and of liberty. I also believe that while this case is about Utah law, the decisions reached will, long-term, effect the entire United States of America.

I hope you have enjoyed this discussion, I know you have opinions that may agree or disagree with mine. However, that is the beauty of America, we are all entitled to our opinions, and I would like to hear yours. Please leave your comments below.
Thanks for reading, as always!

One final housekeeping item: In this article, when I use the term marriage, I am referring to the arrangement between two consenting adults, of legal age to enter marriage.

Sources:
For Utah’s brief: http://www.scribd.com/doc/204554071/State-of-Utah-ban-on-same-sex-marriage-brief#download

For Lawrence vs. Texas: http://www.scribd.com/doc/79449919/Lawrence-vs-Texas

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.