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 Frenzy over Riff-ruhs

Riff-ruhs, or Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, are all the rage in state legislatures across America  these days. According to the Associated Press (April 2, 2015), 20 states have passed some sort of RFRA, and another dozen are considering them.

So what is the cause of this? When the Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriages, some conservative business owners were incensed. They felt the law now demands they serve, in the normal course of business, same-sex couples that want to, say, buy a wedding cake or flowers for their wedding, have a photographer take pictures of their wedding, buy dinner in a local restaurant, or perhaps buy a house. Most of the opposition is based on the owner’s “strongly held religious beliefs” that same sex marriage is against their religion, and therefore they do not want to offer their goods or services to those engaged in the legal act of same sex marriage. Consequently, the lobbied their state legislators to pass laws that would allow them to legally deny goods or services to “those people,” based on their religious beliefs.

Why? Do they not realize the consequences of these actions? Is discrimination against same sex couples so important to them, that they would rather go out of business, than sell to the whole public?

When a couple is preparing to marry, they consult with friends and family members, as well as social media, when choosing photographers, florists, and bakers. After making a decision, based on the above recommendations, they go to that particular shop, perhaps only to find out they are being denied service, because they are a same sex couple. If this happened to you, what would you do?  Perhaps in a large city, you would go elsewhere to purchase the goods or services; but in small rural communities, that may not be feasible. Then what?

Henry Ford once remarked, if a person is satisfied, they will tell 3 people; if they are dissatisfied, they will tell 7. In this day of social media, I suspect the numbers, in case of dissatisfaction, are considerably higher. So, what does that matter, you might be thinking.

Do you remember when South Africa was still enforcing apartheid? Groups of people rallied against investment firms and companies that were doing business in South Africa, and slowly but surely the economic factors began to have a telling affect. Investment firms, retirement funds, and businesses changed models and the money to support apartheid dried up. The change happened. (And no, I am not minimizing the effect of Nelson Mandela and others within South Africa who worked so hard for change.) So it will be for businesses that discriminate, albeit supposedly legal to do so. 

As for me, I am in a heterosexual marriage, so on one hand, this doesn’t affect me. But, being who I am, and my strongly held beliefs, I will not knowingly patronize a business that discriminates against anyone, regardless of the reason.

Just some food for thought.

Your comments are welcome, as always.

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