Friday, October 29, 2004

being forced to choose

cecily makes a point that i made privately to michelle: cecily was forced to choose between her life and that of her unborn remaining child. You can read about it on her blog; I won't recount the sad tale.

as cecily pointed out, think about this if you haven't already voted:

do you want to live in a country where women are forced into a situation where they must choose between continuing a pregnancy that will kill them, and delivering an obviously not-fully-cooked bun into a situation where it can't breathe, and will die within minutes of "birth" -- a horrible suffocating death? i'd really like to know how that's consistent with anybody's "pro-life" position. even michelle's private response, which i will obviously not reprint, didn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

shrub, during the debates, pointedly did not answer the question about whether or not he would appoint a judge who would eliminate a woman's right to have an elective abortion. that really means that he thinks he can't come out and say what he thinks and still win; so he simply avoids the issue. he's said he'd appoint justices like scalia and thomas, both known abortion opponents.

kerry has pointedly said he will not appoint judges who would overturn this right.

i remain personally pro-life: in any situation where i'm asked for guidence by a woman about whether or not she should terminate a pregnancy for reasons other than her health, i will counsel her toward continuing the pregnancy.

yet i remain politically pro-choice: it is not my place to legislate my beliefs onto others.

bush has nominated pricilla owen, a former texas supreme court justice, to a place on a federal appeals court. texas has a parental notification law, and the law includes an option for judicial bypass of the notification requirement. according to the statute, a minor must convince a judge that it is not in her interest that her parents be notified. the classic example is that of parental incest and sexual assault; the other example is where parents have shown a disposition to behave in ways that would be detrimental to their childs' welfare, like parents that have thrown older sisters out of the house and onto the street when they've gotten pregnant.

owen, as a justice on the texas supreme court, wrote an opinion that essentially guts the judicial bypass option. the opinion says that, to be granted a judicial bypass, the petitioner must show that having an abortion is in her best interest, which is a far different standard than what is written into the law. the text of the statue says that a petitioner should be granted a bypass if she can show that notification of her parents is not in her interest, a far different requirement than what owen has promulgated.

this is the kind of judge bush will appoint.

is that what you want? really?

texas is a state where it's illegal to sell sex toys. it's also illegal to buy a car on sunday, to buy baby bottle nipples on sunday, and increasingly, to be intelligent. a law passed in 2003 requires that facilities that perform abortions after 16 weeks must be hospitals, or have hospital-like rooms to perform said procedures.

number of facilities in texas that are both compliant with the law and offer the procedure: 0. zero. zip. zilch. nada. not a single one. Even though it's officially "legal" to do so, you can not have an abortion in Texas if you're in the second trimester, even if you will die without it.

if cecily had lived in texas, she'd have had to be evacuated out of the state to get a medical procedure necessary to save her life.

now, i wouldn't say for an instant that kerry is right about everything and bush is wrong about everything. but even where kerry is wrong, i believe firmly that he is interested in what i think, how well i do in my life, and what goes on in our country. he's interested in learning new things, has a world-view that encompasses the idea that he might be wrong, and that there are shades of gray in the world.

bush doesn't think that way. his interests lie in his pocketbook. despite republican protestations that they've lowered taxes for everyone in the nation, the truth is that my tax burden has gone up during the bush administration, as a percentage of my income. way up. and the services i receive for those tax dollars have been cut drastically. while my federal tax burden actually has gone down, to balance those cuts, the federal government has scaled back assistance to states and state-supported services. to keep those services running in states that require balanced budges (read all 50 of them), states are either having to cut services, cut eligibility (like throwing hundreds of thousands of poor kids off state health plans), or raise taxes.

in texas there hasn't been a "state" tax increase, but in texas our government is so decentralized and the taxing entities so numerous that if you don't watch what happens, you'll be taxed without even realizing it.

so, when you're at the polling booth on tuesday, think about this: is this really the world you want to live in?

1 comment:

  1. i'm sorry, killing your child is simply never the "best" option. the husband on that blog said that the wife's health was their top concern -- no their child's. it's not a matter of not having a choice, but of choosing the mother over the child.

    btw, here's a whole page of children who survived after being born at the same age or a week or two older than your friend's now dead child:

    http://www.preemieconnection.com/gallery/22weeks.htm

    They didn't even give him a chance to live.

    ReplyDelete