Pro-...What, exactly?

Hello, everyone! I am working on a Pete the Cat sweater for my kid, and I can't decide if it actually looks like Pete the Cat. I am forging ahead, and then I think I will adjust the next size up if I don't like it.

The phrase "pro-choice" was trending on twitter this morning, because pastor Raphael Warnock (who is running for one of two senate seats in Georgia) said he was a pro-choice pastor. so I am offering my thoughts.

First and foremost, abortion should not be legislated by a popular vote, since the statistical majority of us in this country are Christian and abortion is a religious belief. It should not be legislated by our current contingent of mostly white men, because they (all due respect) have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to women's bodies, fetuses, or how those two symbiotic creatures are housed together.

It should be legislated by scientists and researchers, and economists. Yes, by people who know how money works.

On that note, judge women having abortions all you want. If you feel okay with referring to "those people" because you know someone who knows someone who uses abortion as birth control, then cool. But I am guessing there is a huge contingent of women in your circle who have distanced themselves from you not because they disagree with your beliefs, but because they had an abortion, it is none of your business why, and you have already preemptively made your stand clear that someone who had an abortion doesn't care about "the sanctity of human life."

In other words, you - a rational, grownup woman - are telling other rational and grownup women that they are shit because they made a medical decision that doesn't affect you. And you don't even know you are telling them that, because they didn't tell you they had an abortion. I mean...why would they?

So, the science piece is easy. The medical detractors, the ones who say abortion is not safe, that a fetus has a heartbeat at 18 days, that a fetus feels pain at four months...they are using their religion to justify their stand on the science. Their views are not accurate, not peer-reviewed, and not based on scientific research. Life begins at conception, sure. Tumors grow, fetuses grow, limbs grow, blah blah blah. But if sustainable life began at conception, then abortion would never be an issue. You could give birth at 18 days when you hear a "heartbeat," and that clump of cells would just grow into a person.

Also, life does not start with a heartbeat. You know this, because you have watched every crime and medical drama in the world, and checking for a pulse is the baseline for lifesaving measures. Also, cessation of brain activity is the baseline for stopping these measures (I am generalizing, but you get the idea). So there is no brain at 18 days, but rational, grownup women are convinced that a heartbeat is happening and that the fetus will just come out perfect, inexpensively, and will have a great life because of it.

So, let's look at the money piece. Why should economists be involved? Because you - a rational, grownup woman who is pro-life - don't want "illegals" here because they are taking your jobs and costing you too much in taxes. You don't want to pay reparations to black people because they are asking for something that happened 155 years ago (even though segregation and racism has been legal in your own lifetime...I'm looking at you, Ruby Bridges and Mildred Loving). You don't want your taxes to go up, but actually were alive at a time where someone working at the shoe store on the corner could work from 9:00am to 5:00pm and buy a house on that salary.

So, money is clearly a big deal to you.

Did you know that for every dollar spent on women's health and preventative care/family planning, anywhere from $3 to $20 in benefits is gained and saved from not spending money on unwanted pregnancies and babies?

That is a ton...a ton...of money.

Colorado offered a free IUD program for lower-income individuals and birth control at point-of-sale pharmacy instead of only with a prescription. Their abortion rate plummeted; they have had 10.9 abortions per 1,000 women in the state in the most recent years data is available. Georgia, which has almost twice the population, is at 14.1 per 1,000 with all of their restrictions. That is over three more abortions per thousand women, and with the number of restrictions in Georgia, how many of them do you think are causing people to go into debt and cause poverty? Well, here are the restrictions to get an abortion in Georgia:

• A patient must receive state-directed counseling that includes information designed to discourage the patient from having an abortion, and then wait 24 hours before the procedure is provided.
• Health plans offered in the state’s health exchange under the Affordable Care Act can only cover abortion in cases of life endangerment or severely compromised physical health.
• Abortion is covered in insurance policies for public employees only in cases of life endangerment.
• The parent of a minor must be notified before an abortion is provided.
• Public funding is available for abortion only in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest.
• An abortion may be performed at 20 or more weeks postfertilization (22 weeks after the last menstrual period) only cases of life endangerment, severely compromised physical health or lethal fetal anomaly. This law is based on the assertion, which is inconsistent with scientific evidence and has been rejected by the medical community, that a fetus can feel pain at that point in pregnancy.

Do you think, perhaps, that it may be costing Georgia more money in medical costs (both privately- and publicly funded), more money in public aid with the extra mouth to feed, more money in public housing, more money in subsidized daycare and health insurance, than Colorado?

I mean...we are talking about the difference between the cost of birth control and the cost of raising a child. 

The bottom line is that everyone who is religiously pro-life should be legislatively pro-choice. Quit trying to figure out why women are having abortions. Just know that if you listen to the science, and you listen to the money, and pray for the lost souls of the unborn to whatever god you pray to (I won't even bother asking you to pray for the mother...you are beyond that), then you can actually call yourself "pro-life."

What Happened To Us?

 Hello! I really don't bust this thing out too often, but I have been thinking about the Supreme Court for a week now, and I feel this is the only way I can organize my thoughts a bit better.

First, though, this was originally a knitting blog so I would like to share my new shawl pattern with you. It is easy enough lace where you can try it as a second- or third lace project, and probably not lose your mind. It is also a pretty relaxing pattern, so the f-word should not come flying out of your mouth too often.

Here is the link to it: https://www.ravelry.com/patterns/library/choir-shawl

And here are a couple of photos, if you are not a knitter and want to talk your knitter-friend into making you something for those breezy days of autumn and spring:

Okay so enough of that. Here is my problem.

When Ginsburg was confirmed, the Senate confirmation vote was 96-3, and 41 of those votes were Republican.

This week, various media outlets were reporting that the Senate "had the votes" to confirm a new justice to the Supreme Court before the presidential election in November.

What does that mean, exactly?

Amy Coney Barrett has not had her job interview yet, and the panel is already giving her the thumbs-up. While I think it is clear that I am neither a Supreme Court Justice or a Senator, I have questions about this. Most importantly, I think, is how one can argue that the majority of Senators will vote "yes" for her confirmation based her their political party. 

I don't give a hoot if she is anti-abortion. Everyone on the planet, especially people who are pro-choice, are anti-abortion. Nobody wants to make that decision. At all. Ever. Nobody. But knowing that I can talk to my doctor about it in private, without fear of either of us being prosecuted if I need to take that next step and abort a fetus is a bit of a relief. I am 100% anti-abortion; if I were pregnant right now, I would have to abort the fetus or face such dire mental consequences that I could not go on with my life. This includes carrying it to term for adoption or surrogacy. I am positive I could not go through with it and come out okay on the other side, no matter how much therapy or prayer I involved in my daily life. I know this. But I also know that, medically, aborting a fetus is not "killing a baby." Watch your words:  when cops shoot at someone, is it murder? When a woman finally ends years of abuse by fighting to almost her last breath and shooting her abusive spouse in the end, is it murder? When a guy tries to steal your car at the gas station and you refuse to get out of the car, so he shoots you and takes your car anyway, is it murder? When you have a medical procedure to clear out cells in your uterus that will drive you to suicide if you don't do this (and every woman will in fact spend at least two seconds exploring other options), is it murder?

Everyone is anti-abortion. But if a woman has one, it is none of my business at all. Just like it is none of my business if they go to a doctor for a drug addiction and seek treatment for it.

I don't care if Amy Coney Barrett is anti-abortion. I care if she will consider using any precedents already set, and interpreting clauses in the constitution that exist (like due process, for instance, and the amendment which states the government can't have a hand in establishing religion), when she hears cases relating to abortion.

If she is going into these hearings already "having the votes," does that mean that she has had such a stellar record that it is obvious to all other lawmakers that upholding the constitution and its original intentions are her intention? Or does it just mean that 51 people out of 100 will be voting "yes" for her because of their political party?

There has been a two-party system in this country for a long, long time. Each party has their own set of extremist talking-heads and talking-memes now (think Breitbart on the right and Occupy Democrats on the left) where there is one teeny piece of truth buried in a giant cloud of overblown crap to get people to feel a certain way, and consequently vote a certain way. It was not always this extreme, and nobody can seem to remember life before this ideology.

I was in college when Ginsburg was confirmed, and if you recall, the press conference where Clinton announced her nomination in the Rose Garden was met by exactly one question (Brit Hume) and zero answers. It was because the question was regarding Clinton's selection process and not Ginsburg's qualifications. Clinton shut it down, walking away from the podium with an entire press corps' worth of hands in the air. Looking back, love him or hate him (and even his most staunch supporters thought Bill was smarmy), it was a feminist move for the ages.

What happened to us? Why is it that, almost thirty years later, high-ranking politicians can only vote their party?

And as long as I am on the subject of philosophy, riddle me this one:  what is so intimidating about being liberal? I am a former Republican, currently without party because I now have to spend my whole life fact-checking other people's internet crap before forming an opinion on it. But you can be socially liberal and fiscally conservative at the same time. For instance, did women having their own credit cards cause the ridiculous debt problem we are facing now? Of course not...predatory lenders are not female-prey exclusive. Did women getting protection from employment termination due to pregnancy cause the morals in this country to sink? Of course not. 

But do you know what it did do? It helped the economy. It gave women their own buying power. Just like gay marriage becoming law in this country made the wedding industry explode in ways it previously had not. Giving people equal rights and access to knowledge gives them power, money, and a voice.

So the only reason someone would be opposed to "liberal" ideas...meaning everyone has certain basic rights...is if either they do not realize how much less it would cost them in the long run, or they are just closed-minded jerks who thinks human lives do not have equal value.

If you give money to a GoFundMe because a kid (or adult, for that matter) has cancer and can't afford their medical bills, but you think socialized healthcare is evil, ask yourself where you think your GoFundMe money would go if socialized healthcare was introduced.

If you stand outside a Planned Parenthood with an "Abortion Kills" sign for eight hours, looking women in the eye as they go into a clinic for everything from pap smears to prenatal care to abortions to breast exams to cyst monitoring, ask yourself what people see in you when you are in line at the grocery store, buying a six-pack of beer and a box of condoms. Is it possible you already have enough dish soap and food at the house? Of course. But that is not what people see, and your true actions are none of their business. Just like a woman walking into Planned Parenthood is none of your business.

If you were in support of "Whites Only" signs in the 50's and 60's, but you also retort Black Lives Matter with "All lives matter!", is it possible you only mean Republican lives? Your personal life? People's lives above the poverty line? Christian lives? White lives?

Because that is my current concern with the Supreme Court. I want to know why it is news that there is going to be a 6-3 conservative majority when politics should not have that big of a hand in interpreting the Constitution. Unless, of course, you are "liberal" and actually believe that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness should include literally everyone born in this country. But as a lifelong Catholic, I can say with conviction that until our current pope was elected and started using social media to get his Word across, even they did not preach like all lives were equal. They are starting to.

It is an irony of historic proportions when the Catholic church is making humanitarian progress and the Supreme Court, or our three branches of government in general, are not. Please do me a favor:  break up with your political party for the next few weeks or months. Ask yourself if the person in your area running for office is has the best interest of as many constituents as possible in mind, no matter their ticket.

Call your Senators and be sure they are voting based on Barrett's interpretation of the constitution, and not because of their political party.

Look in the mirror and ask yourself if you can do better. Most of us can. Let's all try.