Culture Of Life – Page 34

Virginity or death!

Good lord I love Katha Pollitt. This column is about a week old, but check it out if you haven’t already. She writes about the religious right’s opposition to an HPV vaccine that could save the lives of thousands of women, and help prevent cervical cancer in even more.

I remember when people rolled their eyeballs if you suggested that opposition to abortion was less about “life” than about sex, especially sex for women. You have to admit that thesis is looking pretty solid these days. No matter what the consequences of sex–pregnancy, disease, death–abstinence for singles is the only answer. Just as it’s better for gays to get AIDS than use condoms, it’s better for a woman to get cancer than have sex before marriage. It’s honor killing on the installment plan.

The whole column is so good that I’m fighting the urge to copy and paste the entire thing here just to make sure that it gets read… but I’ll leave you with this excerpt.

As they flex their political muscle, right-wing Christians increasingly reveal their condescending view of women as moral children who need to be kept in line sexually by fear. That’s why antichoicers will never answer the call of prochoicers to join them in reducing abortions by making birth control more widely available: They want it to be less available. Their real interest goes way beyond protecting fetuses–it’s in keeping sex tied to reproduction to keep women in their place. If preventing abortion was what they cared about, they’d be giving birth control and emergency contraception away on street corners instead of supporting pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions and hospitals that don’t tell rape victims about the existence of EC.

Via Classical Liberal Conservative

Stem cell bill passes in the House

Too bad Bush will probably veto it and continue to block funding for this potentially life-saving research. I found this section particularly interesting:

“Research on stem cells derived from human embryos may offer great promise, but the way those cells are derived today destroys the embryo,” said the president who was speaking before a group of parents who had children using embryos that had been created for other couples using fertility treatments. President Bush has pledged to veto the bill passed this afternoon because he says it would destroy life to save life.

Followed by:

The legislation that Mr. Bush has vowed to veto would reverse the president’s ban on using federal money to conduct new embryonic stem cell research. The embryonic stem cells, the starting point for every tissue in the human body, would come from live human embryos scheduled to be discarded at fertility clinics.

So… the group of people he was speaking to — parents of children conceived using fertility treatments that resulted in the discarding of other embryos — should be in support of banning stem cell research… why? Because if we’re going with the idea that a small cluster of cells (so small and undeveloped that what type of cells they will be can’t even be determined) is the equivalent to a human life like mine, and arguably deserves the same protections, then didn’t these parents assist in “killing” when they supported a fertility clinic in having children? Because, as anti-choicers are quick to remind us, fertility clinics try and fertilize a whole lotta eggs, and only a few embryos take. So maybe I’m slow, but it seems to be that Bush was speaking to the wrong group — given that, by anti-choice standards, these people are accomplices to murder. I mean, it was the anti-choice crowd that pitched a fit about fertility technology 20 years ago, and still hasn’t given up the fight.

I also love this quote from our President:

“This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research without crossing a fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life.”

The “potential life” argument is one that is always destined to fail. Each of my unfertilized eggs is a potential life. Every sperm cell expelled for purposes other than procreation is a potential life thwarted. But I’m not crying every time I menstruate, and, apart from some severely guilt-ridden souls, I don’t think most men cry themselves to sleep every time they masturbate. So “potential life” loses. And I simply cannot accept the argument that a cluster of yet-to-be-determined cells is a life equal in value to mine. Aren’t pro-lifers supposed to value… life? While I certainly don’t wish them any ill, I wonder if they’ve ever dealt with a family member or close friend living with Parkinsons or Alzheimers, or had someone close suffer a paralyzing injury. Because when you see someone close to you — someone who is undeniably alive — struggling to live through disease, or living differently with paralysis, you really get to thinking about what it means to value “life.” And forsaking real lives in the name of ridiculous anti-choice politics isn’t it.

Know your enemy

I read anti-choice blogs, websites and op/eds often. Why? Not just to get mad, but because I think you have to really understand what you’re up against before you can properly counter it.

One thing I always find interesting about the anti-choice movement is their relative success in convincing the general public that stopping abortion is their only concern — when actually, mainstream “pro-life” groups oppose everything from sex education to contraception to invitro fertilization. Anti-choice blogger Dawn Eden writes a telling post about her views on invitro fertilization. For those unfamiliar with Ms. Eden, she was fired from her position as a copy editor at the Murdoch tabloid The New York Post a few months back for injecting her anti-choice views into a news article on IVF. She is ferociously anti-sex (unless you’re married, which she desperately wants to be), and really hates Planned Parenthood for giving out honest information about sex. I read her blog occassionally if I feel like getting pissed off, but generally leave just kind of feeling sorry for her. But this post is particularly interesting, as it further demonstrates that the most extreme anti-choicers (who usually are the ones running the major anti-choice organizations) aren’t just anti-abortion; they’re anti- any reproductive choice, including aiding women in having children.

Luckily, I think the anti-choicers are digging their own graves with their ridiculous opposition to stem cell research, IVF, and birth control. Those issues expose them for who they really are: extremists who only want women to have one choice (marriage and as many babies as God gives). The vast majority of people believe that women and men should have access to birth control and reproductive technology; stem cell research is also gaining a lot of support. So to the anti-choicers, I say, keep at it. And by all means, get louder. You’re only helping us out.

On Being a Breed Mare

This one speaks for itself, or will have to because I can’t come up with anything remotely un-profane to say about it:

Imagine two rape victims taken to the same hospital emergency room. Imagine them put in adjoining examination rooms.

Let’s say they have identical injuries.

Presume everything about them is the same except for where they are in their menstrual cycles.

Do they deserve access to the same medical treatment?

At most Catholic hospitals in Colorado, they can’t get it.

The protocol of six Catholic hospitals run by Centura calls for rape victims to undergo an ovulation test.

If they have not ovulated, said Centura corporate spokeswoman Dana Berry, doctors tell the victims about emergency contraception and write prescriptions for it if the patient asks.

If, however, the urine test suggests that a rape victim has ovulated, Berry continued, doctors at Centura’s Catholic hospitals are not to mention emergency contraception. That means the victim can end up pregnant by her rapist.

HT: First Draft

My Own Private Schiavo

I disappeared fromthe guest-blogging on Friday. At first, the reason was work. Then in the middle of the day, I got a call from my wife. My wife’s aunt (and God-mother) had a massive aneurism. She’s in a hospital far away.

She’s on a respirator. Her body will not regulate fluids, her blood pressure is all over the place — and the doctors are doing all they can to keep the heart beating. Medical science is so advanced that this balancing act could work indefinately, preserving life, under only the broadest definition, for a woman who will never again be a mother to her children, a friend to her friends, hold an opinion or see a movie. It remains unclear what the husband will do. It is all too clear that the neurologist is interested in the professional challenge of treating a brain this badly damaged, and will give an honest assessment of the patient’s chance of meaningful recovery when cornered (the answer apparently is no chance — she has a 50-50 chance of “living,” but this woman will likely never regain consciousness, and will be vegetative if she does).

I’ve been annoyed for a long time at the fetishization of the mere fact of biological life. I’ve buried several relatives after long, grueling terminal illnesses, not least my mother. These events merely remind me, again, how angry it makes me that we attach some importance to the bodily processes of those that have, in every meaningful way, left us.

Culture Of Life: Oil Of The 21st Century

Ninety days after water generated horror and headlines around the globe, UNICEF Executive Director Carol Bellamy said that 400 million children – almost one fifth of all children – lack even the bare minimum of safe water they need to live.

At least 20 litres of safe water per day (about two buckets) are essential to enable children to drink, wash hands of disease-bearing dirt and cook a simple meal. Without it, children become easy prey for a host of life-threatening afflictions carried in dirty water and on unwashed fingers.

According to UNICEF’s State of the World’s Children 2005, 21% of children in developing countries are severely water deprived, living without a safe water source within a fifteen minute walk of their homes. In addition, a staggering 2.6 billion people do not have access to basic sanitation. These deprivations cost many their lives and account for at least 1.6 out of 11 million preventable child deaths every year.

This is a culture of life.

Culture Of Life: Collaboration

Pharmacist Zeena Qushtiny was dressed in the latest Western fashion and wearing a sparkling diamond necklace when she was taken at gunpoint from her pharmacy in Baghdad by insurgents.

Her body was found 10 days later with two bullet holes close to her eyes.

She was covered in a traditional abaya veil preferred by Islamic conservatives with a message pinned to it saying: “She was a collaborator against Islam”, according Qushtiny’s family.

Qushtiny was the mother of two young girls and a divorcee. She was a popular professional in the capital and respected for her work but was considered by radicals as being an insult to Islam.

She was also working for women’s rights and was advocated greater democracy in Iraq according to her friends and colleagues. She was considered an outspoken activist by radicals and her dress was seen as being too extravagant for Iraq.

Women activists have been suffering since the last war in Iraq because of calls for improved rights and equality with men in this Muslim country, according to a report by the local Women’s NGO association.

During Saddam Hussein’s regime, women could dress less conservatively in the big cities and would not be punished, according to female activists.

But now women say they are no longer safe and decapitated female corpses have begun turning up in recent weeks with notes bearing the word “collaborator” pinned to their chests, according to Colonel Subhi al-Abdullilah, a senior police investigator.

This is a culture of life.

HT: Rox Populi

Humorous Insert

Thank whomever somebody has a sense of humor about all this.

Other 293 Million Americans Waiting For Congress To Pass Bills For Them

The success of Congress’s record-breakingly speedy passage of a bill specifically crafted for the parents and brother of persistently-vegetative Terry Shiavo induced a furor this morning as America’s other 293 million inhabitants eagerly awaited their own “personal legislation.”

“I can’t wait,” said seven-year-old Terry Dooley, who has petitioned Congress to pass legislation ordering Schwinn to give him a new bike.

Americans couldn’t be happier that Congress is finally doing something for them. “Now, this is your government at work,” said Piper Cobb, who has asked Congress for a law requiring credit card companies to give him an exceptionally low rate of interest with no late payment fees.

“The era of the individually targeted law has arrived,” said Professor Anthony Garnabanzo. “Congress has finally abandoned the idea of forging general domestic policies that impact on the entire country.”

Tammy Gamble of Illinois has asked Congress to pass a law stopping the accelerating erosion of health care benefits offered by her employer, Sears. “Pretty soon we will not be able to afford the cost of my cancer medication copayment,” she said.

Garnabanzo traced the evolution of so-called “personally crafted” legislation back to the advent of George W. Bush’s presidency. “When the Supreme Court created a personal private right of action protecting George W. Bush from counting the Florida ballots, it was just a matter of time before they started protecting other people.”

UPDATE: Two new developments in the Schiavo case: God’s 15-Year Quest To Call Terri Schiavo Home Delayed By Congress (you may need to scroll down that page after clicking on the link) and Doctors Declare Congress “Persistently Vegetative,” Petition For Withdrawal of Life Support.

Thank you, Tom Burka. Thank you.

On the Culture Of Life

A modified letter on the matter of Terri Schiavo coverage suggested by Goose, sent to dozens of mainstream media outlets:

Dear Sir or Madam:

I know it is too late to make a difference in the outcome of the legislation, but it is reprehensible that Republican lawmakers and the President are willing to interfere in the Terry Schiavo case.

First, their actions are unconstitutional because they are disrupting the normal state of judiciary affairs. Schiavo’s case has had due process by Florida state judges, and they have consistently found that Terry Schiavo has the right to die as she would have chosen, and that her husband Michael Schiavo is the only person legally responsible for making that decision. At least he was, until Congress and President Bush stepped in.

What of family values? They have abrogated the most solemn charges of the Schiavo’s marriage vows. What of smaller government and less interference in citizens’ personal lives? They have made it a convenient lie. And what of the “culture of life?” They have taken up Terry’s parent’s cause to assuage their far right supporters, while simultaneously pushing for changes to tort law (the likes of which would have made Terry’s care impossible), bankruptcy law (which would have prevented the Schiavo family from recovering from her massive medical bills), and reducing Medicaid (which takes care of many patients like Terry around the country). Furthermore, President Bush signed legislation while governor of Texas that forced cessation of treatment in futile cases in the instance of inability to pay (the so-called “Texas Futile Care Law”) – where was his precious “culture of life” then? Life, it seems, comes second to medical industry profits in Texas, where just last week a baby was taken off life support against the wishes of his mother.

This is political grandstanding of the most obvious kind. One can only hope that the federal judge required by this new legislation will see fit to permit Michael Schiavo the right to allow Terry to die, as all other judges who have seen this case have.

My respect for the Republican legislators behind this legislation and President Bush is at an all time low. They are, one and all, hypocrites of the first order. That many Democrats supported this bill — and that 178 members of the House did not bother showing up to vote at all — makes me reconsider my party membership and faith in the intentions of federal government altogether.

The implications of this Congressional move are overwhelming. Whenever Congress doesn’t like the result in a particular case, it could eventually swoop in and call a “do-over,” and if this law is declared valid, no decision in any state court in the country will be immune from Congressional second-guessing. This case is not one that falls under a “federal question.” Should the federal courts be used in this manner, they can also be used from the bottom up to redecide other family disputes such as divorce and child custody. The Schiavo case is tragic, yes, but does not belong in the federal courts.

One’s job as a member of mainstream media is to give fair coverage of this event. Strip away Tom DeLay’s moral condemnation of Michael Schiavo, strip away this case’s tenuous ties to the abortion debate, strip away the bogus “culture of life,” strip away the political grandstanding and opportunity grab, and one is left with a glaring example of Republican hypocrisy, one that undermines nearly everything for which the party claims to stand. The brave news outlet is the one that calls this case like it is: Terri Schiavo is a political pawn and this Congressional measure is unforgivably transparent.

Sincerely,
Lauren BXXXX

________________________
For further information on the “federal question,” see Understanding The Federal Courts.

A full and compassionate look at the case is provided by Obsidian Wings.

Mahablog ties the case to an “Ownership Society.”

World O’ Crap looks into the marketing of this cause célèbre.

Amanda Marcotte poses that the publicity of this case would be unlikely to revolve around a man.

And Majikthise calls for a blogswarm, the reason for this post.

This letter was sent to:

360@cnn.com, 48hours@cbsnews.com, am@cnn.com, Colmes@foxnews.com, comments@foxnews.com, crossfire@cnn.com, dateline@nbc.com, daybreak@cnn.com, earlyshow@cbs.com, evening@cbsnews.com, Foxreport@foxnews.com, insidepolitics@cnn.com, inthemoney@cnn.com, live@cnn.com, livefrom@cnn.com, newsnight@cnn.com, nightline@abcnews.com, nightly@nbc.com, rrhodes@airamericaradio.com, today@nbc.com, wam@cnn.com, wolf@cnn.com, world@msnbc.com, wsj.ltrs@wsj.com, letters@nytimes.com, public@nytimes.com, netaudr@abc.com

Culture Of Life: Guantanamo

Hundreds of US nationals are picked up around the world by a foreign government fighting a “war for national security”. The government in question is reacting to evidence that a recent bombing on its territory which left thousands of civilians dead was instigated by a shadowy network based in the United States. The detainees, according to evidence the detaining power says it has but refuses to reveal, are in some way associated with this network. The detainees, a few of them children, are strapped, shackled and blindfolded, into transport planes. Some are forced to urinate and defecate on themselves during the long flights to an island military base. In this offshore prison camp they are held incommunicado in tiny cells, denied access to lawyers, relatives or the courts, and subjected to repeated interrogations and a punitive regime aimed at encouraging their “cooperation”. A presidential order announces plans to try some of the detainees in front of executive bodies with the power to hand down death sentences against which there would be no right of appeal to any court.

The months turn into years. Allegations of torture and ill-treatment of the US detainees emerge from the island base, as do reports of psychological deterioration and suicide attempts among the detainees. Interrogation teams are said to have access to the medical files of the detainees in order to help them locate individual weaknesses. The detaining power admits to having authorized interrogation techniques including sleep deprivation, stress positions, isolation, hooding, sensory deprivation and the use of dogs to induce fear. Evidence mounts that these and other techniques have been more widely used than the authorities are willing to admit. It becomes known that the detaining power earlier discussed how its agents could avoid prosecution for torture and war crimes committed during interrogations in the “war for national security”.

Some detainees are released back to the USA, appearing to have had no or only very tenuous links to the shadowy network. At every turn, the detaining power continues to resist efforts to have the lawfulness of the hundreds of remaining detentions challenged in court. All the time, it continues to profess its commitment to the rule of law and human rights. Its words are increasingly recognized as empty rhetoric, but some other governments begin to imitate its practices, using the “war for national security” as a pretext for their own repressive conduct.

Would the USA tolerate this treatment of its citizens by another government? Would the international community accept this threat to the rule of law and human rights? Surely not, and yet the USA continues to perpetrate just such abuses in the far from hypothetical Guantánamo Bay prison camp in Cuba, where almost 550 detainees of more than 30 nationalities remain detained without charge or trial. On 11 January 2005, the Guantánamo prison will enter its fourth year. In its more than 1,000 days of executive detentions, Guantánamo has become a symbol of a government’s attempt to put itself above the law. The example it sets is of a world where basic human rights are negotiable rather than universal. Such a world, although built in the name of national security, is dangerous to us all.

This is a culture of life.