Abortion in the 21st Century

With the Democratic National Convention currently being held in Denver, the topic of abortion is once again being thrust into the spotlight, albeit in a much less brightness thanks to Bush's efforts in Iraq.  Be that as it may, this topic should have been put to rest a long time ago, and by people on both sides of the issue.  It certainly should not be a tool used by the Republicans to garner votes, and yet that is exactly what it has become.

Republicans have successfully convinced Democrats that if they vote for anyone in their party they are voting for abortion.  These politicians have used religious innuendo to sway voters away from their own party, and have shown a great amount of success in this endeavor.  One must applaud their efforts.

Republicans are not interested in changing our abortion laws, and their actions have proven this.  They need this issue to stay alive to be able to use it as a wedge issue come election time, and anyone who wishes to outlaw abortion in this country needs to realize this.  Consider the facts: since the passage of Roe vs. Wade in 1973 there have been six presidents of the United States.  In that time, four of them (Ford, Reagan and both Bushes) have been Republican.  Only two (Carter and Clinton) have been Democrats, yet the laws have not been changed.

Further, when Clinton took office in 1993, the Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate, but two years later, the Republicans won both houses.  For the remainder of Clinton's terms in office, the Republicans were in control of the congress.  The laws remained unchanged.

Finally, in 2001, George W. Bush, a Republican, took office.  For the next two years the Republicans were fully in control, holding the White House, the Senate and the Congress, and yet the laws remained unchanged.  This would have been the opportune time to enact legislation to outlaw abortion HAD THEY TRULY MEANT TO DO SO.  No such legislation was ever passed.

The Republicans need this issue to win elections.  As long as good-hearted Democrats believe that Republicans want to outlaw abortion (which they don't), those Democrats will vote the Republicans in and the Democrats out.  So, what's to be done?

First, we need to look at abortion logically rather than emotionally.  In the days before the passage of Roe vs. Wade abortions were being performed in this country, but not legally.  The following statistics come largely from the Centers for Disease Control, as this group has been recording such information since 1969.  

In 1972, the year before the legalization of abortion by the U.S. Supreme Court, there were 586,760 abortions performed in this country.  It is necessary to interject here that this number is lower than the actual number of abortions, as the practice was illegal at the time.  This number reflects the women who were known to have had an abortion, either because of an examination by their doctor, or by being brought to an emergency room because of the results of that abortion.

Using this number as our base, and looking at the total number of births in this country in 1972 (3,258,411) we have 18% of pregnancies that were ended in abortion.  In 2003, 30 years later, when abortion had been legal for three decades, the total number of births has risen to 4,089,950 and the total number of abortions has increased to 854,122.  Again, it's important to note that the number from 1972 is lower than the actual number of abortions, so the increase is not as significant as that.  Taking the total number of abortions in 2003 as a percentage of the number of pregnancies brings us to 21%.  From 18% to 21% is not a huge increase, so anyone who thinks that legalizing abortion has caused more abortions is not accurate.

So what does cause abortion?  Women who do not want to be pregnant.  According to the CDC, 91.8% of women who have had abortions did not want to be pregnant in the first place.  Only 8.2% of pregnancies are aborted because the woman's health is at risk, or the baby's health is at risk, or for some other reason.

What this tells me is that the pro-life groups need to shift their focus if they truly wish to lower the abortion rate in this country.  If the goal is to achieve zero abortions, the goal is not reasonable.  Abortions are not new and will not end with legislation against them.  The goal needs to be something reasonable, and that can be achieved.  Taking the figures for 2003, if only those abortions were conducted where someone's health was in danger, then rather than 854,122 abortions there would have been 70,038.  This lowers the percentage of abortions per pregnancies from 20% to less than two percent.  

This is a goal that can be achieved, and all it takes is for the pro-life groups to work with groups like Planned Parenthood to educate women on birth control.  Women who do not get pregnant do not have abortions 100% of the time.  This simple act would reduce the number of abortions in this country by a larger number than any legislation possibly can.  This action would also allow good-hearted Democrats to vote their conscience, and keep our government in the hands of the party that runs it best.

Joe Biden -

So, Obama has made his choice and his choice is Joe Biden.  Is this a good move, or has he single-handedly taken one of the most successful presidential campaigns in American history and nullified it?  Time will tell.

I have to wonder if Biden is the right choice, given Obama's stance.  The main platform of the Obama campaign was that our country needed change, and to that effect he (and his administration) would be the ones to initiate that change.  To exemplify that change, he has selected a man who spent the last 36 years working as a Senator.  How much change is that?  Wouldn't it make more sense to take someone relatively new to Congress (as Obama himself is), and thus show that change is really in the air?

It should be noted that both Hillary Clinton and Evan Bayh were considered to be on the list as potential running mates, and that both of these Senators have less than a decade in the senate, thus the selection of either would indicate that the candidate of change was true to his word.  By selecting Biden, it seems that his administration is not so much about change as it is about more of the same.  One of Obama's strengths is that he's an African American and by electing him, we're showing that the age of racism is over.  Hillary Clinton, while not African American (that I know of) is a female (as far as I know) and the election of her shows that sexism is also over.  On the other hand, the Republicans only had old white men to select from.  So, who does Obama choose as a running mate?  An old, white man.

I also have to wonder about Biden's ideology.  While many of the votes taken in the senate while all three were in office were in agreement, there were a couple of times when Biden seems to go off on his own.  For example, on November 17, 2005 the senate voted to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to put a temporary tax on oil and give $100 per personal exemption to each taxpayer.  Obama voted in favor of the bill, as did Clinton, yet Biden voted against it (which put him in agreement with McCain.  Coincidence?).

On March 2, 2005 a vote was held to require credit card companies to provide information to consumers on the ramifications of making minimum payments on their credit card debt.  Both Obama and Clinton voted in favor, while Biden and McCain voted against.  Why would Biden vote against such legislation?  Hmmmmmmm.

On May 11, 2005 a bill was put forward to fund motorcycle safety programs specifically in those state that did not have helmet laws.  It seems to me that if you're stupid enough to get on a motorcycle without wearing a helmet you deserve what you get, but legislation was put forward to spend our tax dollars on these folks.  Obama and Clinton both voted no, as did McCain, but Biden voted for it.  I wonder if Biden rides without a helmet.  That could explain many things.

One of Obama's key messages was that the war in Iraq is wrong, and he points to the fact that he did not vote for it (which he couldn't because he wasn't in the senate yet), but that Hillary Clinton did.  So did Joe Biden.  Wouldn't that make Joe Biden just as wrong as Hillary?  Then why choose him as a running mate?

One vote that I found particularly disturbing was on October 26, 2005 when the senate voted on a measure to increase funding for AIDS drugs.  McCain voted for the funding, but Obama, Biden and Clinton all voted against it.  On November 3, 2005 a measure was put forth to give financial assistance to schools devastated by hurricane Katrina, and again McCain voted in favor while the other three opposed it.  It kind of makes you wonder who the good guys are, doesn't it?

I have to question whether Biden is really a good choice, given his record.  I understand that he has foreign policy experience, but Obama has to win the election before that experience can come in handy.  At this point, I seriously doubt that he's done that.

What is McCain Doing?

What is John McCain doing? During the last election, it seems to me that he was able to defeat other candidates (many of whom I considered much more worthy) by showing people what a nice person he is. Now that he's the last man standing, that niceness has fallen off of him like teeth from a hockey player.

Now that the election is down to two opponents, McCain has taken the gloves off. Actually, I think it's more accurate to say he's taken the mask off and is showing his true face. He doesn't seem to have any interest in telling us what he will do if elected, but rather by telling us what he believes Obama would do if Obama were elected. McCain is apparently clairvoyant.

Clairvoyance is a wonderful ability to have, and certainly one that would be a bonus to a president, but before we all go rushing off to the polls to vote Republican, we have to remember that McCain has not proven that he is clairvoyant; he has only attempted clairvoyance.

I think the best thing that McCain can do at this point is to tell us what will happen next week. Who will die, who will file for divorce, where will the next major tragedy strike, how well will Madonna's next album do, etc. The things that matter. Once he's done this, then we can look at his predictions and decide for ourselves if he actually has the gift or not. If he does, we would do well to vote for him. If he doesn't, then Obama might be a better choice.

Clairvoyance certainly isn't the only ability that a president should have, but in looking over the last eight years, and the last campaigns, I can't help but be concerned. The Republicans have shown a history of running smere campaigns, particularly when they run candidates without much merit (I know, many people believe that no Republicans have merit, but I'm not going there). Looking at McCain's campaign, what I see is an extension of the current administration.

Sorry John. You almost had my vote. I was concerned that Obama's lack of experience would not be in the best interest of this country, and that is still a concern to me, but your campaign tactics make me question your abilities even more. I've ordered my Obama bumper sticker and will be supporting the Democrat this time around.

One suggestion for any future campaigns; stick to your strengths. Tell the people what you can do that will make you the best person for the job. Don't tell us what someone else won't do (or will do that's bad), because you don't know that. Don't tell us why the other person is not the right person for the job; we have Fox News for that. Tell us what makes you the right person. Without that, you tell us that you're not.

George Bush's Report Card

As a tax paying citizen of the United States, I am the employer of George W. Bush. Not just myself, of course, but all citizens like me and as such, we should certainly have the right to evaluate the performance of anyone in our employ, and Bush should not be an exception.

When I was a child, one of the areas that appeared on my report card was "Plays Well With Others" and in this category, I have to give little Georgie a solid F. Now, if the category were "Plays Well With Others Like Himself" he would do much better, as he has clearly demonstrated a love for his own kind, but that's not the name of the category.

Last week George signed the new FISA legislation into law. This legislation was opposed by Democrats, yet enough of them changed their vote to allow the law to pass. Why they were willing to do this I can't answer. In particular, why Obama would cross the aisle to vote for this piece of crap is beyond comprehension, but I can only imagine that he's fully giving in to the lure of evil that comes with politics and is selling his soul. That's a shame. He might find use for it as some point in his life, but what can you do?

So, the garbage law passed and George signed it and now we're stuck with it until 2012 (which is oddly enough how long we'll be stuck with the next president. Coincidence?). What this shows is that the Democrats were willing to make concessions to the president, which means on their individual report cards under "Plays Well With Others" they get high marks.

But back to Georgie. Another legislation is working its way up the hill, that would stop a 10% cut to doctors under Medicare. George has vowed to veto that bill, even though the votes are already there to override such a veto. This shows that Georgie has no intention of working with this congress. He wants everything his own way.

George is the boy with the ball who wants to make his own rules and if he's not allowed to do that, he'll take his ball and go home. My question is, why don't we just let him? We don't need his ball. We have plenty of balls of our own. What good is a congress without balls?

Going To Hell In A Hand Basket

Our country is doomed.  I've come to this dismal conclusion after suffering through a grueling meeting with a representative of one of the most American of all institutions; the United States Postal Service.

I visited the local Post Office to open a Post Office box for an organization to which I belong.  This should have been a simple process, but the people at the Post Office succeeded in making it as difficult as possible.

To start off, I first called the Post Office to ensure that they had boxes available.  I was told that they did, and in every size.  The woman I spoke with was very friendly and extremely helpful; or so I thought.

When I arrived at the Post Office I stood patiently in line and finally arrived at the window and made my request.  I was handed a form to complete and told I would need two forms of picture identification and a utility bill.  I asked why I needed the utility bill and I was told it was to verify my current address. 

 

But my address wasn't the issue since I was opening this for a nonprofit organization.  When I told her this, she left to get her supervisor.  He came out a few minutes later, and looked to be barely out of high school.  He didn't have any clue what I was talking about, and so he went in the back and came back with Mack.  I wasn't told what Mack's title was, but he's apparently the man who runs this particular branch.

Mack explained that the reason for the utility bill was so that the Post Office could ensure that the address I had given as a contact address was, in fact, a valid address.  Probably something to do with Homeland Security or one of the other useless laws that we must endure under the current administration.  I don't know why Mack had to come out to explain this, as it seemed simple enough that either the person at the window or the supervisor should have been able to help, but there you have it.

I returned home and gathered up the necessary documents and returned to the Post Office.  I again waited in line and this time came to the window of a different worker.  She looked at my driver's license and my passport and told me that these wouldn't work as they were both from the same list.  Then she produced a letter from Mack that listed forms of identification divided into two groups.  The first group were valid forms of photo IDs; driver's licenses, passports, military ID cards and so on.  The second group were other forms of ID that did not have photographs, such as paperwork showing citizenship.

  

The woman working the window couldn't understand that two forms of ID were needed, not one form from each section.  She went back for the same supervisor.  This time he was even less helpful.  He took the documents to the back, then came out and said that his manager was in a meeting and the best he could do was show him the form later that day, and mail the completed form to me so that I could return a third time to finally get the box.

I told him no.  I told him that he was to go in the back and get the manager out here.  He said the manager was in a meeting.  I said I didn't care.  "Tell him that he has a customer out here waiting," I instructed the supervisor.  The supervisor refused.  I refused to leave until I saw the manager.  In a battle of wills, I don't lose.

A few minutes later Phil came out.  Phil was the manager (Mack was at lunch).  He asked me what the problem was.  I said, "You tell me."  He looked at my information and my documents and said, "These are fine."  I said, "Tell her!" and pointed to the woman at the window.

She still refused to issue the box until Phil had signed off on the form so that if Mack had a problem with the transaction, it would be Phil's responsibility.  Phil signed the form and I finally got the box.  By this time, I had spent well over an hour working on something that should have taken less than 15 minutes.

  

She told me afterwards that she needed to make sure the rules were followed properly.  I told her she was misreading the instructions, as Phil had already proven.  "No," she said, "I've been working here for 14 years now.  I know what I'm doing."

Apparently, she's been screwing up the works for 14 years.  It's no wonder our mail delivery is so horrible in this country.

Agreeing With George W. Bush

Who would have ever thought that I would find an area where I would agree with George W. Bush, and yet that seems to have happened.  I heard on the news today that Bush intends on attending the opening ceremonies of the Olympics next month, despite the large numbers of Americans who think that it should be boycotted because of China's long history of violating human rights.

I think George is right in going.  It's difficult for me to say that, as I've had nearly eight years of disagreeing with this man, but I guess he's bound to get something right now and then.  In this instance, I agree with him.

The Olympics are set up specifically to give nations a chance to compete against each other peacefully.  We can be at war with each other at the time, but we come together in the spirit of competition to play games with each other.  We compete on the field so we can show that our differences are not so great that they cannot be overcome.

Nothing should stop this.  China's violation of human rights is not the point, the point is that we are there to compete against China and many other countries in a peaceful spirit.  Boycotting the opening ceremonies does not do anything to stop China from their practices.  It merely shows the world that we do not understand the purpose of the Olympics.

If we're truly interested in changing practices in China, we should stop buying products made there.  That would be a boycott that would make sense.  Boycotting the Olympics won't have any where near the same effect.

Religious Discrimination or Homophobia?

Eric Holyfield is a sergeant with the Los Angeles Police Department.  He is also a minister, and in those combined roles he was asked to give a eulogy at the funeral of a fellow officer.  Clad in his ministerial garb, he gave his sermon, including indicating that gays would go to hell.  This was in 2006.  In June 2008 he filed suit against the LAPD and the city stating that he has been passed up for promotions and raises because of his speech, which means that he is being discriminated against because of his religious views (his opinion, not mine).  You can read the article from the Los Angeles Times by following this link: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-holyfield3-2008jul03,0,6800842.story

This story brings up many questions for me, but the first is, why were these remarks being made at a funeral?  Was the deceased gay?  If so, it would hardly be comforting to the mourners to be told their loved one is going to hell.  If not, then why bring up gay issues at all at his funeral?  Was he killed by a gang of murderous gays?  I've never heard of such things, but in Los Angeles I suppose anything is possible.  Speaking from a personal perspective, I'm fairly certain that any gang of gays (which I think would properly be called either a "gaggle of gays" or a "pride of gays") who I know would not be interested in killing anyone, but might help them with their hair and clothing.  God knows we need the fashion police in this town.

But back to the funeral.  Barring the deceased himself being gay, or being killed by gays, what possible motive is there for mentioning homosexuality at a funeral?  A funeral is a time of high emotions, and I can only think that Holyfield was using this as an opportunity to enforce his own personal bias, and therefore what he engaged in is hate speech, which is illegal in this state.  It seems to me that the LAPD should have done more than just file a complaint against him; they should have arrested him and charged him with a hate crime.

According to the article, Holyfield quoted the Bible as saying, "men should not lie with men; women should not lie with women. To do so was an abomination or sinful; one must repent or be condemned to hell."  The article does not give any indication of what denomination Holyfield is, nor of where he studied to become a pastor.  For that matter, it doesn't give any details about whether he was ever ordained, but I have to question his educational background when he claims to quote the Bible and makes up passages.

What Mr. Holyfield is misquoting is Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.  According to the Tanakh, these passages read, "Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence."  And, "If a man lies with a male as one lies with a woman, the two of them have done an abhorrent thing; they shall be put to death -- their blood-guilt is upon them."

Notice that these passages do not say that women should not lie with women.  Mr. Holyfield made that up, which means he lied about what the Bible says.  What kind of pastor lies about the scriptures?

Also, as an educated, ordained minister, I would expect Mr. Holyfield to understand that these passages are an interpretation of the scriptures, and not a translation.  If you translate the first passage directly from the Hebrew into English, it says, "With a male you shall not lie the lyings of a woman."  That is not the same thing as saying two men shall not lie together.

Mr. Holyfield should also realize that this passage is taken from a section known as the Holiness Code.  In this section the people of Israel are God's chosen people, and they are being told to follow a path provided by God, and not one that other people followed (specifically the Egyptians and Canaanites in this passage).  These rules are meant to set the people apart in their religious beliefs and practices.  It does not condemn homogenital sex in itself, but as a religious prohibition.  For Mr. Holyfield to follow this he would have to follow all of Leviticus.  For example, Leviticus 19:19 says "You shall not put on cloth from a mixture of two kinds of materials."  I've never met Mr. Holyfield, but I'll bet he's worn polyester/cotton blend clothing in his lifetime.  Probably at the funeral.

Leviticus 19:27 says, "You shall not round off the side-growth on your head, or destroy the side-growth of your beard."  To me that just looks unkempt, but it's God's law, so Mr. Holyfield must follow it.  The article doesn't contain a picture of him, but I'll see if I can find one and post it.  I'm sure his sideburns must reach the floor by now.

There are more.  Leviticus is full of prohibitions and requirements, but the point is, if you claim that one must be followed then you must follow all of them.  This book was written thousands of years ago, and we don't follow these teachings any longer, so for Mr. Holyfield to state that we must indicates to me that his education is extremely limited.

One further point, the original passage that I quoted claims that this act is an abomination.  Leviticus 20:25-26 indicates that abomination is another way of saying "unclean."  This was seen as an unclean act.  The reason they would be put to death is because they committed a religious offense against God, however many of the other acts don't have the same punishment.  This has lead many scholars to believe that the correct translation ("With a male you shall not lie the lyings of a woman") is intended to refer to temple prostitutes (yes, they existed in the early days of Judaism), and therefore the prohibition was against sexual relations that were conducted within the temple.  As such, homosexuality is not being condemned at all, but ritualistic sexual acts that are conducted more for eroticism than ritual are being condemned.  

I wonder if Mr. Holyfield included that in his eulogy.