george tiller, hero

After having watched the documentary Religulous on Saturday, the news of Dr. Tiller's death on Sunday was incredibly hard to accept. I am still filled with hate and rage at the moment but I will do my best not to use swear words in this post.

For those of you who have never heard of Dr. George Tiller, I think NY Governor George Patterson described him best in yesterday's press release:

I was deeply saddened to learn that Dr. George Tiller, a well-known provider of and advocate for women’s health care, was gunned down this morning at his church in Wichita, Kansas. With his murder, we are robbed not only of a dedicated and courageous physician, but also of a husband, father and neighbor.

Dr. Tiller was targeted for his belief in the right of women to make their own health decisions. He protected that right and sought to ensure that his patients were provided with the medical, emotional and spiritual counsel they needed to make the right choice for themselves and their families. He continued this work despite the threat of harmful retaliation, physical attacks and the destruction of his clinic. We will forever remember his fearlessness, compassion and commitment.

Dr. Tiller was one of three abortion providers in the U.S. who performed abortions after 24 weeks of gestation. Late term abortions are almost always done when a woman's health is at risk or if the fetus has no chance of surviving outside of the womb or if the fetus has a condition that will lead to a slow, painful death post-partum. In a sense, Dr. Tiller was performing abortions that were deemed medically necessary (for testimonials of some of Dr. Tiller's patients, please go here).

But that's not what the anti-choicers want you to believe. He was a killer, running an abortion mill in Wichita, the abortion capital of the US. He had to be stopped. Domestic terror cell, Operation Rescue (let's just call a spade a spade, shall we?), had longed targeted Dr. Tiller, going so far as to move their terrorist organization to Wichita and posting all information about the people who worked in Dr. Tiller's clinic, including photos. Isn't that convenient? Why would they do that if not to incite violence against those employees and Dr. Tiller?

It is of no surprise whatsoever that Dr. Tiller's murderer was affiliated with Operation Rescue.

What should be of no surprise to the anti-choice movement is that the man who murdered Dr. Tiller (at his church, with his wife watching from the choir loft), has now created a martyr. Everyone in the women's rights movement was already familiar with Dr. Tiller and his passion for reproductive rights. This was a man who wore a bullet proof vest to work. Who had legal charges brought against him constantly by anti-choice politicians (he was never convicted, of course). Whose clinic had been bombed and, most recently, had been vandalized. Who was shot in both arms by another domestic terrorist (now serving time in prison). Who went to work every day despite these obstacles because he believed that women were capable and had the right to make their own health decisions.

In women's rights circle everywhere, we are banding together to decide what could we do to honor Dr. Tiller's memory. This blogger is making a sizable donation (of money I don't really have) to Medical Students for Choice, an organization that works to ensure that reproductive health procedures are taught in all medical schools and that the next generation of Dr. Tillers are properly trained to follow in his giant footsteps. Others are calling their local PP clinics in order to volunteer as escorts. Still others are planning to donate money to reproductive health organizations (such as PRCH, which Dr. Tiller was on the board of directors).

Some of us were inspired by Dr. Tiller's determination and perseverance. But now all of us know about it. He's inspired us to be more resolute in our efforts to defend a woman's right to choose and to fight back against those so-called pro-life groups that do nothing but breed terrorists who act in the name of their god.

I have just one thing to say about Scott Roeder.
May he rot in hell.  I hope he gets what he deserves.

fun, frisky felines: economic downturn edition

As most of you know, Gracie had her little surgery this week. She was pretty much up and running and being all frisky-like the next day so she's going to be a-ok. *sigh* Moreover, she's being more affectionate than usual which gives me the impression that she's happy to be pain-free. She's been prescribed some painkillers and I know those tend to make me happy and pain-free too. As a kitty parent, I can't tell even begin to express how ecstatic this makes me.

So...about the title of this post...

A year and a half ago, Jesse and I made the decision to adopt a kitty (actually I had decided that a LONG TIME AGO...Jesse finally came around two Januaries ago). I searched and pored over petfinder.com and craigslist and individual rescue sites before finding our little Nicky (and again later to find our little Gracie). While searching through the craigslist ads in the pet section, I noticed two things: (1) an inordinate amount of listings asking for free pets and (2) an exorbitant amount of people giving their pets away because they didn't have the money to care for them.

The title of Chapter 56 in the Book of Duh is titled Pets Cost Money. Free pets will need to be spayed/neutered, taken for shots, etc. I suspect that the people posting these requests for free pets are not looking to take all of these necessary medical precautions because those procedures cost money and they are looking for handouts (in the form of a cute, cuddly kitten or puppy that will grow up to be a financially-consuming adult cat or dog). I could be wrong about the folks looking for freebies, but having been a regular reader of the pet ads at some point, a lot of the people asking for free pets eventually asked for free food, free bowls, free litter boxes, free leashes, etc.

While I understand why there would be a large number of people looking to give their pets away right now because of the state of the economy, seeing all of those ads two years ago didn't make much sense to me. I was apalled by some of the reasons people stated: "please take my pregnant dog because I never spayed her and now she has puppies and I can't afford to feed so many mouths" or "my cat needs surgery and I can't afford it so please take my cat so he can have a good life." How could people be so flippant about giving their pets away?

Before you jump into pet ownership, you must realize something first. Pet ownership is a privilege and it requires a full commitment. And by 'full' I mean that pets require an emotional, physical (dogs need walks, cats need exercise), and financial commitment. Caring for a pet is not cheap. Nicky's surgery was almost immediately succeeded by Gracie's surgery and, dude, do I really wish that we had signed up for that pet health insurance a long time ago. Jesse and I are not rich, so we had to make some sacrifices in order to pay for these surgeries. But the money we spent is far less important than the health and happiness of our furbabies.

I love my kitties. I wouldn't change a thing. I'm not complaining about the cost of caring for them at all. Adopting Nicky and Gracie was one of the best things Jesse and I have done.  With shelters and rescues bursting at the seams, I think now is the time for people to contemplate adopting. However, people need to really think things through before doing so.

There are countless homeless doggies and kitties waiting for their forever home. They are living creatures that are completely dependent on us to keep them healthy and safe. We owe it to them to make a full commitment to love them and care for them but only when we are ready to do so.

and a happy teabagging day to you too

Today is tax day! My taxes are done (federal) and done (VA) and for the first time in years, I'm getting some moola back  Woo hoo!

Anyhoo, all over the country, people will be staging tea parties (you know, like the Boston Tea Party of yore) and sending tea bags to the White House and Congress (aka, thanks to Faux News, as Teabagging). Apparently, people are sick of being taxed and paying for things they feel they shouldn't be paying for...like bailing out banks. They are also taking this opportunity to hate on Obama for his economic policies (have I mentioned that the bank bailouts started under Bush? did people forget that?) and using their money to expand *GASP* unemployment benefits and *GASP* medicare.

I'm all for free speech so I'm not going to knock this movement (I will question the people behind it, though). However, I am suspect of any movement promoted by Faux News*. Aren't they all fair and balanced? Why the hell is a 'news network' endorsing and promoting a movement, especially one titled the Teabagging Movement?

Conservatives are in on the joke, right?

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

What is even more ironic than the name of the movement is the fact that the Teabagging Movement is being promoted and funded by Freedom Works and Americans for Prosperity. Quick google searches reveal that "While working to promote Social Security privatization, Freedom Works was caught planting one of its operatives as a "single mom" to ask questions to President Bush in a town hall on the subject. Last year, the Wall Street Journal exposed Freedom Works for similarly building "amateur-looking" websites to promote the lobbying interests of Dick Armey." Freedom Works is not the only suspect. According to Think Progress, "Americans for Prosperity is run by Tim Phillips, [a] former partner in the lobbying firm Century Strategies. The group is funded by Koch family foundations -- a family whose wealth is derived from the oil industry. Indeed Americans for Prosperity has coordinated pro-drilling 'grassroots' events around the country."

Privatizing Social Security? Promoting unnecessary drilling? Um, no thanks.

The funny thing is that the Teabagging Movement believes that we are Taxed Enough Already (hence, TEA). However, 95% of Americans will receive a tax cut in the next year if the upcoming Obama budget passes. Only Americans with incomes above $250,000 will receive a tax increase. You know, like those fat cat leaders of Freedom Works and Americans for Progress. Of course they don't want to pay higher taxes! Screw the middle and lower class! In fact, why don't they just trick the lower and middle classes into promoting their agenda...

If that's the case, I'd say that Freedom Works and Americans for Prosperity have done their job.

*I will stop bagging on Faux News the day they accept they are not fair and balanced.

iowa supreme court shows U.S. that separation of church and state is not dead

On Friday, the Iowa State Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the state's DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) is unconstitutional. After the seriously big downer that was Prop 8, this was the most awesome news in...well...since the California State Supreme Court upheld a law allowing same-sex marriage.

I actually read the decision Saturday morning. It's 69 pages. Hey, Nicky woke me up at 7 a.m. and Jesse doesn't usually wake up until 11 so I had plenty of time to kill. Allow me to summarize the key awesome points for you...

• Regarding the plaintiffs: Like all Iowans, they prize their liberties and live within the borders of this state with the expectation that their rights will be maintained and protected—a belief embraced by our state motto (which is "Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain”).

• The defense: The County offered five primary interests of society in support of the legislature’s exclusive definition of marriage. The first three interests are broadly related to the advancement of child rearing. Specifically, the objectives centered on promoting procreation, promoting child rearing by a mother and a father within a marriage, and promoting stability in an opposite-sex relationship to raise and nurture children. The fourth interest raised by the County addressed the conservation of state resources, while the final reason concerned the governmental interest in promoting the concept and integrity of the traditional notion of marriage.

The Court's rationale:

• Among other basic principles essential to our form of government, the constitution defines certain individual rights upon which the government may not infringe. Equal protection of the law is one of the guaranteed rights. All these rights and principles are declared and undeniably accepted as the supreme law of this state, against which no contrary law can stand.

• Our responsibility, however, is to protect constitutional rights of individuals from legislative enactments that have denied those rights, even when the rights have not yet been broadly accepted, were at one time unimagined, or challenge a deeply ingrained practice or law viewed to be impervious to the passage of time. The framers of the Iowa Constitution knew, as did the drafters of the United States Constitution, that “times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress,” and as our constitution “endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom” and equality.

• No two people or groups of people are the same in every way, and nearly every equal protection claim could be run aground onto the shoals of a threshold analysis if the two groups needed to be a mirror image of one another. Such a threshold analysis would hollow out the constitution’s promise of equal protection. Thus, equal protection before the law demands more than the equal application of the classifications made by the law. The law itself must be equal. (argument against procreation as a requirement for marriage)

• It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and lesbian persons from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry, it must be to someone of the opposite sex. Viewed in the complete context of marriage, including intimacy, civil marriage with a person of the opposite sex is as unappealing to a gay or lesbian person as civil marriage with a person of the same sex is to a heterosexual. Thus, the right of a gay or lesbian person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a person of the opposite sex is no right at all. (discrimination based on sexual orientation is illegal in Iowa)

• If the marriage statute was truly focused on optimal parenting, many classifications of people would be excluded (child abusers and sexual predators were given as examples), not merely gay and lesbian people (basically there is no fundamental difference in child-rearing between same sex couples and heterosexual parents.)

Oh and this is my favorite part of the ruling...

• While unexpressed, religious sentiment most likely motivates many, if not most, opponents of same-sex civil marriage and perhaps even shapes the views of those people who may accept gay and lesbian unions but find the notion of same-sex marriage unsettling. Whether expressly or impliedly, much of society rejects same-sex marriage due to sincere, deeply ingrained—even fundamental—religious belief.

• This contrast of opinions in our society largely explains the absence of any religion-based rationale to test the constitutionality of Iowa’s same-sex marriage ban. Our constitution does not permit any branch of government to resolve these types of religious debates. State government can have no religious views, either directly or indirectly, expressed through its legislation.

• And the Pièce de résistance: As a result, civil marriage must be judged under our constitutional standards of equal protection and not under religious doctrines or the religious views of individuals...

• A religious denomination can still define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and a marriage ceremony performed by a minister, priest, rabbi, or other person ordained or designated as a leader of the person’s religious faith does not lose its meaning as a sacrament or other religious institution. The sanctity of all religious marriages celebrated in the future will have the same meaning as those celebrated in the past. The only difference is civil marriage will now take on a new meaning that reflects a more complete understanding of equal protection of the law.

Not much to say here. Basically the decision put forth by the Iowa Supreme Court is what I've been feeling all along. It's so nice to see my opinion defended by a legal entity.

So gays have just as much a right to get married as straights do?  Wow. What a concept.*

Source: iowacourts.gov

* Yes, that was sarcasm.

spread the word to end the word

When I was younger, I had a best friend whose sister was mentally challenged due to a brief cut off of oxygen at birth. On the outside, she was a happy, well-adjusted pre-teen. On the inside, she had the mind of a 5 year old.

She had a speech impediment, which made it difficult to understand her. However, over time and countless visits to my friend's house, I came to understand her speech better. Eventually, I was able to communicate with her without assistance (for me, not her) and she grew to like me a lot since I treated her as I would any other girl her age. When I looked at her, I saw my best friend's little sister, not the girl her classmates called "The Retard."

At an early age, I learned not to use that word casually as other kids my age did. I learned that it was inappropriate to say, "That's so retarded" or "So-and-So is such a retard." Whenever I hear someone use that word (even now), I can't help but wince. It's extremely offensive to me. Imagine how offensive that word is to someone who is mentally challenged.

By the way, in addition to the derogatory use of 'retard', I also can't stand when people use the word 'gay' as a synonym for 'lame' (i.e. "That's so gay!").

Probably triggered by Obama's Special Olympics gaffe on the Tonight Show a few weeks ago, the Special Olympics has started a campaign to rid the world of the inappropriate use of the word "retard" and its cousin "retarded".

And frankly, I'm all for a little bit of education and awareness. Especially if the goal is to eradicate ignorance.