Indulgences

I'm about to reveal my ignorance in a big way here - and those of you familiar with my religious upbringing and liberal arts education will probably be shocked:  I honestly thought that indulgences were something belonging to the Catholic church's ancient, sordid past, with the likes of the Inquisition and Crusades.  I remember learning in my Lutheran confirmation class (or maybe even in earlier Sunday school years) that Martin Luther spoke out against the Catholic church selling indulgences to followers who believed that forking over cash to the church would get them into heaven.  The idea of having to pay money to get into heaven seemed ridiculous to Martin Luther, to my 13-year-old self, and to me now (obviously).  One of the key Bible passages that Luther used to argue against indulgences was from Romans chapter 3:

²³ for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, ²⁴ and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

Just as the Catholic Church has evolved from many of its earlier ways (again, the Crusades, the Inquisition), I guess I assumed that indulgences were a thing of the past.  But then today I saw this headline in The Onion:  "Pope To Reduce His Twitter Followers’ Time In Purgatory"  I know, it's The Onion, right?  Fake, funny news.  But this was in The Onion's "American Voices" section, which is actually real stories accompanied by fake (and often hilarious) commentary.  So, I had to go find a more informative news article about this, and indeed, the Vatican is offering indulgences to people who follow the pope's tweets live from Catholic World Youth Day.  Granted, this is nowhere near as unscrupulous as the ancient selling of indulgences for greedy amounts of money.  And I'm sure that Catholics, including my friends and probably some of my in-laws, would argue there is nothing unscrupulous about this at all - it is simply a way for the church leadership to reach out to young followers and better engage them in the Catholic faith and its teachings.  I understand this, but - sorry if I offend or disrespect - indulgences are ridiculous and stupid and Biblical unsound (although not as ridiculous and stupid and Biblical unsound as many other aspects of the Catholic faith).  Of course, my knowledge of the Bible is pretty damn poor, so please comment away if you'd like to take issue with this.  The quote above is pretty much my main argument!

Why don't you trust me? A letter to anti-choice politicians

Yes, this is Yet Another abortion rant blog post, but can you blame me?  The misguided, self-righteous, full-throttle attack on reproductive rights that is currently plaguing our so-called great nation is absolutely unbelievable.  Perhaps I am particularly upset because my adopted home state is suffering a large, national-news-worthy chunk of this attack, but, my gosh, I think it's something like DOZENS of states that are or recently have been ground-zeros for these assaults on our basic, personal, intimate rights.  For a little something different, I've drafted this letter to anti-choice politicians, which I could modify, personalize...maybe actually deliver (though I need to replace the footnote links with primary sources).  I'm thinking a good start would be my local representatives in the NC state house and senate, both of whom are, surprise, surprise, old white men with business/ real estate backgrounds and clear, consistent anti-choice voting records.

Dear Lawmaker,

We have not met, so please allow me to introduce myself:  I am an early-career scientist who was recently appointed to a tenure-track position at a private university in North Carolina.  I enjoy running, cooking, and hiking.  I attend church.  I am married and plan to start a family soon.  Please excuse my boasting, but I am well-educated, intelligent, and hard-working:  I earned my Ph.D. at the age of 26 and since then I have published many papers, taught many students, and contributed to my discipline in meaningful ways.

Now that you know a little about me, I have a question for you:  Why don't you trust me?  Based on your voting record (e.g., [INSERT SPECIFIC EXAMPLES HERE]), I understand that you have attempted to limit, make more onerous, or even take away my right to choose what happens to my pregnancy.  Thankfully, you have not yet succeeded in eliminating this right, but you have indeed managed to make it more difficult to access safe, legal care to which I am entitled, just as you are entitled to safe, legal reproductive health care.  I do not wish to take away your care, and I cannot understand why you are so concerned with mine when we have only just met.  Why don't you trust me?

Maybe you actually DO trust me now that you know I plan to start a family soon and thus you may assume that I would not chose to have an abortion.  But the sad reality is that none of us ever can predict what tragic situations may befall us.  I am sure you have heard the stories of women (and couples) who were stricken with the heart-wrenching decision of what to do about learning of something terribly wrong with their unborn baby (e.g., this would be a footnote in the letter).  In many cases, these parents felt abortion was the most loving, caring choice for their baby.  Why don't you trust them?  Especially when you do not even know the intricate, intimate details of their plight.  You would not want them or me to make such decisions for your family, correct?  Then why do you feel compelled to make them for me?  For all of your constituents? 

[SECTION OF LETTER FOR NC STATE LEGISLATORS]:  Why don't you trust me?  Why don't you think I am smart and clear-thinking?  I realize when you voted for the so-called "Women's Right to Know Act" you probably thought you had my best interests in mind.  But honestly, I - along with most of the women in this state and their partners - was incredibly insulted that you think I wouldn't know such important, intimate facts about my own reproductive choices and situation.  I am certain that my doctor is insulted as well that you force her to read to her patients a medically unsound, ideologically-driven script crafted by politicians with no medical training.  This is why so many of us re-named this the "Women Know Nothing Act" because it presumed NC women were not carefully considering their reproductive decisions.  Why don't you trust me?  Why don't you trust us?

Maybe I am beginning to sound too offensive and aggressive in tone, so let me stop, relax, breathe, and switch gears.  I respect you.  Honestly, I do.  I understand and respect the fact that you believe human life begins at conception and that it is your duty as a politician to stand up for those unborn humans.  You are anti-abortion and always will be.  Me too.  Yes, you read that right.  I am anti-abortion.  Who isn't?  Abortion is a horrible (but safe) procedure and it is nothing anyone hopes to have one day.  You and I both agree on this.  Where we disagree is how to eliminate abortions.  As a politician, you naturally think the law is the best tool (even though you are supposedly of a "limited government" philosophy).  But as a woman, a scientist who relies on data, and a former Planned Parenthood patient I very strongly - and respectfully - disagree.  When laws restrict or eliminate access to safe, affordable, legal, abortions, women resort to cheap, dangerous, illegal procedures that not only harm the unborn, but also the woman herself (another footnote or two).  Just think - if she already has children, such botched abortions could be depriving children of a mother.  They could be depriving other family members of a wife, partner, sister, aunt.  They could be depriving society of a valuable, hard-working citizen.  Real-life horror stories like Kermit Gosnell illustrate what women can be subjected to when abortion is unregulated (another footnote).  You call yourself pro-life, but how does forcing women to resort to these horrors promote life?

No, the best way to eliminate abortions is NOT to ban or restrict them.  It is to eliminate the need for them.  Rather than closing Planned Parenthood clinics, promoting "abstinence only" education, insisting that insurance policies should not cover contraception, and other actions that disproportionately neglect poor women, as a society we should be improving access to affordable reproductive health care.  We should properly educate our children about sex and pregnancy [FOR NC STATE LEGISLATURES] and not spread lies about abortion to our public school students like you have voted to do.  

By your voting record thus far, it is clear that you believe that abortion and women's reproductive health should be regulated by governments.  Fine.  While laws that restrict abortion clearly will exacerbate rather than alleviate the problem, there are other actions that you politicians could take that would actually make a positive difference.  So, help our state build more health clinics serving low income women in all regions of the state.  Data from many studies clearly show that improving access to and affordability of contraception reduces unplanned pregnancies, and reducing unplanned pregnancies reduces abortions (footnote; footnote).  Data also show a correlation between poverty and unplanned pregnancies, and so steps to alleviate poverty may also reduce abortions (particularly illegal ones; footnote).

I am informed, intelligent, and independent, and you should trust me.  You should trust all women and their partners to make their own personal, private, life-altering decisions - those decisions are theirs and not yours, no matter what laws you pass.  I strongly, passionately - even desperately - encourage you to heed my recommendations to eliminate abortions.  I want the same thing you do, but the only way we'll achieve this goal is for you to trust me - trust all of us.

Respectfully,
Sandra

Abortion debates

The Diane Rehm Show just featured a panel discussion of abortion,and I feel compelled to briefly comment on a few tidbits raised by the panelists and callers:

• No one is "for" abortion.  Proc-choice does not mean pro-abortion.  It is a tragedy, but it is a necessary tragedy.  Laws like the 20-week ban in Texas will result in even more tragedies by denying women access to safe, legal abortions and forcing them to resort to unsafe, unregulated procedures.
• Increasing abortion access does not increase demand.  In fact, I'll bet there's data to support the idea that closing Planned Parenthood and other reproductive health clinics increases demand for abortion because of reduced access to contraception.  So many anti-choicers seem to ignore this issue or even denounce contraception altogether.  In my opinion, anyone who claims to be "pro-life" better be "pro-contraception access" but they usually aren't.  This is why I view the anti-choice movement as part of the reason why abortion rates are so high in the U.S.  Ironic, isn't it?
• The panelist from the Susan B. Anthony List claims that just as we do everything we can to give life-saving treatment to a 24-week pre-term baby, we should similarly do everything we can to save a 24 week unborn fetus - there should be no moral distinction.  While I understand her logic, she fails to realize that parents and doctors caring for a pre-term baby face a painful range of choices that can be described as a "confusing tug of war between two basic moral touchstones: doing no harm...and doing everything in our power to help."  This RadioLab podcast is a touching example of why we don't (and shouldn't) legislate major medical decisions for pre-term babies and why we shouldn't legislate decisions regarding pregnancies.  The mother is a journalist who chronicled her experience in a series of articles.  The tag line for Part 1 encapsulates it best:  "When a baby is born at the edge of viability, which is the greater act of love: to save her, or to say goodbye?"  Each situation is unique and deeply personal.  Our politicians have absolutely no business telling us what to do.