Throwing the Baby Out with the Bathwater

Groups opposed to abortion rights love to target their ire at Planned Parenthood, so much so that many (if not all; I don't know) Planned Parenthood clinics have been forced to have security to rival a bank's. Do these people not realize that, if their cause is indeed minimizing the number of abortions taking place, hurting Planned Parenthood is one of the worst things they could do?

Planned Parenthood does not advocate abortion. The bulk of Planned Parenthood's services are sexuality education, contraception, and routine gynecologic care, all provided on a sliding-fee scale so that women who can least afford to have an unplanned pregnancy can afford to prevent one. Seems to me that if one wants to minimize abortions, that's great and good work, and anti-abortion groups and individuals ought to be rushing to support this work. If more young women knew how to prevent pregnancy (in the devastatingly impoverished community of East St. Louis, Illinois, for one example, 2 out of 5 babies are born to teenage mothers, according to a report on NPR's All Things Considered today), and could afford to do so, there would be fewer unwanted pregnancies, and therefore a smaller population of people who might potentially seek abortions.

So why aren't anti-abortion organizations rushing to support Planned Parenthood?

Because they do offer abortions, some would say. But only certain of PP's locations perform abortions at all, and those that do, do so with the following caveat:

Abortion services must include information on the nature, consequences, and risks of the procedure, and counseling on the alternatives available to the woman, so as to assure an informed and responsible decision concerning the continuation or termination of pregnancy.

Doesn't sound like they're the eager baby-killers some would paint them as.

In fact, I don't think it's that at all, because many of the same people, particularly conservative religious groups and individuals, who oppose abortion also oppose access to contraception. The only acceptable way to prevent a pregnancy in their view is abstinence. Fair enough, if that's your personal choice. But if they're looking to be the sex police, well, I don't think they're going to have much success. (Do we need to list the high-profile conservatives--evangelical ministers, Republican office-holders, etc.--whose careers have been derailed when their extramarital relationships were revealed? No, I didn't think so.) They can't keep their own trousers zipped, it's rather unfair to assume that everyone else will behave better.

Trousers zipped. Wait...there we have it. This isn't so much about abortion as it is about sex--by which I mean gender, not the sex act. Getting pregnant: the woman's problem. Not keeping the trousers zipped: only the man's problem if he gets caught. Planned Parenthood is providing services that permit women to control their own sexuality. The people who oppose Planned Parenthood aren't doing so in order to minimize abortions--and in fact by harming PP and its educational and contraceptive activities, they may be increasing the number of women seeking abortions--they are trying to restrict women's sexuality.

None of this is news, but it bears repeating: the people who are bludgeoning Planned Parenthood in the name of stopping abortion are actually increasing unwanted pregnancies, babies that mothers can't support, single-parent families, and abortions. Now, tell me again, who are the baby-killers?

Dedication

This is the dedication of John Patrick Shanley's Pulitzer Prize-winning play Doubt:

This play is dedicated to the many orders of Catholic nuns who have devoted their lives to serving others in hospitals, schools and retirement homes. Thought they have been much maligned and ridiculed, who among us has been so generous?

Indeed.

Compassion

Walking through Madison Square Park I saw a woman, a bag lady, sitting on a bench next to her cart full of stuff, feeding a squirrel that perched on the back of the bench. The squirrel came right up and took the nut from her hand.

She saw me watching, grinned, and said, "I shell them for him. I think he's one of the old ones. He's missing a tooth.

"I feel sorry for him."

7/7/05

We know what you're going through. We're thinking of you.

Borne on the 4th of July

Irongall writes here about "flag ambivalence." I know just what she means: I like to fly the flag, and I am proud of my nationality. But just as certain members of the political right are attempting to hijack Christianity to mean things that Christ never stood for, some are using the flag to cloak actions I can't as an American support: say, oh, for example, war under false pretences, or the so-called Patriot Act (there's another example of right-wing newspeak). Flying the flag used to mean you stood for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but now for some it seems to mean "my fascist president, right or wrong (but definitely not left)."

Boring Diatribe has a lovely bit from Bill Moyers about reclaiming the flag.

Moreover, after 9/11, flags became so ubiquitous that they were no longer treated as anything special. Witness the number of ragged, tattered shreds of flag you see clinging to car antennas. Or flags left out in all weather until they are faded almost colorless. (Those colors don't run, but they apparently bleach.) The rules for the proper display of the U.S. flag are widely ignored--even by the government, as the FAQ on the flag code page notes:

Isn't the American flag stamp in violation of the flag rules? This question has been asked by dozens of visitors to this page. The answer appears to be yes. Section 8e. (see below) reads, "The flag should never be ... used ... in such a manner as to permit it to be easily torn, soiled, or damaged in any way." Section 8g. reads, "The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark ... of any nature." 8i. reads, "[The flag] should not be printed or otherwise impressed on ... anything that is designed for temporary use and discard."

Under Flag Code Violations in the News, the page shows a picture of President Bush autographing a flag, in violation of section 8.g. of the Flag Code:

The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.

So, looks like the flag has become no more than a trendy souvenir item à la Hello Kitty. Hello Betsy.

Treating the flag respectfully is apparently too complicated. Like "The Star-Spangled Banner" is too hard. (Yes, true, it's not easy to sing, and it's very difficult for the average person to sing it well.) Hence, it is now "performed" at baseball games--you're not supposed to sing along with your own national anthem! Instead, "God Bless America" seems to be our new national anthem--I've been chided for not standing and removing my cap during its singing. "It's not the national anthem" is apparently not an acceptable response. Sad thing is, I used to like the song. Now that it's become some kind of loyalty oath, I find it hard to take. (And I still sing along with "The Star-Spangled Banner" at ball games, despite my longstanding reservations about having our national song be about war. [sigh] Apropos, it turns out, huh?)

Some years ago there was a movement to replace "The Star-Spangled Banner" with "America the Beautiful" as our national anthem: the melody is more singable, and the lyrics, by poet Katharine Lee Bates, describe many things to value in our nation. Our friend Irongall picked out a particularly pertinent verse:

America! America!
God mend thine ev'ry flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control,
Thy liberty in law!

Yes, I think that would make a very nice national anthem.