Preach On, Sister!

.

A story of discrimination by Kaili Joy Gray aka Angry Mouse

This will be short. It will not be sweet.

Edwin A. Graning worked as a bus driver for the Capital Area Rural Transportation System in Texas. On January 29, 2010, he was assigned to give a woman a ride to a location in Austin. He refused. He was fired.

And now he's suing. You see, Mr. Graning believes he was fired because of his religious beliefs. He believes he is the victim of discrimination. He wants his job back. He wants back pay. And he wants money for his “pain, suffering, and emotional distress.”

Why did he refuse to do his job?

Because the woman he was supposed to drive wanted to go to Planned Parenthood. And Mr. Graning believed that she was going to get an abortion. It didn't matter to Mr. Graning that she might have been going for a pap test or breast exam, that it was, in fact, unlikely that she was seeking an abortion because despite the constant smears from the forced birth movement, abortion is only 3 percent of the services Planned Parenthood provides.

It didn't matter to Mr. Graning that abortion is a legal medical procedure, and that the woman whom he refused to drive, even had she been going for an abortion, was merely exercising her legal rights.

It didn't matter to Mr. Graning because despite his lawsuit, he doesn't give a damn about legal rights.

Mr. Graning believes it is perfectly acceptable to discriminate against women, to deprive them of their rights, to deny them access to legal medical procedures to which they are entitled -- all under the guise of "religious beliefs."

We have seen this before. Pharmacists around the country refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control because of their "religious beliefs." And five states actually protect their "right" to deprive women of their rights.

We have seen this with the homophobic bigots who complain about violations of their free speech rights to spew hatred and pass homophobic legislation.

It's absurd. And the idea that Mr. Graning should have the right to discriminate against a woman who is exercising her legal rights is absurd. And the idea that he is entitled to his job, as well as money for "emotional distress," is absurd. Mr. Graning doesn't care about the emotional distress he inflicted on the woman to whom he denied a ride. He doesn't care about the woman whose rights he violated.

This is really quite simple. Women have a right in this country. Anyone who stands in the way of women exercising that right doesn't give a damn about rights and doesn't give a damn about the law and certainly shouldn't be complaining about their rights. Mr. Graning had a job to do: drive the damn bus.

Mr. Graning doesn't deserve to have his job back. He doesn't deserve back pay. He certainly doesn't deserve money for his "pain and suffering." One person in this short-and-not-sweet story is owed something: the woman who actually suffered discrimination. She deserves an apology from Mr. Graning.

Bare-foot, pregnant and in the kitchen.

Make no doubt about it: there is a "Forced Birth Movement" afoot in this country.

A sassy, "uppity" woman who controls her own body is powerful and, therefore, must be kept in her place.

Watch out, Sisters!
.

God Bless Kansas

.

Scott Roeder, who has confessed to the fatal shooting of a Kansas abortion provider, is fighting prosecutors’ attempts to ban the so-called necessity defense at his trial. ... Roeders’ attorney filed a motion stating that Roeder should be allowed to argue that the killing was necessary to prevent Tiller from performing abortions.

The necessity defense is highly unlikely to succeed in Roeder’s case, according to two law professors .... “He may think this is his opportunity to explain why abortion is murder, but that’s not relevant,” said Michael Kaye, a professor of law at Washburn University School of Law in Topeka, Kansas. Also known as the “choice of evils” defense, the necessity defense is on the books in many jurisdictions and allows defendants to argue that they needed to take action to prevent greater harm. “Kansas has never to my knowledge recognized the necessity defense in its statutes, but sometimes defendants do raise it,” said Melanie Wilson, a law professor at the University of Kansas School of Law. In those cases, the court has declined to decide whether Kansas should recognize it, saying it’s a moot point because the defendant can’t meet the criteria for the defense. (Emphasis mine.)

For instance, the action that the defendant tried to prevent must be illegal — not simply perceived as immoral. If a woman has the right to an abortion under certain circumstances — and if the abortions that Tiller performed were lawful — then Roeder could not successfully argue that he was justified in killing Tiller to stop him from carrying out abortions.

Kansas courts have previously rejected necessity defenses.

--from the Southern Poverty Law Center
.

The Dr Tiller Murder

.
For many, many years, it has seemed to me that those who are part of the "pro-life" (I prefer to call it anti-abortion) movement must have a tiny, little screw loose someplace.

They say they are Christians. You remember Christians? The followers of Jesus Christ? The Prince of Peace? The man who hated no one? The man whose only act of violence was against the money-changers? The man who said to love one another? Yeah, that Jesus Christ.

Yet these so-called Christians (the Taliban West) are the only people on either side of this who use violence to impose their will & view on everyone else. Bomb. Harass. Vandalize. Terrorize. Shoot. Murder. These actions are their stock in trade.

We who espouse choice are the only ones at the table who must fear for our lives.

Doubt not, anti-abortion is all about the subjugation of women.
.

What It Truly Means to "Choose Life"

.

Stolen unashamedly from Marie Wilson -- with my small comments bracketed [...].

• When President Obama appeared ... at Notre Dame, he called for greater understanding on both sides of the abortion divide. While his nuanced approach deserves appreciation, what bothers me about the continued dissection of this issue is that it is not honest at its root.[My feeling for years and years and years.]
  
• The decision to "choose life" is simply a false choice. The recent Gallup Poll, for example, asked people if they were pro-life or pro-choice. But such a dichotomy is not only polarizing -- it offers "choice-less" options. As a mother, grandmother, and advocate of women's issues, I refuse to be labeled "pro-choice" or "pro-life." I am both, and I suspect the same of the majority of Americans. Let's not parse words; to be pro-choice is also to be pro-life -- it's just a matter of which life you're discussing: the fetus in the womb or the woman carrying it. [Aha! Amen, Sister. Preach it!]
  
• Being pro-choice or pro-life is a false distinction created by fear, and it is not founded on the moral high ground it clams to hold. Instead, the division of the abortion issue into two divergent camps is based on cultural anxieties regarding motherhood.
• Before we go any further, allow me to offer my mothering bonafides: I have five children, including an adopted son, and seven grandkids. I cut my teeth in the '70s and '80s working on the issues of childcare and early childhood education. As it turned out, one of our children had special needs, and I became a Montessori teacher so I could take him to a school that would enhance his potential.
• The most important issue for me has always been how women and men participate in work, family, and community. I have always believed that to be "for women" is to be for families -- including men -- no matter how often conservatives paint feminists as anti-male. (Emphasis mine.)
  
• Nothing has validated my feelings on this issue more than my experience in the past decade working to get more women into leadership alongside men (an avenue, by the way, which will transform our nation by bringing all of our resources to the table). Connie Buchanan, the former Associate Dean of Harvard Divinity School, was the most influential voice to me on this topic. As she wrote in her book, Choosing to Lead, despite the enormous gains we have made in the last twenty-five years, "the cultural ideal of women in America is that of wife and mother."
• I have personally witnessed this "cultural ideal" keeping women out of power, from the political landscape to the corporate arena. As co-founder of Take Our Daughters to Work Day, I heard over and over the same question from girls visiting the workplace: " Can I have a family and work here, too?" In my current role at The White House Project, as we train thousands of women to lead in civic and political life in America, I hear the same tune again as women continue to question female politicians about work and family.
• So what does this have to do with being pro-life or pro-choice? Essentially, it forms the crux of the entire abortion debate.
• As Kristen Luker said in her 1984 book, Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood, real concern about abortion has to do with whether women will stop choosing motherhood if we have other choices. [Eureka!moment right here!] Although the mantra of the pro-choice movement is prevention and not abortion, and though focus has been on the myriad ways women and men can use contraception, the rabid opposition to abortion continues. Interestingly, during the Clinton administration, abortions decreased, while under George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, both "pro-life" presidents, abortions increased. [Truly, truly fascinating. Attention, gentle snowflakes, make note of this set of facts. Use it often.]
  
• What if the immense amount of energy and money, the anger and divisiveness that go into the "pro-life" movement were to go toward movements that help men choose fatherhood [eureka, redux & emphasis mine], and help communities support families through abundant childcare? As a former preschool teacher, I know children prefer being with groups of other children and learning together, and that working with children alongside other adults (what amounts to tribal ways of raising children) is far superior to isolated nuclear families. [Not to mention "Home Schooling"--please don't get me started!]
  
• Fortunately, this is the direction Obama took in his address at Notre Dame. He encouraged respectful dialogue and policies that care for and support women and their children. When hecklers in the audience stood and shouted hateful epithets, the audience drowned them out, retorting with Obama's campaign slogan, "Yes, we can."
• That is what it truly means to "choose life."

Ms Wilson has written everything I have been trying to say since the very early 70's. All my feelings on this subject are capsulized in these few paragraphs. I always knew the argument was wrongly framed; I just couldn't find the words. Here they are.
.

Imagry of the Human Embryo

• Did you know this photo by Lennart Nilsson was staged? Neither did we, until we read the University of Cambridge's online exhibit, "Making Visible Embryos."
• The University of Cambridge explains:

  Although claiming to show the living fetus, [Lennart] Nilsson actually photographed abortus material obtained from women who terminated their pregnancies under the liberal Swedish law. Working with dead embryos allowed Nilsson to experiment with lighting, background and positions, such as placing the thumb into the fetus' mouth. But the origin of the pictures was rarely mentioned, even by ‘pro-life' activists, who in the 1970s appropriated these icons.

• So, when anti-abortion activists are showing pictures of their "babies" to clinic clients, they're actually using pictures of aborted fetuses.

'nough said.
.

A mixed bag today

Just so you know that Wall Street is not the only recipient of bail-out $ that seemingly fails to understand just why US taxpayer dollars are being given to them. GM is going to use $1 billion in Brazil with the money coming from the financial aid package from us. That's right you and I are going to send $1 billion dollars to Brazil. It is not, apparently, going to be used in the US of A.


Well, my gentle snowflakes, here is where the next financial bust is going to come from...the same people who gave you the current mess are re-grouping/re-forming/changing their coats and coming after the fast, easy money again--at the expense of the poor, of course.


Oh, my, inspiring words from Jim Hightower to make us all feel better. He makes the point about this nation being born from progressive liberalism. An idea usually missed or completely ignored by the base conservatives when they wrap themselves in the mantle of the founding fathers. These men (the founding fathers) were prepared to lose their lives and property just for the idea of freedom. REMEMBER, the conservatives during the American Revolution were all Tories on the side of England. We would not be this country were it not for daring, progressive minded folk.


And, now, for a RANT. You have been warned and need read no further.

Matthew, 25:31-46, New Testament

Jesus said, "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left. Then the king will say to those at his right hand, `Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.' Then the righteous will answer him, `Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?' And the king will answer them, `Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.' Then he will say to those at his left hand, `You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' Then they also will answer, `Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?' Then he will answer them, `Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.' And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Contained in this one passage is a straight forward condemnation of both the political policy and practice of those who claim the mantle of conservative 'Christian.'

You can look long and hard, high and low, at political conservatives and you won’t find much that fulfills these requirements for avoiding eternal damnation. There is virtually not a single point of these requirements which are adequately fulfilled by the conservatives' programs. The hungry, the sick, the ill clothed, the alien, the prisoner, all are abandoned, ignored. There is no way to square conservative political actions on nutrition programs, universal health care, immigration and certainly not on prison policy, with these life guidelines laid out by Jesus.

Conservative ‘Christians’ never tire of condemning other people to eternal damnation citing “Jesus Christ” as their authority. But in this one passage, we’ve got Jesus--no one else--stating absolutely what he expects of those who purport to follow him. And notice, not a single mention of abortion, gay sex, contraception or wealth redistribution as mortal sin.