Pelosi issued orders from the Pope

Apparently, the Pope has decided to tell Nancy Pelosi that Catholic politicians have a duty to protect life "at all stages of its development."

Now, the Pope can say whatever he wants. But being able to say something is not the same as being wise in saying something.

First of all, do we really want to go back to a time in the U.S. where citizens are concerned about electing Catholics for fear that they will be taking marching orders from the Vatican? I don't. Yet this business of denying communion to pro-choice Catholics, and comments like this one...might lead us back to a time like that.

Secondly, if the Pope is so terribly concerned about protecting life, perhaps he could exert his influence toward birth control? Or is this not really about "life" at all, but about sex?

Thirdly, I'm waiting for the Pope to announce that all good Catholics must make their bodies available for providing life support to others (blood donations, organ donations, and anything else medical science can come up with) no matter how inconvenient or intrusive or dangerous it may be. Otherwise, sorry, but this statement smacks of hypocrisy. It's not about life. It's about tying women to pregnancy to fit this strangely idealized view of what is in the Bible.

Why health of the mother is not just another excuse for pro-choicers

I just recently had a baby girl. She's beautiful, and funny, and makes a lot of weird squeaky noises. I also have a wonderful little boy. I love having kids, and if I had more financial resources, I would probably be lobbying my husband to adopt more children.

The night after I gave birth to my daughter, I had postpartum hemorrhaging. This is a relatively rare complication where basically the mother has excessive bleeding. Thankfully, I was in the hospital and able to summon assistance. There were 5 nurses in my room, administering various treatments to me as a stop-gap until the doctor came. More treatments from the doctor followed. In an attempt to find a balance between providing too-much-info and being frank, let me say this:

1. The treatments to stop the hemorrhaging hurt way worse than labor itself.
2. If I hadn't woke up because my daughter started crying, I don't know how much longer I would have been lying in bed, bleeding. Nor do I know just how long I could have been lying there bleeding and still had the same (relatively good) outcome.
   
3. While I am obviously alive and relatively well, I am now seriously anemic. This means months of prescription-strength iron supplements (and their nasty side effects), fatigue, stress on organs of my body, heart palpitations, etc.

I went home from the hospital on the afternoon of October 15th. That evening, my husband and I watched the 3rd presidential debate between Obama and McCain. During the discussion on abortion, Obama indicated his support for a ban on late term abortions as long as there are health and life exceptions for the mother. In response, McCain said:

Just again, the example of the eloquence of Senator Obama. He's [for the] health for the mother. You know, that's been stretched by the pro-abortion movement in America to mean almost anything. That's the extreme pro-abortion position, quote, "health."

I was so angry when I heard this, I wanted to cry.

I don't regret having my daughter. I carried through with this pregnancy, fully knowing that, although rare, there are pregnancy complications that exist that could damage my health or end my life. I made a CHOICE, a personal choice, to accept those risks and continue a pregnancy to its conclusion.

Who exactly does John McCain think he is? What makes him think that he has the right to discount my health? What gives him the right to say which risks to my health are serious enough to allow me to make decisions about my body, and which are not?

Protect reproductive health services

Please - go to the link below and send in your petition. This is ridiculous. If your religious beliefs preclude you for doing your basic job functions, you need to seek other employment. (And for the record, I believe this is true whether you are an anti-abortion Christian working in health care, or a Muslim working as a taxi driver, or a Muslim working in a food service company, etc.)

George W. Bush has launched a new assault on birth control and reproductive freedom.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently proposed regulations that could seriously undermine access to basic reproductive health services -- including birth control and abortion.

Instead of striking a careful balance between individual religious liberty and patients’ access to reproductive health care, the Bush administration has taken patients’ rights and their health care needs out of the equation.

This far-reaching proposal doesn’t need congressional approval. But, it can’t go forward without allowing for public comment. That’s where you come in.

The deadline for public comments is fast approaching -- September 25 -- and we have to generate intense opposition to these dangerous regulations.

I just sent HHS my comment urging them to stop efforts to block women's access to basic reproductive health services. You can do the same here:

http://action.aclu.org/hhs_comment

Abortion - We might as well talk about it

My guess is that this is not going to be the only post about abortion on this blog. The issue is complex and divisive.

While there should be no need for me to say this, let me just offer up some personal information. I have never had an abortion. It is very unlikely that I would ever choose to do so. I, personally, do not feel that abortion is a choice I would make for myself in any circumstance I think it is likely I may find myself in. I have one son, and I am currently eight months pregnant with my second child. None of this is really anyone's business but mine (and my family) but I'm trying to avoid turning this discussion into a question of my personal choices by laying out the information up front.

Now that we have that out of the way....

I am pro-choice. Although the right may like to say this means I am pro-abortion, that is not true. I think that generally speaking, the fewer abortions there are, the better off we are as a country. I also personally think that the fewer unplanned pregnancies there are, especially as the result of sexual encounters between couples that are not strongly committed to one another, the better off we are as a country. I also think that my personal beliefs about "what is best" do not trump the law.

Anti-abortion activists say that abortion is murder, and therefore, it is appropriate for the state to outlaw abortion. I find that argument severely lacking in a legal sense.

Judith Jarvis Thomson offers an analogy in her 1971 writing "A Defense of Abortion." A variation of her argument would be this.

Suppose one night, Mary gets very, very drunk. She does many stupid things that night and makes many bad choices. Eventually, she passes out. She awakes to find herself in a hospital, hooked up to another person by various machines. She asks what has happened.

The hospital personnel inform her "Well, you made bad choices last night. Just before you passed out, you came up to this floor of the hospital, and entered the life support wing. We clearly labeled this wing, and provide multiple verbal and written warnings that if you choose to enter this wing, and you happen to have the ability to provide life support to someone in need, we will restrain you and hook you up to provide life support to another person. You had sufficient warning, but you made a bad choice anyway. "

"So now, you will need to stay here for the next 9 months. Your blood, ingested nutrients, etc, will be used for the benefit of this other human who will die without the life support your body can provide. While the risks are relatively low, it is possible that your life and health could be compromised by this. You almost certainly will suffer financial losses as a result. Your family and friends will know about your poor choices. Tough."

This analogy is similar to pregnancy in many ways. Yes, it is true - one would hope that by this day and age, the majority of women understand that sex carries a risk of pregnancy. And yet, some women make the abysmally stupid choice of having sex (or worse, unprotected sex) when they have no desire to have children.

However, there is a difference between killing someone, and refusing to support their life with the resources of your own body. If I walk outside and stab someone to death, I have murdered them. I actively stolen their life.

If I walk outside, and encounter someone that desperately needs a kidney just like mine in order to live, and I refuse to donate one of my kidneys, I have not murdered anyone. I have stolen nothing from no one. At worst, I have declined to use my body to support the life of another. And no one would suggest I have a legal obligation to do so.

In the case of a pregnancy, the legal obligation is even less. Pre-viability, there is no independent life to steal or deny. No one can guarantee that at the end of any particular pregnancy, the end result will be new life. Any woman who has experienced a pregnancy, and worried over every odd twinge, or blood spot, or odd feeling, knows just how uncertain life is. Approximately 25% of pregnancies end in miscarriage, and other pregnancies may result in a stillbirth. If there is no legal obligation to provide the use of your body to another person to ensure they live, how can there be a legal obligation to use your body to provide the potential for life to what may, one day, possibly be another person?

The question becomes more complicated after the point of viability. I think that the basic framework that allows abortion in the 1st and 2nd trimesters, and places severe restrictions on abortion in the 3rd trimester is a very practical approach to this issue. Post-viability, the state has two lives to balance against one another. The woman has had 6 months to act to preserve her bodily integrity.