![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cherydactylI'm reposting this piece posted by ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
fierce_femme21, because I think it's important.
An Open Letter to Gov. Sarah Palin on Women's Rights
By Lynn Paltrow, National Advocates for Pregnant Women, posted on September 4, 2008.
Dear Governor Sarah Palin:
Many Americans agree with your position regarding abortion -- they do this as a matter of faith, ethics, personal experience and sometimes politics. I am just wondering though, if you have thought about what would happen if you succeeded in getting your position -- that fetuses have a right to life -- established as the law of the land? Did you know that it not only threatens the lives, health and freedom of women who might want or need someday to end their pregnancies, it would also give the government the power to control the lives of women -- like you who -- go to term?
Your last pregnancy, the one that has become the topic of widespread discussion and speculation provides an important opportunity to demonstrate how this could be true.
According to press reports your water broke while you were giving a keynote speech in Texas at the Republican Governors' Energy Conference. You did not immediately go to the hospital -- instead you gave your speech and then waited at least 11 hours to get to a hospital. You evaluated the risks, made a choice, and were able to carry on your life without state interference. Texas Governor Rick Perry worried about your pregnancy but didn't stop you from speaking or take you into custody to protect the rights of the fetus.
After Ayesha Madyun's water broke, she went to the hospital where she hoped and planned to have a vaginal birth. When she didn't give birth in a time-frame comfortable to her doctors, they argued that she should have a C-section. The doctors asserted that the fetus faced a 50-75 percent chance of infection if not delivered surgically. (Risks of infection are believed by some health care providers to increase with each hour after a woman's water has broken and she hasn't delivered).
The court, believing like you that fetuses have a right to life, said, "[a]ll that stood between the Madyun fetus and its independent existence, separate from its mother, was put simply, a doctor's scalpel." With that, the court granted the order and the scalpel sliced through Ms. Madyun's flesh, the muscles of her abdominal wall, and her uterus. The core principle justifying an end to legal abortion in the U.S. provided the same grounds used to deprive this pregnant and laboring woman of her rights to due process, bodily integrity, and physical liberty. When the procedure was done, there was no evidence of infection.
According to the press reports, instead of going straight to a hospital you chose to get on a long airplane flight back to Alaska.
When Pamela Rae Stewart, allegedly, didn't get to the hospital quickly enough on the day of her delivery, she was arrested in California on the theory that she had violated the rights of her fetus.
When Laura Pemberton chose to give birth at home in Florida, a Sheriff came to her house. Doctors believed that she was posing a risk to the life of her unborn child by having a vaginal birth after having had a previous c-section and were in the process of getting a court order to force her to have a c-section. The sheriff took her into custody during active labor, strapped her legs together and forced her to go to a hospital where an emergency hearing was taking place to determine the rights of her fetus. She was "allowed" to represent herself. A lawyer was appointed for the fetus. This woman, who vehemently opposes abortion, nevertheless believed in her right to evaluate medical risks and benefits to herself and her unborn child. She was forced to have the unnecessary surgery and when she later sued for violations of her civil rights, was told fetal rights outweighed hers.
You chose to continue working throughout your pregnancy -- even during your labor. Until 1991 women who worked in high paying blue color jobs that provided health benefits were being fired based on "fetal rights" policies that claimed if the woman became pregnant she would expose the unborn child to workplace health risks. Eventually, the Supreme Court said employers covered by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (the PDA) could not do this. But, millions of American women work part time or for small employers who are not covered by the PDA. If your political position on abortion is accepted -- all of these women could be forced to give up their jobs because an employer, family member, or state agent believed it necessary to ensure the health and rights of their unborn child.
Governor Palin, you have led an extraordinary life, balancing work and family, public service and private family obligations. We hope you know though that your freedom relies on exactly the same legal principals that guarantee that American women can choose to have an abortion when they need and want one.
Sixty one percent of women who have abortions are already mothers. Eighty-four percent of these will be mothers by the time they are in their forties. As a proud mother of five beautiful children, we hope you will recognize that the issue isn't abortion -- it is ensuring the lives, dignity and freedom of all pregnant women and their families.
Lynn Paltrow
Executive Director
National Advocates for Pregnant Women
fierce_femme21, because I think it's important.An Open Letter to Gov. Sarah Palin on Women's Rights
By Lynn Paltrow, National Advocates for Pregnant Women, posted on September 4, 2008.
Dear Governor Sarah Palin:
Many Americans agree with your position regarding abortion -- they do this as a matter of faith, ethics, personal experience and sometimes politics. I am just wondering though, if you have thought about what would happen if you succeeded in getting your position -- that fetuses have a right to life -- established as the law of the land? Did you know that it not only threatens the lives, health and freedom of women who might want or need someday to end their pregnancies, it would also give the government the power to control the lives of women -- like you who -- go to term?
Your last pregnancy, the one that has become the topic of widespread discussion and speculation provides an important opportunity to demonstrate how this could be true.
According to press reports your water broke while you were giving a keynote speech in Texas at the Republican Governors' Energy Conference. You did not immediately go to the hospital -- instead you gave your speech and then waited at least 11 hours to get to a hospital. You evaluated the risks, made a choice, and were able to carry on your life without state interference. Texas Governor Rick Perry worried about your pregnancy but didn't stop you from speaking or take you into custody to protect the rights of the fetus.
After Ayesha Madyun's water broke, she went to the hospital where she hoped and planned to have a vaginal birth. When she didn't give birth in a time-frame comfortable to her doctors, they argued that she should have a C-section. The doctors asserted that the fetus faced a 50-75 percent chance of infection if not delivered surgically. (Risks of infection are believed by some health care providers to increase with each hour after a woman's water has broken and she hasn't delivered).
The court, believing like you that fetuses have a right to life, said, "[a]ll that stood between the Madyun fetus and its independent existence, separate from its mother, was put simply, a doctor's scalpel." With that, the court granted the order and the scalpel sliced through Ms. Madyun's flesh, the muscles of her abdominal wall, and her uterus. The core principle justifying an end to legal abortion in the U.S. provided the same grounds used to deprive this pregnant and laboring woman of her rights to due process, bodily integrity, and physical liberty. When the procedure was done, there was no evidence of infection.
According to the press reports, instead of going straight to a hospital you chose to get on a long airplane flight back to Alaska.
When Pamela Rae Stewart, allegedly, didn't get to the hospital quickly enough on the day of her delivery, she was arrested in California on the theory that she had violated the rights of her fetus.
When Laura Pemberton chose to give birth at home in Florida, a Sheriff came to her house. Doctors believed that she was posing a risk to the life of her unborn child by having a vaginal birth after having had a previous c-section and were in the process of getting a court order to force her to have a c-section. The sheriff took her into custody during active labor, strapped her legs together and forced her to go to a hospital where an emergency hearing was taking place to determine the rights of her fetus. She was "allowed" to represent herself. A lawyer was appointed for the fetus. This woman, who vehemently opposes abortion, nevertheless believed in her right to evaluate medical risks and benefits to herself and her unborn child. She was forced to have the unnecessary surgery and when she later sued for violations of her civil rights, was told fetal rights outweighed hers.
You chose to continue working throughout your pregnancy -- even during your labor. Until 1991 women who worked in high paying blue color jobs that provided health benefits were being fired based on "fetal rights" policies that claimed if the woman became pregnant she would expose the unborn child to workplace health risks. Eventually, the Supreme Court said employers covered by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (the PDA) could not do this. But, millions of American women work part time or for small employers who are not covered by the PDA. If your political position on abortion is accepted -- all of these women could be forced to give up their jobs because an employer, family member, or state agent believed it necessary to ensure the health and rights of their unborn child.
Governor Palin, you have led an extraordinary life, balancing work and family, public service and private family obligations. We hope you know though that your freedom relies on exactly the same legal principals that guarantee that American women can choose to have an abortion when they need and want one.
Sixty one percent of women who have abortions are already mothers. Eighty-four percent of these will be mothers by the time they are in their forties. As a proud mother of five beautiful children, we hope you will recognize that the issue isn't abortion -- it is ensuring the lives, dignity and freedom of all pregnant women and their families.
Lynn Paltrow
Executive Director
National Advocates for Pregnant Women
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-09-06 01:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-06 04:01 pm (UTC)Palin belongs to the Assemby of God right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assembly_of_god
source: Our 16 Fundamental Truths - General Council of the Assemblies of God - AG.org
1. The Scriptures Inspired - The Scriptures, both the Old Testament and New Testament, are verbally inspired of God and are the revelation of God to man, the infallible, authoritative rule of faith and conduct. (2 Timothy 3:15-17, 1 Thessalonians 2:13, 2 Peter 1:21)
8. The Initial Physical Evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit - The baptism of believers in the Holy Spirit is witnessed by the initial physical sign of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit of God gives them utterance. (Acts 2:4). The speaking in tongues in this instance is the same in essence as the gift of tongues, but is different in purpose and use. (1 Corinthians 12:4-10, 1 Corinthians 12:28)
Please explain to me, where reason and common sense can enter into this? The responses of the right wing aggressive Christian population are not reasonable nor well-thought out. They are based entirely on emotion and the self-righteous unthinking evil they call 'faith'. Its why the republican 'sound-bite' propaganda machine is so effective on them.
I look forward to the day that liberals will realize that they are fighting a war and stop being nice and reasonable. The fascist Christians already know they are.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-06 04:46 pm (UTC)However you know as well as I that although this is a letter addressed to Ms. Palin, it's not really intended for her eyes so much as to reach and to sway other people who do have some sense of rationality about them. On the other hand, Palin is *very smart* by all accounts, so rationality may not be such a bad method.
For people whose viewpoint is not formed with rational dealings such as this letter addresses, how would you suggest that those of a liberal viewpoint reach them? By adopting the tenets of those faiths and changing them from within? It seems to me that thought leads to the temptation to mess with religions' tenets and practices by having new revelations, which are not going to go down well, generally. That's not just wrong, it's hypocritical and evil. Real, bible-thumping, direct-revelation-of-god, believers will not be swayed by a few words no matter what. So, although it's not going to reap big rewards, it might reap some.
I agree though, that such a letter is more abort being self-congratulatory on the part of liberals than swaying anybody. The intellectual smugness of the liberal front is really a problem. It blinds them, by making them think their work is done.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-06 05:16 pm (UTC)Huh. I think you clearly articulated something I needed to hear. Nice point. :)
What should we do? I have a few notions. All religious organizations should pay taxes. Why are they special? Lets not discriminate against any religion and make them all equal in the eyes of the IRS. We also need to open up the school systems and fund them better, all the way through college. Improve the public school system to the point where all children get the same excellent education. Education is the enemy of religious fundamentalism and bigotry. (Though we have not seen it to be the enemy of religion).
And a massive propaganda campaign against the religious right in general. Its not right, nor is it a good thing. But like I said, we are at war for the minds that run the country. I'd like to see a world in which a politician was ashamed to announce their religion in public. Again I freely admit this would be wrong in and of itself and could lead us down another dark road, but anything is better than the road of fundamentalist domination we are already treading.
That would probably make a difference in a couple generations.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-06 07:15 pm (UTC)Many churches do work that is truly charitable as part of their religious missions, and separating those functions is truly thorny. I say this in full knowledge that I DO NOT like religious proselytizing as part of getting help...but say a church, or the Zen temple, or a Hindu organization, help the poor just because it's in the organizational/religious mission to help the poor regardless. It's not an easy task to say "this you can do, that you can't do" since it's a judgment call if someone is proselytizing overtly or covertly through charitable functions of a religious organization. And then there's the fact that schools are effectively charitable organizations, and many religious organizations fund or run schools of their own. Would non-religious schools retain non-taxable status while public, charter, and non-religious private schools still had it? Ouch.
(Religous schools are forefront in my mind because M is on the de facto St. Francis K girls soccer team this fall...there wasn't one for AALC, so she got put with the St. Francis and St. Thomas kids. It will be interesting interacting with these parents. OTOH, there is a Muslim family with the team as well. They seem quite devout, 'cause the mom is totally covered including eyebrows and the dad has a full beard and wears clothes characteristic of a devout Muslim.)
Also, there are so many alternate religious organizations that are on a shoestring now...you would get all these informal groups never actually forming a real organization if taxation was an issue. Would the Zen Temple survive if it had to pay income taxes on donations? Then there's the problem of valuing non-cash donations. It's just a nightmare from an accounting and sustainability point of view.
I agree education is the cure for all kinds of bigotry, including religious bigotry, and I'm totally for more education funding at every level. *You're* preaching to the choir on that score. ;-)
Plenty of people homeschool their kids for religious reasons. The only way to really reach those kids may be mandatory public education, with no religious exemptions. And seeing what I have seen with education the last 5-7 years, *that* is a solution I don't want without major changes to education first. There's a reason *besides* religious objections that my kids have gone to a private and now a charter school. On the other hand, I don't want to make Amish communities send their kids to school if they have an objection to technology on religious grounds either. That becomes fascist itself way to easily. It's just not easy to draw the line well.
On a different tack,
I'd like to see a world in which a politician was ashamed to announce their religion in public.
I'm afraid I can't disagree more on this score...It should ideally be a non-issue, just a curiosity like whether they have a dog or a cat for a pet and if they jog or cycle or eat grapefruit for breakfast or whatever. Shame is too far in the other direction and only breeds different bad stuff.
About the intellectual smugness/"work is done" point...I thought you were pointing that out to me! I thought that was what you meant about it being a waste of effort. It's not wasted, but it's all going into intellectual showing off for people like me (and possibly you) who nod their heads, agree, and say "what fools they are on the other side, they should shape up." It's not effectual in actually changing anything; it's like cheerleading, and not at all like recruiting the other side to be on yours instead.
But I for one am not sure there is a cure, other than plugging away at educating people, the hard way, one at a time if necessary.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-06 08:33 pm (UTC)Funding public schools properly would be an amazingly expensive proposition but well worth it in my imaginary utopia.
All school districts would have equal access to resources and equipment. Teachers would be much better paid. Teachers should have more rigorous licensing standards, educational requirements, but to make up for it should be paid more along the lines of doctors. College should be equally available to all economic classes, highly subsidized for all students. Yes I'd go along with banning religious schools entirely in this imaginary utopia because the public schools would be fixed.
I have become more and more anti-organized religion in the last eight years. Redesign the tax system entirely. Big churches are a lamprey attached to the poorest, least educated, and most in need segment of our population. Watch the 700 Club and their fund raising message testimonials of poor families who can't make ends meet, then decide to tithe, then are blessed by Jesus with wealth. Tax these bloated leeches. Tax the Zen Temple too. It'll be better in the long run.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-08 03:42 pm (UTC)god is a sham. god does not exist. all religions, including my own precious one, are archaic anachronisms from when pharoahs and kings were gods and democracy was not even a fantasy (ever read a fairy tale about it?)
now we live under rule of law (except for our current administration), laws made by people, not trolls or warlocks or winged angels.
by design this country is a secular state. religion being supported only in the sense that it is one's right to free thought, unless of course, living under the current administration
i am wholly convinced tax exemption for religious organizations is pointless; as for those that do real community service, let them create or join accountable community groups to do this work. why bring god into it?
public education is broken because our pop culture values slackery over hard work. any kid who ever does well is abused by his "peers" & if you look at cultures that excel in education it is because their own native cultures extol education as a path to excellence. i say drop the requirement for public education. if people want to raise dumb kids, we can let them. why punish the hardworking students and teachers with the bollocks of society who don't want to be there. make the parents work to keep their kids in school. not the other way around.
if you want to amplify the carrot/stick, make minimum wage only applicable to kids who graduate HS and score passing on the SAT. or let them go pray to the GOP for military service.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-08 03:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-08 03:48 pm (UTC)but i just feel that the pendulum has swung too far to the right
and "religious groups" are wielding too much power
i am not anti religion
i am anti-establishment-of-religion
as our political base
the courtesy of tax exemption has been abused by SOME
how do we right this? without punishing all?
no subject
Date: 2008-09-08 03:53 pm (UTC)I agree with religious life should be orthogonal to political life, but it's rather hard to get there from here, isn't it?
no subject
Date: 2008-09-08 04:41 pm (UTC)i tend to pop off in blog comments
i'm much saner in real life