Marking 200 For OpEdNews: The Best of Times (Sex With Ducks), The Worst of Times (The Deaver Fetus)

I'm tired. If you want to feel the frenetic pace my writing life has been like, just click on this old Leroy Anderson tune of a typewriter and read along. It will set a light tone to some very heavy subjects (hey, that's my style!).* 

Marking 200? No, I'm not 200 years old, although sometimes I feel like it. And tabulating how much I've submitted to OpEdNews for the last 3 years makes me feel older: it's certainly not a prodigious output by any means, but my perspective is queer: it's not how much I put out, but how much I am able to fit in. In between things, that is: no, not a sob story, but one that compels me to relay it to OpEdNews readers because they've been a part of my life.

For the last 5 years, I've been a caregiver to a loved one who is terminally ill (liver cancer) and life has gone from week-to-week, to day-to-day. Now, it's kind of hour-to-hour. It's also cooking, cleaning, errands, hospital visits, prescription refills, doling out meds, travel planning, kitty care, and fending off labels like "angel" and "saint" (curses on the love life - saints and angels don't get laid.). Not that I'm complaining, but ...o.k., I'm complaining. Because amidst all of this I'm compelled to communicate to people news and views about the realms of religion and politics ... and everything in between.

Yeah, it's an addiction: first thing in the morning I scan google alerts (at least a dozen "men of the cloth" are arrested for various crimes each day), devour rss feeds, answer comments on the blog, and plan the new ministry. I eventually come up for coffee (not air), then I have a breakfast consisting of religious and political hypocrisies, then I uncover them, rant on them and laugh at them. (I have to laugh at them: I take to heart Mark Twain's dictum: "Against the assault of laughter, nothing can stand.") The rest of the day alternates between something mundane like changing the sheets and writing about the latest malapropisms of Michele Bachmann or the newest pronouncements of Benedict XVI.

Occasionally, I indulge myself with the luxury of our view of the ocean and the realization that I live in the most beautiful and compassionate place on earth (San Francisco).

IT'S ALL PERSPECTIVE

Times are getting bleaker and there's w-a-a-ay too much to rant about: atrocities like The Deaver Fetus and David Kato's murder in Uganda infest my laptop screen like giant termites, making it harder to laugh. The viciousness of today's Christof*scism, the blatant bigotry of people like Bryan Fischer and the eviscerating evangelism of Lou Engle propose a future too dreadful to imagine. Turning them on their ears becomes less fun, hence more difficult to write about.

Oh, occasionally Pat Robertson comes up with a hoot, a statement so self-righteously inane that it wipes the brain clean of all seriousness,* but writing about senile musings is too easy and breezy: the psyche just starts to relax when up comes a horror worthy of Halloween: suddenly there is too little time to write about LGBT issues, Islamoph*bia or even Ann Coulter(geist). 

Then there's the outright ruthlessness of the newly invigorated Republican Party: I hope I don't drown in that tsunami of vengeance! It overwhelms humanity! Don't get me started.

BACK TO THE POINT

OpEdNews has been a godsend for writers like me: the chance to get a word in edgewise is coupled with an association of some of the brightest minds we have today. And knowing that some people out there are actually reading my rants helps me contend with all that's happening to me and to the rest of the world. So now I'm up to 200 articles (150,000 words. 300,000 page views). I may flag a bit in the future, but I'll never kick the addiction of writing about the Right Wing's religious world of hypocrisy or things like ...Sex with Ducks. 

*Sorry if you're too young to know what a typewriter sounds like

** The article that has garnered me the most page views is, ironically, the one about Pat Robertson's remarks about Haiti titled The Senility Defense: Pat Robertson's Trial In The Court Of Public Opinion. 

Have We Now Gained The Right To Sadism? The Horrible Story Of The Deaver Fetus

I've long had the stance that pro-lifers are actually pro birth, only caring that a child is born ... no matter the consequences. To some, "life" is only precious at the point of birth. And in the case of Danielle and Robb Deaver, neither life before, nor life after mattered to the State of Nebraska. 


The Deaver story, as told by them below, is certainly heart-wrenching and, in short, involved a mother being forced to carry a child to term even though doctors said that the pregnancy would be painful, the child would be born prematurely, be seriously deformed and live for only minutes after birth. As Danielle put it, "we decided that some things were worse than death." Some "things?" Or someone like Senator Mike Flood and Julia Schmit-Albin of Nebraska Right To Life. Some media were more succinct about the situation: 




Abortion Law: Mother Denied Abortion, 
Then Had To Watch Baby Die


Nebraska State Senator Mike Flood was the primary architect of the state's two-month-old law banning partial-birth abortions after the age of 20 weeks - no matter what the consequences.

"Even in these situations where the baby has a terminal condition or there's not much chance of surviving outside of the womb, my point has been and remains that is still a life." 

Of course, the Nebraska Right To Life doyenne, Julie Schmit-Albin, came to the defense of the law:

"We acknowledge the tragedy that occurs with a poor prenatal diagnosis for the baby. But isn't it more humane for the baby to die in a loving manner with comfort care and in the arms of her parents than by the intentional painful death through abortion?"* (emphasis mine)

"We acknowledge the tragedy." The words seem hollow. While the pro-life movement has stressed that ALL children should be born no matter what the circumstance, it automatically erases any concern for the individuals involved and in some case, even that of the child: in the interview below, Danielle Deavers raises a good point: because of the child's inabilities to develop normally, how could she not think that the child was suffering? True, there was a heartbeat (evidently all that mattered to lawmakers like Senator Flood), but since muscles were pressing on the unborn child's head, she had to assume that the child was experiencing some discomfort. Added to those hollow words is this little point of sadism: since the Nebraska law reinforces a belief* that a fetus feels pain after 20 weeks, Danielle Deaver was right to be concerned for the suffering of her child. She was concerned, but obviously, the pro-life law of Nebraska wasn't. It's only concern was for the child to be born. Period.

One commenter on the situation brought up another concern: medical expenses. While the state forced the couple to proceed with the pregnancy, it certainly didn't feel liable for any of the medical expenses which added to the Deavers' woes. 

I'm struggling here not to take on a possible little-Elizabeth-Deaver stance, but I'm losing the battle:

"OK, Ms. Julie Schmit-Albin, let's get this straight: the doctors say I'm not going to live past fifteen minutes. If, by the odd chance I do live, then I'm gonna be a vegetable gasping for breath for a while longer. Since I've been here in the womb for over 20 weeks, you believe I should feel pain. I've already had a hard time breathing in this place, but my mother feels a lot more pain than I do. She, being humane, thinks that both she and I would feel a lot better if things didn't continue. You, on the other hand, think that it's God's will that we both live through this. You, who are not related to me in any way, have passed a law that says I have to come out of this place into my mother's arms so that we both can suffer as long as possible."

"Take a hike, b*tch."

At this point, while I'm not about to paint pictures of Flood and Schmit-Albin rejoicing at both pre-birth and after-birth agonies, I don't think their reasoning could be looked upon as humanitarian, although a glance at the Des Moines Register's piece and its comments section shows that both sides are screeching about "God" and the concept of being "humane." 

People like Jill June, president of Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, took a more hopeful attitude:

"I think those that hear her story will be very, very moved," June said. "Hopefully some of them that are on this reckless stampede against a woman's right to decide with her doctor what is in the best interest of her health and well being - I hope they will hear her words and listen to her."

Fat chance, Jill, if you're telling it to people like Tony Perkins, the Grand High Exalted Mystic Ruler of The Royal Order Of Self-Righteousness. 

OK, sarcasm aside, there's a nagging feeling that while outright sadism may not be involved, a quiet, smug, self-righteous little voice inside of people like Flood and Schmit-Albin is whispering, "Glory Hallelujah!" 

*On the website of NRTL there is a link to this "Tiller the killer" murder statement:
"National Right to Life extends its sympathies to Dr. Tiller’s family over this loss of life." Right.
** There is intense medical debate on whether or not any pain is felt after 20 weeks. Many scientists believe that neurons are not really formed in the brain until 28 weeks.

Janet's Porter's FETUS MAY REFUSE TO TESTIFY!!

"Personhood" will now make its debut in Ohio. Janet Porter has seen to it. 


Think Progress had the best take on Janet Porter's latest Reconstructionist/oh-so-biblical stunt:

Admitting that “there is no scenario” in which this bill survives in court, Ohio Right To Life and the right-wing advocacy group Faith2Action are still going to absurd lengths for the sake of promotion. Tomorrow at a hearing on the bill, the House Health Committee will hear “testimony” from its youngest witness ever: a “nine-week old” fetus:

Two in-utero babies will appear live before the committee by an ultrasound projector which is able to not only show that baby’s moving arms and legs, but also display–in color–the baby’s beating heart.“When passed, the Heartbeat Bill will insure that once that heartbeat is detected, the baby is protected,” added Porter.

I've always said, however, that people like Janet Porter are NOT pro-life, but only PRO-BIRTH. There's a big difference: do you actually think Porter cares anything about the kid once it's born? She'll insist that the kid be born, but not fed, housed and educated at any decent level. Those things would cost waaay too much money!! I believe that Porter is also in favor of the death penalty. Pro Life? Not on yours!