Losing Doctors?

Several years ago, there was a major exodus of obstetricians out of the medical field because malpractice insurance had become so high. Now, more doctors will likely be forced out because President Obama is pursuing regulations (or the removal of regulations) that will force many conscientious medical professionals and hospitals to either perform abortions or quit practicing.

It's interesting...I didn't think gay marriage and abortion rights had anything to do with each other, but now there is a common thread--the people pursuing expanded abortion rights and gay marriage rights both seek not to only have their voice heard, but to silence all dissidents. The way gay marriage law is written, it truly endangers the religious freedoms of churches that oppose it. Now, the way abortion law is being written, it endangers the rights of medical professionals to practice according to their own conscience--particularly in regard to the credo 'Do no harm'. I hadn't thought to talk about serious subjects again so soon, but it seems this subject has a deadline, April 9th. Please go to the link below from which I'll now be quoting:

http://www.freedom2care.org/
You have a vitally important opportunity to immediately send a message to prevent a critical loss of access to healthcare professionals who are being systematically pressured to violate ethical standards. Here's what's been happening:

In August 2008, the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services (HHS) took long-overdue action to address a growing crisis of abortion-related discrimination that could force thousands of conscientious healthcare professionals out of medicine. After several months of public comment on its proposed regulation, in December 2008 HHS finalized a regulation that made clear the protections offered by three civil rights laws passed by Congress with bipartisan support.

The civil rights laws declare that American tax dollars will not fund programs in which healthcare professionals are fired, penalized or otherwise subjected to discrimination because of their ethical stance related to abortion and other morally controversial issues.

However, in March 2009, following protests from abortion special interest groups, the new administration officially declared plans to rescind--get rid of--the conscience-protecting regulation. The administration has, as required by law, called for public comment on the proposed plan to get rid of the conscience-protecting regulation, with a deadline of April 9, 2009.

Soap Box: Abortion and Gay Marriage (totally unrelated)

My friend just brought up some hugely hot topics (gun control, abortion, and gay marriage) on her blog and I left such a long comment, I decided to just post it on here, too. I'd been planning about talking about some of these things in-depth, with links and such, but haven't gotten to it yet. Maybe I still will. But here are some of my thoughts on abortion and gay marriage based on my core values and the many articles I've read. There just aren't any hyperlinks like I would've used if I had more time.

Abortion:

I am pro-life. I absolutely believe in choices. I just also believe in accountability. If you know having sex can get you pregnant and you do it willingly anyway, you had your choice and made your decision and you should face the consequences. I don't mean pregnancy is a punishment, but why should a girl be able to kill her fetus because it's inconvenient? When you play Russian roulette, sometimes you get shot. Sometimes, when you have sex, you get pregnant.

I think it's ridiculous that pregnant girls are so negatively stereotyped and socially punished. Their actions have been the same as all their sexually active friends, but they ended up pregnant. It's stupid to get punished for a consequence and not a behavior. Those girls need compassion and direction and friendship.

Adoption is a wonderful thing and girls who place unplanned babies for adoption are less likely to become pregnant again. It's great for the babies, too. Neither of those things can be said for abortion. People are using it like birth control. I think that's wrong. It's just accountability avoidance.

I also don't believe abortion is a privacy issue, which is what Roe v. Wade is based on.

From a more financial point of view, it ticks me off that abortions are often paid for by the government, but when I had a DNC because of a miscarriage a couple years ago, it cost me $4000. A DNC is essentially an abortion, but without the added cost of killing the baby first. If you look into Planned Parenthood's financials, you'll see they profit hugely from the abortion business and it is money, not "women's rights" that is their primary motivation.

Gay Marriage:

I think people in homosexual relationships should absolutely be able to visit each other in the hospital and be on insurance policies with each other, etc. That doesn't have anything to do with the government, though. The hospitals and insurance companies are in charge of those policies.

The government does have power over civil unions and they seem to work fine. When Melissa Etheridge was on Oprah talking about Prop 8 backlash, she said the only real difference between her civil union with her partner and legal marriage was that it made tax issues more complex for them. Um...big deal.

Marriage is a different issue from civil unions because of the legal consequences to religious groups who don't condone it. They will be persecuted and prosecuted if gay marriage is considered a civil liberty and they refuse to perform the marriages. They'll lose tax exempt status and sometimes even the right to perform traditional marriages.

Gay marriage is an issue because if something is considered a civil liberty or right, it won't be an issue to be discussed in sex ed, where parents who disagree can opt their kids out, but included in diversity classes and whatever other aspects of class a teacher chooses, without even having to inform parents what's being taught. (This happens in Massachusetts).

Gay marrage is not a civil rights issue because marriage is highly legislated already--there are age limits, blood tests in some states, and rules about how closely related you can be to your spouse. If such a socially foundational institution as marriage could be based only on sexual relationships instead of as a conduit for growing and rearing a responsible population, then it swings the door wide open legally to rights for pedophiles, incestuous relationships, bigamy and polygamy; I'm not a fan of any of those options. (Additionally, just money-wise, our states can't afford to give the married tax status to homosexual couples).

Gay marriage is an issue because if you believe in God, you should do your best to make sure the laws of the land reflect God's own laws--not because you want to force your views on others, but because it is your right as a citizen to vote for what you believe in. Many of our fundamental laws are based in the 10 Commandments and they've been working out so far. (The burden of proof for changing law should be on the people who want to change it, not the historically tested law.)What is righteous is also what is right. If most people share your beliefs and vote for them, that should be law. When the majority of the people choose wickedness, I believe it is their right, but there will be unfortunate consequences. If Prop 8 had lost the vote, I would've been sad, but respected the democratic process. If judges overturn the will of the majority of the people, I think that is wrong. It wasn't intended in our checks and balances system--judicial, executive, legislative--that anyone should have power over the people themselves. When judges take authority on themselves to do so, it reminds me of the corrupt judges from the Book of Mormon who lead the people to wickedness with their sophistry and conspiracy.

Additionally, people who believe the New Testament teaches that Christ condoned homosexuality are irresponsibly misinterpreting scripture. There is a vast difference between loving the sin and loving the sinner despite the sin.

It bothers me that some people will read this post and think I'm homophobic. I'm not. I think in general, I'm very "live and let live", but there are social and legal consequences that I find unacceptable with the advent of gay marriage. I think it's a shame that anyone who thoughtfully follows their conscience should be branded a bigot for disagreeing with someone else who may be louder. That said, I totally understand why lots of people disagree with my positions on these issues. I respect their views and I respect them.

Can you mix politics and cookies?

Did anybody else watch Dr. Phil today? Normally, I don't. I usually think he's a few shows away from becoming a Ph.D.'d Jerry Springer. But today he actually tried to have a very balanced discussion about gay marriage. I appreciated his effort. At the end, he asked each side if they thought there was a common ground they thought we could come together on to begin to heal the bitter feelings and words. Neither answer was satisfactory in my mind. So, here's what I would have said.

Yes, we are all children of God. I think that even when we disagree vehemently about something, we have within us the capacity to say, "I respect your point of view and can understand why you feel that way." And I think we can really mean it. It doesn't mean we won't battle long and hard for the thing in which we believe, but we can do it kindly. I know this is an issue that affects people in a very personal way, but it doesn't mean we have to make an ideological issue personal. No name-calling is ever necessary to make a point. We can say and act out the belief, "I respect you as much as myself. I mean you no ill will."

When we went to the D.C. Temple last Saturday for the sealing of my sister's adopted baby to her and her family, we knew there was a protest scheduled. I was honestly debating making cookies to take to the protestors. I didn't think I'd be able to make enough because the one in Manhattan had 5,000 people at it. But it rained all day in Virginia and Maryland, and when we arrived for the sealing, there were only 2 people in raincoats, holding signs.

I should've made the cookies. I was also worried they'd think it was some kind of evil trick and throw them at me or something, but maybe I was wrong. There has been ugliness on both sides of this issue--before, during, and after the vote. But I don't have to make my decisions based on those unfriendly acts. I should do what I think is right and kind and let the chips fall where they may. If I could do it over, here's what I would've done: I would've taken them cookies and said, "I'm really sorry our position on this issue has been hurtful to you. I know you're God's child just like I am and I'm sad for your pain and frustration. My view on this issue will not change, but I wish you no ill will. I made you cookies."

Maybe that's naive in the extreme. I can think of all kinds of possible ugly responses to that. But I can think of positive ones, too. As we left the Temple on Saturday, the rain had abated and 4 or 5 people were then protesting outside. One teenage girl with them smiled and waved as we drove by. And I smiled and waved back. Maybe she would've liked some cookies.

Proposition 8

I watched The Return of the King last night instead of election coverage, because orcs eating people seemed cheerier to me than watching the Leftist media gloat. I will say, it's an exciting day for blacks in America and I hope Barack Obama's presidency will be the kind of change his followers hope for.

I was sent a disturbing email this morning about an anti-Mormon ad opposing Proposition 8 in California. Prop. 8 is a ballot measure in California, seeking to add wording to the state constitution clarifying that marriage is to be between a man and a woman. The battle has been heated, as you can imagine. If you want to watch "Mormon missionaries" ransacking the house of a lesbian couple and ripping up their marriage license, you can look it up the ad from 'Courage Campaign' on YouTube. I found it offensive in the extreme. It is always the case with liberal extremists that they say they want all views respected, when in reality, they have only respect for themselves. I can understand why people would oppose Proposition 8. But clearly, they do not extend the same courtesy as to why others might support it. The Church's response to this ad was characteristically classy.

Scott Trotter with the Church released this statement,
“The Church has joined a broad-based coalition in defense of traditional marriage. While we feel this is important to all of society, we have always emphasized that respect be given to those who feel differently on this issue. It is unfortunate that some who oppose this proposition have not given the Church this same courtesy.”

I remember when this was first a ballot measure in California several years ago while I was a student at BYU. I was surprised at how divided the campus--especially the professors--were on this issue. I remember one professor who I particularly admired being opposed to the Church's position mostly because of the extreme right groups it put us in camp with. Nobody likes to be thought of as intolerant. Heck, if the Church didn't have a position on gay marriage, I might not think it mattered. But I trust that the Prophet knows more. He is in the watch tower and it is his sacred responsibility to warn us when danger approaches, even if it doesn't look dangerous to us in the beginning. I think this issue and many others that members of the LDS faith may struggle with really boil down to whether or not you have a testimony of the divine call of the Prophet. If you don't believe he speaks for God, why would you care what he said? If he does, how can you possibly disregard it?

I'm including a link to a site supporting proposition 8. Read to the bottom and watch the video about how legalizing same-sex marriage has affected education in Massachusetts. It is disturbing, but not surprising.

http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/yes_on_prop_8.html

I sometimes hear people suggest that the Church has no business in politics...I find this idea offensive. God makes laws...not the prophet, not the Church. If the laws of man run contrary to scriptural teachings, it is our responsibility to seek to change those laws. Man does not legislate morality. God already did that. We're just trying to keep in line with what he already taught. It is absurd to me that anyone would willingly compartmentalize or segregate the parts of their life in which they're willing to hear God...
"He can tell me how to eat, but not how to act out my sexuality...Our entire criminal justice system is based on the Ten Commandments, but we have no right to legislate morality....I'm willing to do what is already easy for me, but if His prophet asks something I'm uncomfortable with, I think it's none of His business." ????

Where gay marriage is concerned, this is plainly true. There is no discrimination against gay couples on the books in California. All the same rights are extended to them. Their relationship is just not called "marriage." By seeking that final title, they're not seeking equality in legal rights; they're forcing everyone else to acknowledge that their lifestyle is equally acceptable. They're seeking moral validation.

The Bishop will never ask you how you voted on an issue in a Temple recommend interview, and certainly it would not be appropriate. But if you are a faithful member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, you have covenanted to follow God's prophet. And if the prophet says we should do something--like support Proposition 8--and we choose not to, we are ignoring our testimony and choosing to consider the Prophet simply an old man with some advice we are also free to ignore. Either God leads this Church through his prophet, or he doesn't.

You may struggle internally--I certainly have on this issue. You may not understand every bit of reasoning behind the Church's official position. But if the Church has an official position, you have a responsibility to make it your own. If you choose against the prophet, you've chosen the wrong side, folks. This is not blind obedience, it is conscientious faithfulness. Besides, if people like to think of us as sheep, at least we can take comfort in following the voice of our Shepherd.

I like an old quote from Elder Neal A Maxwell of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. It seems particularly pertinent here. "There didn't seem to be any problem with conformity the day the Red Sea parted."

Election Coverage has me seeing RED

The election coverage is only a few hours in and already I've had to restrain myself from throwing the remote control at the TV.

You know how sometimes you can't go to your kid's soccer game, so you might call your friend who's there and ask how they're doing? Your friend may give you a play-by-play..."We had the ball for a while, but #4 from the other team stole it and scored. Seth got a corner kick and missed, but over-all, we're playing a great game. The reffing is terrible..." You are calling to see if your team is winning, how your kid is playing. The other team is simply the opponent and that's the only reason they get mention--it's relevancy, not interest that brings them into the conversation. That is exactly how every bit of election coverage has been.

The newscasters are only talking about whether or not Obama will get a state or county. Even though McCain is leading in most areas so far--obviously it's ridiculously early on--he is only mentioned in how he pertains to Obama. In Indiana, for example, they showed how only 4 counties were Democratic in 2004 and already more counties than that are blue now. You really can't call it one way or the other yet, but even though McCain has a slight lead, the "news" people point out how it's already a victory there for Democrats because the numbers are so much better than the last presidential election. Either way, Obama wins by their reckoning. OK. That's fine. Way to be positive. ABOUT YOUR OWN TEAM. This isn't even about Obama for me. It is about the farce that is called journalism. If I were a person of colorful language, there would be obscenities inserted here.

It's not just the presidential election they're doing it with. CNN made a green screen virtual model of what the senate will look like if THEY get enough democrats in office. And it's not just general rhetoric. They were going through each contested race and saying, "See, if the Democrat wins, the square turns blue like this...and if this Democrat wins, that square turns blue, and if that Democrat wins, then this little squre turns blue." I am not exaggerating. They kept going until their computer froze. Apparently 60 is the magic filibuster-proof number. Fine. Could they just pretend they weren't rooting for a particular side? Just for the night? If not, then they should label their station blue and own their real position instead of allowing this badly disguised partisanship to be called unbiased.

I think this election will probably be closer than the Democrat Journalists think. Republicans aren't as enthusiastic a group as this invigorated Democratic party, but they still vote. Here's my little prediction. If Obama wins, we'll think, "Yeah. I kind of thought that would happen. OK. What now?" If McCain wins, there will be claims of voter fraud and shock at how different the poll numbers were from the actual voter turnout. (Oh, and it will apparently mean that lots of people who said they were voting for Obama, but didn't, are racist. Nice.) That's about how it played out when Bush won in 2004. Remember the stunned-into-shock media? Here's why: They're all Democrats and they don't know any people who vote Republican, so they don't think they're out there. Guess what? We are. And we'd like a little fairness in reporting, if you please. At least starting tomorrow.

I always think I'm right...

Wow! I got so many great comments from the last post, I feel famous. And I've gotta add, it is totally cool with me when we disagree completely...like my awesome sister and some outstanding friends. One thing I think is true about me is this: I always think I'm right. Honestly, I think most people do. But, I genuinely WANT to know if I'm wrong, and have no problem admitting it if I find it to be the case. So, show me where I'm wrong. Or tell me I'm right. That's fun, too.

I didn't start posting political to convert the world to my view--all 8 of you. I think by speaking or writing and I couldn't think through my ideas any further without actually putting them down. Thank you so much for thinking, too, and contributing. I love it. I'm excited about some of the posts to come...Plainbellied's sure to be well-educated opposing point of view and Charity's personal Alaska perspective. Be St. Helen's, Charity. Blow your top and let us all learn from the fall-out. =)