Reminders

Yesterday marked the 41st annual March for Life.  As usual, the good Lord gave us a chance at redemptive suffering, this year sending ridiculously cold weather.  For a few weeks, I had been promising friends, former classmates, and former colleagues that I would find them in DC.  And I awoke Wednesday morning with day two of a cold -- the stage where standing up made me dizzy.  I took a sick day against the frigid outdoors and curled up with a cup of herbal tea.

The Captain and I had planned on going to the March together but without a group -- a couple of free radicals, wandering in and out of the pro-life masses.  I had just resigned myself to not going and missing all those cool people when the Captain told me that he was planning on heading into work if I was staying in.

With friends as my motivation and the Captain as my excuse, I bundled into a many-layered ball of purple fluff, with a scarf up to the apples of my cheeks and hat and hood pulled over my eyebrows.  As it turned out, almost everyone at the March was bundled up in a similar fashion, or with sunglasses or ski goggles fighting the bright sun.  This, combined with my reluctance to remove my gloves to use my phone, made it difficult to find people.  I tried standing on a bench to peruse the sea of signs... which only made my head spin more.

To make a long story short, we found no one and had as near to a solitary March as two people can in the midst of several hundred thousand fellow protesters.  In the end, I found myself rather disappointed and caught myself wondering, Why did we bother to come?

Thankfully, I recognized and rebuked this attitude.  God was using our solitude as a reminder: the March for Life isn't about friends, or reunions, or who you know.  It isn't about finding former roommates or showing off DC.

It is about the fact that people are dying and our society has given it a legal and cultural stamp of approval.
And until that changes, I need to be my tiny part in letting this nation and this world know that abortion is evil.

And until that changes, I need to be my tiny part of a generation that will not be silent until life triumphs.

And until that changes, I need to offer my tiny bit of redemptive suffering, so that love can win.

Divorce and the Pill

Here's an interesting take on the Pill from a surprising source.  Scientific American seems to be claiming that the Pill leads to higher divorce rates.  Here's the two ways that happens, according to this article:

1) The Pill leads women to be attracted to men with major histocompatibility complex (MHC) genes that are more similar, rather than less similar to their own.  Couples with similar MHC genes report less sexual satisfaction.  Less sexual satisfaction could contribute to divorce.

2) The Pill leads women to be attracted to men with major histocompatibility complex (MHC) genes that are more similar, rather than less similar to their own. When a couple decides to have a baby, the woman goes off the Pill and finds herself less attracted to her husband, while simultaneously more attracted to other men.  This change in attraction could lead to divorce.

Let me put in a few disclaimers and explanatory notes here:

*Just because widespread use of the Pill might lead to a higher divorce rate, it does not necessarily follow that an individual woman should not use the Pill for contraceptive purposes.

*I think that (i.e. women should not use the Pill for contraceptive purposes) for other reasons.

*If there is a correlation between use of the Pill and divorce, it should be enough for most women to think twice about the decision to use hormonal contraception.  I don't want to be less attracted to my husband at the exact moment we want to have children.

*The changes in attraction from the use of hormonal contraception might be a social scientific explanation of divorce rates, but they are not an excuse for any individual divorce.  It might be harder to make a marriage work in these circumstances, but (barring abusive situations) divorce should simply not be an option.

The thing that interests me most about this article is that it comes from a source without a Christian bias. The point isn't to convince women not to use hormonal contraceptives, but to draw attention to an interesting scientific fact.  And whatever we disagree on, I think most people of good will agree that women should have all the facts before making decisions about the drugs we use.

GetReligion on Abortion Case

I normally poke around my (dying) Google reader at breakfast time, catching up on friends' blogs and the happenings of the world.  One of my feeds comes from GetReligion, a blog that critiques the media's coverage of religion.  And it's not much trouble -- easy morning reading.

Today, however, I stumbled across an article that made my stomach turn so much I couldn't click the link to the story being critiqued.  It is about Dr. Kermit Grosnell, who is on trial for murder due to horrendous practices at his abortion clinic.  While I understand pro-choice people who might say, "This isn't what all clinics are like," the sympathy with his practices -- including the murder of children born alive -- is almost as horrific as the facts of the case.

I'm posting it in hopes that my three faithful readers will read the GetReligion piece and take note especially of the lack of media coverage of the story and pass it on.

The 98%

With the HHS mandate making all kinds of news (and a compromise being proposed, though I don't have details on that at the moment), a number has been bandied around.  "98% of Catholic women use contraception."  I've spent much time being indignant about this line of argumentation and questioned the number; I even blogged a bit about it.

However, I didn't do one thing that a more serious Catholic blogger did: ask about these women.  No matter what the number, these women matter.  Jennifer Fulwiler writes about her interaction with the 98% and offers an analysis that startled me, although it probably should not have.  Many of these women are not setting out in blatant, pig-headed opposition to the Catholic Church.  They are misled in their thoughts and knowledge about the position and seriousness of the Church on this issue.  Which seems surprising to me, but I come from a very Catholic family in a very conservative diocese.  Other people do not.  As Fulwiler points out, no matter what the other fallout of this debate, at least it is making the Church very clear about her position and thus aiding her in guiding her sheep a little more closely.

Huggies Loves Babies

Every now and then, the pro-life attitude is just so common-sensical that it bursts out in unexpected places, from people who aren't pushing a pro-life message.  Such as the creators of this Huggies commercial.



On a less positive note, it highlights a fundamental discord in our society's view of pregnancy.  A wanted pregnancy is "a human being growing inside your stomach!"  An unwanted one is "a blob of tissue" that becomes "medical waste."

Yet Another HHS Update

I haven't posted about the HHS mandate recently, though believe you me it has been in the background or forefront of my mind.  I am both a beneficiary and a victim of Obamacare: I stayed on my father's policy later than would have been allowed, but now I am about to embark on my own healthcare voyage.  Because of the contraceptive mandate, my school has dropped student coverage, which was going to be my route.  In the wake of the elections, I've had a hard time not being depressed by the anti-life state of the nation.

Now, however, cases are starting to hit courts and courts are starting to give answers.  Here's an article about a Bible-publishing company who won their case... though I am sure it's not the end of the story for them.  And it's definitely not for others (such as Hobby Lobby) who lost and are appealing.  The rationale for decisions, based on the limited information from these two articles, seems to be that the courts want to exempt religious organizations but not religious employers (i.e. individuals) from providing contraception.

Abortion: Who Decides?

Take a look at this story about a Nevada woman with mental impairments who became pregnant.  It apparently was newsworthy that a judge decided she could continue her pregnancy.  

A lot about this story bothered me.  Some of it has to do with the reporting (or lack thereof) rather than the details... though if I knew for sure, I might still be disturbed.  

First of all, the woman is said to have "the mental capacity of a six year old."  Yet it is questioned if she had "consensual" sex with the father of the child.  How is this even possible?  Does the idea of statutory rape not apply in the case of impaired mental capacity?  If not, whyever not?

Secondly, from the way the story reads, the judge stated that in some cases, the court would have the authority to force an abortion, in spite of the wishes of the woman and the parents (who are her legal guardians) -- and possibly even the doctors involved.  What? In what case ever would it be acceptable for a court to order a person to have an abortion?

If the woman and her parents do not want an abortion, why was it ever on the table to start?  What justification does anyone have to bring it to the discussion in that case?

Finally, a question not about details but about our legal process.  In this story, it appears that the woman and her legal guardians agree about carrying the pregnancy to term.  What would happen if they disagreed?  Whose "rights" would trump?  Whose rights should trump?  

Brain Death, Soul Death, and PVS

Because I spend too much time on Facebook once papering time comes around, I found this article the other day.  It's about a man in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) who is able to communicate with doctors via fMRI.  This development certainly complicates the debate about the care of patients in PVS -- something we are discussing in my bioethics class today.

John Paul II, everyone's favorite Polish, pro-life pope, stated that brain death -- the complete and irreversible cessation of all brain function -- could be considered the death of the person.  That is to say, it is an indication that the soul has departed from the body.  (From a Catholic perspective, that is the definition of death.  Medical signs are indications that this event has happened.)  He also stated that patients in PVS are alive and, as living human beings, deserve the care given to human beings, specifically food and water/nutrition and hydration.

[Note: A patient in PVS has some brain activity.  This person demonstrates lower brain function and sometimes higher brain activity as well.  This condition is not medically (or morally) equivalent with brain death.]

JPII of course caused a stir by this second statement, but this latest medical finding lends support to his position: this person's soul is still present.

Voting Catholic

One of the most consistent frustrations for a politically and religiously aware Catholic preparing to vote comes from her fellow-Catholics: the tendency to collapse all differences between candidates to this issue of "pro-life."  Don't get me wrong -- abortion and other policies about human life are huge.  I have an "I vote pro-life first" sign in my window.  (The other side, the one I really like, says, "I AM the pro-life generation!")

Our obligation to protect the life of pre-born children, however, does not overturn or cancel out our obligation to care about other issues or to be guided by moral standards to create just policies in other areas.   (Really, it just shows the tragedy of our modern political divide.  Could you imagine not having to vote pro-life, because both candidates were?)  So even if we vote pro-life first, we need to know there are other important questions in politics.  Even if they do not change our vote, they exist, and we as Catholics need to care about how our government addresses other issues of justice.  We also need to know what our Church teaches about them.

The Virginia Catholic Conference puts together voter education literature every election.  They publish candidate's approaches to issues that are of interest to a Catholic understanding of justice.  It's not the most comprehensive resource, but it at least puts questions other than abortion on the table.  Take a look-see here (for the presidential race) and here (for the VA senatorial race).

If you aren't sure on Catholic approaches to the issues, read the senatorial one first, because it contains more information about the bishops' position.  There is, of course, no official Church teaching on policy matter.  The bishops offer guidance based on the Church's teaching and their understanding of the current national situation.  It's called prudential judgement.  The first criterion will not change; the second can and does; and opinions of how the two fit together can legitimately vary.

That doesn't get anyone off the hook about caring about these issues.  It just raises our obligation to become informed so we know how to become involved in the political process.  Even if we vote pro-life first, 364 days of the year (or 365 in the case of presidential election years) are not election day.  Those days require our involvement as well.

Where Have All the Young Girls Gone

A few weeks ago, I found myself in an amusing situation.  Larry, a good friend, and I were all at a Theology of Tap.  Larry and the friend got into a debate about a topic that Larry and I have covered countless times over the past years.  I have argued with Larry and this friend (separately) often enough that I knew all their arguments and counterarguments, as well as their style of arguing -- what each tone, hand gesture, facial expression, and phrase meant.  So I saw the exact moment when they hit an impasse and started to argue in circles.

The frustrating problem with following the debate on a subjects such as Right to Life issues and feminism is that most people have reached that point.  Politicians and activists reach it in different places, and different activists reach it in different places, but most people seek new audiences, rather than new debates.  (Which is a fine strategy: one of our greatest social problems is indifference and new people need to hear our messages.)

With the introduction of legislation regard sex-selective abortion, there was a chance to spark new debate and raise a host of problems often unseen.  I am ashamed to admit that, while I knew about the proposed legislation banning sex-selective abortion, I did not really follow the debate.  Then I read this commentary in the Post, which hurt both my feminist and my pro-life heart.  Kaur's main point is that both sides failed to address the real problems related to sex-selective abortion because they were each so deeply entrenched in their pro-life/pro-abortion agendas.

We should do better than that.  Whether or not abortion should be legal, the fact is that where baby girls are aborted because they are not male, something is very wrong.  This issue should unite across the aisle because it isn't so much about whether or not abortion should be legal as it is about how we value human people.  Devaluing baby girls means devaluing grown women.  Devaluing grown women means devaluing all people.  In rhetoric, both parties and both agendas claim to value human persons.  If Kaur is right, the debate has reached a point where human persons are forgotten.

Protests and Mandates

Remember that HHS mandate that kept popping up a few months ago?  Today I went to my second rally against it.  This date marks the anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights* and rallies took place across the country to fight for the rights there guaranteed.  Emily and I attended the one in DC.

As always at this type of events, some speakers said great things and some spouted alarmist rhetoric.  Luckily, Emily has at least as stubborn a liberal streak as I do and we could make comments to eat other. Among the good: Michelle Bachmann called us a "Gideon's Army"; David Bereit is always my hero; the representative from the Becket Fund was passionate, articulate, and reasonable.

Distracting factors: Nuns, friars, priests, not everywhere, but enough.  The father and small child (about a year and a half) standing near us.  A woman who passed out and left with the rescue squad.  So many cameras and people posing with witty and frustrating signs.

Awkward moment of the day: I was wearing a fun, floppy straw hat.  I think that is why a man with a video camera spent the last 3rd of the National Anthem focused on my face as he stood no more that 6 feet from me.

*Correction (06/09/2012; thanks to Frank): June 8 is the day that Madison introduced amendments that became the Bill of Rights.

In Which I Am Called a Harlot

In both St. Louis and NoVA, I experienced counter-protesters during my pro-life efforts.  Their anger, volume, and proximity varied, but they never fazed me too much.  I know I am doing something controversial and counter-cultural.  If my stance were accepted, I wouldn't be praying outside an abortion facility.

In Pittsburgh, I found someone completely new.  He is pro-life (and Catholic) as his sign and crucifix declare.  However, he directs the majority of his temporal and vocal resources toward our prayer circles, not anyone associated with the abortion facility (client, employee, volunteer).  The modern liturgy, women in pants, communion in the hand, priests out of cassocks, women reading in Mass, communion while standing, women with heads uncovered, and Protestant hymns cause abortion.

The first time he turned on us, it shook me and threw my prayer.  Then I decided that I would rather have his voice turned against me than the women coming into the clinic.  We want to show love, so I wanted all the anger directed at me.  I added him to my prayers, especially when I discovered that some of the anger comes from mental problems.

More recently, he has started to accuse us pants-wearing, head-uncovered women of being "harlots" and emasculating men.  For the first time, I got upset at his comments.  I was with some awesome men that day, some of the men who keep me from becoming bitter and cynical.  That same day, I talked to some of the men -- and discovered that they was dealing okay with the yelling, until we were called harlots.  That wasn't something I minded too much -- in fact, my tiny rebel side kind of enjoyed it.  Which is something I need to work on, along with memorizing the Peace Prayer of St. Francis.

A Few More Thoughts on the HHS Mandate

The thoughts will keep coming until something changes.  Here is a good article on notions of freedom in relation to the mandate.  The essential point is that not providing a subsidy is not the same as taking away a freedom.  No one is taking away anyone's right to contracept.  Just the obligation for someone else to pay for that right.

Also food for thought:  Here is a chart describing the problems with the Guttmacher study that claims 98% of Catholic women use contraception.  Two points of caution about this.  1) I have not looked closely at the math, so I don't know that the chart uses stats properly.  I simply like the flaws that it points out in the study.  2) Really, it doesn't matter what percentage of Catholic women use contraception.  Pick a sin -- I'm sure some percentage of Catholics commit it.  For a lot of sins, I add to that figure!  That doesn't make it right.  It makes Catholics flawed human beings in need of some help.  Maybe in the form of a Savior?

Contraceptive Changes

Here's another article about the contraceptive mandate.  This one is from a source that is generally neutral and comes from a different perspective -- not religiously or politically motivated.

Two Perspectives on HHS

I want to share two articles I've read on the HHS contraceptive mandate.  The first is from Two Catholic Girls, a recent find and new love in my own personal blogosphere.  The other is from the Diocese of Nashville and focuses on a Dominican Sister who is a doctor.

The Bad News First

In the scant week and a half since the March for Life, two major happenings have swept through the pro-life world.

First, the decision of HHS to include contraceptives and sterilization in their idea of basic healthcare, which employers are required to provide.  While an exception is made for churches that condemn contraception, the exception does not extend to religious institutions such as schools and hospitals.  This is a problem in the Catholic world because paying for contraception or sterilization is material cooperation in evil.  (You can sign a petition here asking the administration to rescind this mandate.)

The Catholic world has exploded in outrage over this mandate, and with good reason.  Catholic institutions are being asked to choose between an authentic Catholic identity and their very existence.  The history of the Church proves that people choose an authentic Catholic identity over life itself.  In this choice, however, the Church is hindered in her desire to help and heal people in the here and now.   That being said, I want to pose a thought from one of the ladies in my women's group.  No matter how hostile we as Christians find the world (and it is hostile), we can't give in to a victim-mentality.  Every hostility is a sign of the necessity of our primary mission: to bring others to Christ.  We're not victims in a harsh world -- we are prophets bringing life to the desert.  We can't be off-put by the existence of the desert.

Second, on a happier note, the Susan G. Komen Foundation has announced that they are no longer going to fund Planned Parenthood! They are wary because of the Congressional investigation into Planned Parenthood.  While the decision is not explicitly pro-life and I wouldn't claim Komen as a pro-life ally (except inasmuch as they are fighting for the dignity of life by fighting to end breast cancer), it does take money from the nation's largest abortion provider and signal that not everyone looks at Planned Parenthood uncritically.  A critical glance at them, for many, would be a very good thing.

Update, 02/07/2012:  Susan G. Komen may have reversed their decision.  Then again, they may not have.  Grants for this year have been awarded and will not be revoked, but the future relationship of Planned Parenthood and Komen is  unclear.

We Are Marching

When I proudly proclaimed to a friend that I had caught up on my blog, I may have been exaggerating slightly -- I still have to cover the March itself.

Monday morning we woke entirely too early and headed into the city for the Catholic Youth Rally and the March for Life.  The night before, meteorologists predicted freezing rain, so the government was opening two hours late.  Translation: God moved rush hour back 2 hours for us, so we could make it into the city without any trouble.  We parked at the Basilica and metroed over to the Verizon Center, where we met 17 000 of our friends, including 500 of our best buds from Steubenville.

 While I decided I could take or leave (leaning toward the leave side) the music and entertainment, I had another profound moment during Mass.  All these people, converged together at this particular point in time, for one purpose: we eagerly awaited the moment our Savior would come to us.  In His word, in His body, in our lives.  I also had a very bizarre moment as bishops were introduced to cheering, applause, screams and shouts from their diocesan youth.  The bishops loved it and waved with love and joy to the crowds thirsty for the Church.

Then we followed a police escort to the cold and rainy National Mall where politicians politicked, throwing in some pro-life and some election-year catchphrases.  I met up with a good friend and W&M alum who had come from UVA grad school. Finally, after a long wait, we marched.  Through the rain and cold, from the Capitol to the Supreme Court, where women and men who are post-abortive gave testimonies to the value of life and the lie of abortion and a few angry counter-protesters held dripping signs.

After snapping a few photos of Shelly in front of the Supreme Court and saying a prayer for life, we headed to the craziness that was Union Station.  Rush hour getting out of town wasn't too bad (it helped having an HOV), but the fog we hit after a dinner stop was pretty brutal.  We wound our way slowly through the mountains, at last making it out of the fog and back at last to Steubenville.

On Brides and Churches

Sunday, as Thom, Shelly, and Brother Bear went to the zoo (which Brother Bear really wanted to see), I stopped in Alexandria to attend a bridal expo with Wendy.  She got engaged on Christmas Eve and is starting the process of wedding planning.  God blessed us by putting me in DC the weekend of the expo: she needed a girl friend to go with her, and I am sad that I am not around for her wedding planning.

We spent the end of the morning and the beginning of the afternoon waiting in line (it was worth it -- we were the first ones in!), tasting wedding cakes, and listening to vendors advertise.  Wendy put her name into several drawings for discounts and gift cards and impressed vendors by her early start on her planning.  LB's wedding is the first wedding I am seeing from near the inside, and I am shocked by the amount of planning required, although, having run large events, I shouldn't be.  Now with Wendy, I am seeing even more of the beginning of the process and it is quite amazing the culture and business world that has sprung up around weddings.

[Side Note: It is also fascinating how much is geared to the bride, rather than the groom or the couple.  But that is a separate train of thought.]

After the expo and lunch, Wendy dropped me at the Metro and I traveled into the city for Mass at the National Basilica.  Although I have visited on numerous occasions, I have never attended Mass in the main church.  We knew the liturgy would be crowded and planned to get there at least two hours early.  To my shock, when I walked in at 3:30 (Mass was at 6pm) the building was packed.  Every pew upstairs was full and the folding chairs facing CC TVs in the side chapels upstairs and down were rapidly becoming occupied.

I get easily overwhelmed by large crowds, so I made a beeline for Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament Chapel.  I had barely knelt down, however, when a security guard told us we had to leave -- this part of the church was being closed off to prep for Mass.  With great difficulty, I pulled up some tile in the back of the church and tried to make myself large enough to hold floor space for four people.

Eventually, the other three made it from the zoo and Emily joined us, having abandoned her studies for the evening.  We spotted an other Catholic alum from the College, in town with the Supreme Council of the Knights of Columbus, and Thom drew in three of his friends from Jersey, so we ended up with nine people in space enough for four.

At first I had a lot of trouble making Mass a holy time -- again, don't like large crowds and the vibe of the place before Mass was more like a street festival than a solemn liturgy.  However, in the middle of the Eucharistic prayer, as I stared toward the altar, the people packed into every available space distracted me.  This time, however, I realized the profundity of the moment -- thousands upon thousands of people, so desperate for Jesus and His justice that they packed themselves into this building, and other churches across DC, to meet Him and draw closer to Him.  So what if I was rubbing elbows, knees, backs, and shoulders with eight of my closest neighbors?  We were here for what matters: the little white wafer that has the power to transform us and the world.

Child-Proofing, Speeding Tickets, and Where Babies Come From

My latest love (read: procrastination enabler) is Pintrest.  This morning, I discovered this gem:

(Note: I'm not sure how linking to people on Pintrest works, but I'm going to try here.  Let me know if  this works!)

It's funny, right?  I'm sure normal people see it and chuckle and go on with their days.  Problem: I'm not normal.  So I see this and immediately think of freshman year intro to philosophy and abortion/contraception.  One day in class we had a discussion about abortion with many analogies and comparisons, from Judith Jarvis Thompson's unconscious violinist, to her baby-spores, to wearing seat belts.  Wendy and I got into it with a classmate (so much so that seven years later, a classmate I hadn't talked to since that class ended mentioned it to me at a recent re-encounter).  As we left, Wendy exclaimed: "I don't think she knows where babies come from!"

I don't think our classmate expressed an unusual confusion.  With contraception, we modern ladies are taught to baby-proof our houses.  "If you do this, then you will not get pregnant."  Not "sex causes pregnancy."  No wonder then that babies come as surprises.  No wonder then that abortion seems necessary.  (Note: I know not all abortions result from failed contraception.  I just content that a certain attitude about abortion is prevalent due to contraception.)  After all, if I baby-proof my house, a baby has no right to get in!

If we accept the second statement above ("sex causes pregnancy") as truth, then we realize that we cannot baby-proof our houses.  Sure, one doesn't always get a baby after having sex, but pregnancy is a natural consequence of sex.  This means that if I am having sex, I have no right to be not-pregnant.  I realize this is a radical (and some would say anti-feminist) statement.  But I hold to it.  If I am not sexually active, then I have every right to be not-pregnant.

Although this is a problematic analogy, I want to compare it to speeding.  I speed all the time.  I have never gotten a ticket.  However, if I get pulled over for driving 68 in a 55 zone, I can't complain about an injustice.  I engaged in an action (speeding) and reaped the consequences (a ticket).  Not everyone gets a ticket every time he or she speeds, and many people decide the action is worth the risk and engage in it anyway.  We learn "safe-speeding" (stay under reckless, know where the cops tend to hide, stay with traffic, etc.) to reduce the chances of getting pulled over.  But we still know it could happen.

Now think of how many people spend time trying to get out of traffic tickets.  Even if they were doing 48 over in a 25 zone.  A certain lack of personal responsibility characterizes more of our lives than just speeding.  It spreads over everything, even (maybe especially) sexuality.  And it feeds into the feeling that we need abortion.  We need a way to avoid responsibility for the consequences of our actions.

A First

Facebook is currently (I am ashamed to say) my number one new source.  Here's one of the recent abortion-related news tidbits that has appeared on my newsfeed.

Two Maryland abortionists were charged with murder for killing viable unborn children.  Their bodies were discovered after a woman landed in the emergency room due to an abortion.  The charges, while obviously horrible, represent a step in the right direction, as does the first line of the article.  Hopefully, we'll hear how this one ends.