Ms. Bufflo goes to the capitol

Image I took on my way inside to testify before the committee, via my Instagram feed.

Today, I spoke before an Arkansas senate committee. Last night I was on the evening news.

Rep. Andy Mayberry is making national headlines by trying to ban abortion after 20 weeks of gestation (that’s the halfway mark, FYI). He claims this is because this is the point at which a fetus begins to feel and respond to pain, and he cites some studies, but this is hardly an established fact, and is controversial in the medical community. In the committee today, he testified that 98% of abortions happen before 20 weeks. Why would the minority get such a late abortion? It’s not because they just didn’t get around to it or had a sudden change of heart. Something big happens at 20 weeks. It’s the point in a pregnancy when the “big ultrasound” happens. The one that tells you if you’re carrying a boy or a girl (or two girls, in my case), but also the one that tells you for the first time that there could be something seriously wrong, even life-threatening, with your fetus. I know what it’s like to sit in that ultrasound room and get bad news. Like Andy Mayberry, who also has a daughter with spina bifida, I am fortunate that our news wasn’t as bad as it could have been. My daughter and the Mayberry’s daughter have a condition that is treatable and manageable and won’t stand in the way of a full life. Many parents are not so fortunate. For many parents, that moment in the ultrasound room is what turns a wanted pregnancy into a nightmare of heartbreaking news and difficult choices. Placing an abortion ban at that point in a pregnancy leaves these parents without options right when they need them most. It places a legislature between families and their doctors, right when those families most need compassionate care.

I know some will say that the bill has been amended to include exceptions for the health of the mother, for fetal anomalies, and for rape and incest. But as one of my own doctors testified before another committee, when we’re talking criminality for doctors who provide abortions, how much of threat does there have to be before it’s “enough” to justify an abortion? I have a congenital heart defect and a previous severe cardiac pregnancy complication, but no one can say exactly how risky another pregnancy would be for me. My doctors agree that I should not have more children for the sake of my health, but my condition is very very rare, and there isn’t much data on it, let alone actual odds of my survival. Do you think my doctors are willing to risk jail time and the loss of their career and livelihood on my chances of survival? I don’t. And yet I am not willing to risk leaving my girls motherless, and should my IUD fail (as it could, I personally know people who became pregnant with an IUD), I would not think twice before terminating to protect my own life and stay here to care for the girls who need me.

The bill passed the committee despite my testimony. It will probably pass the Senate. The governor will probably sign it. I fear for the state my girls will grow up in, and I fear for their rights and mine.

For every mother who testified that she’s glad she carried her anencephalic baby to term (that’s a baby with no brain and a damaged skull, with no chance of survival outside the womb), there are mothers thankful they had the opportunity for a post-20-week abortion (essentially an induction of labor), to prevent needless suffering for her and her doomed child. For everyone like Andy Mayberry and me, whose kids will have challenges but lead full and happy lives, there are people who got literally fatal news. For everyone like me who survived pre-eclampsia and peri-partum cardiomyopathy, there are people whose fatal complications developed too early to save themselves and their babies, and were forced to deliver to save their own lives, meanwhile their babies could not be saved. For everyone on the other side who calls themselves a compassionate conservative fighting for life, there is someone like me, literally fighting for her own, asking for compassionate choices when we need them most.

If you’re in Arkansas, please start writing to your senators and the governor and urge them not to let this bill pass. Post 20-week abortions are rare because they only happen in the most dire of circumstances. These people deserve compassion.

Boycott Chick-Fil-A?

Everyone I know is talking about Chick-Fil-A. Most of my friends are talking about boycotting, because they’re good people who don’t like it when people hate on gay people. I don’t like it when people hate on gay people, either, but I’m not boycotting. For a bunch of reasons. Because these are a bit long for say, a tweet or Facebook status update, I figured, hey, you can blog about things that aren’t the babies, you know.

First off, I absolutely disagree with Dan Cathy, the COO of Chick-Fil-A. I don’t think marriage needs “defending” from anything, and if anything, I think the loving, egalitarian example found in many gay marriages could do wonders for this institution. I’m hopeful that marriages that can’t default to tired gender roles could teach us all a thing or two about equal partnerships.

My problem is, if I boycotted every company whose executives say things I disagree with and give to causes I disagree with, I’d be unable to eat or shop most anywhere, because most gazillionaire executives happen to be very conservative and give to very conservative causes. As you may have guessed, I am nowhere near conservative. And also, consistency would require me to boycott other companies, like Anthropologie and Urban Outfitters, for example, whose CEO has given thousands of dollars to one of the most repellent and homophobic politicians around, Rick Santorum. Even the CEO of Whole Foods publicly opposed health care reform, something I very much support. And Target is actively anti-union and has supported anti-gay political candidates, so I’d have to stop shopping there too (seriously, if you feel smug about not shopping at WalMart and continue to shop at Target, get over yourself).

Another issue is: Chick-Fil-A is a franchise. Meaning, when we boycott, we’re mostly hurting local business owners rather than the big bad company. I know there is an argument to be made that they knew what kind of company they were buying into, but I’m not ready to equate owning a franchise with wholehearted support of the COO’s politics.

Thirdly: I’ve yet to hear about Chick-Fil-A actively discriminating in either hiring or service. Are they refusing to let gay folks be the “Eat Mor Chicken” equivalent of burger flippers? Are they refusing to serve waffle fries to gay people? Since I’m not willing to actually boycott every company whose COO says things I disagree with, I will reserve my boycotts for companies that actually do discriminatory things. (Not to mention, if I *were* boycotting CFA, it would probably mostly be because I try not to eat unsustainably/inhumanely raised meat, and CFA’s nuggets certainly don’t fit into my food rules.)

Still, I totally want to reaffirm my support for friends who do choose to boycott. I totally believe in voting with my dollars, and if anything, am being inched toward actually boycotting not by the boycotters, but by the whiny defenses people are making of CFA, as if being criticized or boycotted is just as “bad” as being homophobic. Free speech doesn’t include freedom from criticism or consequences for that speech, and whining about it a la Sarah Palin is just totally repellant to me. It’s like people who think being called a racist is just as bad as oh, actually being racist.

The only thing I ask of my boycotting brothers and sisters is: please stop acting like those of us who aren’t ready to join you are somehow against you or the cause of equality. I know liberal folks gay and straight who are on both sides of the boycott. (Hilariously, one gay friend quipped, “Waffle fries may be too high a price for equality.”) It’s not often I get to feel like a “moderate,” but this is one kerfuffle where I do. I hope you don’t think I’m a traitor to the cause.

Update: this post generated a great conversation on Facebook, where I was reminded that a dear friend was hurt very deeply by a degayification program run by Exodus International, an organization that CFA supports. So I finally have a reason to make me pull the trigger on no longer giving CFA my business: solidarity with my friend. I guess that now, if I get a craving for terrible chicken that causes me to chuck my food rules out the window, I’ll get some spicy chicken at Wendy’s, whose support of foster care adoption is a corporate cause I can get behind (please don’t tell me they oppose letting gay people adopt).

evangelical economics

President Obama's proposed 2012 budget, via: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget

I have to say up front: I do not consider myself an Evangelical. I grew up Presbyterian (PCUSA) and have only gotten more “liberal” theologically from there. Jesus is still alright with me.

My friend Sarah turned my attention to recent polling of Evangelicals on the issue of the federal budget. Apparently, were they in charge of the government’s spending, Evangelicals are more likely than the average American to want to cut funding for: aid to the poor around the world, aid to the unemployed in our own country, and funding used to protect and care for our environment. From the piece: “evangelicals were more supportive of funding cuts in every area except military defense, terrorism defense, aid to veterans, and energy…Evangelicals were more likely to favor an increase in defense spending (45 percent) compared to non-evangelicals (28 percent).”

From this Jesus-follower’s perspective? Talk about bassackwards. Good gravy.

The defense spending is particularly troubling to me. We’d rather spend money to wage war against the people of the world than to spend money on foreign aid to help them build the sorts of stable economies and governments that make more less likely? And we’re not sure we’re even spending enough money on the military and war in the first place?

It makes me wonder if the translations of the Bible those other folks are reading are just WILDLY different than the TNIV I usually read. My love for Jesus compels me to care for the poor and needy and unemployed, both in my own country and around the world. My love for Jesus compels me to care passionately about God’s creation, desiring to treat it with the respect I’d treat anything I borrowed from a friend, and to preserve it so it can be enjoyed by future generations. My love for Jesus compels me to believe that even my nation’s enemies are my God’s children, and to oppose all violence and war. And if I were to be making my nation’s budget based on what I know about Jesus, I’d be cutting spending on violence and war, and increasing spending to help the most vulnerable among us, particularly during a global recession.

*Edited to add: of course I understand that many Evangelicals make care for the poor a private concern, and think that if the Church did its job, the government wouldn’t need to step in. But, when this polling data so clearly demonstrates support for militarism, I have to wonder if the public/private concern is really the issue here, and not just some really whacked out priorities.

FLOTUS and cleavage

I’m just asking for bizarre Google searches with two posts that mention boobs in one day, but I had to throw this up here.  Apparently Glenn Beck and Matt Drudge are trying to cause a kerfuffle because they believe Michelle Obama is disgracing America with her slightly-cleavage-revealing attire at a recent state dinner.  Before you go assuming she looked like J.Lo in that Versace dress, here’s what FLOTUS wore that has caused the uproar:

Image via the Examiner.com.

Beck said on his radio show: “I don’t think I’ve ever seen the first lady with her breasts all smooshed up, I mean, what is that?”

My first thought was, really? Does Glenn Beck even know what the fashions were in the late 18th and early 19th Centuries, back when his heroes, the Founders, were still around?  Because seriously, get a look at the racks on some of these first ladies:

First Lady Dolley Madison, with her "breasts all smooshed up." Image via womenshistory.about.com.

Thomas Jefferson's daughter, who acted as official hostess while he was in office, wears a pretty low-cut gown here. Image via womenshistory.about.com

This is Helen Taft's inaugural gown. I'd imagine it showed some cleave. A Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike (2.0) image from kubina's photostream

Even Eleanor Roosevelt got into the deep-V action! Image via womenshistory.about.com

Is that some cleavage I see on Mamie Eisenhower? Image via womenshistory.about.com

I mean, I know it’s not even necessary to bother to point out how ridiculous Glenn Beck is, but geez. C’mon.

Sanford and Soul Mate and Smoking

Governor Sanford.

Back during the whole “Hiking the Appalachian Trail” fiasco, I wrote a lot about my state’s governor, Mark Sanford.  I’ve written about his marriage, I’ve written about his infidelity, I’ve written about his ties to C-Street’s “The Family.” I’ve created an entire tag, Annals of South Carolinian Ridiculousness, largely thanks to his antics, though Jim DeMint and Lindsey Graham have certainly contributed to that category.

And now, my fair governor is in the news once again.  His wife having filed for divorce and written a tell-all book after their efforts to save their marriage failed, he is trying to reunite with the Argentinian woman he calls his “soulmate.” And the thing is, I’m fine with that. I can’t say why exactly, but somehow, I’m less bothered by a man who simply fell in love with the wrong woman at the wrong time, than I am with an Elliot Spitzer screwing prostitutes behind his wife’s back after making a career going after prostitution rings, or John Edwards cheating on his dying wife with a bimbo, and then failing to wrap it up, all the while thinking that he could still run for president and no one would know about his love child.  Somehow, I’m sympathetic to love, even if it’s narrated by poorly-written email poetry about tan lines.

This is a slide from a presentation my husband gave on the subject of childhood smoking.

What I’m less sympathetic to are Sanford’s policies, particularly his veto this week of a proposed tobacco tax increase in a state with the lowest tobacco taxes in the nation.  As someone concerned about childrens’ health in particular (and the wife of a pediatrician), I know that higher tobacco taxes are a proven way of keeping tobacco out of kids’ hands and a great way to fund tobacco use prevention programs.  According to the SC Tobacco Collaborative, “Studies show that every 10 percent increase in the price of cigarettes reduces youth smoking by about 7 percent and overall cigarette consumption by about 4 percent.”  Keeping kids from smoking is a key way to prevent adults from smoking and make our nation a healthier place, keeping health care costs down for all of us.  According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, most smokers have their first cigarette between the ages of 11 and 14!  Thankfully the House overrode his veto, and there is hope the Senate will do the same.

It’s just a shame that yet again, the governor’s love life is detracting attention from his more serious missteps, like the ones that put SC children at risk.

bumper to bumper

So, Sarah Palin’s latest thing is telling her fans to approach people with Obama stickers on their Subarus and ask them, “How’s that hopey changey thing workin’ out for ya?” You don’t need me to break that down for you, but let me just say that if I manage to avoid approaching people who STILL have Bush ’04 stickers on their cars to thank them for helping destroy our country for 8 long and horrible years, and if I can avoid sticking my tongue out and hollering “Ha ha, you LOST!” at people who have McCain/Palin stickers on their cars, then maybe Palin fans could avoid bugging me about my Obama car magnet.  Not to mention, some guy already ran a father and his daughter off the road for having an Obama sticker on their car, BEFORE Palin made that statement, so she’s basically inciting violence (again).

But then, today, I saw some bumper stickers on a Subaru that made me want to flag the drivers down and ask them if they wanted to be BFFS.  I saw this on my way home:

Because that’s a crappy phone picture I took all stalker style (I blurred out the license plate so as not to be too stalkeriffic), I’ll tell you what some of the stickers say: “Pro-child, Pro-Family, Pro-Choice” “Vaginas” “Uppity Women Unite” and “My kid has more chromosomes than yours.” SC, I probably don’t need to tell you, is quite a red state. So seeing a bunch of feminist and disability activist stickers on a car is rare and rather heartwarming for this bleeding heart liberal.  I wish I could have pulled up alongside and waved and told the driver, “Hi, your stickers rule!”  But the traffic didn’t allow.  I sure hope that Subaru driver doesn’t get accosted by Sarah Palin fans, but if they do, I have a feeling they can handle it.

Just in case any of you get accosted by a Sarah Palin fan who wants to know how that “hopey changey thing is workin out for ya,” you can check out this handy list of awesome hopey changey things Obama has done in the past year or so in office.  Then you can say, “Well, it’s workin’ out pretty darn well, actually!”  And then you can feel like another sticker I saw in a parking deck today– like a Righteous Babe (or Dude):

what’s with the food stamp hipster outrage?

Image of a Depression Era soup line via the Google LIFE photo archive.

A Salon piece called Hipsters on Food Stamps has provoked a lot of outrage, most of it pretty hilarious to me.  It seems that people on food stamps just can’t catch a break.  First they’re stereotyped as Escalade-driving “Welfare Queens” who have the audacity to buy chips and sodas and other unhealthy food with their government benefits.  Now we’re mad that this recession has put young professionals out of work, they’re on food stamps, and they have the gall to buy fresh, organic produce with their benefits? (For a great response, see this piece by an actual “hipster” on food stamps.)

Personally, as someone interested in sustainable food, I’ve been heartened to see increased efforts to get people on food stamps access to healthy produce and other food, including getting farmers’ markets to accept food stamps.  A major reason people in poverty have higher rates of obesity is a lack of access to fresh and healthy food in poorer communities.  Instead of scoffing at people who buy eggplant with food stamps, we should be glad that they’re eating in a way that is good for themselves (which holds down health costs for everyone) and the planet.

Food stamps, contrary to popular belief, actually put money INTO the economy.  People use food stamps to buy food, which puts money in the pockets of store owners and allows them to create jobs.  The U.S. Department of Agriculture calculates that for every $5 of food-stamp spending, there is $9.20 of total economic activity.  In fact, food stamps are a more effective, faster-acting, and direct economic stimulus than tax cuts.  The next time you think that, “as a taxpayer,” you’re entitled to judge the food choices of any individual on food stamps, you should remember that they don’t owe you anything, they don’t really cost you anything, and if anything, their benefits are benefiting your community too.

In addition, I often wonder if people who criticize the choices of people on any form of government benefits have ever had to rely on government benefits themselves.  I didn’t know much about government benefits until I became unemployed in fall 2008.  When I was laid off, I applied for unemployment benefits, and was shocked to realize just how meager my monthly “wage” would be on unemployment.  It didn’t even begin to cover COBRA to replace the health insurance I lost along with my job, for example.  If I had not been married to someone who remained employed, I would not have been able to afford to house and feed myself.  While people may point to a few people who manage to “milk the system,” the vast majority of people on any sort of government benefits truly need them, and are barely squeaking by.  Yesterday I saw someone claim that there are Medicaid recipients who drive Escalades and have iPhones.  I mentioned this to my husband, who sees many Medicaid patients as a pediatrician, and he laughed at how far-fetched the idea is.  Are there some people who may live like that and still draw Medicaid benefits? I’m sure you could find a few. But it’s worth remembering that this is not the average.

I know the current populist rage seems to be pitting “working people” against the entire rest of the country.  I just pray that instead of begrudging the benefits of our neighbors who are dealing with hard times, we could think for a minute that we’re lucky we, ourselves, don’t need them right now, and be grateful that such a safety net is there if we need it, because we never know when we might.

freedom and independence are not the only American values

Just for fun, I'm illustrating this with a pic of me pretending to be a Tea Partier in the Smithsonian gift shop. The fact that I carry Jasmine Green Tea around in my purse probably reveals that I'm really an elitist liberal.

My friend Adam posted a great link to his Facebook today.  It’s an open letter to the Tea Partiers by John H. Richardson in Esquire. Many of these protesters, opposed to what they call “big government” like to claim that things like health care are part of “big government,” are antithetical to American values, and are perhaps even unconstitutional.

Claims like those make me wonder if perhaps these patriotic protesters somehow missed US history.  Taking care of each other, interdependence, and community spirit are founding American values.  Most of our early colonies were founded as “commonwealths,” where the good of everyone was considered crucial to the good of the colony.  According to the Esquire piece:

Way back in colonial times, Americans spent between “10 and 35 percent of all municipal funds” on what was then called “relief,” according to Walter I. Trattner’s standard textbook on the subject, From Poor Law to Welfare State: A History of Social Welfare in America. Aid to the poor and sick was the largest single government expense, providing crucial sustenance to the widows and orphans of the Indian wars, the survivors of epidemics, starving immigrants, and a surprising number of abandoned bastard children (during the Revolutionary era, between a third and 50 percent of all first children were illegitimate — take that, nostalgists of family values!).

I’d also add that a democracy is only ever as strong as its citizens.  Only people who are free from basic want, secure from preventable disease, protected in the event of catastrophic illness, and ensured a basic level of education and employment are able to be the kind of citizens who can participate fully in a system of representative democracy.  Our constitution’s preamble asserts that the purpose of the document and the government it establishes includes a responsibility to “provide for the general welfare.”  It is for this reason that our founders, notably John Adams (who is my favorite and for whom I am crusading for a monument in Washington D.C., although that is a subject for another post), were so adamant that public education be a cornerstone of our democracy (which is why I am personally very passionate about the subject of public education and not a huge fan of private or home school, though of course people should have those as choices).  I see public health as an extension of that concept.  If medicine had been more of an established science at the time of our nation’s founding, I’m sure providing for the public health would have been more explicitly mentioned. (As an aside, I’d encourage any vaccine doubters to see the John Adams miniseries and observe what a miracle early innoculation was for this nation.)

The bottom line is, for all the rugged individual John Wayne-iness of this nation, there’s an equal tradition of people coming together to create communities dedicated to the good of all.  We can’t be the shining city on the hill if our image is tarnished by people in this great nation unable to access even basic medical care, with people always at risk of poverty and homelessness if a catastrophic illness should befall them or a loved one.

I sure hope we get a vote on a final health care reform bill this week.  Bills have already passed the House and the Senate, and now we just need those two bodies to come together to get something passed for President Obama to sign.

I’m a two-partier

Gotta love a Flight of the Conchords reference. Image is available on a tshirt from snorgtees.com

Today, I posted a link to my Facebook, encouraging friends to check out the New York Times‘ story on the Tea Party (I’m using great restraint here to type Tea Party instead of my preferred Teabagger) Movement.  In linking to the piece, I wrote, “An interesting piece. I’m still hoping that these people won’t destroy the Republican party (I think we need two functional parties for democracy to function) or the country.” A friend (whom I respect! and like!) left this comment: “I’ve got to disagree with you. I’m with Evan Bayh: the 2 party partisan system is killing America. Most people don’t adhere 100% to one side or another. There is definitely room for a Centrist movement.”  Which is when I took to my blog to explain why I think a two-party system is crucial to the American way of government, and life. (I am leaving aside the part about how I think Evan Bayh is a hypocrite, a dirty rotten traitor, a selfish slimebag, and utterly in the pocket of big companies like Wellpoint.)

I got my college degree in both English and Political Science.  As such, I’ve had the wonderful opportunity to take comparative government.  It was in this class that I learned that our Founders (look at me! talking about the Founders like a Tea Partier! let me fetch my tricorn hat!) very deliberately chose a two-party system.  More than anything, the Founders feared tyranny, and they believed that factionalism (we might say extremism) was the major cause of tyranny.  In crafting a two party system in which the majority rules, our Founders created a system that would tend toward centrism.  Each party would have to play toward the middle in order to secure the majority they needed to govern.  In trying to secure a majority of voters, each party would have to tend toward moderation.

In contrast, look at governments that have more than two parties.  I seem to remember my professor (himself a conservatve/libertarian, and yet my favorite in college) pointing at Italy as a particularly grievous example of the problem of more-than-two-party systems.  In these systems, any party that can secure a bare minimum of votes is rewarded with seats in the legislature.  This means that each party plays to its own small audience, and their specific needs and beliefs, in order to win their votes.  If they don’t, those voters can simply choose from among a plethora of possible parties.  In turn, with each party that can secure a bare minimum of votes being rewarded with seats, multiple parties have to form coalitions in order to govern– a coalition will elect the leader of the legislature and decide on committee heads, for example.  While these coalitions might sound great in theory, they have a tendency to fall apart regularly, with each party holding the whole process hostage to get what they want, or leaving the coalition and forcing new elections if they don’t.  Multi-party systems lead to every party playing toward the fringes, NOT centrism.

So this is why I believe a two-party system is the only way to centrism and moderation.  I may not always personally LIKE the slow, incremental, glacial pace of change that results from a two party system, but it’s nothing compared to the gridlock that results in systems with more parties.  The only reason I’d vote third-party is to teach my own party a lesson.  And here’s where I break faith with the folks waving tea bags: I think that the current Democratic party is pretty darn centrist.  Most of the proposals of the dreaded health care reform package, for example, are things Republicans were proposing back in the Clinton years.  If anything, I find the Democratic party too moderate, and might consider voting Green Party in order to teach them a lesson about abandoning their Progressive base.

(I feel like I just took a test in one of Dr. Gitz’s classes. Give me an A!)

Brown’s got me down, let them eat cake

Image via the Washington Post.

So a Republican won Teddy Kennedy’s seat in the Senate last night.  This kills the Democrats’ 60 seat super majority, though it’s worth reminding people that they still have a majority, and only 51 votes are needed to pass legislation– I saw a few people claiming on Twitter last night that the Republicans now “control” the Senate, which is completely untrue.  They’re just now able to filibuster more easily, meaning it will be easier for them to waste everyone’s time keeping the Senate from voting on things.  I’d like to remind the 59 remaining Democrats that Bush got more done with less of a majority than they have now, so I expect them to get shit done anyway, even without Coakley.  Of course, knowing what spineless wretches the Democrats, particularly the Blue Dogs, are, I don’t have a whole lot of hope.  Which brings me to a wonderful post by Ezra Klein on what Teddy Kennedy would say to the Democrats.  Ezra writes:

For now, it’s worth observing that a Democratic Party that would abandon their central initiative this quickly isn’t a Democratic Party that deserves to hold power. If they don’t believe in the importance of their policies, why should anyone who’s skeptical change their mind? If they’re not interested in actually passing their agenda, why should voters who agree with Democrats on the issues work to elect them? A commitment provisional on Ted Kennedy not dying and Martha Coakley not running a terrible campaign is not much of a commitment at all.

Exactly.