Hanging By a Thread

Love Wins {Marriage Equality in MN}

And then there were 12

I had just parked at the library. The boys had unbuckled and were bouncing around the van, ready to go pick out some books. I decided to check Facebook one more time to see if the MN Senate had voted yet.

The first five or so posts that met me as I scrolled through my stream immediately told me that Minnesota had indeed passed the Marriage Equality Bill (which Gov. Dayton will sign today), allowing for gay marriage in our state.

I happily announced it to the boys. I explained once again what that meant for the people of our state. And tears flowed from my eyes.

The boys said, "Why are you crying? You're already married." They asked me, "Why are you sad?"

I explained that they were tears of joy. And yes, while their dad and I are already married, this law will mean that many loving, devoted couples can now be married, as we are, if they so choose.

I couldn't help but think of our friends and family who are affected by laws that discriminate against them and their loved ones. I couldn't help but think of all of those who feel liberated and empowered by this new law. I couldn't help but think of the future generations and what this law will mean to them.

Marital Status

This law has nothing to do with sexual relations. This law is about the basic rights of a married couple both in life and in death. This law is about giving adults of sound mind, regardless of sexual orientation, the right to marry whom they choose. This law is about giving couples basic rights regarding insurance coverage, hospital visits and medical information, testamentary rights, tax status and deductions, and more. This is a legal distinction; this is a human rights distinction.

People can live together, sleep together and spend their lives together without a marriage certificate, so long as they choose to and are of legal age. That wouldn't change whether this law had passed or not.

In addition to the legal rights afforded by this law, what changes is the legitimacy of these relationships from the perspective of others. The level of commitment won't change for the couple who has devoted the last 20 years to each other, regardless of legal marital status, but it will change the way the world views them. They will be married; they will be connected in the eyes of the state; they will be one unit for all to know and recognize.

Marital Injustices

It wasn't that long ago that the issue being discussed and legislated was marriage between a white person and a person of color.

In Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court case that made inter-racial marriage possible in every state, Justice Earl Warren wrote, "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

Yes, Justice Warren was specifically discussing racial discrimination, but in so many ways, we're talking about the same thing. Opponents of Marriage equality among gay couples fear that it will ruin the institution of marriage; that it will hurt our kids and damage our country's morals. Opponents of inter-racial marriages made of a lot of those same arguments.

The Scoop

I'll tell you what hurts our kids and damages our country... It's hate and fear and closed hearts and minds. It's the idea that one group knows what's best for another group. It's failing to love each other regardless of our differences and our similarities and in spite of them.

And so it was with tears of joy and gratitude and pride that my Christian, hetero-sexual, happily-married-to-a-man, heart swelled with rainbow-colored pride when I heard the news that MN had just become the 12^th state in the U.S. giving all adult couples the option of marriage! Thank you, MN Legislators!

I will respect your opinion, even if I don't agree. Will you respect mine? Over and out...

Anna

Sticky Messes: Good Guys v. Bad Guys {Biggest Gun Wins}

Cleaning up Messes

My kids are really good at making huge messes. They don't mean to; they're just busy playing, creating some playscape or making confetti or trying to help by pouring their own juice or milk.

The result is something sticky covering the floor, splattered on the counter and cabinets and inevitably on the boys themselves, bits of paper everywhere, pillows, blankets and stuffed animals scattered throughout the house, draping over this or that, pulling down lamps and picture frames.

I know I should make them clean up these disaster zones, but I know from experience generally their version of cleaning up a mess only results in bigger messes that make me a steaming, angry, stressed out mom; which is another type of mess altogether.

So, I banish them from the desecrated area, and I clean up the mess. They do have to clean up toys scattered about; it's just these sticky, dirty, destructive messes that I take over.

Yes, I know. You're shaking your head and thinking. "That's the way to spoil them and make them think they can get away with anything."

Perhaps, but it keeps me sane, and avoids the chance of a headline like this, "Mom loses mind, runs screaming from home, never to be heard from again after sons attempt to clean up spilled apple juice with down comforter, only to rip seam and allow all the feathers to float through house, adhering to all sticky surfaces covered in apple juice, including the boys and a giant dog."

Sometimes it's just better to step in and take control of a smaller, still fixable mess before it becomes a giant, sticky, slippery slope heading straight down the tubes.

Guns in Schools

A few days before Christmas I happened to see a newspaper headline, "NRA leader urges armed guards in every U.S. school." Surely not.

I read more. "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," says NRA executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre. Hmmmm.

While I agree that gunmen on rampages who seem to all too often end up in schools of some level is a definite problem, I don't agree that throwing more guns into the mix is the answer.

The NRA's current plan is like standing to the side and watching my sons spill a gallon of apple juice all over the counter, the floor, the cabinets and themselves as they attempt to pour a small amount into a child-sized cup, then letting them clean it up with the socks on their feet and whatever else they can find to sop of the sticky liquid, leaving the residue behind to collect hair and dust and dirt, turning the whole thing into a filthy mess.

That doesn't solve or teach anything.

I realize that there are a number of schools in large cities that already have trained armed guards/off-duty police officers patrolling the halls, approximately one-third of public schools or 23,000 schools to be precise. I acknowledge this is necessary to keep the students in those schools safe, but I do not find this statistic to be an acceptable standard for schools.

Good Guys v. Bad Guys

This figure alone speaks volumes about the state of our country and the culture we live in. It saddens me to no end. But this proposed "solution" from the NRA enrages my faculties, breaks my heart and frightens me.

More guns, especially guns of the caliber and capacity that match those that the "bad guys" have access to do not belong in our schools. What lesson does this teach? The "bad guys" have big guns; well, the "good guys" will just get bigger guns.

Where does it end? Why stop at schools? How about movie theaters, churches, all government buildings, federal, state and city, malls, parks, the grocery store, libraries, parking garages, and every other public building? Perhaps it should be mandatory that every household owns an assault rifle. That ought to stop the "bad guys."

Of course, if we're all running around with guns all the time, that might make it difficult to tell the "bad guys" from the "good guys." Then what would the NRA propose?

Better Laws

I don't have all the answers, but I feel certain that adding more high powered weapons to our warped society is NOT the answer.

I am not advocating for all guns to be ripped from lawful gun owners' tight grasp. But I do support bans on assault rifles and high-capacity ammunition clips; weapons that belong only on a battlefield, if anywhere at all; weapons that can wipe out a great number of people in a few short seconds; weapons capable of ripping gaping holes in bodies and exploding through flesh and vital organs.

Weapons of this nature go far beyond hunting and "protecting" your home and family. If you oppose this type of ban, please explain to me the need for such devastating weapons.

Of course, bans are not the only aspects to be considered. Historically, horrible killing sprees that have taken place in schools, malls, churches, offices and theaters are carried out by people who have a mental illness of some sort. Therefore, mental illnesses, detection and treatment are also issues to be considered.

The Scoop

Call me naïve, but I don't want to live in a world where "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." And I just don't think we have to live in such a world...if we wake up and proactively start dealing with this issue.

The current gun laws are not adequate. We don't necessarily need more laws, but better laws. I challenge our lawmakers to disregard the powerful, $12-billion-dollar-a-year gun industry and its puppet, the NRA and find a way that protects our citizens' safety and rights. Over and out...

Anna

Love: This Little Light of Mine, I’m Gonna Let it Shine

LOVE

True LOVE

Real LOVE

Deep as an Ocean

All encompassing

Love does not conform; Love won't be stopped by laws

LOVE does not Discriminate; LOVE understands; LOVE Forgives

LOVE Survives

Love Heals

Love Saves

God is

LOVE

As we near this year's very heated, passionate election day, please take a moment to remember to Love your neighbors, your friends, your family regardless of what they believe or advocate for or who they vote for or whose signs are firmly planted in their yards.

Love is the most important thing we have. Live by example; let your love be a roaring fire that shines out for the world to see; don't hide it under a bushel. Love is not shameful. Over and out...

Anna

Eats, Shoots and Leaves or Eats Shoots and Leaves? {That’s the Debate}

Whose Right to Bear Arms?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

That is the 2^nd Amendment of the United States Constitution, as passed by Congress in late 1791.

It was a different time back then. I don't think anyone can argue with that. But that's about all we, as a country, can agree on when it comes to this 27 word sentence.

On Monday, there was another tragic shooting; this one in College Station, Texas. There were 2 people killed and several injured by a disgruntled home owner, as a city constable attempted to serve an eviction notice.

In our world of violence, it would be easy to pass this tragedy off and say, "well, it was only two people….this time." But to those two persons' friends and families, this is the worst news story they have ever heard.

Just a little over a week ago, a man went to a Sikh Temple during Sunday morning worship and opened fire, killing 6 people.

And less than a month ago, a man went into a dark movie theater and killed 12 people.

Of course, in each of these instances, there were people injured, as well.

When does this violence end?

The Governor's Rationale

After the College Station shooting, I read a long, rambling quote from Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, in which stated his argument for people's right to own and carry guns. Here is part of that quote,

"And Texas I will suggest to you by and large a majority of them, a large majority of them believe that law abiding men and women should be able to have their weapons and the criminals are never going to listen to the law, they're always gonna have weapons, whatever source they want, whether they're legal or illegal. And I think it's wise for the people of the state of Texas to be able to defend themselves when there is a law breaker that comes into their midst with a weapon."

I'll concede Perry two points: 1) He's probably right that most Texans feel this way; and 2) criminals are always going to find a way to get a weapon, and they don't care what the laws say.

But I think his reasoning is flawed.

Law Abiding Mass Murderers

If you think back over the years of all the terrible, senseless shootings in our country, you will find that most of these ruthless, selfish murderers had obtained their guns and ammunitions lawfully and were not breaking any laws by owning guns as they, themselves, were not lawbreakers until the very day they took multiple lives during their respective rampages.

The shootings are not committed by gang members, assassins, petty crooks or hardened criminals. Most often, these people are quite intelligent, but delusional or mentally unstable and fueled by hate for certain groups of people. Often these types of people are dismissed as quiet loners or quirky characters, but no one would ever have expected this person to do what he eventually does.

These types know how to go about obtaining guns and ammunitions legally; they plot and plan and wait and stock up. They are people who are protected by the 2^nd Amendment as it is interpreted today.

A Militia State?

Secondly, I'd like to point out that in none of these instances that I am aware of was the assailant shot by a regular Joe who just happened along upon a murderous scene and who happened to be packing heat, taking advantage of his 2^nd Amend. right, as the good governor from Texas would argue might happen if we are allowed to possess and carry guns.

Along that same line, I'm a bit confused by Perry's statement: "And I think it's wise for the people of the state of Texas to be able to defend themselves when there is a law breaker that comes into their midst with a weapon."

Is Perry suggesting that Texas is a militia state? A state where a body of citizens is armed and trained by the state that can take law enforcement into its own hands? Surely not.

Stand Your Ground

Of course things didn't quite work out this way for George Zimmerman of FL when he lawfully owned and carried a gun for protection in a neighborhood that had been repeatedly struck by thieves and home invasions. Zimmerman acted as Captain of the Neighborhood Watch and claims he acted in self defense under Florida's Stand Your Ground Law the night he shot and killed an unarmed young man. And yet, he is now standing trial for his actions.

Stand Your Ground laws do indeed protect those who "use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat, without an obligation to retreat first." Under these laws, a person could even use deadly force without a duty to retreat, in some cases; and in those cases, these laws would be considered a defense or immunity against criminal charges or civil suits.

However, clearly sometimes a person might make a mistake about when he could legally use his gun and when he is breaking the law himself.

My point is that do we really want people carrying guns everywhere they go and making a split second decision whether what they think they are seeing is really what's going on? I think not, but I know this sentiment is not agreed upon across the board.

The Scoop

The problem is all in the way it was written and passed out to the states and eventually ratified by those states. It's only slightly different than the original version passed by Congress; but the difference is enough to make interpretation a bit dicey.

Here is the way the states' version is written and was subsequently ratified as:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Do you see the difference? It may appear subtle, but it makes a big difference. In fact, it's why there is such a debate over exactly what the right was intended to protect. If only there had been copying machines in 1791.

And lastly, when the 2^nd Amendment was written and passed, guns that could fire off hundreds of explosive rounds in a matter of minutes couldn't even be imagined, much less a machine that would make exact duplications of a piece of legislation. Over and out…

Anna

On Fried Chicken and Casting Stones

Framing the Issue

This has NOTHING to do with fried chicken.

I have been mulling this over in my mind for a long time trying to find the right words to address this topic.

When we go to the polls in November, the voters in my state will be asked to make a number of important decisions. One of those questions regards an amendment to our state constitution concerning the definition of marriage within MN.

This topic has gripped our nation in recent months based on various ballot questions, the presidential election and the prospect of court rulings from the highest courts in the country in the coming year or two.

What am I talking about? Well, if you haven't figured it out yet, I'm referring to same-sex marriage. For the record, I am a heterosexual female and I'm married to a heterosexual male, but this debate coursing through our country has me steaming. So, why do I care?

For me, there are multiple layers to this issue.

Fueled by Fear

I don't generally argue about religious issues here on Motherly Law, but for me this discussion has absolutely nothing to do with religion. For me, this is a legal issue, just like other laws that regulate who can and cannot marry, when, where and why.

However, for some people this is a religious issue. What I can't figure out is where in the world these people got the idea that God would want them to use His name in this hateful, fear-based argument against other human beings.

What is clear to me is that this is exactly that: a hateful rant born out of fear and misunderstanding.

I ask you, do you know any same-sex couples? Well, I do, and you know what? They are exactly like "opposite-sex" couples. That's right. They casually chat with each other over a quiet dinner; they argue over whose turn it is to do the dishes or take out the trash or get up with the crying baby; they share inside jokes; they take their kids to the park; they buy groceries; they go to church on Sunday; they live their lives just like any other family in the neighborhood.

Fear of "these people" corrupting our kids and our "family values" is misplaced.

And for the record, I have known a number of "opposite-sex" couples who should have never been allowed to get married; who made a mess of their marriage; who destroyed their families; who certainly stained our idea of "family values"; some of these people are church-going, God-fearing people...for the record.

Historical Instances of Suppressing Rights

From a historical and legal review, I would ask you to think about all the laws that have sought to restrict the rights of other groups of people and have eventually been rectified and those laws amended or overturned in court. Two groups that certainly come to my mind are women and black people.

For far too many years a woman's rights to vote, to hold certain positions, get paid an equal amount for the same work, own property and make decisions concerning her own body were held in check by laws; laws made by white men. And for the record, women's suffrage was considered a religious issue in that fight too; it would ruin "family values" and all...for the record.

Our country felt so strongly about whether white men had the right to control, nay...own other human beings and treat them as property, as the laws referred to slaves, simply because their skin was darker than the men who made the laws, that our divided nation went to war to resolve this issue.

It may have taken hundreds of years, but we have finally reconciled these wrongs. We have finally recognized the rights of all human beings...oh wait. That's right. We are now fighting hard not to allow two adults who love each other the right to get married and raise a family as a married couple with all the rights a married couple has.

From a different legal perspective, many of the laws we have on our books are there to protect people from physical or mental harm, protect their property and be sure that basic human rights are not quashed. Laws are not intended to harm a particular group of people who believe something different than the majority or single out people of a certain creed simple because some of the people in the country don't understand or agree with their beliefs or lifestyle choices.

A legal union between two consenting adults of full mental capacity, regardless of gender, national origin, religion, etc. is a basic right that harms no one, at least in my book. How would you feel if your right to marry your spouse was suddenly in question?

The Scoop

You know, as I ponder this hateful rhetoric, I think that perhaps the real fear is that same-sex couples do act like "traditional" couples. I think the real fear is that "they" raise families like the rest of "us"; "they" are just like "us" when it comes to spousal duties, in-laws, career aspirations, planning the summer vacation, etc. And if "they" are like "us" then what? I think this elicits fear of the unknown for some people.

I would liken this fear to the uncomfortable, uneasy feelings that predominated white families as minority families began moving into "their" neighborhoods years ago. While most neighborhoods and communities are quite multi-cultural now and that fear has greatly subsided, the original prejudice was based on ignorance and misunderstanding of each other's cultures and values.

If we could all be loving, peaceful and kind to one another, as the Bible teaches us, then we would get along, learn from each other and live happily ever after. While that is clearly not possible, at least not yet, I suggest that we all follow the advice of Jesus found in John 8:7 when Jesus said,

If any of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone...

This was in reference to a woman who had been caught committing adultery; a crime punishable by stoning. And in case you don't know the rest of the story, not one of the men present cast a stone at her or condemned her, especially not Jesus.

The point is, we have all sinned in various ways, and it's not for us to judge each other's actions and decisions and determine what's a sin and what's not and how each sin ranks on a scale 1-10.

This has NOTHING to do with fried chicken. We're talking about people, just like you and me.

And for the record, this is my opinon; a view I have a right to express thanks to our Constitution. What's your opinion? Over and out...

Anna

For more about this topic from me, please read: There's a Storm a Brewin' in Minnesota: NOH8MN

Less Than Perfect Behavior: Temporary Orders

While we were visiting Texas, we celebrated Darling 1's birthday. My sister-in-law had gotten a gift for Darling 2, as well, since his birthday is in a few months and it would be easier on her to give it to him now in-person and easier on him to receive it now while his brother was getting lots of gifts; it's hard to understand these kinds of things when you're still a little guy.

Well, Darling 2 knew about this gift, and he wanted to open it right away because he's 3 and impatient with a single-focus when there are presents to be had.

Darling 2 didn't care about the schedule of the evening or the reasoning behind waiting. All he knew is that he wanted that gift. Darling 2 felt angry and distraught and powerless in his situation; and he couldn't think of anything else.

As the evening advanced, he became more and more difficult and more and more upset knowing there was something he wanted in that bag, but wasn't able to have it until someone in charge gave the OK.

Eventually, he got to open that present and was ecstatic to find a Transformer. He quickly forgot the agony he had been in having to wait to get what he wanted once he had.

Well, adults can behave this way too.

Often, when a marriage has come to an end, but no formal divorce proceedings have begun, the once couple, now two separate beings have a single-focus of getting out of the marriage and holding on to whatever dear is left whether it's the kids, the house, pets, grandma's china, the big screen TV or a big bank account. And often, both spouses feel angry, sad and powerless in their situations.

That's not a good place to be. It's a confusing time and sometimes the result is a whole lot of...inaction. Perhaps, each person is waiting on the other to make a move; or worried that the other will act faster and more aggressively than the other; or just plain stuck, not knowing where to go next.

Many times once a couple has decided that marriage is no longer an option for them, the concern turns to custody and finances. There are questions about who will pay the mortgage, the insurance, the bills, etc. And if there are children involved the biggest tension point is most often who will the kids live with and who will pay child support and how much, etc.

The easiest and best way to answer all these questions is to get a Temporary Order in place once one party has filed a petition for dissolution of marriage.

A Temporary Order is a court order that establishes temporary custody of children and visitation schedules, amounts of spousal support and/or child support; ensures that valuable assets won't be sold; allows for who will be living in the home, paying the bills, etc. This order can remain in force until it is amended at a subsequent hearing or until the Divorce Decree is filed and takes the place of the Temporary Order.

Once the petition for dissolution is filed and one spouse is moving out, the two spouses can decide these issues on their own and then present it to the court for approval or if the two are unable to come to an agreement about these key issues, the court will decide these matters, at least on a temporary basis.

So, if you find yourself feeling powerless and confused as you face divorce and are concerned about what will happen when your spouse moves out or whether your spouse will drop you from the insurance policy or who will be responsible for making house or car or credit card payments and most importantly how will the children be taken care of, by whom and where, then you should promptly contact an attorney about filing a petition for dissolution and getting a temporary order in place.

The Temporary Order involves filing a few documents, answering some questions, working out a few things with your soon to be ex-spouse or leaving it all up to a judge and agreeing to abide by this court order until further notice. *Exact details vary by jurisdiction. Over and out...

Anna

Bad Hair Day: A Mixed Message {Conform/Be Unique}

Jams

I'm a rule follower for the most part. I hate to get into trouble. That may surprise some of you because I often tend to be sassy, bossy and the rule-breaking type here on ML.

The truth is that I have a rebellious, standing-my-ground side and a strict rule-follower side. Somehow those two sides of me have co-existed for almost 38 years.

When I was in junior high, I'm sorry to say that jams were in style. Do you remember jams; the brightly colored over-sized shorts made of wild patterned fabric? Well, we were allowed to wear those hideous shorts to school on certain spirit days, as long as the hem reached to the knees.

I wore them, but I was always worried I'd be called to the office to check for jams length. An absurd concern, I'm sure, but nonetheless, I did. Other apparel and accessory rules I was aware of back in the late 80s and early 90s: no sweats, flip-flops or shorts or skirts shorter than knee length, no combs in back pockets or stuck in hair and no tank tops. I strictly adhered to these rules.

No Self Expression Allowed

I recently read two articles involving hairstyles and school rules. Each very different in style and geography. And as apt as I was to follow the rules of the school, I have to say if it had been my child in either of these stories, I would have fought the school on it.

In this first situation, a 12 year old Texas middle school student was told to shave his head or get an in-school suspension after he had a hairstylist shave the image of San Antonio Spurs player, Matt Bonner, into the back of his hair.

It was an impressive creation. The haircut cost him $75, and it clearly depicts the head of a basketball player about to shoot a basketball.

The school deemed it a distraction and threatened suspension. Never mind that it was an interesting self-expression; never mind that there were only a few days of school left; never mind that it surely wouldn't cause a ruckus at school. I just can't imagine that it could be such a distraction to the students that they couldn't focus on the teacher or their school work. That seems preposterous to me.

Bonner suggested the teachers just move him to the back of the classroom if the back of the boys' head became the star attraction. Gonzales did reluctantly shave his head in order to return to school, but on a positive note, the Spurs gave boy and his family tickets to the playoff game.

Going GaGa for Nothin'

In the second hair related story, a young girl was banned from her school class photo because of her hairstyle. Four year old, Marcella Merino, a British primary student, asked her father, a professional hairstylist to make her look like a princess for her class photo. The result was a Lady GaGa meets Minnie Mouse design. Her hair was transformed into a bow on the top of her head; a tasteful and creative style. And I must admit, she looked really cute, not inappropriate at all.

The school banned her from the photo saying she had violated school dress rules. The dress code requires that hair ribbons be only maroon, black or navy blue and prohibits braids or beads.

Now, really, her hair isn't braided or beaded and the bow isn't made of ribbon, but is her hair. Not sure she actually broke any of the rules.

The Scoop

Both of these situations made me think. If we focus so much on a person's self expression and outward appearance, we're more than likely missing a great deal more.

We tell our kids you can be anyone you want to be; you can do anything you can imagine; think outside the box; be your own person; dream big! But then, we turn around and say conform; don't make a scene; don't be outrageous; don't be different or unique; dress and style your hair like everyone else or you might be a distraction to your friends and classmates and that will spell trouble.

Seems like a mixed message to me. I know there are limits, but these two cases are a far reach from being inappropriate regarding decency issues or infringing on other's rights.

These scenarios are reminiscent of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District from 1969, in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that students and teachers do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. Over and out...

Anna

A Holy War: When Women’s Health Care Becomes Collateral Damage

Narrow-Minded Fools

There are a few things that make my blood boil; one being the stupidity of narrow-minded buffoons. Many such people also go by the title Senator, Representative, Governor or Presidential Candidate and associate themselves with the Republican Party. In this instance, I am specifically referring to the stupidity of such buffoons who hail from the Great State of Texas; my home state, I'm sorry to say.

This issue should not be politically motivated; it is. This issue certainly should not be religiously motivated; it most certainly is. This issue should be about health and humanity; sadly, it is not.

Perhaps I've missed something, but the last time I checked abortions were still legal. And yet, in Texas and other states run by narrow-minded fools, medical clinics serving women, most of which are not performing abortions, are losing funding by the millions and being forced to close all in the name of "Pro-Life."

Guilty By Association

A great number of these clinics are Planned Parenthood. These clinics screen for breast cancer and cervical cancer, perform pap smears, counsel adolescents about abstinence and provide infertility guidance, prescribe free birth control pills, and other routine care; they do not perform abortions. In Texas, clinics that perform abortions are already barred from collecting government funding.

The decision to take away funding is based purely on the fact that the conservative base is so obsessed with abortions. So, the right wing politicians continue to focus on ways to block women from access to an abortion, even if it means leaving hundreds of thousands of women without medical care for health-related issues that have nothing to do with abortions; and regardless of the fact that abortions are still legal procedures.

In a New York Times article, Wayne Christian, a Republican state representative for District 9 in East Texas, is quoted as saying, "I don't think anybody is against providing health care for women. What we're opposed to are abortions...Planned Parenthood is the main organization that does abortions. So we kind of blend being anti-abortion with being anti-Planned Parenthood."

In essence, what Mr. Christian is saying is that because they are waging a moral war against abortions, clinics closing and thousands of women being left without medical care is just collateral damage that can't be helped.

We aren't talking about a non-profit, pro-life organization taking aim at clinics or organizations that perform abortions; we're talking about elected officials of the Texas State Legislature. But I guess this most recent move shouldn't be surprising.

Since the historic 1973 Texas case of Roe v. Wade made abortion legal, the Texas legislature has passed a number of laws regarding abortions in order to make it as difficult as possible to obtain this legal procedure. But now they are trying to hit clinics that serve low-income residents where it hurts most; their budgets.

Losing Federal Funding

On Friday, the U.S. Health and Human Services Sec. Kathleen Sebelius announced that the Texas law cutting off funding to Planned Parenthood because some of the clinics in that network perform abortions violates federal Medicaid regulations that require women to be allowed to choose where they go for health care. Sec. Sebelius noted that Texas had been warned of the repercussions of passing this law and enforcing it. The law goes into effect this week and the federal funding for the Women's Health Program will now be withheld from Texas based on this law.

At this time, the federal government pays 90% of the cost of this Medicaid-financed program in Texas that aids about 130,000 women. Gov. Perry's office issued a statement saying that the state will somehow cover the amount lost by the federal government to enable women to get care, but was not specific about which clinics or type of care would qualify for such funding.

If the conservative base has it their way, it's going to get worse for these clinics that largely rely on government funding to serve underprivileged women. Republicans across the country are targeting Title X.

Title X is where most of the federal funding for family planning comes from. These funds provide cervical and breast cancer screening, testing for HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases, adolescent abstinence counseling, infertility counseling and other services. Title X does not fund abortions and only a small part of it covers birth control costs.

Of the $300 million Title X budget, Planned Parenthood gets about a quarter of it. The remaining three-quarters of it goes to clinics, community health centers, hospitals and state agencies across the country. If Title X is done away with, it will mean more closings of clinics that help women who have few resources for health care.

Abortion Statistics

All of this in the name of eliminating abortions because some perceive it to be a moral wrong that should be policed by the government.

It's worth mentioning that over the years, the number of abortions across the nation have been decreasing for years, including those in Texas. It's also worth noting that according to the Center for Disease Control's reports, the highest percentage of reported abortions were performed on white women under 25.

In Texas, the median age of women getting abortions is 22 with 34.2% of the total number of women between 15-44 having abortions in Texas being white women and 36.3% being Hispanic, according to a report from 2006.

The Scoop

Let me clarify that I am not in favor of abortions; I know no one who is. What I am in favor of is the right for each person to decide for himself or herself what is the best path to take based on the medical options available and one's personal set of beliefs and circumstances.

I also want to be clear that I am a Christian, and I live my life based on Biblical principles and prayer, but I am also open-minded, a free thinker; some might say liberal in my thinking. This means I view the whole picture, not a small, fractured piece of the picture before making a decision.

Where the elected Texas officials have erred is allowing their personal and religious beliefs to interfere with simply aiding people who need help. In the name of Christianity and righteousness, the leaders in Texas are leaving vulnerable women exposed and without medical care.

To those who will not and cannot separate church from state, I leave you with this question to ponder: What Would Jesus Do?

I know the answer to this question. Jesus neither feared nor despised the poor, the wretched, the criminals, the misguided or the despicable; instead Jesus helped and loved all people of all backgrounds and social classes; even politicians.

I apologize if any conservative toes were stepped on, but this is my opinion and my platform for presenting my opinion. Over and out...

Anna

Restraining Facebook Comments: Two Courts & Two Outcomes

A Change of Status

About a month ago, my Dear Husband Will was closing one Facebook account and attempting to migrate all his friends, connections, information, traffic, etc. over to a different Facebook account. In so doing, before shutting down the one account he changed his relationship status from "married" to "single" as he added me as his wife on his other account.

One would not have thought this would cause such a stir, but it did. On his original account, Will immediately got messages and comments from concerned and well-meaning friends when his status showed up as "Single" in his friends' streams. Will wasn't sure why everyone was so concerned until he realized what he had done.

He quickly assured everyone we were indeed still {happily} married and quickly updated his relationship on his newer account. All of this was unbeknownst to me until I noticed that my Timeline had been updated to reflect that I had just married Will on that day in January 2012.

Again, well-meaning friends who knew better than to believe that update posted messages of congratulations under that relationship update. I had seen a notification to confirm I was married to Will and had done so, but didn't think much of it until he relayed this whole story to me.

Conversations Streams

We use Facebook to share lots of information whether good, bad, game changing, mundane, of interest to all, of interest to only a few. Some people are more laid back about their security levels and who they allow to see the information they post and how much of this information is available to people they haven't approved and granted "friend" status to yet.

People use their Facebook accounts for different reasons. Some use it as a networking tool for business. Others view it as an extension of hanging out with friends at a bar or coffee shop; friends sharing information and opinions. Some people are guarded about what type and how much information they share on this platform, even among friends. Others share just about every thought that crosses their minds; or so it seems.

Regardless of how each of us chooses to use his or her social media outlets, we are all tuned in and we listen to what our "friends" are saying. We react, respond and form opinions based on this information, as illustrated in the above example.

Harassment on Facebook

Courts are still trying to figure out how social media fits with the law. There were recently two cases involving Facebook posts; one from Minnesota and one from Ohio. These cases involve different circumstances and have different outcomes.

Olson v. LaBrie

In this case, Olson found that his uncle had posted old family photos and made mean and disrespectful comments regarding those photos. Olson emailed his uncle requesting the photos and comments be removed or altered to remove Olson; LaBrie refused to do so. Olson eventually filed an application for a Harassment Restraining Order (HRO) against LaBrie.

The district court found that LaBrie's actions did not constitute harassment and did not grant the HRO. Olson appealed and the appellate court agreed with the district court's ruling.

The Court of Appeals of Minnesota held that, "To constitute harassment, words must have a substantial adverse effect on the safety, security, or privacy of another. Minn. Stat. § 609.748, subd. 1(a)(1). Comments that are mean and disrespectful, coupled with innocuous family photos, do not affect a person's safety, security, or privacy—and certainly not substantially so."

So, in the end Facebook was not a component in this case. Regardless of where the photos and rude comments were, they simply didn't constitute harassment under the MN statute.

Byron v. Byron

In this Ohio dissolution case, the Facebook statement made by the husband against the wife who already had a temporary protection order in place due to an incident of domestic violence from June of 2011, was considered to be in violation of the TPO.

In November of 2011, Mr. Byron posted to his Facebook account the following statement: "If you are an evil, vindictive woman who wants to ruin your husband's life and take your son's father away from him completely -- all you need to do is say that you're scared of your husband or domestic partner and they'll take him away!"

Mrs. Byron became aware of this statement even though she is blocked from his account and filed a motion stating he was in violation of the TPO. The TPO restricted Mr. Byron "from causing plaintiff or the child of the parties to suffer physical and/or mental abuse, harassment, annoyance or bodily injury."

The magistrate ruled that Byron had violated the TPO and sentenced him to 60 days in jail and $500 fine or in lieu of this sentence he could pay back child support and post an apology on his Facebook page for 30 days beginning February 13, 2012. The magistrate wrote the apology into the order and required Byron keep his Facebook page active during that time.

Byron complained about free speech issues, but the magistrate reminded him that while we do have the right of free speech, there are limitations; we can't just say anything.

The Byron case is not over. This case will return to court on March 19^th. Once the case is concluded, Byron may choose to appeal the court's ruling on this and/or other grounds. This is certainly one to keep an eye on.

The Scoop

As I said, both of these involve statements made on Facebook. Both have very different outcomes. So, which one is right? Well, both could be. Each state can have different standards and different language regarding various areas of the law.

However, regardless of what the law says in your state, the rule of thumb when it comes to social media is kind of like the old adage, measure twice, cut once. That is to say, think twice before posting what's on your mind; asking yourself will this harm, offend, harass, frighten, disrespect anyone?; and then hit enter once.

We certainly do have the right to say many things and post those things on Facebook if we wish, but if it's harmful, offensive, disrespectful, etc. expect that some may block you, tell the person you are making remarks about, unfriend you on Facebook and maybe in real life too and perhaps even take the matter to court. This open forum does not give you an unfettered right to say ANYTHING that comes to mind. Over and out...

Anna

The Decision of a Life or Two or Three: What You Need to Know about Organ Donation

Checking the Box

It's not something I often think about, but every four years I briefly ponder it. It may or may not actually ever affect me, but should something happen to me or my loved ones, it will supply the clear answer to a very pressing question. The answer is a five letter word. What is this word I speak of?

On my driver's license there is a small red-lettered word. It is "Donor." It's been on my driver's license for years now when I had license issued from Texas, then Oklahoma, then Iowa and now Minnesota. It's something that as a young, teenage driver I barely thought about; honestly, the whole I idea of donating my organs was freakish to me back then.

In fact, I did not check the box for the 1^st or 2^nd license issued to me. But as I aged and gained wisdom and life experience I realized the importance of providing the gift of life, if possible.

Saving Lives

The stories are too many and all far too tragic of those who wait on the never-ending lists of organ donation. A few people are able to find matches among friends, family or strangers, but so many depend upon someone else losing a life in order to gain their lives back.

As joyous as it is for one family knowing that a loved one is being given a renewed and sustained life with the help of another's undamaged organ, it's equally devastating for someone else's family because one's gain is another loss. It's a cruel twist of fate. And yet, I imagine it can be comforting knowing that some part of their loved one is still living.

The statistics surrounding organ donation are astounding. Here are a few of them:

• 18 people will die each day waiting for an organ;
• 1 donor can save up to 8 lives;
• An avg. of 79 people receive organ donations each day;
• In 2010, 62% of living donors were women;
• In 2010, 67% of all deceased donors were White, 16% were Black, 13% were Hispanic and 2.3% were Asian

From the U.S. Govt. Information on Organ and Tissue Donation and Transportation website.

Clear Choices

Of course, there are also laws and regulations that control when and how organs can be donated. The Revised Uniform Anatomical Gift Act of 2006 made it possible for more people to be donors by allowing more family members to make such a decision when the patient can no longer do so. The RUAGA also explicitly says that no one can revoke the expressed decision to be an organ donor other than the patient. And the RUAGA provides for an organ donor registry through driver's licenses and donor cards in an attempt to increase organ donations.'

However, in doing so, the Act actually creates a conflict of interest. If a person has a donor card/driver's license designating him or her as a donor, but also has a signed directive expressly setting out end-of-life care, the donor card trumps the directive.

Organs must be "kept alive" as long as possible to continue to be viable until a transplant can be accomplished. Therefore, the Act has created this ethical issue regarding life support and "Do Not Resuscitate" orders and other medical care issues.

In 2008, the Commissioners of this Act did add revised wording to this section in an attempt to work out the kinks and resolve this problematic issue.

"Under this revised wording, if there is a conflict between the express wishes for end-of-life care and maintaining the viability of an organ for transplant, the patient-donor and the physician must confer to resolve that conflict. If the patient is incapacitated (a most likely scenario), then a patient's agent, if there is one and if "reasonably available," must resolve the conflict. Otherwise, "another person authorized by law other than" the UAGA will be asked to make that decision."

Section 21 of the RUAGA (2008).

This process must be accomplished as quickly as possible and the medical care of the patient will continue during this time to ensure medical suitability for the organs should they donated. This revised wording would seem to fix the problem, but many states that enacted the 2006 version of the UAGA have not enacted this language. {Note: Not every state has enacted the 2006 version either though.} 

This distinction is relevant only to those who have advance directives in place. If a person hasn't expressed end-of-life care wishes in a signed, notarized document, but has chosen to be a donor those are the wishes that will be honored. If a person has neither an advance directive nor a donor card, the person's agent or person designated in the RUAGA (a spouse, adult siblings, parents, adult children and grandparents) can make the final decision.

This information is not meant to discourage you from choosing to donate, rather I mean to make you aware of the issues surrounding these choices that can be discussed with loved ones, included in any advance directives and resolved before there is a need for an expeditious decision in the midst of emotion. Clarifying one's end-of-life choices is kind and considerate.

The Scoop

I, for one, do have "Donor" on my license and my loved ones know that's my choice. I always think about how I would feel as a mom if one of my boys needed an organ or tissue from a stranger and this was the only way to save his life, then I'd be praying that everyone was choosing to donate. Over and out...

Anna