My Classmate's post on Fear

I read Mondo's post on fear and I totally agree with him. And it seems that more and more politics are about causing panic than they are about fixing problems or even coming up with solutions to problems. It's as if we are all pieces in this big game of Chess. One party tells us how dangerous the other party is and how voting for them will ruin our lives and the lives of our grandchildren and then the other party comes back with even more fear based accusations. 

Mondo writes: 

" Every time we are scared, we give a little bit more of ourselves. I fear that at some point there will be nothing left that is ours to give. We live in a country where we are granted rights that others are deprived of and we are intentionally and deliberately giving them away. What better way to mock the institution of these rights? "

I agree, every time we vote based off of fear we hand over a little more power to the person we vote for. People didn't vote for Obama because they knew his plan and liked it; they voted for him because they were scared of Romney. And people weren't supporting Romney because they knew his plan and liked it; they voted for him because they were scared of Obama.

So now we are in this two party system that everyone complains about but nothing is done to change it, and we have to choose between the lesser of two evils. I hate that term. And we vote based on how much fear of the other guy we have. That fear allows us to give more and more of our freedom away in hopes that whoever we vote for will keep us safe. Safe from terrorists, safe from poverty, safe from unwanted pregnancies, safe from everything. But who will keep us safe from the Government? 

Post Election Thoughts From an Tiny Bit of the Latino Vote

After President Obama’s win this past election Republicans all scrambled to try and figure out exactly what happened. I have a lot of ideas, not that any Republicans care what I have to say, but that won’t stop me from telling Governor Perry when I am at a banquet with him tomorrow night.

One of the greatest issues that I had with the GOP this election cycle was how they talked about Hispanics. About illegal immigrants and how they spoke about the Latino voting block as if we are so dumb we can't read their columns, tweets, Facebook statuses or understand their words when they spoke in front of cameras. The whole idea that we are so dependent on the Government that Hispanics voted for Obama because he gave us “free gifts”, is so insulting. Even to me, and I’m a Hispanic Pro-life Catholic woman who didn't vote for Obama and never would. But still the GOP offended me, and they continue to do so.

Instead of thinking of the Latino vote as some kind of vote to pander to like we have no brain or education, they should begin by actually practicing what they preach when it comes to being Pro-life; all life. Not just the life of the unborn; but the life of the mother and father of that unborn child regardless if they have papers or not. 

That is part of why their anti-abortion stance does not hit home with most people, because most people can smell the BS of that stance when those same people turn around and talk about illegal immigrants like they are animals instead of like they are human lives. The same kind of human life they claim to be defending when fighting the issue of abortion.

So, if the GOP wants the suggestion of a 36 year old community college student whose grandparents where field workers, they can look no further. My suggestion is: quit being hypocrites and start treating all human beings with dignity and respect, and quit talking about the Latino vote as if we can’t understand you. We do. It would serve the GOP well to listen to Marco Rubio on this issue. 

The Facts about Planned Parenthood That We Overlook

My classmate, Katherine Turcios, wrote a blog post about Planned Parenthood. In it, she stated many commonly used  "facts" about the organization that I myself used to believe. After a lot of research for the last 2 years about Planned Parenthood, their history, their goals and their reach into our Government, I couldn't disagree with my fellow classmate more.

First is the claim that Planned Parenthood is all about sex education and healthcare services. First of all increased birth control does not lower the number of abortions. There are plenty of facts out there and I won't be repeating them, but here is a link with more information with studies and numbers for anyone that is interested. Another thing is that many of the women sitting in abortion clinics were using some form of contraception that failed. In all the sex ed classes given to kids there is never a talk about the failure rate of any or all contraception methods. There are studies out there that prove this, but the way that I learned for myself was to talk to post-abortive women. Most of them had a similar story "I was so careful, and don't know how this happened." Not only post abortive women, but I myself said those word 3 times in my life when my birth control failed. According to the Guttmacher Institute, which is the research arm of Planned Parenthood, approximately one half of unintended pregnancies end in abortion. Out of those unintended pregnancies 42% are due to non-use of contraceptives. So, that leaves 58% that are due to failed or misuse of contraceptives. Therefore giving out more contraceptives will not help lower the rate of unintended pregnancies. The fact is that kids know about birth control, they know about condoms, they are well aware of how to prevent pregnancy but for whatever reason the contraceptives fail or aren't properly used. My thought is that if a person isn't responsible enough to feed a crying baby then what makes us think they are responsible enough to properly use contraceptives?

Now let's talk about the services that Planned Parenthood offers other than abortion. Such as giving out birth control pills, cancer screenings and pap smears. According to people like my classmate and Nancy Pelosi women will not be able to get those services if Planned Parenthood doesn't have federal funds. But the fact is that there are 7,000 Federally Qualified Healthcare Centers nationally compared to only 700 Planned Parenthood clinics. They are local community clinics that provide a full comprehensive range of healthcare services for low income women and families. They offer full services including everything from birth control to pediatrics to dental care to general family doctors. You can't go to Planned Parenthood for all of those services, only for a limited range of services. In Austin the FQHC is called The LoneStar Circle of Care. I don't have insurance and that is where I go for my healthcare. So women have other options for healthcare, in fact we have better options for healthcare than Planned Parenthood.

About the 3% of Planned Parenthood's services are abortions. There are many ways that they get to that percentage, one of them being that they unbundle services. In other words abortion is 1 service and then they separate birth control, pap smear, cancer screening and pregnancy test as 4 services. So, one appointment looks like it is just one service and the other appointment looks like 4 services even though each appointment was only one client. Even NPR had to admit that 1 out of 10 Planned Parenthood clients go into the clinic for an abortion.

Finally about Planned Parenthood, this organization has a history that should make people shutter. The founder of Planned Parenthood was Margaret Sanger who was a racist eugenic who had admired Hitler. There is no way for me to really convince anyone of that, that is where someone will have to do their own research into who she was. I started by watching a movie called "Maafa 21", and going from there.

As for the issue of abortion being a woman's right to do with her body and the "thing" not feeling any of it, all I can say is that this statement proves that people do need to be educated, but instead of educating them about contraceptives, they need to learn fetal development. I saw a sonogram of my grandchild at 7 weeks and watched his/her heartbeat. If a heart beating in a fetus that has human DNA doesn't prove the person-hood of the fetus, then what does? By week 5 of gestation an embryo develops a brain and spinal cord, which is part of the central nervous system, if I'm not wrong.  At the moment of conception the zygote has his/her own DNA that will never again be repeated. That DNA will determine all of the child's sex and traits. At 10 weeks the fetus has everything he/she needs, the only thing left is to grow. At this point when a woman has an abortion by suction the fetus is suctioned out of the uterus. The fetus is vacuumed out of the uterus and torn apart. In order to make sure there are no parts of the fetus left in the woman's uterus the clinic workers have to sift out the contents of the abortion and piece together the fetus limb by limb. All anyone has to do is research former abortion clinic workers, and hear their stories of what it is like to work in one.

The reason that I am pro-life really doesn't have anything to do with being Catholic. I was pro-choice when I first became Catholic, and I planned to stay that way. In fact, the reason that I even started researching Planned Parenthood and abortion was because I wanted to work at Planned Parenthood and help people. It had nothing to do with my religion. I thought pro-lifers were nutcases. There are many other pro-lifers who used to be pro-choice and came to the conclusions that I have through research and knowledge. While I think that my classmate doesn't have any ill intentions in her opinion that Planned Parenthood should receive federal funding, I do think that she is greatly misinformed.

The Truth About the HHS Mandate and Everyone Should Pay Attention

During the Vice Presidential Debate, Joe Biden made this statement: "With regard to the assault on the Catholic Church, let me make it absolutely clear. No religious institution—Catholic or otherwise, including Catholic social services, Georgetown hospital, Mercy hospital, any hospital—none has to either refer contraception, none has to pay for contraception, none has to be a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide. That is a fact. That is a fact."

Well, that is not a fact. As Paul Ryan pointed out; if that statement holds true then why are so many Catholic institutions suing the Obama Administration? That does not seem like something that Catholics (and even some non-Catholics) would do, if in fact they were not going to be a vehicle to get contraception. The United States Council of Catholic Bishops disagreed with the Vice President'sstatement as well. At this very moment  legal cases are being heard  based on this mandate violating the religious freedom of employers.

But before any discussion of religious freedom, it is necessary to address a few issues. It is very important for people who are reading about this issue to be educated. Starting  from the beginning. Since the beginning of the Catholic Church in the first century, it has always taught against birth control and abortion. That teaching has never changed. People may think that it has, but that is not true. HumaneVitae is an encyclical from Pope Paul IV written in 1968 which explains that contraception is against the teaching of the Church and presents married couples with a prayerful and natural approach to spacing children. (it is called Natural Family Planning and is not the same as the "rhythm method.")There are plenty of resources on the internet to explain the "why" behind the reason that the Church finds Contraception to be immoral. The easiest way to find good sources on the subject is to Google "Theology of the Body". But consider yourself warned, this theology  is not the "sex is bad and disgusting" Catholic stereotype that you see on TV. In fact, Pope John Paul II said that it was the husband's duty to make sure that his wife climaxed during sex.

A lot of people seem to think that somehow the Catholic Church stopped teaching that contraception was immoral, and that is simply not the case. What happened was that people within the Church started dismissing the Church's teaching on the issue and before you knew it, picking and choosing what doctrine you accept and don’t accept became ‘normal.’ With people being able to select which teachings of their church they agree with, we have now come to this point in history where we are fighting for our religious freedom. Very few seem to understand.  what the big deal is. This is my attempt at explaining what the big deal is. It is a big deal for everyone; regardless what you believe about birth control, abortion or to what creed you belong to.

How does the HHS mandate violate Catholics religiousfreedom? It forces Catholic hospitals  colleges, parishes, schools and charities to pay for health insurance premiums that cover birth control, sterilizations and abortion inducing drugs. All of these are defined by the Catholic Church as intrinsic evils, meaning they are always wrong. Now, it has been made to seem that only uber conservative Catholics think this, but the fact is that even liberal progressive Catholics understand that this mandate is a clear violation of the first amendment. The Washingtonpost has many links to some of the most progressive liberal Catholic media outlets and they all state their dislike of this mandate. One of the collegesthat is suing the Obama Administration is Notre Dame, which took a lot of heat from Conservative Catholics for inviting Obama to give a commencement speech.

In an attempt to appease people of faith, the Obama Administration crafted an exemption. In order for an employer to not pay for health plans which include things opposed to Catholic beliefs, three conditions must be met. First, the institution must hire and serve only people of their faith. Second, you must indoctrinate those you serve in your doctrine. Lastly, you must qualify as a church or religious order under the IRS tax code. This exemption is so narrow that not a single hospital, school, pregnancy help center, soup kitchen or other charitable organization would fit into it. One does not have to be Catholic to receive free food from the soup kitchen. One does not have to be an Evangelical to receive assistance from the pregnancy help center. Clearly, this exemption was created as a ruse and still fails to protect the conscience objections of countless people of faith around the country .

When Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius  was asked about how she balanced the mandate with religious freedom, she admitted that she did not take other precedentsinto consideration.

Now, here is where things get serious. In a report by ABC news about discussions on the HHS Mandate at the White House there was an interesting person in the room, Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards. Planned Parenthood is the largest provider of abortions in the entire country which begs the question what they could profit from government subsidized abortions. Many people, including Vice President Biden, said that it was wrong to force religious institutions to pay for something they considered to be a sin. Yet, the President took Ms. Richard's advice and did it anyway. What people should ask themselves is why is a president of a special interest group *that* involved in policy making.

In keeping with the views of their founder, Planned Parenthood has followed in the footsteps of founder Margaret Sanger in her disdain for the Catholic Church. She was openly hostile to the Catholic Church and what the Church teaches. You can see it in her interview with MikeWallace.  Planned Parenthood has been fighting against the Catholic Church on this issue since Margaret Sanger gave this interview.

The problem is not access to birth control. By PlannedParenthood's own admission, they give out birth control to women who are under/un-insured. Nobody in the Catholic Church is saying to outlaw birth control. Do we think it is immoral? Yes. We think it is emotionally, spiritually physically unhealthy to use. Definitely. Even non-religious people think thatthere is information about birth control that doctors do not give theirpatients. According to the World Health Organization, the birth control pill is classified as a Class 1 Carcinogen, meaning that it is known to cause cancer. But even with all that, Catholics are not saying to outlaw it. We want our convictions and beliefs respected by not being forced to pay for something we morally disagree with. Nor do we want to  pay for premiums that include for birth control, or other things that we find morally objectionable. Whether or not some Catholics find those things morally objectionable is irrelevant. The fact is that the Catholic Church has and always will teach that they are immoral. If some Jews think it is acceptable to eat pork despite the fact that the Jewish faith teaches it is against their creed to do so, does that mean the Government can make all Jewish delis serve pork? No.

The problem here is a special interest group being involved in making policies that violate the First Amendment in the name of Healthcare. If it was truly about healthcare then why not cover things that will help keep everyone healthy? What exactly does birth control cure? Why not cover chemo for kids with cancer for free? Or blood pressure medicine, heart pills, or many of the other medicines people need to have in order to live healthy lives? Why birth control?

The mandate released by the Department of Health and Human Services on January 20, 2012 is a direct attack on religious liberty. It is about control. It is about forcing an entire group of people to violate their conscience, their religious freedom and their rights by coercing them to pay for abortion-causing drugs and sterilizations.  

Media Gone Wild

Laurie Goodstein makes it no secret that she does not like the Catholic Church. In searching for a blog to use for this assignment I came across her blog post about the Knights of Columbus donating money to "anti-gay marriage" groups. I did one Google search of her name and found dozens of her articles which are not complimentary to the Catholic Church. One may say, and many have, that they are actually anti-Catholic. I personally hate the anti and pro-anything words, because they can be misleading, no matter what side of any issue you are on.

It is clear to me though, that in this post about the Knights of Columbus, Goodstein is targeting an audience that does not understand the teaching of the Catholic Church, nor cares to understand it. That includes Catholics who don't understand the teachings of the Church they are members of. As a convert to Catholicism, I know for a fact that there are plenty of those around to write plenty of articles and blog posts for.

Goodstein loses credit with me when I see that she has written nothing positive about the Catholic Church. I understand that there are things that need to be reported about that don't shine the greatest light on my Church, but to not write one single positive article as if  the Catholic Church doesn't do ANYthing good, is bias. Anyone who knows the name Mother Teresa, knows that there are some good Catholics.

Goodstein's argument in this article is that the Knights of Columbus are somehow hiding the fact that they support marriage between one man and one woman. That argument is false. Anyone who does not know the teachings of the Catholic Church on the matter, especially if they are Catholic, is willfully ignorant which is a lot different than being scammed.

In conclusion, I will say that I disagree with Goodstein in her assertion that the Knights are somehow being anti-anybody and duping people about where they stand and why on the issue of marriage. For Catholics the term "gay-marriage" is equivalent to saying "square-circle". It is a matter of  Catholics, who understand what our Church teaches, understanding that there is no such thing. So, Goodstein's accusation that the Knights are lying or hiding something when they support “Catholic Social Teaching and the bishops of the Catholic Church, and some resources have long been dedicated to promoting that teaching on moral issues" is wrong. That is exactly what they are doing. They are supporting the definition of the institution of marriage, not being anti-gay people. We are not anti-anyone (as a Church. There are some people IN our Church who are anti-all kinds of people, but that is a whole other issue.)

Will the Party for Minorities Please Stand Up

As I sit and listen to both parties discuss minorities, especially the black community, I just shake my head at all of the misinformation that people hear and fall for. That Tampa Bay Times did a piece about the gap of the GOP and black voters saying that the majority of the black vote will be going to Obama. I agree. My issue is that I think they will be voting for Obama because they think that Republicans are racists and don't get them.

What I find shocking about this is that the Republican Party has so many wonderful leaders in it. Let me say again that I'm neither Republican or Democrat, because neither party really stands for my values totally, but there are facts about the Republican party that many people may not know.

One of those people is Mia Love running for Congresswoman right now. She would be the first black female Congressman in the history of our country. And she is black. Her speech at the Republican National Convention was inspiring.

Another person that is in the Republican camp is Arthur Davis. Mr. Davis was the man who introduced President Obama at the Democratic National convention in 2008 and 2nd the motion to nominate him to be the Democratic Nominee that year. This election, however, he is on Romney's side. He has become a Republican. And he too is black. He has been attacked because of his choice to leave the Democratic party. The party that supposedly cheers on choice attacks a man who chooses to leave their party.

Finally let's not forget Condoleezza Rice. Her speech at the Republic National Convention this year was the best speech that I've heard in a long time. She was the first black female Secretary of State of the United States of America. And she is a Republican.

So where do Democrats get off saying that Republicans are racists or all white? I simply don't see how they can deny all of these wonderful people who are black and Republican.

There are some great Hispanics in the Republican party as well. Marco Rubio is a rising star of the Republican Party, and he does have a lot of the same values as I do, both as a Catholic and as an American. He also gave a great speech at the RNC this year. 

People spend way too much time allowing the media to shape their views and to tell them what one party stands for; instead of finding out for themselves. I would vote for Rubio with my head held high. I do not like Romney running for president, but I also do not like Democrats making anyone who dislikes the job that Obama has done for the last four years, out to be a bigot and a racist. That simply is not true. Do I think that the Republican Party needs improvement? Yes. Both parties do. That doesn't make every one who is voting for Romney is a racist.

While I agree with the Tampa Bay Times, that indeed Obama will get a lot of the black vote, I do not think it is because the Republican Party is the "white party".

The Lesser of Two Evils

I have been reading a lot from both campaigns and what both President Obama and Mitt Romney are saying. Neither campaign seems to be speaking about anything substantial that they are going to do to change the economy or issues overseas. There does not seem to be any plans, only attacks on one another. And the more I listen to them the more they sound the same.

I read an article in the Washington post on the issue, and for the first time I actually saw something in print saying just what I've been thinking. I don't know how anyone else feels about this, but I don't like the idea of voting for someone based on vague ideas.

I see a lot of lies coming from both sides, and I see both sides making promises that realistically they can not keep. There are too many serious issues that we need to fix and deal with for there to be a campaign based on nothing but attacks and empty promises.

I am a pro-life conservative, and I see people who have the same values that I do fall for the idea that Romney is the answer to all of our countries problems and I just don't see it that way. And I have yet to get anyone to help me see it that way. From what I gather, people are voting for Romney simply based on how much they dislike Obama.

And while I have an issue with Romney not stating a clear plan on how he is going to turn things around, I still think it is better than the plan that we have seen from Obama for the last 4 years. I just think we should demand more from the people running for the Presidency that what we are getting from them.