Don't Silence Students Over Day of Silence

Carroll County Public School Board: Allow students to make announcements about the Day of Silence

My daughter requested that I post this petition on my blog(s) to support these students. They wish to make announcements at their school in Carroll County, MD about the Day of Silence on April 20. The Day of Silence is a student-led national event that brings attention to anti-LGBT name-calling, bullying and harassment in schools. Students from middle school to college take a vow of silence in an effort to encourage schools and classmates to address the problem of anti-LGBT behavior by illustrating the silencing effect of bullying and harassment on LGBT students and those perceived to be LGBT.  The problem is that the Carroll County Public School Board has instituted a new rule that says schools within the school district cannot use words such as "gay", "lesbian", or "bisexual" (or anything pertaining to the LGBTQA community) on their announcements, which could prevent students from making their announcements. 

One of these students started an online petition to allow Day of Silence announcements. If you support these students' rights to free expression, please click on the link to sign the petition. And a big "Thank You" to my daughter, Baby Mouse, for bringing this to my attention. You go girl!

http://www.change.org/petitions/carroll-county-public-school-board-allow-students-to-make-announcements-about-the-day-of-silence

                             

Pink Bunnies

Was shopping in Walmart the other morning (don't judge-I live in ruburbia and there are NOT many choices for picture frames, birthday decorations, and Easter candy). Anyway, as I was wandering the half dozen aisles of football sized chocolate eggs, bags the size of pillow cases filled with pastel colored cotton candy, and 5 pound sacks of jelly beans (Passover supplies--aisle WTF is that???), I saw a mom with her young son (I'm assuming it was her son) in the cart. He was obviously excited about all of the candy, especially the Peeps, or "marshmallow bunnies." 

Mom told him they could buy a pack and started naming all of the colors for him as she pointed them out. I thought to myself that it was so nice to see a young mother teaching her child colors in a fun way. She was actually interacting positively with her kid in Walmart instead of yelling at him or smacking him to be quiet, which is pretty typical behavior around here.

So, Mom points out, "There are yellow bunnies, and purple bunnies, and blue bunnies, and pink bunnies, and..." At this point, the kid announces, "I want the pink ones!" Apparently this doesn't sit well with Mom because she repeats, "There are blue bunnies. Do you like the blue ones?" The little boy again says, "I want the pink bunnies." Mom, however, isn't having it. "Oh! Look at the blue ones! Do you want the blue bunnies?" Finally, the kid gives in and says, "I want the blue bunnies," which Mom gives to him.

Funny, but I thought I heard the kid ask for pink bunnies pretty clearly. What kind of message does this give to a young child about his preferences?  We're not talking about clothing or hairstyle or lifestyle here but Easter candy. We as parents, family, teachers, and society as a whole can start giving kids messages that their preferences are somehow wrong beginning when they are very young, oftentimes without even realizing we're doing it. Instead of valuing individuals, we chip away at their self-esteem by trying to change them to fit our own expectations. I really do hope that some day that little boy gets exactly what he wants, even if it's pink bunnies.

I Am The Lorax. I Speak for Mazda and IHop

It all started way back...

such a long, long time back...

Way back in the days when the grass was still green

and the pond was still wet

and the clouds were still clean,

and the song of the
Swomee-Swans rang out in space...

Then Hollywood said, 

"Let's make 'Lorax,' the movie

with lots of "green" tie-ins

it sure will be groovy."

But they lost the moral

Seuss wrote in the tale

that greed and consumption

may lead things to fail.

Most of the products

stamped "Lorax approved"

are all about profit

and should be removed.

Pancakes with sprinkles?

disposable diapers?

hotel chains and printers?

What's wrong with these vipers?!!

And then there is Mazda
 going into the schools

offering money

with very few rules.

 "Just get your folks

to test drive our car

then we'll give you cash

that's how great we are!"

"The Lorax, he loves our

 brand new SUVs;

they're cool and they're friendly

to Truffula Trees!"

A lone voice of reason

was heard from afar

a child said, "The Lorax 

doesn't drive a car."

Why Women Need the GOP in the Exam Room

Ladies, it may be time to start stockpiling birth control pills for the lean times a-comin'. The GOP is waging a war against women, and one of its main strategies is to keep us pregnant. The ability to decide when, or if, we will have a child is vital to our personal, social, financial, and vocational freedom; it is precisely this freedom that we will lose if we allow our country to continue on its same course.

In February of this year, the Virgina Senate passed a bill requiring women to undergo an ultrasound before an abortion. This was the first of several measures expected to dramatically alter abortion law in that state. Republicans, who are now in control of both the House and the Senate in Virginia, are considering laws that will ban abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy, require that insurers that cover abortions also offer policies that do not, and give rights to a fertilized egg at the moment of conception.

The ultrasound bill requires that before an abortion, a woman must have an ultrasound to determine the gestational age of the fetus and be "offered" the opportunity to view the images. If she declines, she must sign a statement saying that she refused to view the ultrasound. The statement and the ultrasound images then become part of her permanent medical record. Opponents of the bill say that this violates a woman's autonomy and privacy, while supporters claim it is a "legitimate health  issue."

Virgina is not unique in this regard. Since the mid-1990s, several states have moved to require ultrasound as a part of the abortion procedure despite it not being considered medically necessary. Of those, some require that the woman be offered the "opportunity" to view the images. The state of Texas has taken this mandate to preposterous levels. Under Texas law,  physicians must perform a sonogram before performing an abortion. The woman then has options to view the sonogram images and to hear the fetal heartbeat. She is required, however, to hear the medical explanation of the sonogram at least 24 hours before the procedure. That's right, required. The Texas legislature knows better than individual women or their physicians what information they need to make a medical decision. Wouldn't you feel better having the lawmakers of Texas in the exam room with you?

Governor Rick Perry called this legislation "a victory for Life." He stated that "this important sonogram legislation ensures that every Texas woman seeking an abortion has all the facts about the life she is carrying, and understands the devastating impact of such a life-ending decision." He can try to dress it up as an informed consent procedure all he wants, but a pig in lipstick is still a pig. This is clearly an attempt to dissuade women from abortion and is insulting and degrading to those women who wish to have a legal medical procedure.

In what other circumstance do we encourage an unnecessary medical procedure prior to performing the service sought? (I'm not referring to cases where an ultrasound may be necessary before an abortion for medical reasons but in cases like the majority of those in Texas or Virginia where it is mandated regardless of medical necessity.) Do men have to get a digital rectal exam or cystoscopy before they get Viagra? Should they be required to see the images and hear the description in detail?  In what other circumstance would Republicans claim a "victory" over increased medical costs? It seems to me that a woman seeking an abortion is deemed unable to give informed consent without a sonogram because if she had actually understood the matter, she wouldn't be seeking an abortion. The aim of these laws is to keep throwing more obstacles at her until she changes her mind.

Given the GOP opposition to abortion, one would think that they would support birth control, since using birth control regularly decreases the number of unplanned pregnancies and thus, the number of abortions. Make access to birth control easier and more women will use it. Easy, right? Oh no, not in GOP thinking. They want to make access to birth control more difficult. The Republicans consistently vote to cut Title X funding, which makes family planning funds available to low income families.

Additionally, when President Obama included contraception is his health care mandate, Republicans were quick to characterize as an "attack on religion" his failure to initially exempt Catholic church based organizations.  Personally, I think that once Obama opened himself up for compromises concerning contraceptive coverage, he made a mistake. If there is a federal law, ALL employers should be required to follow it. If church based agencies can opt out, what about the private employer who is opposed to birth control? What if an employer is opposed to blood transfusions based on his religion? Should he be allowed to offer insurance that doesn't cover it? Contraception is basic primary care, and it should be treated as such.

One last thought- since the GOP has decided that women are clearly unable to think for themselves, I offer my own informed consent procedure to make sure we don't make any rash decisions. Before deciding to continue a pregnancy, a pregnant woman must receive information from her physician about labor and delivery, including pain, mess, and episiotomies.  In addition, she must have the opportunity to view photos of sagging breasts and stretch marks and to hear the incessant wail of a baby with colic. She must be "offered" the opportunity to view photographs. If she refuses, she must sign a statement, which will then become part of her medical file. It is, after all, a legitimate health issue."