Due Process: A Treatise on Entitled Men

There is so much to say about the Kavanaugh confirmation process, and much of it has already been said elsewhere.  (A great example of “If you’re not mad, you’re not paying attention.”)  But something that stuck out to me was the image of a grown, white man ranting his “righteous” anger in front of the United States Senate about the end of due process in America.  Give me a fucking break.

The left-wing rag Merriam-Webster defines due process as:

1

: a course of formal proceedings (such as legal proceedings) carried out regularly and in accordance with established rules and principles

— called also procedural due process

2

: a judicial requirement that enacted laws may not contain provisions that result in the unfair, arbitrary, or unreasonable treatment of an individual

— called also substantive due process

But there seems to be some confusion about what due process is, particularly amongst white men.  They seem to believe due process is their right, and the right of their fellow white men, to get away with anything, their right to succeed in spite of any misstep, any exposed character flaw, any crime.  Of course he deserves this promotion—it’s simply due process.  Amazing how differently due process works for white men than it does for everyone else.  It’s leeway that simply does not exist for others.  

Where is due process for victims of sexual assault?  They can’t (and never have been able to) trust the course of formal proceedings to result in justice.  I don’t see Brett Kavanaugh crying about that.  I don’t see Brett Kavanaugh doing anything about that.  And one might argue that, as a federal judge, he is one of the few who actually can do something about that.

Where is due process for the thousands who are incarcerated because they can’t afford bail?  Where is due process for the unarmed African American men shot and killed by police officers?  Where is due process for their families? Yes, due process is failing many people in America.  But it is not failing white men.  So forgive me when I vomit at the sight of an overgrown prep-school jackass-turned-federal-judge crying about the end of due process in America.  

Serving on the Supreme Court is a privilege, not a right.  Brett Kavanaugh missing out on his dream job isn’t due process failing him—it’s an occurrence many ordinary Americans, disproportionately women, have had to swallow with grace.  “Your resume is very impressive, but this job may not be quite right for you.”  Brett Kavanaugh missing out on his dream job because he tried to rape a girl in high school isn’t due process failing him—it’s his past coming back to bite him.  The Supreme Court confirmation process hasn’t ruined Brett Kavanaugh’s life.  Brett Kavanaugh ruined Brett Kavanaugh’s life.

I believe Brett Kavanaugh tried to rape Christine Blasey Ford.  Regardless of that, I believe Brett Kavanaugh’s behavior yesterday disqualifies him serving on the Supreme Court.  He did away with any pretense that he is not a complete partisan.  He showed he has no composure under stress.  I seriously doubt his ability to remove his own prejudice in ruling on any case.  Rather, I strongly suspect his contempt for “the left” would steer him toward vindictiveness.  There is enough vindictiveness in politics.  Sexual abusers are well represented.  Surely we can do better than Brett Kavanaugh.

#neverforget: A Treatise on Fear and Freedom

After listening to President Obama’s speech (which I highly recommend), I was inspired to dig up FDR’s Four Freedoms speech.  I’d been meaning to do so for a while—it often pops into my head against the constant, reckless fear-mongering by our president and his enablers.  The Four Freedoms speech was FDR’s State of the Union address in January 1941—his message that the Union was preparing for the fight of her life, an existential battle for how humans deserve to live in this world: with freedom of speech, freedom to worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.  The surprise attack on Pearl Harbor would happen less than a year later.  

It’s scary how relevant his words are now.  An excerpt:

I suppose that every realist knows that the democratic way of life is at this moment being directly assailed in every part of the world–assailed either by arms, or by secret spreading of poisonous propaganda by those who seek to destroy unity and promote discord in nations that are still at peace.

... 

In times like these it is immature–and incidentally, untrue–for anybody to brag that an unprepared America, single-handed, and with one hand tied behind its back, can hold off the whole world.

No realistic American can expect from a dictator’s peace international generosity, or return of true independence, or world disarmament, or freedom of expression, or freedom of religion–or even good business.

Such a peace would bring no security for us or for our neighbors. “Those, who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

As a nation, we may take pride in the fact that we are softhearted; but we cannot afford to be soft-headed.

We must always be wary of those who with sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal preach the “ism” of appeasement.

We must especially beware of that small group of selfish men who would clip the wings of the American eagle in order to feather their own nests. 

How reassuring to read and imagine hearing those words from an American president.  Don’t know what you got till it’s gone, right?

I bring this up today out of anxiety that we are confusing what we should #neverforget about September 11, 2001.  The attacks of September 11th were an evil and cowardly attack on our freedom.  They were meant to inspire fear.  Death by itself can’t destroy democracy—fear can.  Like democracy, fear is simply an idea.  But they are two ideas that cannot live in the same place.

I remember a particular history lesson at Villa.  Our teacher remarked it wasn’t a given that ordinary Americans would stick to the values of democracy in the wake of the stock market crash and Great Depression.  The conditions for fascism seemed riper in a place like Germany, for instance, but we were not immune.  Look at this photo essay from The Atlantic.  These are images of 1930s New Jersey and New York, not Germany.  (Check out that crowd at Madison Square Garden—yuge!)  High-profile Americans like Charles Lindbergh espoused the “America First” Committee, whose stated goal was to keep America out of the war, an intention that sometimes mixed with fascism of its own.  On this day in 1941, Lindbergh gave a speech detailing the three groups he believed were to blame for pushing us towards war in Europe—the British, American Jews, and the Roosevelt administration.  Regarding the second group, he said:

It is not difficult to understand why Jewish people desire the overthrow of Nazi Germany. The persecution they suffered in Germany would be sufficient to make bitter enemies of any race.

No person with a sense of the dignity of mankind can condone the persecution of the Jewish race in Germany. But no person of honesty and vision can look on their pro-war policy here today without seeing the dangers involved in such a policy both for us and for them. Instead of agitating for war, the Jewish groups in this country should be opposing it in every possible way for they will be among the first to feel its consequences.

Tolerance is a virtue that depends upon peace and strength. History shows that it cannot survive war and devastations. A few far-sighted Jewish people realize this and stand opposed to intervention. But the majority still do not.

Their greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio and our government. 

But be assured: 

I am not attacking either the Jewish or the British people. Both races, I admire.

But I am saying that the leaders of both the British and the Jewish races, for reasons which are as understandable from their viewpoint as they are inadvisable from ours, for reasons which are not American, wish to involve us in the war.

We cannot blame them for looking out for what they believe to be their own interests, but we also must look out for ours. We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples to lead our country to destruction.

Back in that history class, I remember thinking how obvious it seemed that remaining true to the values of our democracy would be the only way to defeat fascism.  And I still don’t think that’s my hindsight bias talking.  Democracy and fascism are fundamentally opposed.  Democracy includes all people—all men are created equal.  Fascism excludes certain people.  Charles Lindbergh doesn’t get to exclude Jewish people from an American democracy, as much as he professes to “admire their race”.  When we compromise on which groups of people get to be included in “freedom”, we defeat democracy.  When we compromise on a fundamental belief, it’s not a fundamental belief anymore.  Democracy depends on the word “all.”

Fear and freedom cannot live in the same place.  I believe this essential truth to my core.  You know it too.  We feel most human when we are most free:

• when we can freely and honestly express what’s happening in our brains and hearts, and when we respect others for doing the same
• when we can praise the spirit of life in whatever way makes sense to us, in whatever way gives us true joy
• when our bodies enjoy health and sustenance and mobility, when we can walk and eat and dance
• when we can do all these things with confidence, when we can do them without shame, without being afraid.

Isn’t that when we feel most alive?

That is the promise of America I grew up believing in and loving.  The promise itself is American exceptionalism—the rest is just noise.  When we abandon the promise, we lose what sets us apart, what makes us great—our freedom.

I’ll presume to close with the end of FDR’s 1941 State of the Union:

This nation has placed its destiny in the hands and heads and hearts of its millions of free men and women; and its faith in freedom under the guidance of God. Freedom means the supremacy of human rights everywhere. Our support goes to those who struggle to gain those rights and keep them. Our strength is our unity of purpose.

To that high concept there can be no end save victory.

Raise a glass to freedommmmm

Give me your tired, your poor, and I'll take those babies away: A Treatise on the Border Situation.

If we cannot recognize both the cruelty of separating children from their parents at our border and who bears responsibility for this cruelty, I'm not sure we can claw our way back up this slippery slope.  Again I ask my friends and family who voted for Donald Trump: what are the limits of your tolerance for his actions?  Where do you draw the line?  If the tearing of children from their parents does not stir rage in you, what will?  That is not a rhetorical question.  How bad does it need to get?  Because that is what our president is testing.  The American president and his disciples ask—no, they condescendingly expect your partisan fervor to override your natural empathy for that instinctual panic of a child who cannot find her mother.  But the team conveniently provides an out for those of you (presumably good Christians) who hate what is happening to the poor children: they assure you they too, as parents and Christians, hate this abomination, but there is simply nothing they can do to stop it.  The blame falls squarely on their political enemies.  Republicans only control the presidency and both houses of Congress.  The buck stops somewhere else. 

If our president is such an expert negotiator (who, let's not forget, has all the power on his side), why does he need to use real-life, vulnerable children as pawns? This is the genius of Donald Trump, you say.  He’s effectively forcing a conversation.  Many methods are effective, even sanctioned by law.  But that does not make them all moral.  The ends do not justify the means.  This is not some brilliant move of brinksmanship to force Democrats to the table on illegal immigration.  This is only cruel.  Any fool can orchestrate inhumanity in an attempt to get his way.  The strategy is not only despicable, but shortsighted.  Who else has used this strategy?  How did that turn out?

We can even look at this “policy” specifically.  Who else in history has forcibly separated children from their parents?  Nazis come to mind.  Antebellum slave traders come to mind.  I’m no policy maker, but I’d think we could find better role models.  Though I guess we shouldn't be surprised.  Our president has expressed sympathy for Nazi demonstrators before our very eyes. Our attorney general, like his father and grandfather before him, is named after the president of the Confederacy and the man who oversaw the first attack on the Union. Still, emulating those who increase their power by degrading fellow humans seems at odds that old American fundamental “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal”.  But maybe the founders really did just mean men, what with "original intent" and all.  Tough luck, women and children.*

Perhaps in the search for biblical justification, Sarah Huckabee Sanders alerted the president to the story of the judgment of Solomon, but he quickly got bored, heard the words "split the baby in half" and thought, "great idea."  Spoiler alert, Don: Solomon neither cuts the baby in two nor blames his murder of the child on the dispute of the mothers.  But in that movie, Republicans of Congress win best supporting actor in the role of the mother who is happy the baby dies.

*THANKS IVANKA

Nun in the News: A Treatise on the Human Condition

(Hello from my sabbatical.)

On his May 8^th show, Jimmy Kimmel poked fun at the Met Gala’s theme of  “Fashion and the Catholic Imagination”. Please watch the clip.  He joked about the celebrities’ interpretations of the theme, and compared their outlandish outfits to his understanding of Catholic fashion as demonstrated by a photo of “Sister Mary Frances O’Brien”.  The nun in the photo, however, is actually Sr. Patricia Pompa, the real-life principal at my alma mater, Villa Walsh Academy. The Jimmy Kimmel clip went viral amongst my former classmates and fellow alumnae.  Sr. Pat was on Jimmy Kimmel!  Nothing had spread that fast since the time Sr. Mary DeAngelis got a photo with Bruce Springsteen (“Big Brucey” as she called him).  The Villa girls I know either found the whole thing hilarious or suffered from brief bouts of nun-induced post-traumatic stress.

But other people (only men, that I noticed) lamented the injustice done to Sr. Pat and sought to defend her sacred honor.  In the Wall Street Journal on Monday, Bill McGurn, father of three Villa girls and former speechwriter for George W. Bush, wrote a column introducing “Jimmy Kimmel’s nun” as a loving woman whose “entire life has been about self-sacrifice.”  In describing her service to the school, he paints her with a halo.

Mr. McGurn implies that Jimmy Kimmel only saw the habit when he held up Sr. Pat’s photo, but I wonder if he himself has fallen into the same trap. When we synonymize one’s clothing with one’s level of virtue, we run into a risk the Catholic Church should well know—the risk of assuming complete goodness and overlooking true failings. Behind the habit is a human, not a saint.  She has not “sacrificed” her life, but rather chose this life for herself.  A subtle distinction, but an important one.  She is not a victim.  She is not a damsel in distress.

But Sr. Pat’s fifteen minutes of fame were not yet up.  Later in the week, Mr. McGurn appeared on Fox & Friends to be interviewed by Brian Kilmeade.  I believe Mr. McGurn when he says he does not mean to demonize Jimmy Kimmel, but I think it’s a shame he didn’t foresee Fox News taking such an angle with  “JIMMY KIMMEL USES NUN TO JOKE ABOUT MET GALA” emblazoned at the bottom of the screen.  While the segment mostly was spent reiterating the sentiments in the article, one moment struck me as exceedingly disingenuous.  Shaking his head in disgust, Mr. Kilmeade asks, “in the #MeToo movement, should we really be ridiculing somebody about how they look?”  While not only betraying a complete misunderstanding of #MeToo, Mr. Kilmeade asserts a distaste that reeks of hypocrisy.  We can argue whether Jimmy Kimmel was ridiculing Sr. Pat’s looks or if he was drawing a humorous comparison between the Met Gala and what most people recognize as Catholic fashion (in other words, making a joke, or rather, doing a thing that comedians do).  But if we are going to exhibit disgust at the superficial treatment of women, let’s hold that up as a standard across the board.  Somehow I doubt Mr. Kilmeade has expressed a fraction of that outrage in reaction to egregious behavior toward women by President Trump or by men at his own network.  But then I guess those women weren’t wearing habits.  Maybe they deserved it.

I know and admire Mr. McGurn and his family, and I have no doubt he had good intentions in writing this piece.  But as one of those capable and confident women churned out by Villa Walsh, I feel compelled to point out why I find this treatment problematic.  Was Sr. Pat consulted before she was used as an example of Christian virtue and as a weapon of Fox News?  It seems not.  If I had to guess, I’d imagine the nuns of Villa Walsh got a kick out of the Jimmy Kimmel bit.  After all, they too are human beings with senses of humor.  They even poke fun at themselves sometimes.  All I ask is that we recognize the human nature in all people—no matter their station, no matter their clothing—and hold them to the same standards of decency.

Robert E. Lee is Deplorable: A Treatise on Charlottesville

One reason I’ve been bad about keeping up with the blob is that I’m exhausted and speechless at our constant deliveries of fresh bullshit from Trumpworld.  This is not sustainable.  This shit is piling up and reeking.  America’s existential question seems less “will we drown in shit?” and more “how quickly will we drown in shit?”

I’ve been thinking a lot about Robert E. Lee.  We have a Robert E. Lee problem.  We don’t think of Robert E. Lee as the guy who led the fight to keep black people enslaved.  We remember him with a sort of apologetic romance—the guy who was personally opposed* to slavery, but could not take up arms against his beloved Virginia, who would rather oppose the Union than sacrifice his sacred Southern honor.  We felt sorry that he died without his American citizenship restored, so our Congress posthumously awarded it to him in 1975.  Bless his heart.

What is that all about?  I don’t feel sorry for this guy.  He used that classic “but it’s the Southern way of life” line to excuse some pretty awful shit.  I’m glad they turned his family’s ancestral home into the premier cemetery for the war’s dead.

At the outbreak of the Civil War, Robert E. Lee was faced with a serious moral decision—fight for your country against slavery and your home or fight for slavery and your home against your country.  The item that defines the morality of that decision is slavery, but the item that steered General Lee was his home.  A sentimental choice?  Yes.  A morally correct choice?  No.  He picked the wrong side.  I see no honor, Southern or otherwise, in his choice.

Why am I going on about this?  This is not an argument about the statues.  Take them down, get over it, assholes.  Chances are, your beloved statue got put up by white people trying to assert their dominance over bIack people during Jim Crow or the civil rights era.  Is that the heritage you want to celebrate?  Congrats.  I’m talking about the morality of our choices.  Many of us chose to vote for a man who now (unsurprisingly to others of us) cannot whole-heartedly disavow white supremacists and anti-Semites.  A man who declared there were “fine people” in the group that marched into town wielding torches and chanting “Jews will not replace us.”  Friends and family who voted for this man, can you condone this?  What are the limits of our excuses for vile behavior? for race-baiting and dog-whistling?  Will we not stand up while he perverts our democratic values?  while he spits on the sacrifices made by our grandparents to defeat Nazis and fascism?

I ask you to think about what defines the morality of your choice to condone or disavow the words of this man.  I’ll give you some hints: it’s not your party affiliation, it’s not the “alt-left”, it’s not your pride, it’s not how much you hate Hillary Clinton.  None of that will justify (or has ever justified) your choice to support him.  The defining element of Donald Trump is the hatred he spews and promotes. If you support him and condone his words, you are complicit in his hatemongering. 

-

One of my biggest regrets about Hillary Clinton’s campaign is that she did not double down on her “deplorables” comment, referring to that contingent of Trump voters.  She wasn’t wrong and it wasn’t a mistake.  I wish she had said to the squeamish Trump voter, “I dare you to tell me those people who would resurrect the KKK and who would dare to carry a swastika are not deplorable.  Do you want to be in their camp?”  You didn’t believe it then, but it’s still true—you’re in their camp.  And they are making the rules.  How long do you want to stick around?

I promise next post will not be so doom and gloom.  Maybe we will explore possible reasons my dentist and I always end up talking about prison. (?? it's so weird.)

Thanks, Obama: A Treatise on Race in America

More book review than treatise.  Not actually much about Obama.  Just felt like a good title.

Few books have altered my understanding of history and of the present moment as profoundly as The Warmth of Other Suns by Isabel Wilkerson.  I want every person in the country to read this book.

The Warmth of Other Suns is the story of the Great Migration, the exodus of six million African Americans from the South from around WWI through the 1970s.  I remember learning about this in high school history, but mainly as a simple chain of cause and effect.  Jim Crow was bad, black people moved away, demographics in northern cities changed.  I completely missed the big picture.  This was the largest and fastest migration of people in American history.  I’m not sure my italics can convey how huge that statement is.  How about This was the largest and fastest migration of people in American history.  The sheer number of migrants dispersing at such a rapid rate from one region to the rest of the country fundamentally changed most, if not all, aspects of our nation—our economies, our politics, our culture.

Isabel Wilkerson weaves the stories of three distinct migrants together with the overall picture of the Great Migration.  The personal accounts of Ida Mae Gladney, Robert Joseph Pershing Foster, and George Swanson Starling give the story of the Great Migration something I missed in history class—the power and emotion of our common humanity.  We learn not only of the indignities they escaped and the challenges of their new homes, but also what they felt at those moments.  We can feel Ida Mae’s nerves as she and her husband quietly prepare to leave Mississippi, without alerting their sharecropper for fear of retaliation.  We can feel Robert’s humiliation and delirium as he pleads for a place to sleep for the night on his drive from Texas to California.  We can see ourselves in these people.  They make us ask, “What would I have done in their shoes?  What if I had to flee the place I’d always known and start from scratch in a foreign city?”

This is not a political book, but it has clarified my views of civic responsibility.  As President Obama said in his farewell address,

[if our democracy is to work] For white Americans, it means acknowledging that the effects of slavery and Jim Crow didn’t suddenly vanish in the ‘60s…

Ms. Wilkerson expertly draws the lineage from slavery to the Jim Crow South to the Great Migration to the present, illustrating the compounding, deleterious effects of slavery on today’s African Americans.  We can’t pretend the wealth gap between white and black people is the result of one group’s hard work and the other’s laziness. Black people began in this country as slaves, were kept subject through sharecropping, denied rights and respect, forced to leave their communities to start again elsewhere, where they faced the same prejudices and earned less than their white counterparts.  While at the same time, white people were free to build their wealth over generations, free to attend the better half of “separate but equal” schools, free to buy homes where realtors forgot to tour their black clients, where those homes would appreciate in value and prove a good return on investment.  We cannot pretend institutionalized racism is a made-up phenomenon, when almost 9% of black men in their late 20s are in prison.  When, at the same time, a young white man convicted of raping an unconscious woman walks free after only three months in jail. It’s dishonest to pretend we all start on the same playing field.  We just don’t.

I’m not shaming white people for our ancestors’ wrongs.  I’m asking us to recognize how our whiteness has eased our paths through life.  If we truly believe all men and women are created equal, we have to acknowledge the injustice of the fact that one’s mere skin color either enhances or threatens one’s ability to pursue happiness.  The Warmth of Other Suns opened my eyes to so many ways that is true.

I would like to end this treatise and step off my soapbox, after a quote Ms. Wilkerson included in her Notes on Methodology, from the 1922 Chicago Commission on Race Relations report The Negro in Chicago.

It is important for our white citizens always to remember that the Negroes alone of all our immigrants came to America against their will by the special compelling invitation of the whites; that the institution of slavery was introduced, expanded, and maintained in the United States by the white people and for their own benefit; and that they likewise created the conditions that followed emancipation. Our Negro problem, therefore, is not of the Negro’s making.  No group in our population is less responsible for its existence.  But every group is responsible for its continuance; and every citizen, regardless of color or racial origin, is in honor and conscience bound to seek and forward its solution.

Raise a glass to freedommmm 

The Abortion Portion: A Treatise on the "Pro-Life" Distinction

Thankfully, the presidential debates are over and it seems (dare I say it) that Donald J. Trump finds himself in a deep, dark, orange hell hole of failure. (Sad!)  While I could comment on any number of exchanges from last week's debate, I would like to discuss this:

WALLACE: And now let’s talk about abortion. Donald, will your judges overturn Roe v. Wade?

TRUMP: Maybe? Yes. Probably.

CLINTON: (cracks knuckles) First off, no. Second off, I support Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood. It is nice that this is finally coming up at a debate with a woman in it. Do you think that women do this for fun? This is not fun. This is a decision you get to make about your own life and your own body, with your family, taking your faith into account, and I can’t imagine why you would want the government making it for you.

WALLACE: Ah, but didn’t you support partial-birth abortions?

TRUMP: I read somewhere that a baby can — you can just RIP a baby out of a lady’s tummy at nine months! In the ninth month. On the final day.

CLINTON: I think you’re describing a C-section.[1]

The abortion portion. I am actually glad for this opportunity because I have been mulling over a blob about the pro-life/pro-choice debate for a while now. I find the treatment of the issue incredibly frustrating.

Full disclosure: I was raised in a Catholic family and attended Catholic school through twelfth grade. I went to Mass every Sunday up through college. My friends sometimes refer to me as Catholic Correspondent Claire O’Connor. Despite the Church’s many flaws, I believe it is a force for good in the world and in my life. Even if I were to up and become an atheist tomorrow, the tenets of Catholicism as I learned them will always be deeply ingrained in me. “Love one another as I have loved you.” “Men and women for others.” “Others first, self last, God always.” That is the Catholic Church I know and love and am grateful to have been grounded in.

I have lots of Catholic friends and family on Facebook (and in real life). Every so often, I see a post go by pledging support for the only “pro-life” ticket (Trump Pence) or denouncing Hillary Clinton as a baby killer or decrying Tim Kaine’s betrayal of his Catholicism. These posts disturb me and highlight what I believe is flawed about pro-life/pro-choice debate.

We have a problem if the framing of one issue—an issue that is and should be important to Catholics—leads Catholics to vote for a ticket that is fundamentally at odds with Catholic values. There is nothing Catholic about the Trump Pence ticket. Their entire campaign has been to demonize the “other”—the same “other” that Catholics are taught to serve and put before themselves. Mexicans, Muslims, refugees, the disabled, the poor—we are meant to include them all. The word “catholic” means universal. “Others first, self last, God always.” When has Donald Trump ever put himself last?[2]

But, you say, Mike Pence is a professed servant of the Lord! Indeed, he sets that wonderful Christian example of enabling cruelty (as do all other supposed Christian leaders who do not disavow Trump). But Mike Pence’s record in perverting Christian values goes back farther than his joining the Trump ticket. He championed the Indiana “Religious Freedom Restoration Act”, which allows businesses to deny service to gays and lesbians on the basis of religious objections to LGBT lifestyles. Where in the Bible does Jesus say “Serve others, except those whose behavior you find offensive”? Jesus sought out the people society called sinners. He dined with them, he washed their feet, he lifted them up. Christians supporting these “religious freedom” bills might do well to read up on the Pharisees next time at Bible study—perhaps the Lord might open their eyes to some striking similarities.

But let’s get back to abortion, shall we? Just what everybody wants.

In my experience, Catholic education very effectively drives home the point that the pro-life movement has the monopoly on morality in the abortion debate. It took me a long time to even question that notion. But I once I did, I realized the debate is not so black and white. The terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are inadequate to encompass the nuance of this debate.

The pro-life movement’s two goals are to 1) overturn Roe v. Wade and 2) shut down Planned Parenthood. In other words, they believe making abortion illegal and eliminating the poster child of abortion providers will end abortion. That is simplistic, naïve, and wrong. Neither goal addresses why women seek abortions. It is assumed that, if legal access to abortion goes away, abortion will go away. This is a willful denial of the fact that women will seek abortions even if their access is limited. And without the protection of the law, these abortions would bring greater risk to women's health and well-being.

Shouldn’t the goal of the pro-life movement be to reduce the number of abortions to an eventual zero without jeopardizing the lives of women? I don't see them approaching the problem from this mindset.  They would rather moralize the issue.  I have a sneaking suspicion that, were the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade and the government to stop funding Planned Parenthood, the pro-life movement would declare victory, pack its bags, and go home. At best, they would be blissfully unaware of the women who would still seek dangerous abortions. At worst, they would believe these women deserve their fate.

The statistic you’ll never hear from pro-life people is that abortions have decreased steadily just about every year since 1990, and they are at the lowest number since the government started collecting data after Roe v. Wade.[3] Additionally, today almost no women die during abortions, whereas before Roe v. Wade, the mortality of women during abortions is estimated to have been 17% (and probably higher, as that percentage was calculated from only reported deaths).[4] Is there room for the lives of women in the hearts of pro-lifers?

What if the pro-life movement were to shift its attention from supporting politicians who pay them “we’ll reverse Roe v. Wade” lip service to supporting politicians who believe in comprehensive sex education for women and men? I think they might find that a better investment with better results.  But I suppose to do that, they would need to accept that humans have sex outside of marriage. :-O

I hope this election will lead Catholics to reexamine the "pro-life" litmus test. Perhaps they'll realize it's a term by which politicians realize they can hold hostage a portion of the Catholic and Christian vote. Our vote is worth more than that, and we should award it to politicians who deal with reality, rather than to those who would pontificate from a position of willful ignorance.

This treatise is hereby concluded. I thank you all for your time and respectful consideration. I will probably never discuss abortion on the blob again.

---

[1] Erin and I enjoy Alexandra Petri's articles in the Washington Post. (How do I get her job..) Her debate recaps were great and much more enjoyable than the real thing.

[2] Or had “God always”, for that matter? The man who claims the Bible is his favorite book called II Corinthians “Two Corinthians”, for Christ’s sake. If we can thank Trump for one thing in this election, it’s for exposing the hypocrisy of the evangelical vote. 

[3] http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/

[4] 17% of all deaths due to maternity/childbirth in 1965.  Illegal abortion was even riskier for non-white women. “In New York City in the early 1960s, one in four childbirth-related deaths among white women was due to abortion; in comparison, abortion accounted for one in two childbirth-related deaths among nonwhite and Puerto Rican women.”  For more reading, https://www.guttmacher.org/about/gpr/2003/03/lessons-roe-will-past-be-prologue

Everyone’s a Little Bit Racist: A Treatise on the Current Racial Tensions in America

FAKEOUT. I did consider writing such a treatise, but I cannot bear to be the bazillionth person to contribute preachy thoughts on race to the black hole that is the Internet.  I just loved the title too much to let it go.  Instead, allow me to be the bazillionth curmudgeon to examine the resurgent popularity of Pokemon.[1]

Perhaps you have heard of the latest fad, “Pokemon Go”.  If somehow you blessedly missed this, go outside and watch for the swarms of millennials[2] staring down at their phones.  More than the usual number are out-of-doors and they are all playing Pokemon Go.  The game has consumed the entire population of San Francisco[3].  As far as I understand, the goal is to catch virtual Pokemon—catch them all. After that…the end game is unclear. 

Back in our youth, Maureen, Patricia, and I enjoyed Pokemon.  We had the cards and played the various Gameboy[4] games, but our true love was Pokemon Snap on Nintendo 64.  Nothing tickled us quite like luring dozens of hungry, adorable Charmanders with apples.  And convincing Pikachu to surf?  We would melt with delight.

Such joyful creatures.

Precious.

So why doesn’t Pokemon Go resonate with me?  After all, it’s basically the “real-life” version of Pokemon Snap.  As a millennial, I ought to gobble up anything that feeds into my nostalgia for the nineties.[5]  And yet, it will not do.  My distaste for humans becoming solitary, screen-staring robots trumps[6] whatever I could like about the game.  Sure, it’s great that people are getting out and about, but they might as well be inside for all the looking around they’re doing.  They look up when the game tells them to look up.  If “augmented” reality is the future, I may consider becoming a hermit. 

I listened to an interview with David Schwimmer on a podcast today.  He thinks one of the reasons kids are watching Friends is that it’s a window to a time they’ve never known.  They have never seen six people sit in a coffee shop and talk.  Call me an old-fashioned grumpma, but I miss those days.  It’s funny to me that Pokemon Go is trying to evoke the nineties, but actually makes them feel much farther away.[7]

---

[1] This is still a treatise so there will be footnotes.

[2] My computer apparently is too old to recognize the correct spelling of “millennial”.

[3] Neither children nor old people inhabit this city.

[4] Join me next week for a discussion on how the sexist name “Gameboy” destroyed my game playing confidence as a woman.

[5] Make America great again, am I right?

[6] This word is ruined for me forever.

[7]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNoouLa7uxA