Contraceptives More than Yea--Nay Thing

Do I favor contraceptives?

That question would have to be broken into many parts before I could answer it, and on some of the parts, I would want to think more before deciding.

Do I favor contraceptive use being allowed in a marriage? Yes.

Do I favor contraceptives being paid for by the government? No. But are there situations where government should pay? Perhaps. This is an area that needs more thought, before I decide. I do, though, think contraceptives should not be paid for by government, as a general rule.

Do I favor contraceptives being paid for by insurance? Yes, if the insurance company so decides and is not being mandated by the government in its decision.

Do I favor contraceptives being used by unwed partners? I wish there were no extramarital affairs, but, if they should want to use contraceptives, they should be allowed to.

Do I favor allowing teenagers to use contraceptives? Yes.

Do I favor contraceptive use being taught in schools? I pause on this one. I've already blogged that I am against it. Am I going to change my mind? At that time, my reasoning was that you don't want to be teaching them to have sex, period, so why teach them ways that having it will make it okay?

I think I will reconsider, and offer it more thought. If I should say yes, it will come with a provision. It should be taught right, if it is to be taught at all. Abstinence should be taught. Morality should be taught. Forbid that we should not be allowed to teach morality, that those who would say we should not force our morals on others should win this argument.

If contraceptives are to be taught, do not say, "This is how to do it, if you are going to do it." If we borrow from another discipline, that of salesmanship, we must know to choose wording that "assumes the sale." So, let us choose wording that assumes they are going to make the right choices. Instead of using the second-person, "If you find yourself in a situation where you are going to have sex, at least protect yourself from venereal disease by using contraceptives," perhaps offer the third-person, "You in this classroom can all be wise and stay away from sex until you are married. But, there are those who are not always as wise as you, and when they make the mistake of having sex, many of them find it serves them better to use contraceptives, in order to avoid such things as venereal disease."

Well, I must think on this more, before I  join the teach-them-contraceptives crowd. Even broaching the subject means planting the seed of thought of having sex.  Perhaps we must venture into that space, in order to teach them, but get in and out of the subject as quickly as possible. Take their questions, answer their questions, and don't brush them off -- but move on as quickly as possible.

In teaching contraceptives, teach morality. Don't let the discussion be left without stating reasons for morality, without saying that those who wait for marriage usually have better marriages, stronger marriages, and have the joy of being committed to that one special person in a way that can only be achieved by saving sex for marriage.

Well, those are my thoughts for the night, having thought as I typed. Time may change them, but they are my thoughts for the night.

Poster Mother for Abortion Now Pro-Life

Once upon a time, Norma McCorvey was the poster mother of the pro-choice movement. Now, she is pro-life.

McCorvey, under the alias, Jane Roe, made her fame as the plaintiff in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court case that legalized abortion in 1973.

Since then, McCorvey converted to Catholicism, and that led her to becoming pro-life. Last year, she played an elderly lady in a movie, "Doonby," in which she tried to talk a lady out of an abortion. The movie was filmed in McCorvey's hometown in Texas and was set in the 1960s.

McCorvey's case against Texas, demanding that the state allow her to have an abortion, was filed in 1969. By the time it reached the Supreme Court, it was long too late to prevent the birth, and the child was adopted.

"I abused alcohol, sex -- everything," McCorvey recalled for the Hollywood Reporter. "I understand the role that I've played in history. Of course I have  regrets, but I'm so glad that I don't have the regret of having had an abortion on my conscience."

Her Name Attaches to Abortion, But She is Pro-Life

The woman who supposedly sued the state to allow abortion in that famous case Doe v. Bolton says she never even wanted an abortion.

She is, in fact, pro-life, having a ministry opposing abortion called Wonderfully Made Ministry.

How is it, then, that her case FOR abortion went all the way to the Supreme Court, where the Court ruled in her favor in one of the two cases that overturned bans against abortion?

Doe v. Bolton was decided by the Supreme Court Jan. 22, 1973, the same day the Court ruled on the more-famous Roe v. Wade. They are partner cases.

Mary Doe was the name Sandra Cano was assigned by the court. If the name was false -- and so was the identity of her being a key supporter of abortion, if we are to believe her, and I have found no reason not to.

Cano says her lawyer lied to her to get her to sign the papers initiating the case. She says she had sought legal help in order to get a divorce and to get her children out of foster care. "Abortion never crossed my mind," she says.

In fact, she would flee to Oklahoma to escape her lawyer's efforts to have an abortion performed, she says. She ran from the abortion, literally, only to end up a poster child for those who favor it.

Did You Catch the Week's After-Birth Abortion Debate?

How about we start aborting babies just after they are born?

After all, a babie has no more sense of its own existence just after being born than it does before leaving the womb. And, 1/3 of infants born with Down syndrome are not diagnosed until after they are born. Why should the mothers who give birth to a Down syndrome child -- or to a child with any other serious abnormality -- have to keep the child, while the mothers who find out about the condition before birth have the freedom to abort? Is that fair? Equality demands that both be allowed to make the choice.

Such is the contention of an article by Australians Alberto Giubilini of Monash University and Francesca Minerva of the University of Melbourne, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics. They were arguing from a position of logic, and later suggested they did not mean that after-birth abortions should actually happen.

When the media spotted the article, and reported on Giubilini and Minerva's article, it caused an outcry. While the pair might accept abortion, itself, as a given, it is the argument against abortion that has benefitted most from the firestorm, as people can see many of the arguments for before-birth abortions make just as much sense for "after-birth abortion."

The article hopefully helps people realize abortions just should not be allowed. They should be illegal. The life of a person should be preserved, not only after birth, but before.

Prescription Drugs, Like Illegal Counterparts, Dangerous

So, let's say prescription drugs lead an individual to do things he or she normally wouldn't do -- like committing murder. Should the doctor be held liable?

A Utah Supreme Court ruling this week increases that possiblity, as the case in question was for a person using standard dosages, as opposed to being given too much. David Ragsdale killed his wife in a church parking lot in 2008. "I want you to know," Ragsdale said at his sentencing, "that I am confident I would not have taken Kristy's life had I not been on the medications I was on. But, that being said, I take full responsibility for my actions."

Just as illegal drugs might at times lead a person to do things they normally wouldn't, including murder, so do legal drugs. It makes an argument that we should look at our legal drugs, and not prescribe them unnecessarily. Along with fighting illegal drugs, we should also fight the overuse of prescription drugs, for they, too, can be harmful.

Do I like it that this case could put a scare into doctors, prompting them to think twice before prescribing medications? I have mixed feelings. We are too much a litiguous society, already. And, I read a statement from the Utah Medical Association spokesperson saying the new court ruling could lead to the loss of medication for many who need it and for whom it works well. A regimen that has been helpful to many, might be lost because of the reaction of just one patient, said Mark Fotheringham of the UMA.

But, I also think of the doctors who prescribe medication not because they know the patient needs it, but just to ensure the patient doesn't complain about not getting it. I think of a visit I had to the hospital last year, and how I was prescribed Oxycodone even though I had no pain at all.

A Little More Government Would Cure DABC Problems?

Too often, we step in with more government when something goes wrong.

So, it should be no surprise that as a result of the fraud and corruption found in the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, there's a move to add more government to the existing pile of government in order to pull things under control.

The legislature is considering giving the DABC its own auditor. Now, an auditor just for that department might, indeed, solve the problem. It would seem if you have a person whose sole function on an 8/5 basis (not 24/7, but 8/5 is quite alot, being full time) is to look at your books and audit your doings, he or she ought to catch any and everything.

But, if an auditor just for the DABC is such a good idea, why not have one for every state department? That would be overkill, wouldn't it? If the DABC is being singled out, it must be that that department is just not trusted. I would suggest there is nothing inherently wrong with the DABC that isn't inherently wrong with any other state agency. There is no more need for the DABC to have its own auditor than for all other agencies to each have their own.

The proposed bill would also expand the state liquor commission from five to seven members. That's not much of an expansion of government, but I still object.

So, leave the membership at five. As for an auditor, instead of creating a new auditor's position just for the DABC, use your elected state auditor. Assign that person to make the DABC a concern that won't be overlooked.

If you already have a government officer to fill a role, why create another to do the same thing? Government will never be small as long as we double it everytime something goes wrong.

While the easy solution is to add more government, the real solution is to add more vigilance. This goes beyond the elected state auditor. It means all the elected and appointed government leaders who become concerned need to take it upon themselves to be more vigilant, to accept responsibility for watching the chicken coop, so to speak. If a chicken farmer were to discover his chickens were getting out, he could do one of at least two things. One, he could hire a security guard to come and watch the coop 24/7, or, two, he could do his own searching and find how the chickens were getting out and just fix the problem.

When fraud is found in government, vigilance, not more government, is sometimes the better answer.

My Roommate is True American Hero

My roommate is a true American hero.

He gets up early, and walks over to Labor Ready, taking grunt work for little pay.

Look around at society, if you will, and see the many who would not do such work, at such wage. Look around at the many who would understandably take an unemployment check, or a government assistance check, or find another way out of such work.

I confess I would not want to be a day laborer, not at the pay they get.

But, if you will, all the ways out of such work that our society has created only make the day laborer who remains that much more precious,  that much more of a hero. When you talk of the economy and how it is doing, you are more likely to talk of the stock market, and the housing market, and the gross national product. But, as much as anything, what holds our economy together is the willingness of people to work. You cannot measure this simply by the unemployment rate, as there is no distinction in that between those who are willing to work who can't, and those who simply seek a way out of work.

If we all were willing to work, taking the hard, ill-paid jobs, that would be a mark of a good, sound, solid economy. Not the only mark, but a good mark just the same.