Abortion in Black or White

As a human who has a firm stance on the abortion issue after years and years of reading everything from propaganda to science to statistics to personal narratives to visiting out-of-the-way abortion clinics myself, I sometimes grow weary of keeping up-to-date on the great abortion debate. But lately I have read a few pieces that discuss abortion in what seem to me to be new ways.

As a college freshman writing teacher, I often mediated debates about abortion in an attempt to get 18 & 19-year-old Okies to think critically and objectively and open-mindedly about salient issues. Over the years, I watched the debate between my pro-choice and pro-life students devolve into something completely political without much awareness at all of the procedure as a medical one. They were thoroughly polarized. It was FREEDOM! Or it was MURDER! One or the other, great or horrible, black or white.

This politicization of abortion was not just happening in my classroom, it was happening all over America. A recent (excellent and thorough!) article in the NYT discusses the changes that the American abortion provider has undergone, from a doctor in a hospital under standardized American Medical Association guidelines to the ostracized and often persecuted provider at a stand-alone clinic:

In 1973, hospitals made up 80 percent of the country’s abortion facilities. By 1981, however, clinics outnumbered hospitals, and 15 years later, 90 percent of the abortions in the U.S. were performed at clinics.

Wow!

Then there was this article on Feministing.com which discussed a recent TV episode of Friday Night Lights about abortion, and I just loved how the author described the plot: “The plot turns to an examination of what happens when we let a personal medical decision become an impersonal debate of moral absolutes.” Interesting… I need to see this show!

The last article that got me thinking about this issue is about how the Fox network refused to air an episode of The Family Guy because it discusses abortion. The show’s creator, Seth Macfarlane says something really insightful, I think (maybe because I agree with him):

[T]here are certain words, and abortion is one of those words, that once you say them, people start getting nervous.

It’s as if the very utterance of the sound uh-bawr-shuhn causes an emotional and physical reaction in people, like they have been trained to react instead of to think. He goes on to say this:

People in America, they’re getting dumber. They’re getting less and less able to analyze something and think critically, and pick apart the underlying elements. And more and more ready to make a snap judgment regarding something at face value, which is too bad.

And I’m uncomfortable about my inclination to agree with him on that one, too. I think in many ways we as Americans are encouraged to not think and to simply act whether that act is to buy, work, do, vote, drive, eat, speak, argue, etc. But I don’t know if that means we are dummer, necessarily. Maybe less patient? Maybe less willing to listen? (But I’m the same way…I have a very hard time listening to some self-righteous, preachy “pro-lifer.” Ewww, I feel like a horrible, judgmental hypocrite right now.) What do you think, can we as Americans be getting dummer? Are we just overly-sensitive to certain words like abortion? Is sensitivity or black-or-white thinking synonymous with dumbness?

Food for thought,

Spring

oklahoma abortion bills make me ill

Bad news for supporters of choice, free will, sanity, health, happiness, and intelligence (from the Tulsa World).

Oklahoma’s House passed four separate abortion measures that previously had been declared unconstitutional because they had been combined in one bill.

• The panel passed HB 3290 by Rep. Skye McNiel, R-Bristow. It would require a doctor to be in the room when the abortion pill RU486 is administered.

• The panel also passed HB 2780 by Rep. Lisa Billy, R-Lindsay, which would require women who seek an abortion to have an ultrasound and have its contents explained to them.

• The panel passed HB 3110 by Rep. Pam Peterson, R-Tulsa, which would allow health-care providers who object to abortion not to participate in the procedure.

• Peterson’s other abortion bill, HB 3284, also passed. It would require women who seek abortions to provide a host of information about themselves to be posted on a public website.

The first one’s stupid enough- a paternalistic infringement upon privacy, to say the least. What if I decide I don’t want to take the pill just now? What if I decide I want to go home to be sad and pissed (instead of sitting in a Dr.’s office feeling like a child taking cough syrup)? What if I wanna go have a beer with my RU486? I’m a grown-ass adult woman; I can swallow a pill that does not affect my ability to operate heavy machinery whenever and wherever and however I want! Doctors hand out pain pills and muscle relaxers like candy without a care to when or where or how or if the patient ever takes it. But this? A pill that only a female with a womb will take? That needs supervision? Skye McNeil, you just wrote a piece of crazy, stupid, sexist legislation, and I will be calling you.

The second piece of (professional?) legislation is so full of sleezy Hallmark-card sentimentality that I just vomited all over my computer keyboard. Besides being pathetic tripe, it also reeks of control-freakiness! Where the fuck are the Republicans that are opposed to big government intrusions into our personal lives?!?!?! If my womb and what I do or don’t let grow in it is not personal, WTF is anymore?!?!?!

The third one REALLY drives me nuts. A doctor would be able to tell me they don’t want to perform a MEDICAL procedure on me because they MORALLY object. What if a man wanted a vasectomy and the doctor morally objected? It wouldn’t happen! 1.) Because most religious zealots let go of their campaign against birth control decades ago. 2.) A male-specific procedure is his business! Notice the blaring double standard yet? I have been noticing lately that the definition of abortion provided by religious zealots has now almost completely replaced the actual, medical definition of abortion in American discussion of the topic. Am I stuck in a scary movie? Are my vagina, my womb, my mind, my behavior, or my religious views on trial? How exactly does a medical professional “object” to an abortion? Is this the Dr.’s office or a courtroom?

The fourth one: ridiculous, costly, unnecessary. And just why do we need a mandatory registry for people who get abortions? So that sexist zealots can use the information to send missionaries to places where clusters of free-willing women live and have sex? Then those happy, humanly imperfect and beautiful women can hear the shaming, damning, narrow-minded anti-abortion propaganda? Are we cattle that need to be tracked or pigeons that need to be electronically tagged? What else this bill is: Nazi-ish. SS Pam Peterson, you suck (kick her out, South Tulsa!).

Furthermore, every one of these bills were written by a woman? Seriously, ladies? Why are you soooooooooo concerned with this one topic? Are you trying to make yourselves look like good girls? Or mean girls by picking on other women? Are you trying to waste our money? As if it’s not already hard enough to get an abortion in Oklahoma? You want to keep spending time, money, and energy on this until abortion is completely illegal? Is that your main priority as a Representative? Is that what you promised your constituents that you’d do? Is that what is best for our state (a state with soaring teen-pregnancy rates, a state where women are under-represented in the House and Senate, a state where women have even lower incomes than our low-income men)?

Gagging and dry-heaving (I hope I’m pregnant so I can go sit through an ultrasound and an explanation of how I’ll be killing a future Tim Tebow, and then a Dr. can feed me my meds like I’m a lunatic stuck in Yellow Wallpaper, only after I’ve taken a few days off of work to find a Dr. willing to perform a MEDICAL PROCEDURE for which I am PAYING OUT OF POCKET because s/he didn’t get fear-mongered into forsaking the Hippocratic Oath like so many of her/his peers, and then I can go register on-line like a sex-offender since I offended so many people by having great, consensual, adult sex).

Spring

Conservatives Say Good Riddance to Democracy

Hi Conservatives,

Remember when your friend John McCain (R) introduced a law to get campaign finance out of the hands of large corporations, labor unions, etc. and put political representation back in the hands of the people? It was a nice idea, and it had bipartisan support. Well, the Conservative Justices on the Supreme Court (2 of whom Bush Jr. appointed) just knocked it down.

Here’s the news from  Reuters: “Corporations can spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday in a landmark decision that allows massive sums to be spent to influence future elections.”

Well, Democracy was fun while it lasted!!! So long, Rule of the People; hello, corporatocracy!

The split was along conservative – liberal lines, 5-4. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said the limits violated constitutional free-speech rights. “We find no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers,” he wrote.

Really? Do you agree with your Conservative leaders that corporations = “certain disfavored speakers”? Because if you do, I might have to de-friend you on Facebook.  I’m not above it.

Who has hijacked and co-opted Conservative philosophy and twisted into worship of multi-national corporations? Can somebody tell me? Who has convinced you that you owe loyalty to and/or that the Constitution grants rights to a corporation. You don’t. It doesn’t. Corporations are not persons!!! Corporations are not citizens.

As one commenter put it:

Every one of us, Democrat and Republican, rich and poor, Liberal and Conservative, has been dealt a blow today by powerful corporate interests who have taken over our representative Democracy and turned it into a way to transparently funnel every available bit of wealth and powerful to the already wealthy and powerful.

This is the stuff that all of should be marching on Washington D. C. to protest.

Instead, the disaffected on all sides of the political and economic fight point fingers at each other while the corporate takeover of our government destroys our society.

Stand up! Socialists, Teabaggers, moderates, and party faithfuls. You, unless you are already part of the wealthiest 1%, have had your representation stolen!

I realize that many of you are members of the Republican party or consider yourselves Conservatives because you believe that gay people shouldn’t marry and women shouldn’t have abortions. I personally think it’s ridiculous that a free-willing human would argue that gays shouldn’t have rights but fetuses should. (And I’m not over-simplifying.) But are you so wed to such beliefs that you are willing to sell our country’s democratic soul and your own political voice?

Really?

Spring

Also, if you care anything about State’s Rights, you might want to read this.

Kern Watch 2010: HB 2279 would amend OK divorce law, making divorce more difficult to obtain

hi, everyone. here’s your sally kern update for the new year! now she’s targeting divorce law, trying to save/protect traditional marriage by making divorces harder to obtain. the worst parts are that she’s doing this in the name of children’s rights (eyeroll) and that she is continuing her obsession with oppressing people who live what she’d call “alternative lifestyles,” i.e., anyone who is not heterosexual and married. from OKhouse.gov:

OKLAHOMA CITY (January 7, 2010) – Working to reduce Oklahoma’s high divorce rate, state Rep. Sally Kern has filed legislation to refine state law to encourage married couples with children to work through their problems.

“The destruction of the family is the root cause of many problems in our society,” said Kern, R-Oklahoma City. “If we can lower our divorce rate, our quality of life will improve and we will also reduce the need for many state services in this time of budget shortfall, freeing up money to go to core services such as schools and roads.”

House Bill 2279, by Kern, would amend Oklahoma’s divorce law. The bill would continue to allow divorce for abandonment, adultery, cruelty and similar causes, but would make it more difficult to obtain a divorce on the grounds of “incompatibility” if a couple has been married for 10 years or more, has children, and either the husband or wife objects to the divorce.

Under the bill, couples with children could obtain a divorce when both parties agree to it, just as they can under current law.

“No one wants to force a battered spouse to stay in a marriage, but that situation is seldom the cause of our high divorce rate,” Kern said. “Instead, we often see a husband or wife seek divorce because of so-called ‘incompatibility’ simply because they don’t want to try and address the issues that have caused their marital problems.”

In four of five divorces, one spouse does not want the divorce, according to Mike McManus, president and co-founder of Marriage Savers, a group dedicated to driving down the nation’s divorce rate and preserving families.

Kern said by making it harder for one spouse to unilaterally obtain a divorce (outside of abuse, abandonment or similar circumstances), the state would create an incentive for reconciliation.

“This legislation would not prohibit divorce, but it would slow down the process when children are involved and provide an incentive for couples to sit down and talk about their problems,” Kern said. “That process may not always lead to reconciliation, but it is important that both spouses are involved in the decision. Our current law favors only the spouse seeking divorce.”

Kern noted there is broad support for slowing down the divorce process when children are involved. A TIME/CNN poll found that 61 percent of adults favor making divorce more difficult to obtain when a couple has young children.

“Regrettably, children are the innocent victims of divorce,” Kern said.

She also noted divorce also has financial consequences for state government.

A recent study, “The Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and Unwed Childbearing” conservatively estimates divorce costs state government up to $430 million annually (largely through public assistance programs). Research also indicates children from broken homes are more likely to be incarcerated, live in poverty and are more susceptible to substance abuse and mental health disorders.

“We cannot address our current budget shortfall if we don’t also address the root cause of many state expenditures,” Kern said. “As my House colleague Mark McCullough has argued, if we could reduce divorce in Oklahoma we would also reduce our prison population and welfare rolls while benefiting families and children. That’s a goal worth pursing.”

kern’s bill is an unfunny, lame version of California’s Initiative to ban divorce. please feel free to write her on her comments page or call her at (405) 557-7348 and tell her you disapprove. you may also reach her at sallykern@okhouse.gov. perhaps you could recommend other, more pressing issues that she could expend her energies on, such as, oh i don’t know, the economy, infrastructure, teaching wages, healthcare access improvement, the prison system, etc., etc., etc.

peace,
beamish

Renewing passions

hi, y’all,

glad to see you! happy twenty-ten! i wanted to do a follow-up to spring’s post where we listed our favorite things of 2009. my question is this:

what do you resolve to renew your passions for in the next year?

as for myself, in this moment, i want to renew my passion for communication with all people who are part of my communities or who affect my communities. patience, flexibility, more patience, strength of conviction, awareness of self, even more patience, a good understanding of rhetoric, a knowledge of psychology, continued learning and openness, and willpower are the traits i need to succeed.

a documentary called Shouting Fire looks at the issue of free speech in the post-9/11 United States. i’m inspired to see it after viewing the trailer. has anyone else seen it?

the documentary looks at the issue of first amendment rights from all sides. you will find some stories uplifting and some aggravating. but that’s how it goes! there is way for us to debate rationally and to serve each other without resorting to violence and segregation. we have it already: the first amendment provides it to us. by respecting each other and turning to dialogue for help in difficult situations, we can overcome that which appears to divide us. peace to all of us!

in addition, i also want to renew my passion for volunteering by continuing to meet the commitments i’ve made with volunteers of america. last, for now, i  want to continue being a part of the real food and slow food movements by buying local, organic, and/or fair trade products and preparing meals at home as often as possible. i’d like to start sharing recipes with you all maybe once a week, recipes for simple food, cheap food, ethical food, good food.

how about yourself?

–beamish

Brilliant speech by NY State Sen. Savino

Although the bill she was supporting was shot down in the New York Senate, Senator Savino’s passionate and smart speech in support of same-sex marriage was inspiring.  I first saw the link to the video posted by a friend on a social networking site and then on Feministing.  And then on Queerty.

The bill was voted down 38-24 yesterday, Wednesday the 2nd of December.   You can read more about it here and here.

Just wanted to share!

–beamish

Feministing alerts readers to RNC’s health insurance covering abortion

Well, dog my cats.

For those of you who haven’t already heard, let me repeat that: the Republican National Committee (RNC) has a health insurance plan for their employees that covers abortion. Now, this shouldn’t even be surprising, despite my out-loud laugh half in amazement, half fury when I found out arriving home last night. Because as Amie and Cecile Richards say – of course their plan covers abortion! It’s a standard health benefit plan any employer would want to offer their employees, yes?

But as Politico points out, for a committee whose platform that says abortion is “a fundamental assault on innocent human life,” and its members just voted for the Stupak-Pitts Amendment attacking the very existence of abortion coverage in health insurance plans (along with enough anti-choice and cowardly Dems) in the recently House passed health care bill, this is pretty incredible to hear.

Of course, the RNC is scrambling to cover for this apparent mistake, saying the policy had been in effect since 1991 (so were you pro-choice then?) and is assuring folks that their insurance plan is going to immediately be changed. Says a late release from the RNC late last night:

News reports have revealed that the RNC’s health plan dating back as far as 1991 may have included some coverage for elective abortion. Upon learning of this, Chairman Michael Steele instructed the RNC Director of Administration to opt the RNC out of any coverage for elective abortion services in its health insurance policy.

“Money from our loyal donors should not be used for this purpose. I don’t know why this policy existed in the past, but it will not exist under my administration. Consider this issue settled.” – RNC Chairman Michael Steele

It’s not so much that the RNC are hypocrites that gets me – we’ve known that too well and for too long – but that their female employees are now having the right to reproductive health care stripped from their plan. It’s like they’re the first to be sacrificed in the midst of this assault.

Go read it on their website here and follow the links for verification.

Bemused,
Beamish

Embrace Obfuscation

So I was feeling frustrated with politicians in general and with all of the partisan hoo-hah about what healthcare reform is or should be, and my reading led me to this article. I could just not NOT share this after reading it. I’ve been feeling lately like I’m too left for Democrats, but definitely NOT a Republican. I am a fan of collectives and co-ops and have been learning more and more about Anarchism lately. And then I have several Libertarian-identified friends. And I agree with them at times, but then again we clash because I have Socialist leanings, too. Anyway, here’s a tiny piece of the aforementioned article that cites from another piece (hehe, a little confusing because of the citation within a citation, but bear with me):

In the United States’ proto-totalitarian election-focused political culture, Wolin elaborated, “the parties set out to mobilize the citizen-as-voter, to define political obligation as fulfilled by the casting of a vote. Afterwards, post-election politics of lobbying, repaying donors, and promoting corporate interests – the real players – takes over. The effect is to demobilize the citizenry, to teach them not to be involved or to ponder matters that are either settled or beyond their efficacy….The timidity of a Democratic Party mesmerized by centrist precepts,” Wolin observed, “points to the crucial fact that, for the poor, minorities, the working-class, anticorporatists, pro-environmentalists, and anti-imperialists, there is no opposition party working actively on their behalf.” (Wolin, Democracy Incorporated, pp. 201, 205, 206).
 (From ZNet article “Frank Rich, Barack Obama, and the Corporatist ‘Punking’ of America”)

This led me to think that, some days, I am a Libertarian Socialist.

Some capitalist libertarians argue that freedom and equality are often in conflict with one another, and that promoting equality (as valued by socialism) will inherently require restrictions on liberty (as valued by libertarianism), forcing the society to choose one or the other as their primary value. The Kurt Vonnegut story “Harrison Bergeron”, in which equality is enforced by imposing physical and mental handicaps on overachievers, can be seen as illustrating this point through hyperbole (though Vonnegut’s own belief in socialism is a point of interest).

Libertarian socialists typically dismiss the perceived contradiction between freedom and equality as a red herring. Noam Chomsky states that, “human talents vary considerably, within a fixed framework that is characteristic of the species and that permits ample scope for creative work, including the appreciation of the creative achievements of others. This should be a matter of delight rather than a condition to be abhorred.”  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism).

Know what I mean, Vern?

Processing,
Beamish

Report on Meeting with Sen. Inhofe’s Assistant–Details and Discussion

This morning at 9 a.m. I met with a representative of Senator Inhofe’s (Mike) and five other Tulsans at Inhofe’s office here in Tulsa.  We were there to lobby for healthcare (or insurance) reform.  The meeting was about an hour long and included the following talking points: citizens’ personal stories, insurance companies getting between the patient and the care, HSAs (Health Savings Accounts), healthcare in England/France/Canada, uninsured people, the rising cost of insurance, pre-existing conditions, health care in different states, etc.

Meeting Notes:

—-Citizens’ stories:
–62 year old retired man who can’t afford health insurance gave his story.
–A woman who’d been diagnosed with MS and is having to deal with high co-pays on prescription meds.  Her husband was also there to talk.
–3 people who are dealing with rising co-pays for their family’s coverage—one of them has a spouse with a chronic health problem and the other two are a married couple with three children.

—-Several people expressed worries about the unchecked greed of the insurance companies, as well as the effect that economic troubles (such as the recent collapse) would have on HSAs.  Inhofe is working to enact the “Patients’ Choice Act, S.1099, which would improve HSAs by making them more accessible and easier to use.  One person compared HSAs to privatizing of social security as it was proposed by the past administration—what would citizens do if they lost their savings due to the instability of the market?  What if proposed tax credits do not cover a person’s healthcare costs? (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account for more information about HSAs)

—-Brief discussion of caps on medication costs.     

—-BLAME CANADA.  Mike said the public option would be “essentially socialized medicine.”  Pointed to England, France, and Canada’s systems, citing stories of long waits (as Inhofe’s handout does).  First, people in the room responded to the use of the term socialism, as it is used a part of a witch hunt.  Second, people pointed out that the information about healthcare in other countries is often incomplete or provided by interest groups.  Shona Holmes’ story, for example, is cited on Inhofe’s handout.  A recent report by NPR uncovered that Holmes’ experience with the Canadian healthcare system and a brain CYST is different than it is portrayed by Senators like Inhofe (http://www.npr.org/blogs/talk/2009/07/shona_holmes_and_canadian_heal.html).  Holmes was not suffering from a life-threatening brain tumor. 

—-Talked briefly about maternity leave lengths and how they are longer in countries like France, England, and Canada.  A plus for these systems. 

—-Talked briefly about treatment that is deemed “experimental” by insurance companies.  One person spoke about how certain MS treatments are not covered or she and her husband fear they will not be. 

—-Mike pointed out that many congresspeople would not accept the public option if it were offered to them through their positions but would stick with their own.  If that healthcare is so great, then why do these smart people turn it down? he asked.  We are smart people, he said, educated people.  He literally said “the proof is in the pudding,” I think.  Sheesh.  My thought is it’s a political move.  Or perhaps these politicians could afford better coverage because they have the money to pay for it.  This document from the US Senate Special Committee on Aging parses out fact from fiction and includes a note about congresspeople and the public option, as well as many other issues that concern seniors: http://aging.senate.gov/issues/healthcare/factvsfiction.pdf. 

—-Mike said reform is needed because 1. so many uninsured people (who either choose to not buy insurance or are illegal immigrants—weird demonizing of the uninsured) and 2. rising costs of insurance.  We agree but point one strikes me in particular as troublesome because I have been uninsured for so many years.  I have not been interested in buying insurance because I can’t afford in on my salary of 1100 a month and because I don’t have any longstanding or chronic health issues.  The times I’ve needed medical care and have been uninsured, I was able to get care through state programs like SoonerCare.    Mike implied that the position of his party is that if you do not have healthcare insurance and you become sick, then that is your fault.  Blame the victim, not the system.  He also said that if you do not get a job that has good healthcare insurance, like a government job, then that is your choice.  You have chosen not to receive good healthcare insurance.  This point bothers me because I should not have to base my career or job choice on the quality of health insurance offered by the employer.  What does that have to do with my life and my work?  I’ve discussed this with others before who see this trend as the worst part of private health insurance—you have to worry about healthcare before you can worry about where you’d like to work and what you’d like to do with your time.  How does that promote choice and freedom? 

—-There are currently three House Bills and one Senate Bill about reform.  I found a bit of information about them here: http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE57D23Q20090814

—-We discussed the idea of allowing people to get insurance in other states (competition)—public plan would crowd out private competition is the argument, but would that really happen?  This hit home with me too since I have a grandmother whose sister and brother-in-law cannot come to visit her as much as they would like because they get fantastic health care in California and can’t afford to move to Arkansas because they’d lose the care they receive in CA. 

—————————–

In the end, I cannot agree with Sen. Inhofe and others who take the same position as he does, no matter what their political stripes.  It is very suspicious to me that Inhofe received $340,000 of campaign donations from insurance companies, and I am not surprised to find out that Inhofe was once the president of a life insurance company (http://newsok.com/candidates-for-state-u.s.-senate-seat-spar-over-medicare-legislation/article/3269264 ).  I think he works for the insurance companies, not for Americans.    

Inhofe wants to spread/encourage fear about “Washington bureaucrats” (he is one of these, don’t forget) coming between patients and their healthcare providers.  I do not see how this would be worse than the current reality of insurance companies coming between patients and their healthcare providers.  Also, I do not see exactly how regulation of insurance companies and caps on medication costs would come between the patient and the healthcare provider.  What I want is to get the insurance company leeches out of my healthcare.  I want them regulated.  I want them to go non-profit.  These are the changes I want to see and the choices I want available.

Inhofe continues to use the language “socialized health care” to refer to efforts to reform health insurance.  Let’s not have a witch hunt, people.  Using a politically charged term is not an argument.  The arguments against the public option are that healthcare in England, France, and Canada is no good and that putting bureaucrats between the patient and the healthcare providers is a worse move than putting profit-driven health insurance companies between the patient (a.k.a. the liability) and the healthcare.  These arguments do not make sense.  Furthermore, the demonizing of President Obama in the midst of all of the information and misinformation flying around is an overt political attack against him and has more to do with the 2010 and 2012 elections than it does with the health of US citizens. 

The meeting with Mike was successful because we were able to gain at least some access to Sen. Inhofe and because we were able to get our voices heard during an impressively civil and rational conversation with another human being.  

Peace,
Beamish

entering the healthcare reform debate…

hi, all,

just wanted to let you know that tomorrow morning, i’ll be going to visit senator inhofe with a small group of people here in tulsa.  it’s late notice, but here is the official invite that i got from a friend on facebook:

“Join me for civil conversation at Sen. Inhofe’s office Friday at 9am to lobby for Health Care Reform. 1924 South Utica Avenue, Suite 530, Tulsa OK.”

i’ve been spending time this week trying to wrap my mind around what exactly is going on and why i should or shouldn’t support president obama’s and congress’s efforts to work out a reform plan.  i just read a piece on huffingtonpost.com about the ties between insane town hall protesters and anti-civil rights protesters in the late 60s.  this made me think about how race plays–not into healthcare (which i’m also now considering) but–into how people judge president obama’s actions.  i do not think that the outcry against healthcare reform would be so insane (or 100% fueled by white people) if the president were a white man.  i DO think that the outcry would be just as insane (or moreso) if a woman were president.  imagine if hillary were in office…  man, oh man…

anyway, back to healthcare itself (not that satellite issues are not as important).   here’s a sampling of a few other pieces that have i’ve encountered in the past few days:

“Does Canada’s Healthcare System Need Fixing?” from NPR.
“A Primer on the Details of Healthcare Reform” from The New York Times.
“Health Insurance Reform Reality Check” from whitehouse.gov.
“Getting Health Care Right” by Sen. Jim Inhofe.
“Bill Moyers Journal with Wendell Potter” from pbs.org.

i feel a little lacking in my knowledge about what is really being proposed and what i’d like to see done.  i think tomorrow might help make things a little more real for me.  i’ll be back with a report about what happened and what i learned.   i’m trying to make this more about healthcare than about senator inhofe…  not sure what expectations to have…

peace,
beamish