Abortion: A Different Viewpoint

 The anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision is coming up.  Because this is an election year, the abortion issue will be on people's minds again, at least for a while.   The debate will flare up again, with both sides putting forth the same old arguments.  Very few minds will be changed.

I gave considerable thought to this issue before I made up my mind.  I also did something that few people have done - I have read the Roe v. Wade decision for myself, to see what it actually said..

As a result of this effort,  I have developed a view of abortion that I have not heard anyone else espouse.  I don't think that Roe v. Wade needs to be overturned.  I believe that Roe needs to  be ANSWERED.

I say this because the Roe decision applied directly to only one law in one state, Texas.  Because most abortions laws had the same basis, the states with similar laws considered them invalid and unenforceable.

What was the basis of the Texas law?  The health of the mother.

The Texas law was written in the 1830's, before it joined the Union.  Most of the states that had anti-abortion laws wrote them around the same time, and for the same reason.

Abortion was a dangerous procedure back then.  Many women died, if not from the procedure itself, then from complications.

By the middle of the 20th Century, medical practices improved enough that abortion could be performed without threatening the life or health of the mother.   So, the basis of the law was no longer valid.  We do not need laws without a sound foundation.

Now, you might be thinking that I have just made the case for abortion rights.  However, the Roe decision did say something that makes me say it needs to be answered.

The Roe decision did say that the state (that is, the government) had an interest in protecting life.  It stopped short of recognizing an unborn child as a person covered by the Constitution.  That leaves us the issue of personhood.

How can we establish personhood for an unborn child?  The answer is simple.  Establish identity and you establish personhood.  The only way to establish identity for the unborn is through DNA.

Whenever an egg is fertilized, the DNA of both the male and the female combine to form a new DNA pattern.  Because the new DNA contains parts of both parents' DNA, it can be matched to both.  But it cannot not be matched to only one.  Therefore, the argument that the fetus is part of the mother's body is invalid.  If it were, it would have her DNA and only her DNA.

It is this property of DNA that allows law enforcement to identify murder victims and murderers, rapists and other criminals.  DNA is often used to settle paternity disputes as well.

In light of this, the best way to end abortion would be for some state legislator in a pro-life state to write a law recognizing the unborn as persons with the right to life under the Constitution.  Once such a law is passed, signed, and tested in the Supreme Court, then other states will begin to enact their own laws.  When enough states have passed such laws, then a movement could be made to pass a Right To Life Amendment.

I could say more, but that explains the core of my perspective on this issue.

Sept. 11th Memories

Yesterday was the 10th anniversary of the September 11th terrorist attacks.  Many have shared their memories of that day.  Here's mine:

I was sleeping in.  Mom was in the front room, but she didn't have the TV on.  She was probably reading.  The phone rang, and that's what woke me up.

The call was from one of Mom's friends.  Most of the times when this particular friend called, Mom would talk to her for a long time.  But Mom soon hung up and turned on the TV.  A few moments later, she came to my room to tell me that I needed to see what was on TV.

At that time, only the first plane had struck.  Most of the speculation then was that this was an accident.  But when the second plane hit, we all knew this was probably a deliberate act.

The collapse of the towers stunned me.  I'm not sure what I felt at that time, but I do remember thinking about all the live that would be lost.  I knew it would be in the thousands.

We watched the coverage for several hours.  I believe after a couple of hours the government confirmed that this was a terrorist attack.

That afternoon, when I went to the post office to get the mail, traffic was unusually heavy for the small town I live in.  The gas pumps at both convenience stores were busy.  Police were also quite visible.

When I heard that terrorists were behind the attack, I immediately thought of Saddam Hussein.  Being that he was a dictator, and had control of not only the Iraqi Air Force, but also Iraqi airlines, I thought he would have the knowledge to think up the plan for this attack.  As it turns out, Al Qaeda was behind the attack.

In all that has happened since then, I know that mistakes were made in our efforts to combat terrorism, but we must be doing something right, because we have not had another attack on that same scale.

Storm Warnings and the Public- Revisited

Once again this country has seen a major tornado outbreak, with lives lost, many injuries, and millions (possibly over a billion) dollars worth of property damage. Many people have posted their feelings, and even though I haven't yet shared mine, I do feel the same sadness that others feel.

Because of the high number of deaths, I wouldn't be surprised if the government conducts a study on why so many peopled died. If they don't, they should.

I'm sure that once again warnings would become a major issue. I've posted on this before:

Storm Warnings and the Public

Storm Warnings Revisited - Someone Must Have Listened

I'm not going to rehash those comments here. I don't think I would change much of what I've already said. But I have new thoughts on the issue.

The NWS constantly seeks to improve and to increase the lead time of its warnings. That doesn't need to change, but even with tight budgets, those efforts should receive the most funding we can afford. I believe that the approach to educating the public about watches and warnings does need to change.

I have noticed that several states will have a Severe Weather Awareness Week in conjunction with the NWS. I believe that we need a national campaign as well, to reinforce the state and regional efforts, and to get the attention of more of the general public. I'm not sure if we need a long campaign every year, but a week-long campaign once every 3 - 4 years, with short campaigns of 3 days every year in-between would go a long way towards making the public more aware of the need to keep an eye out for weather hazards. These campaigns need to target schools as well as the general public.

In addition, the way watches and warnings are described need to change. People need to know that warnings are ACTION statements - that if you are in an area named in a warning, you need to do something to ensure your own safety, and the safety of family, friends, co-workers, etc. Watches are only ADVISORY statements - that the NWS sees that severe weather is possible in the watch area, and you should monitor the media for warnings, or keep an eye open for threatening conditions at your location.

So far, the Awareness campaigns I have seen have been conducted by state authorities and local NWS offices. The only time I see a non-government entity involved in a campaign, is when McDonalds does their McReady program, or a local radio or TV station puts on a campaign targeted at their audience. This doesn't mean that non-governmental organizations don't conduct any campaigns, it's just that I don't know of any. I know the American Red Cross publishes booklets and pamphlets about severe weather, but I don't know if they have an organized effort to promote severe weather awareness. A campaign involving NGO's, such as the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, ham radio clubs, neighborhood or homeowners associations, etc., could have a bigger impact because the public might see these people as ordinary people and not as bureaucrats and politicians that want to tell people what to do.

I'm not sure of what else could be or should be done. But I do know that we do need to do something different. Too many people are dying needlessly.

Tulsa Amateur Radio Repeater Club Organization?

I have received several emails the past couple of days concerning rumors of a merger between the two major ham radio clubs in Tulsa - the Tulsa Amateur Radio Club, and the Tulsa Repeater Organization. No official talks are going on, yet, but some of the responses seem to favor the idea.

I have seen and heard people express a desire for a merger before. I can see why people would like to see it happen. When I became a ham back in 1997, a lot of friction and competition existed between the clubs, despite a large number of people belonging to both. Over the years, the clubs have cooperated more and more. It started with the clubs combining efforts on the Skywarn program. The response to Hurricane Katrina also brought increased cooperation between the clubs. The last few years have seen combined Field Day operations. With clubs struggling all across the country to keep members, they can't afford to waste their efforts. I believe Abraham Lincoln said that you can't build yourself up by tearing someone else down. Combined efforts accomplish more.

I too, would like to see a merger. But I have my doubts.

The clubs have different structures and attitudes, for starters. Then they would face issues of what to do with club repeaters and other equipment, callsigns, websites, newsletters, how much for club dues, etc. Working out all these details will take time to come to a solution everyone will be satisfied with, that is, if the clubs are to do a merger of their structures. Alternative approaches would be to hammer out a new structure, or for one club to fold and donate all its resources to the other. Hmmm, lots to think about... (chin-rubbing emoticon would go here if I could post one)

I do have one suggestion for now. Base the structure on the principles of the Incident Command System. The ICS is a proven organizational tool. We don't have to have the same structure as ICS, just use the same principles the ICS is based on.

Christ In Christmas

Currently, the Tulsa area, a controversy is going on that is tied to a trend that has been going on for several years. Businesses, schools, and other organizations have replaced 'Christmas' with 'holiday' in the names of their December events, and Christians have resisted this by saying that Christ shouldn't be taken out of Christmas. The local flare-up is over the decision of U. S. Senator James Inhofe, a Tulsa resident, to not ride his horse in this year's parade because the organizers changed the name of the event.

Of course, many criticize him, saying he is close-minded, bigoted, and failing to represent all the people of Oklahoma. But they say this about him no matter what he does or says. Unless Inhofe changes into a liberal Democrat (he is one of the most conservative Republicans in the Senate), he will never please them. Even then, I believe they would remain suspicious of him, just waiting to pounce on him with venom and vigor if he ever again expresses another conservative or traditional thought.

On the other hand, many have applauded him for taking a stand for Christ.

Me? I'm kind of in the middle on this one.

I am glad when anyone takes a stand for Christ, however I do think that he could have taken his stand in a better manner.

Why make an issue of the parade's name? Does this really matter? In this case, maybe not.

Who decides what the parade is called? Whoever puts in on.

I tried to search online to see who that is, and apparently the parade is put on by its own organization. This organization might be an offshoot of the Jaycees, because they were mentioned in a sponsorship application I found. The parade director said the organization is not a religious one, and the parade is just a community event.

Why should we expect a non-religious organization to name their event with a Christian name, just because they called it a Christmas parade in the past? It's their event, they're not a Christian organization, and they have the right to name it whatever they want.

If the outfit behind the parade was a Christian organization, and they changed the name from 'Christmas' to anything else, then they could be taking Christ out of the event. They could also be trying to cover up the Christian nature of the event, a "bait and switch" approach to presenting the Good News of Jesus. Wouldn't that be a really spiritual method!?

Now, I have to admit I have a different perspective on this "Christ in Christmas" business anyway. You see, I'm not sure that Christmas was about Christ to begin with.

Much has already been written and said about how most Christmas customs have pagan origins, and how Christmas occurs on the same date as ancient pagan festivals (Saturnalia in Rome, Yule in Nordic lands). Did the Church do this to make it easier for pagans to believe in Jesus, or to make it easier for the Church to absorb pagans?

Of course, this doesn't mean that pagan customs can't be "saved." See what I wrote about the gittith in my Christmas Meditation post. My contention is that if Christmas is about Christ, it is so only when we make it that way. This is true for individuals, families, churches, whoever.

If Sen. Inhofe wants Christ in the Tulsa holiday parade, he should ride in the parade carrying a Christian flag, or a banner that says "Jesus Is The Reason For The Season."

A New Type of Primary Election?

Tuesday was primary election day in Oklahoma. That night I looked up the election results online, and also read the comments posted by other readers. Of course, there was the usual back-and-forth about Republican vs. Democrat, liberal vs. conservative views, plus comments on open vs. closed primaries.

On the primaries issue, both sides have a point. In a closed primary, independent voters can only vote on non-partisan offices (judges) and issues (state questions, bond issues, etc.), so a candidate favored by independents could be eliminated and the independents wouldn't have a say in the matter. In an open primary, voters in one party could unfairly strengthen a weak candidate that their own party's candidate can defeat easily.

So, I was thinking, why not a new type of primary? One that allows independents to vote on party candidates, but would not allow voters in one party to vote on the candidates of the other party. I guess you would call it a semi-open primary.

Here's the way it would work:

If you are a member of a party, you get your party's ballot that lists ONLY your party's candidates, candidates for non-partisan offices and non-partisan issues. If you are an independent voter, you get a ballot that lists ALL candidates for all contested offices (including the independent candidates), and non-partisan issues. This will allow independent voters to show their approval of partisan candidates.

Independent candidates must get ten percent (10%) of the vote to continue on to the general election. This will save the cost of added names of candidates that have no real chance of winning or influencing the outcome of an election.

I know this last part will put extra pressure on independent candidates to get out and campaign early, instead of waiting until after the primaries to make a strong effort. But isn't the purpose of a primary election to eliminate candidates? Why not eliminate independent candidates early? I also think it's a fair trade-off for allowing independent voters to vote on partisan candidates.

Besides, strong independents actually tend to muddy up general elections. Remember Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996? He drew voters away from the Republican candidates those years. Democrats tend to think of Bill Clinton as their party's savior after 12 years of Republicans in the White House, but the truth is that Perot was the deciding factor. The same thing happened in the 2002 Oklahoma governor's race. Brad Henry won that year because independent Gary Richardson drew votes away from Steve Largeant. If an independent candidate is strong enough to get past the primary, then that will alert the parties that they must account for that candidate and not focus on each other. Remember Jesse "The Body" Ventura?

Will this ever become a reality? Probably not, but hey, a blog is where people can put their thoughts out there for others to see and maybe discuss. And, you never know who will read this and start a move to make it happen...

C'mon, sir, jump through this hoop...

I feel as if I have been jumping through hoops since mid-September. I won't go into details , but my mother went into the hospital, then to a nursing home. I had to become her power of attorney so I could manage her affairs.

To get her into the nursing home required getting verification of skilled nursing coverage. Once that coverage ended, I had to get her qualified for Medicaid. That's where most of the hoop-jumping occurred.

Then she got automatically enrolled in Medicare prescription coverage. The company managing the program said I could get a refund for pharmacy bills already paid. I submitted a claim, but it was denied. I can resubmit with extra documentation.

Mom did get approved for Medicaid, but now the nursing home takes most of her income. That means that I am left to pay utility bills and buy groceries that she used to take of. Lately, my income hasn't been as high as it once was, so I have applied for Social Security disability and SSI benefits. I've also been seeking help with some of my own health issues. So, some of these hoops I've been jumping through have been for myself.

I'm not looking for sympathy. I just want my story to serve as a warning to others to not let problems grow too big to handle. Also, I'm wondering, if I have to jump through all these hoops now, how many more will be added when Obamacare takes effect.