Welcome to My Home

Saturday, May 5, 2012

Commentary on Kansas Anti-abortion SB 313

Although I am anti-abortion and anti-adoption, I will not come out to actively fight against either one of them.  They serve a purpose.  I believe that abortion decision should be left between a woman, her doctor, and God.  I refuse to judge women and men involved in the nightmare of making this kind of decision.  Just like I refuse to come out against homosexuality.  Why?  I am not God.  I am not here to judge.  I believe that my sins are just as bad as homosexuality and abortion.  None of these sins are worse than the other in the eyes of God.  They are all equal in his eyes. 

After reading the Kansas anti abortion bill SB 313, it was a long bill and often very vague.  There are many concerns that I have with this bill.  It removes the Hippocratic Oath of doctors.  In recent years, conscientious objection laws in regard to abortion have been enacted and passed.  Sadly these laws are being used in other situations other than abortion.  This is my concern with SB 313. 

My sister had a situation where it could have killed her youngest daughter, Super Character Girl.  She went to the hospital in labor.  The nurse tried to send her home.  My sister knew something was wrong.  She said no.  The nurse told her to go home.  She then requested her doctor and pediatrician who specializes with her situation.  The doctor and the pediatrician both agreed that Super Character Girl needed to come out.  The nurse objected to giving care for God knows what reasons.  If they hadn't done the procedure, Super Character Girl would have never been born alive.  These types of laws along with SB 313 give too much influence that allow medical malpractice to occur.    They allow bad doctors to continue practicing bad medicine without  any ramifications.  You have issues such as preclampsia which affect a woman's health.  I have known many a woman who had this disease process that made a woman mentally and physically ill.  Sometimes it is misdiagnosed.  I knew a woman who lost her life as a result.  This situation occurred in the Army overseas in Germany.

Some serious points of concern with this type of bill:
  • It creates a personhood law which outlaws in vitro fertilization and birth control pills.  Birth control pills are often used to other female health issues.
  • No one that performs abortion can provide counseling to a woman.  They can't even provide sexual education in schools or other state agencies.  No federal and state monies can be given to abortion providers who provide other health care services.  A religious official is authorized to be one of those counseling the pregnant woman even if they have no degree in counseling.  (Read a total and complete ban on Planned Parenthood)
  • No state employee can perform an abortion during work hours. 
  • Both the father and the parents of a pregnant woman can sue a doctor for performing an abortion when they were not informed of the decision.  (Read Planned Parenthood again).
  • The woman, her abortion provider, and her employer who has an abortion rider on an insurance policy will all be taxed.  No tax credit will be provided for any of these. 
  • The bill repeatedly states that there is no right to an abortion.  
  • A woman can not have an abortion based on the sex of the fetus.  
  • If any part of this law is found unconstitutional, the remainder of the law will stand.
  • If the fetus is viable, it requires two doctors not associated with each other to sign off on this.  
  • The only restriction for a viable fetus to be aborted is if the woman has a physical issue that would endanger her life.  There are no restrictions in regards to rape/incest or the mental health of the mother.  So if the preclampsia is missed, she will be forced to carry her child even if it results in the mother's death.  The doctor can not be sued for medical malpractice.  
  • All abortions must be certified.  
  • If a doctor withholds information regarding the fetus that might lead to abortion, he can't be sued unless it results in the woman's death.  That is only for wrongful death.  This situation leads to other issues that also related to the conscientious objection laws.  A woman could be bleeding out and she would  not be provided with care to protect her life if it leads to an abortion. 
  • The bill includes extensive information regarding the week by week development of the fetus.
  • If a woman decides to place a child and the father decides to parent, he must have provided for the pregnant woman during the last six months of her pregnancy.  So this bill even messes with a father's right to parent.  The law also pushes child support heavily on fathers along with adoption. So if a man didn't father this child, he could be subject to child support without proving he is the biological father.  
  • The pregnant women is required to be told about breast cancer risks and loss of future children.  These studies have been disproved time and time again.  Just as there are mental health risks for abortion, adoption risks are not mentioned ever.  That mothers long for their children over the years.  
The medical profession is deprived of its responsibilities toward women.  Women are treated as incompetent and ignorant in regards to decisions on their own bodies.  Yet these legislators think that there is no war on women.  YEA RIGHT!

Thursday, May 3, 2012

Inside the Adoptee Blogsphere

Two situations are making the rounds on various blogs.  Both are enough to drive me insane because they diminish both the adoptee and the mother. 

Recently the JCICS presented a conference on adoption issues.  Fellow adoptee bloggers, Land of Gazillion Adoptees, attended this conference.  One of the worse offenders was Nancy Fox.  She grabbed the adoptee blogger by the chin and proceeded to preach to him about the new Korean adoption legislation affecting her supply of children from that country.  She says it will be to the detriment of children.  I can not say with any confidence that if she grabbed my chin like that I wouldn't respond with a fist in her face.  That is simple assault plan and simple. 

Of course Ms Fox is an owner/CEO of an adoption agency, AIAA.  Her agency placed Jennifer Haynes with an pedophile.  Her adopters and the agency did not complete her paperwork.  She was deported back to India as a result.  Ironically Ms. Fox blames all adopters for not following through with paperwork for their child.  Interestingly, this woman is on the board of the JCICS which makes one wonder about this organization and the level of corruption.

The second situation is Dan Rather's report, Abducted or Adopted.  I was not able to watch it since it is not part of my cable package.  From what I have read of reviews, he did touch the tip of the iceberg of what happened during the Baby Scoop Era.  Of course there was a reunion on the show.  Why is it that our media can't present a news article on adoption without a reunion?  Why can't we present an article based on the facts of adoption and what it has done to adoptees and their families?  Why does it always have to have a positive spin on it?  The negatives in adoption need to come forth.  The rest of society needs to see what it is like for an adoptee and his/her family in this country to search.  The rest of society needs to realize this.

The sick part of the reports are the claims that adoption is still good and those practices don't happen any more.  Yea right!  The report did not encompass all of the agencies that still to this day force men and women to relinquish their children.  The LDS Adoption Agencies are one such example.

Catholic Charities gave this letter of rebuttal.  They don't want to lose their product and their producers. How do you know that these natural mothers would not have loved their children if given the appropriate support and resources to succeed in their parenting.

“We must not lose track of the tens of thousands of adoptive parents who will be forever grateful to birth parents for the sacrifices they make to ensure that their children’s lives will be filled with the love and opportunity they may otherwise not have received.”

The Crittendon Homes are now blaming individual maternity homes instead of taking responsibility of the actions done in their names.

TNCF and the Crittenton agencies that are still in operation today are aware of, saddened by, and regret the experience of mothers “forced or coerced” into placing their children in adoptive homes and the impact on their children many of whom continue to search for their birth parents. These practices were not required, supported or endorsed by any National Crittenton directive and as independent agencies or homeseach had the ability to determine its own priorities and operating policies.
The Salvation Army's rebuttal blames the mother's families.  Yes they do play a role but the Salvation Army enforced these coercive adoptions.

These homes were operational during a time when significant social pressures were placed upon pregnant, unmarried girls, and a majority of the young girls came to the homes after being guided by their own families.

Even the National Association of Social Workers commented too.  All of these groups are protecting themselves and blaming everyone else but themselves.  It bugs me that no one wants to take responsibility of these coercive and forceful tactics.  All of these organizations state that this doesn't happen.  One just has to read the NCFA website to see that yes it still does.  This organization states in order for a woman to be redeemed that she must relinquish her child.  They in turn back stab her when she wants to parent.  They call her a slut, whore and other nasty words in order to get her to disappear.  The agencies involved are often relentless in their pursuit of the "product."  

This is why I hate even venturing into adoption reform again.  Nothing ever changes.