Thursday, October 13, 2005


In California on November 8, a special election ballot on Proposition 73 is being opposed by the ACLU. Prop. 73 amends the State's constitution to require abortion providers to notify parents of unmarried minors who are seeking abortions 48 hours before the procedure. What is the ACLU's reasoning for opposing this? They say it puts teens at risk for the following reasons according to their "Campaign for Teen Safety":

  • Most teens already inform their parents before seeking prescription contraceptives or having an abortion.
  • Faced with a requirement that their parents be notified before they get contraceptives, teens say they would be more likely to have unsafe sex than to forgo sex.
  • Mandatory parental involvement may lead to teens having abortions later in pregnancy, when abortion is more risky.
  • Forcing teens to inform their parents that they are pregnant or seeking an abortion may place some at risk of physical violence or abuse.

Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer also opposes Prop. 73 as does gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides (D). Angelides says he, "can't imagine compelling them (his daughters) to talk to me about this difficult subject." He also says that Prop. 73 establishes precedent "to overturn Roe v. Wade in our state"

Once again, I can not get for the life of me, who the ACLU or liberals are looking out for. The argument that they are protecting teens is a pathetic reason. I look at this from a parental standpoint as well as a woman who was once a teenager, too.

  • Abortion is a risky medical procedure. A child should not be allowed to decide to undergo this procedure without a parent or guardian knowing about their child is being put at risk for death.
  • My children can not be taught about God in school, yet the school can provide them with access to terminating a pregnancy without knowing my position on abortion?
  • I am liable for the conduct of my children. If my daughter were to undergo an abortion without me knowing about it, and she dies or is in need of psychological help who is responsible then?

What really bothers me is the fact that parents have rights over their children. Minors can't go get a tattoo without parental consent. How it is possible for a 14 year old girl to undergo an abortion without my consent is in violation of MY rights. Where does the ACLU stand on that part of this issue? Once again, the ACLU is violating my civil rights as a guardian of my daughter by providing her with health care without my knowledge. How does having an abortion protect the health of my daughter? Their argument is really twisted. This isn't about "health care" for children and since when does somebody else get to decide about the health care my daughter receives?

If the ACLU is so worried that if abortion providers notifiy parents or guardians will put a child at risk, then the solution is easy…. get counselors and liaisons involved! If a girl is afraid to tell her parents then there are ways to assist. No, it's not easy for a girl to tell her parents she is pregnant, but why aren't they focusing on ways to bring families together rather than sneaking around? This is just another ploy by the ACLU to drive a wedge between traditional and conservative families or any family for that matter.

The ACLU needs to stop and think about what they really stand for. One thing is clear, they certainly don't stand for family and God. Without these two things, where in the world do they stand…. under the cloud of money.

Filed under Uncategorized by

Thursday, October 6, 2005


I've been swirling this question around in my mind for the past few days since it is an issue currently being heard in the Supreme Court. I am trying to figure out where I truly stand on this.

Looking at the argument that a person who is terminally ill should have the option of assisted suicide seems like a good one. However, this raises too many questions for me. First, if an individual attempts suicide on their own, and fails, by law they must be evaluated by a psychiatrist often times held against their will in a psychiatric facility for at least 48 hours. If a person is considered a danger to themselves, they are more times than not also considered to have psychiatric or mental disorders. Physicians step up and provide care to save an individuals life. If doctors are allowed to assist in suicide, even if at the request of a patient and who are terminally ill, this sounds hypocritical.

When I look at it from a conservative Christian perspective and believe that God gave me life, then I also believe God will take me when it is His will. Interfering in this process is a sin and should be considered murder.

The case in the Supreme Court currently suggests that the option of assisted suicide should be left up to individual States and the federal government should stay out of it. However, the federal government controls what drugs, how drugs can sold and how they can be dispensed (FDA). I really don't see how individual States can assume the role that the federal government already controls and should. This is what keeps individual States from using marijuana as an aid to people who believe it helps them. It is a "controlled substance". My concern is if physicians are allowed to use controlled substances to assist in suicide, then where will that leave the use of other controlled substances within States? Does that mean I would personally have the right to buy or dispense controlled substances?

My conclusion to where I stand is this: I have deep sympathy for those who are suffering and I can understand why a physician would want to assist those who are suffering. However, I don't believe it is the right thing to do. Not only morally or religiously, but it opens up a whole host of other issues. I also don't believe giving individual States the authority to regulate controlled substances is a good idea. This leaves too many loopholes in the current drug system that could lead to things I don't even want to think about.

God gave me 4 precious lives and took one away from me. For whatever reason God chose to take that one life, I have to believe it was for a reason, His reason. If I didn't believe this, then I would have never overcome the grief.

Filed under Uncategorized by

Monday, October 3, 2005


The 2005 MLB season is winding down as is our family baseball season. Although, 2006 is just around the corner. My son tried out for the traveling team and made the roster. He has a true talent and love for baseball. His best position is pitching. He's a lefty which is hard to come by in pitchers.

Back on September 11, we talked about how each strike out would be dedicated to a branch of our military as would each hit. It wasn't until this past weekend that I came across Strikeouts for Troops. It is several MLB pitchers who would donate $100, during the 2005 season, to help our injured service members. I was so gratified to know that those in professional sports rallied around our heroes. My only regret is that I didn't know about this at the beginning of the season. Had I been aware of this, I would have somehow participated with my sons team in this venture.

However, it's not too late. Since my son will be playing in 2006, it is my plan to implement something along these same lines. Okay, maybe we wouldn't make the dollar amount $100, but I'm certain we'll come up with something. After all, Saturday he pitched 2 innings with 5 strike outs….$500 would definitely cut into our budget.

Tam sports are such a great learning and growing experience for children whether they're good at it or not. Although, most cost a lot of money to participate in, especially as they get older. I think that parents who can afford to involve their children in such sports could probably afford $1.00 or so for strikeouts. I also believe children should learn to give to charity and organizations that are worthwhile.

Even if other parents on our 2006 baseball team don't feel like participating in this, I will certainly leave the option open to my son. Who, I know, would love to see his strikeouts be worth more than just a good play for himself, but for somebody else, too. My hats off to Barry Zito of the Oakland Athletics, who founded the organization, and the other MLB pitchers for their support of our troops. I truly hope they continue this venture next season so that our troops can continue to be honored and this Baseball Mom can get children involved in 2006!

Filed under Uncategorized by

Thursday, September 29, 2005


Well, the ACLU has once again done something that could be so damaging to America and our troops it's beyond words. Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein has ruled for the ACLU in releasing some additional 87 photos and 4 video tapes be released to the public. This judge contends he is deferring to the "Freedom Information Act". Meanwhile General Richard B. Myer maintains the distribution of these photos would cause destruction to our troops and to America. The ruling will be appealed which will undoubtedly delay the release of the photos.

What possible good could come from releasing these photos? The ACLU contends "prisoner abuse is systemic……and they play an essential role in holding our government leaders accountable for the torture that happened on their watch."

How could this help civility in our country? Doesn't ACLU stand for Anti Civil Liberty Union? This will not bring civility but put our troops into even more grave danger than they already are. How is this liberty? Liberation for who… the terrorists, that's who! Union? Yeah, a union of a bunch of lawyers who have nothing better to do than stand up for those with no civility!

I'm not saying that injustices were not made on the part of some Soldiers. Our military has been investigating them and they are paying a hefty price. These Soldiers deserve what is coming to them as they are a disgrace to the uniform and America. However, there is absolutely nothing good that can come of releasing further photos. All that will come of this is an increase in rioting, terrorist attacks, anti-American sentiment and promote al-Qaeda's agenda.

What are these morons thinking? And what, praytell, is this U.S. District Judge using to interpret the law…. the holy book of UBL? The ACLU can go straight to hell. They can meet up wtih Saddam which is where he will be for his acts of incivility once he is hung!

Filed under Uncategorized by

Made with Semiologic Pro • Minimalist skin by Denis de Bernardy