This letter to the editor in the local paper is from a former local offical known for comparing herself to Moses, spreading money around the community (admittedly to some good causes), and in general, some looney tunes behavior. She is also my former landlord.
I reproduce this letter for a few reasons: 1) We have exactly two free clinics in town as it currently stands, one of which is a Planned Parenthood. The other requires all adults who are not pregnant or mortally doomed to sign up on a six month waiting list before they can get basic care. If you’re uninsured, the only other options you have are to visit the emergency room and later apply for “indigence” status or pay out of pocket, as I did earlier this year on several occasions to the tune of over $800. 2) One would hope electable officials wouldn’t use talking points like “respecting the silent call from the womb” and “quotes in quotation marks that quote nothing but her own pretend straw clinic” as rhetorical points in favor of more intelligent — and intelligible — arguments. 3) I still can’t believe one of the major talking points against Planned Parenthood is that they supposedly turn profit from condom distribution.
Children deserve respect in training
While the Indiana Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice avows respect for “the diversity of religious beliefs on reproductive health matters” (Journal & Courier, Feb. 5 ), what they don’t respect is the silent call from the womb.
Reproductive “health” sadly refers to “freedom to abort.”
Ninety-seven percent of all abortions result from inconvenience, taking the lives of more than 48 million babies since 1973, due to irresponsible behavior and a callousness towards innocent life.
At a Feb. 8 Statehouse rally, the IRCRC, Planned Parenthood and other abortion supporters used biased polling data to claim that abstinence does work.
Planned Parenthood, the state’s largest abortion provider, promotes condom distribution and graphic sexuality training in public schools.
They refer to non-random polling (respondents are preselected to build their argument), concluding that Indiana residents want their children to receive “comprehensive” sex education in school. However, truly scientific polls indicate the opposite.
A 55-page congressional report from October 2006 has been provided to each state legislator by Indiana Right To Life. That report can be viewed at www.protectinglife.com.
It concludes that abstinence education is highly effective.
The PP/IRCRC coalition would have us teach kids how to have sex.
And if they become pregnant — at any age — they can be helped to eliminate “the problem.”
IRTL executive director Mike Fichter said, “The core issue is for Indiana to set the highest standards of excellence for our kids. Abstinence is that highest standard. Comprehensive sexuality programs, in contrast, treat our kids as if they are driven by animal instinct and nothing more.”
Our children — born and unborn — deserve better. They deserve respect.
Connie Basham, vice-president, Indiana Right To Life, and secretary, Tippecanoe County Right To Life
Lafayette
I’ll be writing a letter to the editor in response, but I’ll send a cookie to whoever writes the best evisceration of this senseless letter.
What kind of cookie?
And, hey, you have health insurance now, right? Huzzah?
Okay, how about this — putting on a condom = “animal instinct.”
What the hell is a “silent call”? How can one respect that any more than “the invisible writing from the womb”?
But what is there really to say, except that people who claim to want to prevent abortions but oppose birth control and sex ed that goes beyond “abstinence” are full of shit?
But what is there really to say, except that people who claim to want to prevent abortions but oppose birth control and sex ed that goes beyond “abstinence” are full of shit?
No kidding. I think it’s pretty well worth noting that no major anti-abortion group in the US is also in favor of birth control.
Plus I love how their conception of a PP-user looks something like a slutty fourteen year old (probably from a “fatherless” home, no doubt) who knew better than to drink a beer on an older boy’s couch, the harlot, and wants an abortion so she can fit into her prom dress.
And this:
Reproductive “health” sadly refers to “freedom to abort.”
Actually reproductive health refers to the maintenance and care of any of the reproductive organs at any point during the life process. Idiot.
The little dears confuse me. Did they mean to say:
At a Feb. 8 Statehouse rally, the IRCRC, Planned Parenthood and other abortion supporters used biased polling data to claim that abstinence does work.
are they missing an “‘nt”?
Pre-marital chastity/abstinence may be the “highest standard”, but that’s a theological conclusion — it’s not one that’s defensible in the secular realm. (And some of us who take our faith very seriously reject the notion that all pre-marital sex falls short of the mark.) Our next administration, Lord willing, will not push an abstinence-first agenda.
No cookie for me, unless it’s vegan.
Reading Ms. Basham’s letter, I came to the conclusion that she believes that without sexual education in the schools, it simply wouldn’t occur to teenage boys and girls that their genitals can be a source of amusement. If this is the case, sexual education is necessary for the continuation of the human species; if not, I fail to see what Ms. Basham is complaining about. Does she dislike the fact that most advocates for teaching comprehensive sexual education also support legal abortion? I realize that it’s often difficult to separate the common goals of a movement from the individual goals of the movement’s membership, but to judge an idea on the basis of its supporters’ other beliefs hardly seems like a fair criterion for the legitimacy of an idea. Furthermore, if teenagers who did not receive school-sponsored sex education have been known to engage in sexual activity, experience unplanned pregnancies, and obtain abortions, it seems that the introduction of contraceptive methods into the curriculum could possibly reduce the incidence of unplanned pregnancy and abortions.
Perhaps Ms. Basham is concerned about the morality of premarital sexual activity. This may very well be a legitimate concern, and one could argue that teaching unmarried students about contraception devices legitimates their usage. However, the schools also teach road safety, voting procedures, and other “life skills” long before students are allowed to drive or vote or are living independently. It could thus be possible to construct a comprehensive sexual education course which emphasizes that sex–and the knowledge gained from the course–is to be saved for marriage. The fact that the knowledge is imparted before it is needed is simply a matter of convenience–high school is the last stage of mandatory education.
I suppose another possibility for Ms. Basham’s motivation is that she dislikes the idea that unmarried persons can learn how to engage in sexual activity without fear of pregnancy of disease–dislikes that idea to the extent that she would prefer an unmarried, pregnant young woman to an unmarried, sexually active young woman using birth control. This preference, of course, is well-known among more conservative members of the Catholic Church, who believe that birth control unlawfully intervenes with nature. Frankly, I’ve never understood neo-Thomist doctrines that state that an artificial heart is more “natural” than the lemon halves used as contraceptive devices in the seventeenth century, but I’m afraid I’ve never actually read Aquinas. Perhaps Ms. Basham would care to enlighten me?
I’ll take an Internet cookie in lieu of an actual one–I’ve given up sugar for Lent.
Very interesting that I’m once again being criticized for a sincere viewpoint. Never in my life have I been hateful or judgmental against anyone. It’s very unfortunate that others would take exactly the opposite course against me.
Yes, I do believe our culture has turned its back on moral values–making it “okay” to do whatever one wishes to do, with very few consequences. And I do believe (as does the majority of U.S. citizens) that human life begins at conception. Why should I be demonized for stating that belief? It is a fact that over 97% of all abortions are performed because a pregancy is not convenient–not because the literal life of the mother is endangered–nor because the pregnant woman has been raped–nor because the pregnant woman is pregnant due to incest.
I am not an elected official; nor am I a candidate–much to your pleasure, obviously. What I AM is a sincere woman who is taking a respectful stand on behalf of unborn children. If your opinion differs from mine, please state it within your rights. But please learn not to demonize someone with a differing viewpoint. All of you who have written responses to my letter obviously do not know me. And you most likely have never spoken with anyone who does know me personally.
I continually strive to work and give on behalf of less fortunate. My husband and I have provided shelter for many children in need. We housed and cared for my father until his death last August. We now care for my ailing mother-in-law. We give to countless charities. Yet, we continually are the target of criticism.
And please know that I never “compared myself to Moses.” An e-maiil to my friends during the election simply made the correlation that friends and supporters are needed to encourage and support someone in a potential leadership role. The reference I made simply used Moses as an illustration. Once again, you took an innocent person’s comments and demonized them.
Also, with regard to the criticism that my recent letter to the editor appeared to indicate confusion on my part (”abstinence does work”), my letter was edited from the original version. My original letter did indeed refer to a February 8 Statehouse rally, pointing out that the IRCRC, Planned Parenthood and other abortion supporters used biased polling data to claim that “abstinence does not work.” That respondent called me a “little dear.” While I’m certain the writer used the term with less-than-positive intent, I appreciate it nonetheless.
Again, please don’t be so hateful when criticizing me for my viewpoint. If we cannot engage in dignified, respectful conversation in this nation (and world, in general), there will never be hope for peace.
Ms. Basham–
With regard to your (I think quite defensible) claim that you never compared yourself to Moses, I question where this idea of \”taking an innocent person\’s comments and [demonizing] them\” comes from. I would suggest that by elevating yourself to the status of a public figure, via running for public office (on multiple occasions, no less), the idea that you are somehow an innocent person whose public statements should not be critiqued or debated is absurd.
You are not an innocent person, you are a politician when you are running for office. And moreover, you are a politician who I and many others find to have stances on policy which are threatening to our lives and livelihoods. You have advertised policy views, and you have embarked on intrepid searches for positions of authority such that you might work directly to enact them. This makes you not only a non-innocent person, but in fact someone who we must publically criticize and question to extend the policy debate.
This doesn\’t mean that people and politicians shouldn\’t be seeking concensus, but it does mean that if you are going to take such unequivocal and uncompromising stances on issues, the response against your ideas will be equally firm. This is not taking an inncocent person\’s comments, and it is not demonizing them. It is addressing what we perceive as radical ideas with an equally strident response.
And while we\’re on the topic of demonizing others, what exactly did you mean by \”And please pray that nationwide, voters keep the balance of power in the hands of moral, godly people. The Enemy has certainly been working overtime to tear down the credibility of God\’s chosen. Let\’s not let the Evil One win this time!\”
The enemy? The Evil One? And people who vote against you are immoral and godless?
Ms. Basham, I think the better question is: Why are you demonizing me? All I did was do the patriotic thing and vote.
Connie, along with Chuck’s astute analysis, I’ll interject a bit of my own:
How about the policies you support which directly benefit you as an owner of a large amount of rental property? Sometimes which would detriment your lessees? This was also a common criticism during your candidacy, and certainly drops you at least a couple runs down from “innocent.”
Now aside from the fact you provide no source for your data, I’m curious exactly how you define the difference between a “convenient” and an “inconvenient” pregnancy. From all the women I’ve known that have shared their feelings on their prenancy, I can’t recall any of them describing anything that comes close to resembling “convenience.”
All you end up sounding like is a stuck-up, rich, privileged, white windbag, which is pretty much how you come off all the time and likely reason why you aren’t connecting with voters.