Yesterday was my daughter's death date. Yesterday as I tried to remain focused on my daughter. Honor her memory with my actions and words to others. Reflect in peace and gratitude for the grief that visits me to remind me of my brief role as a mother. Reflect on the complexity of love that both heals and hurts, I found an intrusion of unwelcome thoughts of fear.
I've been reeling from the election. We elected a narcissistic and racist individual. Someone who is a failed businessman, an accused child rapist, a person who brags about sexual assault, who openly praises P.utin and his leadership, who refuses to pay people for their work, who would like to abolish free speech, and who Politifact found tells the truth less than 10% of the time.
Several times throughout the day--as I tried to remain focused on her--my thoughts were rudely and violently yanked to a two second gif of our president-elect mocking a disabled person. I've been told that he didn't mean it. I saw it. I watched him mock a disabled person. It wasn't an edited clip; he sure as f$@k meant it.
I worried about how I would protect her from people like him. How would I make sure she knew she was loved? How would I shield her from hurtful bullying and cruel words and worse--cruel actions?
That f$cker has not one compassionate, caring bone in his body, and he has emboldened the cruel words and actions of many around the country. The very leader of the free world manipulates and mocks, and I feel helpless to protect children like my daughter from that model.
My teacher-friends and students in my area and around the country are witnesses to the loosed hatred and bullying. "Pretty soon you guys will all be slaves again," was a black student's story to a group. "Now I can grab you or any other chick by the pussy," was a tweet from one of my 20-something female college students. "Faggot" painted on a car of an acquaintance. "She can't talk because she's a filthy Muslim," from a fifth grader. "Our president is going to send your parents back to Mexico," from a third-grader at the lunch table. These are real, and he is silent. And no one is really expecting any words of condemnation from a bully.
I can't breathe.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Thursday, November 17, 2016
Saturday, January 19, 2013
What's Your "Anything"?
-->
“I would have done anything to save her.” When parents of
dead children make this declamation; they mean it. Unfortunately, the
“anything” was not available. For me, my daughter’s heart didn’t develop
correctly, ‘nor did her GI system, which we didn’t know until her bowel
perforated and she died. With prayers flowing and medical science using up all
its options and me making one-sided deals with the great beyond, I held Caitlin
as she took her last breath. And when her breath escaped, I wanted to go with
her.
“I would have done anything to save her.” I meant it, and I still do.
Like many bereaved parents, I’ve come to see that now my
child parents my heart. I am still her mother, and I continue to strive to be
the mother she deserved. Which brings me to Sandy Hook, and why I will continue
to invite others to consider supporting the “anything” that may save a child’s
life. The “anything” that is only an option in prevention and not an option
after the last breath escapes a child’s body. Knowing that prevention is too often
dismissed and unappreciated—usually because observation of the results of
preventive actions is difficult—I persist.
Why? Because Caitlin deserves the kind of mother who will
risk the judgment and ridicule of others for what should have been her
daughter’s freedom to be in a school without fear for her life. She deserves a
mother who will aim to use respectful and factual pleas, rather than hurtful
name-calling. She deserves a mother that will push-back against the natural
proclivity of those not directly affected to end their empathetic mourning
within about 5 weeks and return to hoping it won’t happen to them.
It will happen to someone, and rather than silently hoping,
I’m asking that others consider acting as if they knew it would be their children.
Is that cruel to name a parent’s worst fear? Or unfair and manipulative of
parents’ love for their children? I’ll risk that condemnation, because I would
have done anything to save my child.
What is the “anything” you can support? One of the proposed
gun violence laws? Changes to mental health guidelines? Training for teachers
and health workers to identify depression and prevent bullying? Suicide
prevention programs? Gun safety education? And how will you support this “anything”? Letters to lawmakers? Reach out to individuals? Report that “off comment” to a
child protection agency? Practice the lock-down procedure at your school, place
of work, home? Take a gun safety class? Join a community watch group?
With so many ways to engage in something, it's tempting to throw up one's hands overwhelmed and defeated that "nothing will fix it completely." Consider the bereaved parents and community members of Sandy Hook and their response to creating safe communities. They
launched the Sandy Hook Promise that highlights the bereaveds’ impassioned
plea:
I
promise to honor the 26 lives lost at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
I
promise to do everything I can to encourage and support common sense solutions
that make my community and our country safer from similar acts of violence.
Prayer, hugging our children tighter, lighting a candle, and
sending condolences address the first part of the promise. I’m inviting those
for whom this promise resonates to consider how they might address the second
part of the promise.
Sunday, January 6, 2013
Going Public . . . not yet Activist
Caitlin's death cracked me open. Her tragic death and my response to the event destroyed the compartmentalization of my public and private lives. The professor, family member, friend, and citizen became indiscernible to me, and I shared my early writings publicly and invited people from public and private spheres to read on a different site. Eventually, as the grief work progressed, I managed to build new distinctions of the roles I embody. I reclaimed some barriers, and I began this blog to continue the writing.
But I no longer wished to invite all to read. Since I began writing here, I experienced some anxiety and considered going private and limiting the readership to only my fellow bereaved parents. Later, I thought about shutting the blog down completely only to slink back because I needed to write. I needed a place for the continued life as a bereaved parent. And, the blog remains public . . . though I don't invite friends and family or students or acquaintances to read. I know some have found me, but that's OK.
Two events have pushed me to consider going more public in a way that may seem activist. The first is the DSM-V and it's success in making grief a mental illness. The second the NRA's insistence that arming more people--specifically teachers--would make our children safer.
The DSM-V provides guidelines for medical professionals to label and thus provide care via health care plans. This on the surface sounds good, essential, and necessary. However, APA threw out the grief provision for determining severe depression, and they made it possible for those experiencing symptoms beyond 2-weeks to be labeled mentally ill as severely depressed. TWO WEEKS! And a common approach to treating this mental illness is prescribing anti-depressants. Wow, what a market for big-pharma. How wonderful for them. They found a way to make these drugs needed by nearly every person, because everyone loses someone they love dearly at some time in their lives. And everyone experiences the "symptoms" of grief (which are normal loving responses, and to my mind should be honored and valued--yes, valued--as such) for long past two weeks. The bereaved and health care professionals know that there is no timeline for grief, each person grieves in their own way and at their own pace. However, professionals also know that virtually no-one who loves is "done" with feelings of sadness and sleeplessness at two weeks. Therefore, the DSM-V opened a door for misdiagnosis and drugs prescribed inappropriately.
Then the Newtown deaths--and my mind raced through so many emotions and topics of why, how, and what can we do. One of the nagging thoughts was who will tell these parents of 20 dead children that after two weeks they don't have to feel this way anymore? Who will tell them that their extreme sadness is pathological and they are mentally ill? How many of these bereaved parents who have just laid their children in the ground or spread their ashes in places of meaning will pick up a prescription during week three? I have no answers only fear for the health of the newly bereaved.
The attention regarding mental health centered on the poor care for the perpetrators of these gun-violence massacres. Here, I agree. We should be better at providing care for our mentally ill; we should better attend to the early warning signs. There was silence about the mental health of the bereaved. I suppose it seems unrelated, but I struggle to trust a mental health industry to offer help and guidance when they made love a pathology by dumping the bereavement exclusion.
Since Columbine, our public response has been shock, sadness, and some action. Now with Newtown and just days ago another shooting in a NY movie theater, it seems our response continues with shock, sadness, and some action. Some of the actions are words, sending cards, toys, and money, increased security measures, improved lock-down procedures, and . . . prayer, hugging our children tighter, and throwing up our hands with "there's nothing else to do but hope it doesn't happen again."
In addition to the returned discussion regarding improving the mental health system, the public eye took another critical look at gun laws. And the NRA took it's usual methodical approach 1) tell us our response was inappropriate and only prayers should be said, 2) remain silent until the public outrage subsides, and 3) make a statement to protect profits by keeping the gun market healthy through a restatement of the ideology of preventing tyranny. When the NRA broke it's silence, some gun-lovers broke theirs as well with Facebook memes to save guns and protect gun-owner rights. Their anger made me sad. Their name-calling disturbed me. And I struggled with my conclusion that many were dismissing yet another massacre to fight for guns. GUNS, NOT CHILDREN. Jesus Christ.
I believe, that the assumption that more guns makes children safer is untenable. I believe that the prevention of tyranny through more gun ownership is fictitious. I'm of the mind that there are reasonable restrictions and sensible approaches to consider and enact. I'm convinced that a pragmatic discussion, rather than an ideological one may save a few more lives.
Not yet an activist, but going public on these issues in this space have become part of the fabric of my journey mourning my daughter's death.
But I no longer wished to invite all to read. Since I began writing here, I experienced some anxiety and considered going private and limiting the readership to only my fellow bereaved parents. Later, I thought about shutting the blog down completely only to slink back because I needed to write. I needed a place for the continued life as a bereaved parent. And, the blog remains public . . . though I don't invite friends and family or students or acquaintances to read. I know some have found me, but that's OK.
Two events have pushed me to consider going more public in a way that may seem activist. The first is the DSM-V and it's success in making grief a mental illness. The second the NRA's insistence that arming more people--specifically teachers--would make our children safer.
The DSM-V provides guidelines for medical professionals to label and thus provide care via health care plans. This on the surface sounds good, essential, and necessary. However, APA threw out the grief provision for determining severe depression, and they made it possible for those experiencing symptoms beyond 2-weeks to be labeled mentally ill as severely depressed. TWO WEEKS! And a common approach to treating this mental illness is prescribing anti-depressants. Wow, what a market for big-pharma. How wonderful for them. They found a way to make these drugs needed by nearly every person, because everyone loses someone they love dearly at some time in their lives. And everyone experiences the "symptoms" of grief (which are normal loving responses, and to my mind should be honored and valued--yes, valued--as such) for long past two weeks. The bereaved and health care professionals know that there is no timeline for grief, each person grieves in their own way and at their own pace. However, professionals also know that virtually no-one who loves is "done" with feelings of sadness and sleeplessness at two weeks. Therefore, the DSM-V opened a door for misdiagnosis and drugs prescribed inappropriately.
Then the Newtown deaths--and my mind raced through so many emotions and topics of why, how, and what can we do. One of the nagging thoughts was who will tell these parents of 20 dead children that after two weeks they don't have to feel this way anymore? Who will tell them that their extreme sadness is pathological and they are mentally ill? How many of these bereaved parents who have just laid their children in the ground or spread their ashes in places of meaning will pick up a prescription during week three? I have no answers only fear for the health of the newly bereaved.
The attention regarding mental health centered on the poor care for the perpetrators of these gun-violence massacres. Here, I agree. We should be better at providing care for our mentally ill; we should better attend to the early warning signs. There was silence about the mental health of the bereaved. I suppose it seems unrelated, but I struggle to trust a mental health industry to offer help and guidance when they made love a pathology by dumping the bereavement exclusion.
Since Columbine, our public response has been shock, sadness, and some action. Now with Newtown and just days ago another shooting in a NY movie theater, it seems our response continues with shock, sadness, and some action. Some of the actions are words, sending cards, toys, and money, increased security measures, improved lock-down procedures, and . . . prayer, hugging our children tighter, and throwing up our hands with "there's nothing else to do but hope it doesn't happen again."
In addition to the returned discussion regarding improving the mental health system, the public eye took another critical look at gun laws. And the NRA took it's usual methodical approach 1) tell us our response was inappropriate and only prayers should be said, 2) remain silent until the public outrage subsides, and 3) make a statement to protect profits by keeping the gun market healthy through a restatement of the ideology of preventing tyranny. When the NRA broke it's silence, some gun-lovers broke theirs as well with Facebook memes to save guns and protect gun-owner rights. Their anger made me sad. Their name-calling disturbed me. And I struggled with my conclusion that many were dismissing yet another massacre to fight for guns. GUNS, NOT CHILDREN. Jesus Christ.
I believe, that the assumption that more guns makes children safer is untenable. I believe that the prevention of tyranny through more gun ownership is fictitious. I'm of the mind that there are reasonable restrictions and sensible approaches to consider and enact. I'm convinced that a pragmatic discussion, rather than an ideological one may save a few more lives.
Not yet an activist, but going public on these issues in this space have become part of the fabric of my journey mourning my daughter's death.
Sunday, December 16, 2012
I don't understand . . . rather I don't agree
The senseless death of 20 children and 6 adults in Connecticut this month has me reeling. Reflecting on my personal experience of a parent's worst fear realized. The physical sensation and memory of that wail that comes from a primal place---before evolution brought our reasoning to manage our emotions. I sat in silence for a long time. It hurt trying to send love to parents and family and strangers in some telepathic crazed intention. Knowing there was nothing I could really do.
Then, I waited for anger. And that didn't come, either, only this intense sadness that others still value un-regulated gun ownership over the lives of children. That somehow a child's death must be tolerated for the sake of the second amendment.
Then questions came in droves, and all answered with "I don't understand."
Why is it easier to buy a gun than it is to get mental health coverage?
Why are we not supposed to talk about gun control in the wake of dead children?
Why should teachers be demonized as greedy pension seekers, rather than those who give their lives protecting them?
How can arming more people, actually de-escalate gun violence?
Why do teachers submit to rigorous criminal background checks, and gun owners do not?
Why do we require training for operating machinery, including a variety of vehicles, and don't insist on training for gun ownership?
How does lax regulation make everyone more free?
Truth is, I do understand the "other side's" answers to these questions. I've read and considered their answers, and the bottom line for me is that I don't agree with their rationalizations.
In particular, I find it troubling that some suggest we should arm school personnel. I don't want a society that expects me to educate teachers in proper gun handling techniques. Teachers and administrators should not add a police cap and holster to the materials they need in educating children. I'm coming to see the NRA as similar to big pharma. They exploit these events to suggest a need for a product. They are developing the market for more members, more gun owners, more more more death . . .
When I entered this profession, it didn't occur to me that I was entering law enforcement or that I was entering combat training. It feels hopeless, what profession is safe? What profession can we focus on serving others? I don't know.
Post Script
Just donated to the Brady Campaign, a group that works for sensible gun laws.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/
Then, I waited for anger. And that didn't come, either, only this intense sadness that others still value un-regulated gun ownership over the lives of children. That somehow a child's death must be tolerated for the sake of the second amendment.
Then questions came in droves, and all answered with "I don't understand."
Why is it easier to buy a gun than it is to get mental health coverage?
Why are we not supposed to talk about gun control in the wake of dead children?
Why should teachers be demonized as greedy pension seekers, rather than those who give their lives protecting them?
How can arming more people, actually de-escalate gun violence?
Why do teachers submit to rigorous criminal background checks, and gun owners do not?
Why do we require training for operating machinery, including a variety of vehicles, and don't insist on training for gun ownership?
How does lax regulation make everyone more free?
Truth is, I do understand the "other side's" answers to these questions. I've read and considered their answers, and the bottom line for me is that I don't agree with their rationalizations.
In particular, I find it troubling that some suggest we should arm school personnel. I don't want a society that expects me to educate teachers in proper gun handling techniques. Teachers and administrators should not add a police cap and holster to the materials they need in educating children. I'm coming to see the NRA as similar to big pharma. They exploit these events to suggest a need for a product. They are developing the market for more members, more gun owners, more more more death . . .
When I entered this profession, it didn't occur to me that I was entering law enforcement or that I was entering combat training. It feels hopeless, what profession is safe? What profession can we focus on serving others? I don't know.
Post Script
Just donated to the Brady Campaign, a group that works for sensible gun laws.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/
Monday, January 10, 2011
Moment of Silence Today
Remembering the victims of the Tucson shootings. Wishing for a more peaceful world.
Be gentle with yourself.
Be gentle with others.
Be gentle with yourself.
Be gentle with others.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Making it Personal
So, I'm quite moved by the death of 9-year-old Christina Green. I'm moved because no child should die because they are interested in government. My daughter died because she wasn't born healthy. No human-error or misjudgment can blamed. But Christina died because someone chose to target a political figure.
I used to ignore the rhetoric, thinking that it was extreme. But, in fact, I've decided to make it personal. I found this image,
and decided to put my face in the color that I best represent 
I have family and close friends who would likely most identify with the other side, and I would (though because I didn't ask permission--I didn't) put one of their faces in the other. The image in abstraction is interesting, but when you make it personal it brings home the meaning of the extreme rhetoric. My siblings or parents would not actually shoot me because of my political leanings, but this image suggests they would.
What would it feel like if the image were reversed?
Not much better. The message. We must agree to disagree. We must agree to use our words and not violence to sway another to a point of view. We must embrace the difficult, challenging, and complex journey toward peace.
Peace, Please, Peace.
Take a look. Where would your image go? Are you comfortable with this rhetoric? How would you change this? Will you continue to participate? Is this an adequate expression of those you "hate"? Of those you love?
[For those who may ask . . . I am not a socialist. I reject the label applied to our president. One need only review High School civics to discover that our president is a centrist. There---full disclosure. But I don't deserve a gun to my head for those views. And if you disagree with me, neither do you!]
[Oh, by the way, that's a pic of me watching a release of balloons at my daughter's grave.]
I used to ignore the rhetoric, thinking that it was extreme. But, in fact, I've decided to make it personal. I found this image,
What would it feel like if the image were reversed?
Not much better. The message. We must agree to disagree. We must agree to use our words and not violence to sway another to a point of view. We must embrace the difficult, challenging, and complex journey toward peace.
Peace, Please, Peace.
Take a look. Where would your image go? Are you comfortable with this rhetoric? How would you change this? Will you continue to participate? Is this an adequate expression of those you "hate"? Of those you love?
[For those who may ask . . . I am not a socialist. I reject the label applied to our president. One need only review High School civics to discover that our president is a centrist. There---full disclosure. But I don't deserve a gun to my head for those views. And if you disagree with me, neither do you!]
[Oh, by the way, that's a pic of me watching a release of balloons at my daughter's grave.]
Christina's Pledge
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=706180260#!/home.php?sk=group_168027319908390
Christina's Pledge Facebook Link
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/us/10green.html?_r=3&hp
9/11 baby was a "Face of Hope"
The life of Christina Green was ended in the shooting in Tucson, Arizona, yesterday. A friend of mine created a Facebook group for those who will pledge to be civil in their discourse. For those who will agree to disagree and promote using words and not violence to sway a point of view.
Christina was interested in government. No child should die because she was interested, at nine years of age, in participating in government to make the lives of others better. Christina's life needs to mean something to us, the bereaved community, perhaps, it can mean civility. Consider joining the group, Christina's Pledge" on Facebook, a group that will include those who may disagree with you, but will also pledge to do their best to avoid rhetoric that takes civil discourse to violence.
Peace. Please. Peace.
Christina's Pledge Facebook Link
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/us/10green.html?_r=3&hp
9/11 baby was a "Face of Hope"
The life of Christina Green was ended in the shooting in Tucson, Arizona, yesterday. A friend of mine created a Facebook group for those who will pledge to be civil in their discourse. For those who will agree to disagree and promote using words and not violence to sway a point of view.
Christina was interested in government. No child should die because she was interested, at nine years of age, in participating in government to make the lives of others better. Christina's life needs to mean something to us, the bereaved community, perhaps, it can mean civility. Consider joining the group, Christina's Pledge" on Facebook, a group that will include those who may disagree with you, but will also pledge to do their best to avoid rhetoric that takes civil discourse to violence.
Peace. Please. Peace.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
We're Destroying our Mother
The images of oil poisoning our ocean has a visceral effect. We've developed technology that can destroy our oceans. So far it's destroying a good chunk of the gulf. Companies have done little research on how best to clean up our waters; they're using the latest--what was developed in the late 70s. They invested plenty for deeper drilling, and invested in marketing a novocaine of sorts for the general public, lulling us to think that they're taking their "stewardship" seriously.
We've demonized regulation and convinced our populace that "government is the problem." We've let the market decide and supported commerce over our environment. Government is made up of people with individual and collective interests, but it's the social mechanism that we have to take care of our populace and the mechanism we have to seek justice. It's not perfect, but I'm not ready to "take it back"--whatever that means--and give it blindly to commerce. Commerce can be healthy within confines.
Water is a symbol for life, as well as a necessity for life. I'm comforted by the knowledge that Mother Earth can self-correct over time. Many generations may pass before she self-corrects this one. But, I'm worried this time. Perhaps this latest assault on the earth will slip, as others have, into history, and we'll merely accept it the way it is.
But, I can't help but think that we are destroying our mother, and rendering her barren. I can't help but feel pain that the Earth has lost the role of nurturing what was once alive.
We've demonized regulation and convinced our populace that "government is the problem." We've let the market decide and supported commerce over our environment. Government is made up of people with individual and collective interests, but it's the social mechanism that we have to take care of our populace and the mechanism we have to seek justice. It's not perfect, but I'm not ready to "take it back"--whatever that means--and give it blindly to commerce. Commerce can be healthy within confines.
But, I can't help but think that we are destroying our mother, and rendering her barren. I can't help but feel pain that the Earth has lost the role of nurturing what was once alive.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Politics Again (Sorry)
I'm convinced that more children will live if pregnant women have health care. I'm convinced that more children will live if children have health care.
Pro-Life Groups Support Health Care Reform
Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good
Pro-Life Groups Support Health Care Reform
Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good
Thursday, November 12, 2009
It's Happened Again; Politics Intersects with Grief
"The U.S. ranks 31st in life expectancy (tied with Kuwait and Chile), according to the latest World Health Organization figures. We rank 37th in infant mortality (partly because of many premature births) and 34th in maternal mortality. A child in the U.S. is 2 1/2 times as likely to die by age 5 as in Singapore or Sweden, and an American woman is 11 times as likely to die in childbirth as a woman in Ireland."
I simply do not want any other mother's babies to die.
I read a lot of opinion pieces, but what usually grabs me are facts. Not the typical way of responding, though, most people are moved by stories and emotions, and in fact we make our most important life decisions based on feelings and not facts. But the facts above frighten me--children die and mothers die more here than countries with less than we have. Then I get angry, to be told that this is a government take over of health care, by the very people we pay to take over running the government on our behalf. I desire politicians to act on statements that they care about the American people, but so far, I hear that they are willing to accept the deaths of children and their mothers for the sake of who?--the very children and women who die? No, I suspect it's for the power or security or profit for themselves. I feel discouraged that some try to tell me it's OK to not want to contribute to the health of others, and encouraged me to think that only other people's children die for lack of care.
Please vote compassion and care, not greed. Please read the facts. We don't have the greatest health care system in the world. We seem to value money over life. And still with the latest bill that restricts health care for those who would have an abortion, the conservative population does not support reform . . . I'm stymied. Please, vote compassion and care. Let children and women live.
(Ah..... DH reminds me that Jesus was a liberal! Love DH. Matthew 25: 34-40. Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you? And the king will answer them, "Truly I say to you as you did it to the least of my brothers (and I say sisters) you did it to me. Matthew 5:43-47. Love your neighbor, and hate your enemy. But, I say, Love your enemy. In that way you will be acting as true children of your Father in heaven.)
[Oh crap . . . . . . OK, I've done what I can't stand, I've bible-versed you. I'm sorry and well, there it is. I'm simply saddened that we can't see to the prevention of the deaths of future children . . . . I'm saddened. ]
I simply do not want any other mother's babies to die.
I read a lot of opinion pieces, but what usually grabs me are facts. Not the typical way of responding, though, most people are moved by stories and emotions, and in fact we make our most important life decisions based on feelings and not facts. But the facts above frighten me--children die and mothers die more here than countries with less than we have. Then I get angry, to be told that this is a government take over of health care, by the very people we pay to take over running the government on our behalf. I desire politicians to act on statements that they care about the American people, but so far, I hear that they are willing to accept the deaths of children and their mothers for the sake of who?--the very children and women who die? No, I suspect it's for the power or security or profit for themselves. I feel discouraged that some try to tell me it's OK to not want to contribute to the health of others, and encouraged me to think that only other people's children die for lack of care.
Please vote compassion and care, not greed. Please read the facts. We don't have the greatest health care system in the world. We seem to value money over life. And still with the latest bill that restricts health care for those who would have an abortion, the conservative population does not support reform . . . I'm stymied. Please, vote compassion and care. Let children and women live.
(Ah..... DH reminds me that Jesus was a liberal! Love DH. Matthew 25: 34-40. Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you? And the king will answer them, "Truly I say to you as you did it to the least of my brothers (and I say sisters) you did it to me. Matthew 5:43-47. Love your neighbor, and hate your enemy. But, I say, Love your enemy. In that way you will be acting as true children of your Father in heaven.)
[Oh crap . . . . . . OK, I've done what I can't stand, I've bible-versed you. I'm sorry and well, there it is. I'm simply saddened that we can't see to the prevention of the deaths of future children . . . . I'm saddened. ]
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Choosing Compassion over Suppression
"I'm going there, and it's not pretty," is what I hear in my mind as I type this post. I hadn't imagined that in my grief journey I would come to an intersection with a sign post that reads, politics. I will do my best to refrain from invective, name-calling, and sarcasm. I will state as clearly and concisely my reasoning and do my best to avoid emotional outbursts. I am nervous. I do not wish to offend. I do wish to add a perspective on health care reform.
I will gladly pay more tax dollars so that more women and children can live healthier lives. I am fearful of negative aspects of the bill that, for me, are negative because I find them primarily vague. What ignites the most fear is the unknown, because this bill would instigate significant changes. I've read many interpretations of the bill from a variety of perspectives. However, my decision to support or not, needed to be based on what I read and understood. So, I read the bill (the one from the HR); it wasn't a quick read (1000+ pages), but it was manageable (150-200 words a page, double-spaced and wide margins). I understand that by contributing to the health care of others, I may inadvertently fund procedures that I am morally opposed to, therefore, choosing to support or not becomes a true moral dilemma that I must grapple with.
Currently, 90% of all abortions, are paid for by private insurance companies, the other 10% I assume are paid for by the already government funded health care plans. That suggests to me, that I am privileged to have the free will and personal responsibility to make my health decisions based on my personal belief system by virtue of the amount of money I make. I am not convinced that stopping this bill will stop women from making decisions I disagree with. I find no evidence in the language of the bill that abortions or other procedures will be mandated.
To continue grappling and arriving at a personal solution to my moral dilemma, I must be careful not to elevate myself to some righteous level, by lauding a personal decision to have my child. For me, when I found out I was pregnant, my daughter was already here. Therefore, I cannot claim making the right decision, when I didn't believe it was a choice. I believe that women in lower income brackets have morals, ethics, and belief systems that guide their behaviors just as I do. Perhaps tax dollars will give them opportunities to be as free and personally responsible for their behaviors and choices, as are those with money.
More importantly, tax dollars will give them opportunities to receive prenatal care and to take their children to the doctor when they are sick. My insurance paid for prenatal care, and when we learned of Down Syndrome and our daughter's heart defect, I had pregnancy decisions to make. Insurance paid for my decision to have counseling from a qualified genetic counselor (who requested information concerning my beliefs prior to testing) concerning parenting and caring for a child with developmental delays; it paid for my decision to have early tests by a pediatric heart specialist to determine when and what course of action would be needed to repair her heart; and it paid for my more frequent prenatal visits that became every other week or as soon as 10 days after the last visit. I believe women in lower income brackets ought to have the right to make these same pregnancy decisions that I was privileged to make.
This is not an easy conclusion to arrive at, when powerful emotions are at play. But, another powerful emotion is also at play, and here's where I break my promise about no emotional outbursts. Cailtin's life and death gave me the gift of this emotion--compassion. It's not that I was without compassion before my daughter, but it is that I have a deeper understanding, a stronger drive to be more compassionate, and belief that it is essential to choose compassion over suppression. I am not interested in suppressing needed health care that lies within my morals--taking care of women and children.
Private insurance typically pays for family planning services; and if no insurance, Title X allows for the care. Taxpayers are already paying for services that also include gynecological exams, diabetes tests, cancer screening, as well as pregnancy tests and counseling. My understanding of the business of health care is that more money is made by private companies when they deny care, then when they provide it. Private insurance companies are no more interested as a corporation in helping children live and helping poor women get the care they need to have healthy babies or get counseling when they discover they are pregnant, then those who might run a public option. For a company that is for profit, I am led to believe that stopping this bill is about profit. And pushing my moral button on abortion is a way to manipulate my emotions to help companies keep their bottom line.
But, for me, the denial of basic care for others is unacceptable. I remind myself that this bill is not a pro-abortion bill. I remind myself that I already have the privilege of enacting my morals by virtue of having money and relative good health. Stopping the bill would be choosing suppression over compassion. I choose compassion.
I am convinced that more women and children will be served and cared for, with reform of the current system. I am convinced that more children will live with reform of the current system. I am convinced that more families, when they suffer the death of a child will be spared the painful hospital bills that arrive following the death of their precious children. Spared in the same way, I was, because I have money. I don't need to keep more of my money, I need to be more compassionate. For me, one small part of acting upon that compassion is to support this reform. A larger part is to support other ways, personal and legislative, to reduce abortions and support a culture of life. I grieve for the deaths of all children and hope for more compassionate support of pregnant women who find themselves without health care. But that larger part is another post on another blog--as I have crossed the intersection of politics and grief.
I am not looking for validation of my position and honor all perspectives. However,
I ask that when commenting that you refrain from name-calling, sarcasm, threats to my health, and damnation of my soul. But, if you are unable, I will choose compassion and wish you only peace.
I will gladly pay more tax dollars so that more women and children can live healthier lives. I am fearful of negative aspects of the bill that, for me, are negative because I find them primarily vague. What ignites the most fear is the unknown, because this bill would instigate significant changes. I've read many interpretations of the bill from a variety of perspectives. However, my decision to support or not, needed to be based on what I read and understood. So, I read the bill (the one from the HR); it wasn't a quick read (1000+ pages), but it was manageable (150-200 words a page, double-spaced and wide margins). I understand that by contributing to the health care of others, I may inadvertently fund procedures that I am morally opposed to, therefore, choosing to support or not becomes a true moral dilemma that I must grapple with.
Currently, 90% of all abortions, are paid for by private insurance companies, the other 10% I assume are paid for by the already government funded health care plans. That suggests to me, that I am privileged to have the free will and personal responsibility to make my health decisions based on my personal belief system by virtue of the amount of money I make. I am not convinced that stopping this bill will stop women from making decisions I disagree with. I find no evidence in the language of the bill that abortions or other procedures will be mandated.
To continue grappling and arriving at a personal solution to my moral dilemma, I must be careful not to elevate myself to some righteous level, by lauding a personal decision to have my child. For me, when I found out I was pregnant, my daughter was already here. Therefore, I cannot claim making the right decision, when I didn't believe it was a choice. I believe that women in lower income brackets have morals, ethics, and belief systems that guide their behaviors just as I do. Perhaps tax dollars will give them opportunities to be as free and personally responsible for their behaviors and choices, as are those with money.
More importantly, tax dollars will give them opportunities to receive prenatal care and to take their children to the doctor when they are sick. My insurance paid for prenatal care, and when we learned of Down Syndrome and our daughter's heart defect, I had pregnancy decisions to make. Insurance paid for my decision to have counseling from a qualified genetic counselor (who requested information concerning my beliefs prior to testing) concerning parenting and caring for a child with developmental delays; it paid for my decision to have early tests by a pediatric heart specialist to determine when and what course of action would be needed to repair her heart; and it paid for my more frequent prenatal visits that became every other week or as soon as 10 days after the last visit. I believe women in lower income brackets ought to have the right to make these same pregnancy decisions that I was privileged to make.
This is not an easy conclusion to arrive at, when powerful emotions are at play. But, another powerful emotion is also at play, and here's where I break my promise about no emotional outbursts. Cailtin's life and death gave me the gift of this emotion--compassion. It's not that I was without compassion before my daughter, but it is that I have a deeper understanding, a stronger drive to be more compassionate, and belief that it is essential to choose compassion over suppression. I am not interested in suppressing needed health care that lies within my morals--taking care of women and children.
Private insurance typically pays for family planning services; and if no insurance, Title X allows for the care. Taxpayers are already paying for services that also include gynecological exams, diabetes tests, cancer screening, as well as pregnancy tests and counseling. My understanding of the business of health care is that more money is made by private companies when they deny care, then when they provide it. Private insurance companies are no more interested as a corporation in helping children live and helping poor women get the care they need to have healthy babies or get counseling when they discover they are pregnant, then those who might run a public option. For a company that is for profit, I am led to believe that stopping this bill is about profit. And pushing my moral button on abortion is a way to manipulate my emotions to help companies keep their bottom line.
But, for me, the denial of basic care for others is unacceptable. I remind myself that this bill is not a pro-abortion bill. I remind myself that I already have the privilege of enacting my morals by virtue of having money and relative good health. Stopping the bill would be choosing suppression over compassion. I choose compassion.
I am convinced that more women and children will be served and cared for, with reform of the current system. I am convinced that more children will live with reform of the current system. I am convinced that more families, when they suffer the death of a child will be spared the painful hospital bills that arrive following the death of their precious children. Spared in the same way, I was, because I have money. I don't need to keep more of my money, I need to be more compassionate. For me, one small part of acting upon that compassion is to support this reform. A larger part is to support other ways, personal and legislative, to reduce abortions and support a culture of life. I grieve for the deaths of all children and hope for more compassionate support of pregnant women who find themselves without health care. But that larger part is another post on another blog--as I have crossed the intersection of politics and grief.
I am not looking for validation of my position and honor all perspectives. However,
I ask that when commenting that you refrain from name-calling, sarcasm, threats to my health, and damnation of my soul. But, if you are unable, I will choose compassion and wish you only peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)