Category: Refuting Dumb Arguments

Why Planned Parenthood Shouldn’t be Federally Funded

~ Laura ~ 5 Comments

Planned Parenthood is at risk of loosing their federal funding, and people are losing their minds. People with lower incomes won’t be able to access healthcare, right? I agree that we shouldn’t take healthcare away from people. But I also think Planned Parenthood’s impact is thoroughly overrated. So, in no particular order, here’s why I think it’s a sensible decision to redirect PP’d federal funding to other healthcare providers.

why

1. The healthcare they provide is extremely limited. They’ll provide a pregnancy test, pap smear, morning after pill, STD test, abortion, sterilization, manual breast exam (which you can do yourself), and contraception. As far as healthcare goes, that’s a small scope of care. Saying people will lose “healthcare” without PP is grossly inaccurate, because PP doesn’t provide a comprehensive scope of care.

2. They aren’t actually the primary healthcare provider for many people. The self-reported number of patients they see in a year? 2.5 million. Out of somewhere near 320 million Americans, that’s . . . not very many. If you want to know the exact number, that’s .7% of Americans who go to PP in a given year. So will “millions” of people lose their care? No.

3. According to their annual reports, their abortion, sterilization, and contraceptive services have consistently been increasing over the last 10 years. All of their non-controversial services (STD tests, breast exams, etc.) have been steadily decreasing. [see info] I think this shows a significant bias. And I think taxpayers have every right to demand our hard earned money isn’t going toward biased and controversial organizations.

4. As they’ve proven recently, PP supporters are quite capable of financially supporting the organization themselves. Why force taxpayers to fund a controversial organization when they have supporters to keep doors open? I think if they tightened their budget a little and didn’t spend $30 million on trying to get Hillary Clinton elected, they might be able to survive just like any other nonprofit: with private donations.

5. They’ve over billed Medicaid and financially benefited from the program by over $8.5 MILLION. And that’s a conservative estimate. See section starting on page 311 of this report. Since much of their government funding comes from Medicaid reimbursements, I think we need to get real about how much they’ve abused that program.

6. There are thousands of federally qualified healthcare centers to help people facing low incomes. Actually, there are 20 for every PP facility. If funds are redirected from Planned Parenthood to these centers, lower income individuals will have more access to more comprehensive care. So to say people will not have access to healthcare is a blatant lie.  Take a look at this map from the Charlotte Lozier Institute.

national_page1_cli-adf_pp_map_us_sept

But what is a Federally Qualified Health Center? It’s a healthcare provider that “must serve an underserved area or population, offer a sliding fee scale, provide comprehensive services, have an ongoing quality assurance program, and have a governing board of directors”. By meeting these requirements, the center qualifies for federal funding. Is that what everyone wants?

Looking at this information, I don’t see a logical objection to redirecting money from Planned Parenthood to Federally Qualified Health Centers. There are thousands more FQHC’s, which makes them more accessible. They provide a much more comprehensive scope of care, so we’re giving people better care. And they come without the controversy of being America’s #1 abortion provider (who’s been referred to the FBI for possible prosecution and found to be guilty of many crimes). This looks like a win-win situation to me.

Do you agree? Disagree? Let’s talk in the comments!

To LIFE,

signature

P.S. Connect with me on Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, Bloglovin’ or by email.

What we can take from the Hatmaker situation

~ Laura ~ Leave a comment

In case you haven’t heard, one of evangelical Protestantism’s most well known leaders, Jen Hatmaker, recently announced her support of gay marriage.

Her belief was revealed in this interview, where she agreed that “any two adults have the right to choose who they want to love”, and that a LGBTQ relationship can be “holy”. She came to this conclusion after a few years of study, her husband said in a follow-up Facebook post.

*SIGH*

It’s disheartening, but not surprising. In reading about this, there are a few valuable things we can take away, I think:

1. If you study the Bible to figure something out, and your conclusion doesn’t match thousands of years of Biblical tradition, you’re probably the one who’s wrong.

It’s good and beautiful to know the Bible. But you know what? It can be confusing. False conclusions can be drawn. And I think it’s important to look beyond words on a page into the historical context, word meaning, and traditions surrounding any teaching. You can pray and research yourself into perfect heresy, and you might not even know it: a good reason to look at what’s been consistently taught over time and not try to twist scripture to mean what you want it to.

2. This is why I’m grateful to be Catholic.

You see, problems happen when everything is open to interpretation. That’s what you get with sola scriptura. It must be difficult to feel the weight of having to figure everything out yourself! I consider it such a gift to be be Catholic. I don’t have to figure out everything myself, and can trust the well educated explanations of thousands of saints, philosophers, bishops, theologians, popes, and doctors of the church who came before me. They’re not perfect. But they’re smarter than me and can help me understand issues I might not agree with.

3. We do need to talk about how we treat people who struggle with homosexual tendencies.

This, I think, is actually my biggest takeaway. I think Jen is right that we need to be sensitive to people. But she’s wrong that treating people better involves acquiescing to sin.

We can and should welcome people into our families, workplaces, and churches regardless of what sin they have, are, or will commit. We’re all sinners after all. This is part of what I think Jen was getting at, probably because some people still have a stone the gay people attitude. I hope it’s obvious that stoning people is wrong, as is wishing them ill will. That’s not a good way to love people.

Loving people means we do what is best for them. And since marriage-like relationships with people of the same gender violate how we were created to express our complementary sexuality as men and women, that’s not loving people right. Neither is it loving to endorse things like pornography, incest, or polygamy. Even if people want it. I don’t care if it’s consensual. Can we please agree on that? We can’t base our decisions on what people want because, let’s face it, we all want things that are bad for us sometimes. What we can do is treat people with respect, even when we disagree with them. The answer is not to endorse the sin, but to embrace the sinner. 

If we base our “love” for others on satisfying what they want, regardless of if it’s good for them, how on earth is that loving? You tell me.

To Life,

signature

 

 

P.S. Connect with me on Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, Bloglovin’ or by email.

Why I’m not voting for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton

~ Laura ~ 7 Comments

What’s more lighthearted and joyful to talk about than politics nowadays?

Lots of things, Laura. LOTS of things.

But talk about it we shall. It’s been hard to figure out this election cycle, so here’s how I’m approaching it.

Why I'm not voting for Hilary or Trump at A Drorp in the Ocean

The first thing I consider when voting for a candidate for any position is whether or not they respect the dignity of the human person. If the person in question supports direct attacks on human life, they automatically don’t get my vote. I don’t care if they have a stellar economic vision if they can’t respect everyone’s right to life. #SorryNotSorry

If the candidate passes that basic test, I will look at their stance on a variety on social issues. Then I will move to economic strategies, foreign policy, and the list goes on. But let’s be real. Most politicians don’t get that far in my process.

Because this is my process, Hillary Clinton never was and never will be someone I vote for (barring a major conversion). She is in favor of abortion on demand and shares Planned Parenthood’s worldview that some people are not as important as others. She’s also a criminal, so there’s that. Not voting for her was an easy decision.

Now the harder part. Long before the candidates were official, I seriously wondered if Trump running for president was a joke. I mean, what filthy rich business honcho runs for president? Apparently he does.

When I realized he would be the republican nominee, I lost what little faith I had in our political system. And I decided to eventually drop my affiliation with the republican party. The two party system doesn’t make sense to me at this point in history, because I think it divides us against each other when we need to work on electing people who will unite as many people as possible. Even though this means I won’t be able to vote for republican candidates in future primaries as a Californian, I’m just not willing to be affiliated with a group of people I don’t belong with.

Anyway.

The obvious decision would be to vote for Trump then, right?

Not for me.

I understand the reasoning some people are using to justify voting for Trump:

  • they’re sticking it to the establishment (by voting for the establishment…wut? I’m really not sure how someone like Trump isn’t part of this alleged establishment.)
  • they like that he’s not a career politician (which makes him a great politician. How is this a good qualification for being President?)
  • they hate Hillary so much they’d vote for the other person regardless of who it is because the republican is going to be more moral than the democrat (This is just bad logic because being republican doesn’t make you a saint.)
  • he is unabashedly not politically correct (Have you noticed this was more before he had advisers? His changing his voice makes me think he’s too easily manipulated.)
  • they think he will follow through on his promise to elect good people to SCOTUS (Good luck with that)
  • they agree with his stances (in which case, let’s talk about those)
  • or he’s the “lesser” of two evils in this case (debatable)

I just don’t buy it. So I’m not voting for Trump. I’m not voting for Trump because it’s never okay to do something bad for a good result. Ever. It’s not because I’m naive enough to think a perfect candidate exists. But I cannot in good conscience violate my conscience by voting for either of our major candidates.

I will not endorse deporting people who allegedly don’t belong here.

I will not endorse building a wall to keep people out.

I will not endorse nuking people nonchalantly.

I will not endorse killing the innocent wives and families of terrorists.

I will not endorse flipflopping on the issues most important to me.

Even if endorsing these things meant changing SCOTUS to be more in favor of my moral beliefs, I won’t vote for someone so reprehensibly against what I stand for to get one good thing.

It’s hard. I get it.

Many people I know are deciding what to do. Some will not vote. And some, like me, will write in a candidate as a protest vote. I’m not sure who yet (feel free to recommend people in the comments), but that’s what I’m doing.

Agree or disagree, I’d love to hear how you vote. Tell me I’m wrong, tell me who you’re voting for, let me hear it!

To Life,

signature

 

 

P.S. Connect with me on Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, Bloglovin’ or by email.

Restaurant owner in deep water for discrimination

~ Laura ~ 1 Comment

Shamash’s Delicatessen is a quaint corner hot spot for lunch in Manhattan, but things are about to get ugly for owner Shneur Berkovitz, who objects to a new bill that was recently passed.

Shady Business in New York

Berkovitz, an Orthodox Jew, serves a limited number of traditional Jewish dishes alongside more widely known dishes seen in mainstream American restaurants. The name of his restaurant, the décor, and the Jewish heritage proudly shared on the menu have led Manhattan natives to believe that Berkovitz was running a legitimate Jewish business. They streamed in by the dozens every day for lunch.

That is, until earlier this year.

When Manhattan residents discovered that Berkovitz does not allow pork to be served under any circumstance, they were horrified.

“Without pork on the menu, I am prohibited from exercising my constitutional right to freedom of dinner choice,” said local food blogger Sara Adams. “Frankly, it’s unconstitutional to prohibit diners from choosing from a full range of dinner options.” Sen. Rob McIngle (D, NY) added.

Berkovitz appeared stunned in a local news broadcast as he shook his head. “I’m Jewish. Pork isn’t something we eat. Why would I serve it in my restaurant?” he asked.

Food activists were angry, but they didn’t stop there. They discovered that Shamash’s is not a licensed vendor with Jewish Foods International, which may be another sign that Berkovitz is running a shady business. If his establishment was a true Jewish restaurant, it would be licensed as a Jewish Food Provider, meaning it was qualified to provide a wide range of Jewish dishes. But supporters claim that the limited Jewish dishes available are so easy anybody can make them, so they think being licensed is not important. Opponents beg to differ, and say that Berkovitz is misleading customers. On top of that, he is limiting the choices of his patrons, and should at least refer diners to where they could find the best local pork. Refusing to tell people about their options is manipulative and deceptive, Manhattan regulars are saying.

Locals brought it to the authorities, and have been successful in passing a bill that will affect all restaurants similar to Shamash’s which are unlicensed as Jewish Food Providers. This bill, christened the Pork FACT Act by supporters, requires that Berkovitz now informs diners of his lack of credible food service by posting this statement in the area by the hostess waiting area:

“This facility is not licensed as a Jewish Food Provider facility by the State of New York and has no licensed Jewish food provider who provides or directly supervises the provision of Jewish dishes.”

This statement is required to be on the menu and any marketing materials including, but not limited to, commercials, billboards, brochures, and websites affiliated with this business. In addition, this bill mandates that the hostess greet every patron with these words:

“Hello, and welcome to Shamash’s! Before you sit down to eat, we want you to know that New York has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive pork dishes (including all FDA-approved methods of smoked ham), pulled pork, and pork sausage, for eligible people. To determine whether you qualify, contact the county social food services office at 1-800-YAY-PORK.”

Sue Burke, an attorney representing the people of Manhattan, stated that “New York has been a national leader in promoting and protecting equal access to the full range of options for pork products. The Pork FACT Act will ensure that people who eat are empowered to make informed and timely decisions about their health and their bodies.”

Mike Hugo, Director of Logistics for the annual “We

Berkovitz, still dazed at the news of what his restaurant is mandated to do, remains incredulous. “All I want to do is cook food for people who come here. If you want pork, okay. Go somewhere else. But don’t make me help you find something I am against.”

An owner of a local business who wished to remain anonymous said: “It’s about time Berkovitz got into some trouble. People think he’s running an authentic Jewish establishment. I mean, look at the signs! The hostess even looks Jewish! But it’s not licensed, so it’s not legitimate. And he is discriminating against his patrons by refusing to serve them pork. If he shuts down, I’ll be happy. And we’ll have taken a step toward true freedom of dinner choice.”

* In case it’s unclear, this is a satire piece meant to serve as an analogy to the recent passing of AB 775 in California. This bill forces life-affirming pregnancy centers to give statements similar to the ones in this article, referring women to where they can procure abortions. Names and business names are fictitious, and any resemblance to real people or businesses is unintentional.

I’m the boss, so ya’ll can just shut up

~ Laura ~ 3 Comments

Have you seen stuff going around in the last couple months about bossy little girls? This quote definitely had it’s moment in the spotlight getting passed around on social media:

By Sheryl Sandberg

* Cue dramatic music and smiling faces of sassy little girls after reading that quote *

Aren’t you so inspired?

I mean, every little girl who is bossy is obviously a budding leader-in-training! We should encourage them to be the boss and follow their dreams! They should stand up for themselves and take charge! Be ambitious! Be loud and in charge!

Grumpy Cat says it best. When I first started hearing about this whole idea of encouraging bossy girls to embrace their innate leadership capabilities, I was like:

“Why?” you ask. Let’s first take a look at what bossy means:

Bossy Define Bossy at Dictionary.com - Google Chrome 11172014 90127 PM.bmp

Being bossy means I don’t care about about your opinion. It means telling you to do something right this second with no ifs, ands, or buts. It may mean raising my voice to get my point across. It means being powerful in a way, because I can control you. You have no say. It’s treating you as a means to get something done, without respecting your dignity as a person.

And that, my friends, is not okay.

From personal experience (as a person who can be bossy), I can tell you that it hurts people. Everyone deserves to be listened to, and being bossy is the opposite of that by definition. My leadership skills are at their worst when I’m bossy, because it means resorting to my position of authority to get people to do things. But leadership is so much more than that. Having a title is the least important aspect of being a leader, and it becomes wholly unimportant to people who have great leadership capabilities.

Leadership is about being someone people follow – not because they are docile little lambs to fetch you grapes and Italian olives from Venice, but because you have a message they are invested in. You have something to say, maybe something you’re fighting for, and people who have similar motivations are going to join forces with you if you show the ability to take your cause to the next level. Leadership is making a difference and having people lend a hand because they want to, not because you guilt-tripped them into coming, or bribed them with cookies. Believe me, I’ve done that. And it doesn’t work too well because it coerces people to come. It doesn’t empower people to be an integral part of your mission.

When we tell our little princesses that being bossy is okay because it’s just their leadership shining through, we’re telling them a lie. Because, quite frankly, the “light” from bossy people is burning my freaking face off.

Presentation1 - Microsoft PowerPoint non-commercial use 11172014 92235 PM.bmp

People deserve to be listened to. If I’ve learned anything over the last 1.5 years serving on the leadership team of Ravens Respect Life, this is it (and yes, a lot more). I used to go auto-pilot into “let’s get this done ASAP and since I don’t trust anyone else to do it right I shall do it myself” mode. Nobody told me blatantly to knock it off. Nobody told me it was annoying in all the years of “leadership” throughout high school.

I wish they had.

For years I’ve been a person who doesn’t wait for other people to get things done. Some people would call that ambition or me being a “go-getter”. I certainly am ambitious, but in the last months I’ve realized how messed up this idea of being my big, bad empowered self is. Why? It’s important to make sure people know you value their opinions. Even if you do have the final say, leaders have to let other people contribute to the cause. If they don’t, it becomes a dictatorship: you controlling people, not building a movement together. That doesn’t value other people. It doesn’t build trust. And it certainly doesn’t make anyone a skilled leader.

A skilled leader listens to followers, and you know what? They have amazing ideas . . . things I could never have thought up. They have skills and abilities you are not good at. They just might blow your mind.

The people I’ve worked with have taught me this, and I am so thankful. It’s humbling, and a constant reminder that I am not the boss. And I really don’t want you to shut up. I want to hear your ideas and work with you to make the world a better place. You have ideas I don’t have, and together we can do more than if we went our separate ways.

So, what are we to do about this bossy phenomenon? Instead of praising this attitude of bossiness, let’s teach each other how to value each other (and the people who follow us or we are followers of). Listen. Don’t interrupt. Work together. Read about real leadership: the power to influence other people. Learn how to tell good stories which will inspire people. Be able to empower people to contribute to your cause.

Being a real leader is better than bossing people around. It’s so much more.

To Life,

signature

P.S. Connect with me on Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, Bloglovin’ or by email!