Category Archives: news

Arm Teachers With Guns or Students With…Rocks?

The other day, I was scrolling through the news headlines when I saw this article: “School Supplying Rocks for Students to Throw at Any Shooters: ‘They Will be Stoned.’

I guess it’s better than having guns in the classrooms, but really?  This sounds so absurd I can’t believe that it’s true.

Let’s grab piles of rocks, keep them in buckets, and in the event of a school shooter, let’s train the kids to pelt them with rocks.  Yep.  That’s a great solution.

Come on.  Are rocks really going to stop a person (who is likely mentally unstable) who is armed with an AK-47 or AR-15?  Doubtful.

Not to mention the safety concerns of intentionally providing weapons in every classroom.

I would be nervous that the kids would start using them if they get into an argument with another student (or maybe even a teacher).  Before even thinking, they can easily reach for a rock to throw across the room.

The superintendent of the district said this: “Every classroom has been equipped with a five-gallon bucket of river stone. If an armed intruder attempts to gain entrance into any of our classrooms, they will face a classroom full students armed with rocks and they will be stoned,” he said, per WNEP 16.

How can he say that seriously?

Helsel said he came up with the idea himself and chose river stone because the rocks are “the right size for hands, you can throw them very hard, and they will create or cause pain, which can distract.”

Thank you for the clarification, Mr. Superintendent.  I’m grateful that these aren’t just ordinary rocks.  River stone makes all the difference.

I’m curious what practice lockdowns look like in his schools.  Are these river stones just flying across the halls?

How about we address more of the heart of the issue?  Why don’t we try to determine why so many of our youth in America experience this desire to kill?  Arming students with rocks to kill school shooters doesn’t solve the problem of school shooters.

What about mental health problems in America and the way they are dealt with?  What about stricter gun control so that ordinary Americans cannot obtain assault rifles?  What about stricter laws about background checks of those purchasing guns?  What about bullying and cyberbullying?  What about the breakdown of the family and the problems that correspond with that, in addition to the foster care system?  What about violent films and video games?  What about the media and the way it sensationalizes criminals so that others begin to desire to go down in similar infamy?

There are so many problems.  I understand that this superintendent probably has good intentions; he wants to keep his students and faculty members safe.  But piling river stones into buckets just sounds silly.

 

 

Advertisements

No, We Don’t Need More Guns in Our Schools

The headlines over the past week have been awful.  Unfortunately, that isn’t just because of the shooting in Parkland, Florida, but also because of President Trump’s reactions to the shooting.

Despite the idiocy of Trump, though, I am so impressed by the many Parkland teens who are standing up and advocating for stricter gun laws.  Emma Gonzalez showed such passion in her speech:

She even confronted a spokeswoman from the NRA who was evading her question about banning bump stocks and semi-automatic weapons.  She brought up the fact that Trump was the one who helped to repeal a law that made it more difficult for people with mental illnesses to purchase guns.  She is adamant that the laws become stricter.

But while the students fight for tougher gun laws, President Trump does the opposite.  His solution is to arm teachers.

Initially, there was outcry from numerous sources upon hearing Trump’s idea, so he later followed up prior comments by explaining that he doesn’t mean that any teacher should be given a gun.  Instead, it should be teachers with military backgrounds.

He cited random, fake statistics, saying that 10% of teachers in one school might fit the situation while 40% in another school would.  Now, I don’t know what schools are like in the south, but I can promise you that here in New Jersey, we don’t have too many ex-military teachers.  I can think of two in my entire high school.  Does he really believe there are schools where 40% of the teachers used to be in the military?

He even made a comment about coaches being good candidates to be trained with weapons because they have experience in that sort of thing.  Excuse me, Mr. President, but our coaches are mainly teachers.  They aren’t ex-military.  Why is a coach more likely to be equipped to handle a gun?  We have a problem with fake news these days, which is no surprise considering our own president spreads his own fake news.

Then he suggested giving special bonus money to the teachers who are armed.  He said that “teachers love bonuses.”  Trump speaks as if we’re children.  “Teachers love bonuses.”  I mean, isn’t that true of anyone, really?  Who isn’t happy to receive a bonus at their job?  He just always has such a condescending attitude.

I would rather forego the bonus than have that sort of power in my hands, and I know that many teachers agree with me.  Police officers are highly trained with their weapons, yet they still shoot and kill innocent bystanders from time to time.  Has Trump considered how likely that is to happen in a school, especially in a chaotic moment like a mass shooting?

He said that it takes about 8 minutes for the police to arrive at a school shooting and the shootings have only lasted for 3 minutes on average.  Hypothetically speaking, let’s say 5 teachers in my school are carrying concealed weapons.  What is the chance that one of the five of them will be less than a three minute’s walk away?  And if they are, how likely is it that they will kill the criminal without accidentally taking an innocent life?

Then, who will be there to protect the teachers when lawsuits arise?  Will legislators protect them from accidentally killing an innocent student?  And even if they could be protected financially, who is going to protect the guilt that they will likely face forever?

Trump suggests that teachers take a training course and then revisit the course once every six to twelve months, but who will pay for it?  A man posed that question to him yesterday and he completely evaded the question, making it sound like that shouldn’t be a reason to turn down his idea since it’s so crucial for the safety of our children.

But that is exactly what continues to happen with education in America; laws are passed, but they lack funding.  Schools sometimes need to fire teachers in order to find the funds to comply with government mandates.  Trump keeps saying that this will be “basically free” to the schools.  I don’t think he understands what the word free means.

The courses to learn gun safety and shooting accuracy will cost money.  The purchase of guns and ammunition will cost money.  And the bonuses he says the teachers should be given will also cost money.  So even if people agree with his idea, it’s financially disastrous to education.  We would lose teachers so that a select few teachers could carry guns.  I’m not even going to get into our failing education system, but I would prefer tax dollars to be spent on improving education, not purchasing weapons.

Trump reminds me of a child who makes reactive, impulsive decisions without considering them fully.  School shooting?  Uh…let’s arm teachers.  Oh, people think that’s dangerous?  Okay…uh…we’ll only arm a select few who have a military background.  Where will money come from?   Shoot…haven’t considered that one…well, if you love your kids you’ll find the money.  Yea…that’s the answer.

How is this our president?  How do people still support him?  He sounds like a rambling fool.

Trump said this about the shooting in Florida:  “A teacher would have shot the hell out of him before he knew what happened.  These teachers love their students. And these teachers are talented with weaponry and with guns. And I’d rather have somebody that loves their students and wants to protect their students than somebody standing outside that doesn’t know anybody and doesn’t know the students and frankly, for whatever reason, decided not to go in even though he heard lots of shots being fired.”

So a teacher would have shot him as a result of their love for their students?  A+B does not equal C here.  Teachers loving their students has no correlation to being able to shoot a criminal before he could kill more students.  There is zero causation between the two.  I love my students; therefore, if trained, I could “shoot the hell” out of any perpetrator?  No, that’s not how it works.

Cruz had an automatic weapon.  What will a teacher have, a handgun?  Does Trump honestly believe that one teacher with a handgun could have prevented all of that?

He made that comment after learning about the armed officer who was outside of the high school and who never entered.  His response about that was that “A security guard doesn’t know the children, doesn’t love the children. This man standing outside of the school the other day doesn’t love the children, probably doesn’t know the children. The teachers love their children. They love their pupils.”

First off, I’m an English teacher, and I cannot get over Trump’s repetitive, elementary sentence structure.  He loves to repeat key words and short sentences.  But him saying that we love our students while security guards don’t has no evidence or support.  Trump’s rhetoric is that of a child.  Yet some people still side with him?  I just don’t understand.  I feel like I’m living in the twilight zone.

He is so completely off base and out of touch with reality.  He even made a comment that “now is no longer the time for political correctness.”  That insinuates that he was previously being politically correct, but I can’t remember one instance when we held back from spewing insults at someone.

Trump likes finding scapegoats.  Immigrants, Muslims, it doesn’t really matter.  He needs someone to blame.  In this case, it’s the officer.  Now I don’t know the situation surrounding that officer.  I don’t know why he didn’t enter the building, but I’m sure that he is carrying some guilt right now.

He was also pointing the finger at California today, since California won’t go along with some of Trump’s ideas.  He started talking about the gang MS-13, and how those people aren’t even human beings; they’re animals.

MS-13 has nothing to do with this school shooting.  Yes, they actually are human beings.  No, that should not even be part of the conversation, but because he can point a finger, he will.

Trump pointing fingers is not helping anything.  And neither is his plan to arm teachers.

I miss the compassion we saw from President Obama following mass shootings like the one in Sandy Hook.  He appeared visually upset, tears streaming down his face as he discussed the events.  Families felt incredibly touched by his kind words to them when they met in private.  I don’t know how Trump reacted privately, but on camera, no matter the situation, he always has that smug grin plastered on his face.  It’s revolting, really.

I’m curious what changes are going to be passed by lawmakers in the upcoming months.  All I know is that, as a high school teacher, the last thing that I want is a bunch of my coworkers armed with guns.  That is not the answer.

Anyway…I really like this editorial that was posted in the New York Times:

Dear Mr. President

Dear Mr. President,

I don’t think you understand the problem that our country is facing.  We are in the midst of a school shooting  and mass shooting epidemic.  There is something that is intensely wrong in our country at the moment.

Students from Florida are protesting gun laws.  Most of them want the laws to be made more strict so that students can not so easily obtain guns.

I absolutely understand that guns are not the only problem.  I’m a teacher and I deal with high school students on a daily basis.  There are problems with bullying, mental health, narcissism, you name it.

But it’s also true that in most of these mass shootings, the perpetrators are not killing with a simple handgun that is purchased for protection.  They’re also not using guns that are typically used to hunt deer.

These are assault weapons that are being used: AK-47s, AR-15s.  For what purpose should any American be purchasing that sort of gun?  To hang on their wall?  To go target shooting? Just look at the name.  Assault weapon.  They were created for the purpose of eliminating human life on a grand scale.

Should that be a part of our right to bear arms?  I would say no.

Yet you, Mr. Trump, are taking the opposite stance.  You see the shootings.  You try (in an embarrassingly awkward manner) to comfort the families before going to relax at Mar-a-Lago.  You decide that arming teachers is the best solution.

Bringing more guns into schools is no sort of solution.  I am a teacher and I feel safe in my school despite…no, not despite…as a result of the lack of guns.  I would feel much less safe knowing that there are guns all over my school.

The more guns we have, the greater a chance we have of having a gun accidentally getting into the wrong hands.

Arming teachers doesn’t hit the root of the problem.  Arming teachers says, “well, since we can’t stop the students shooting up the schools, we’ll at least train teachers to kill them so that fewer students will end up dead.”

Arming teachers?  Is that a solution?  Absolutely not.  That’s a band-aid.  That lets the criminals win.  That tells them that we’re afraid, that we don’t know how to fix the problem, so instead, we’ll add more guns and more violence.

Let’s look into mental health problems.  Let’s address cyberbullying.  Let’s change our gun laws.  Let’s be more strict about the violent video games that our children begin playing at a young age and the gory films they are watching despite the R rating.  Let’s make sure that our school systems and FBI actually look into potential threats.  Let’s pray and remember that God is still very present in this country, waiting for us to turn to Him.

You’re supposedly a man of faith.  I hope that’s true and that you pray to God.  I really hope you can find Him.  Because right now, you’re giving all of Christianity a bad name.  You mention your faith in God, but then you berate poverty-stricken nations, calling them sh**-holes.  Is that what Jesus would do?

You’re the first president to attend the March for Life to end abortion, saying that you respect life in all forms, but then you act as though immigrants are a lesser sort of human being.  Is that what Jesus would do?

You’re a hypocrite in every sense of the word.

Please, don’t bring our nation into further ruin by trying to push for teachers to be armed with guns.  That is not what we want.  That is not what the students want.  Denounce your NRA affiliations and stop the madness that you’re spewing every time I turn on the news.

In the meantime, I will continue to pray for this country, especially for all of the victims of the shooting in Florida, their family and friends, the rest of the student body, the teachers and staff, and anyone else affected by the tragedy.  You are all loved.  God is still here, ready to pick you up out of  the darkness if you let Him.

 

“Bomb Cyclone” in New Jersey

This past Thursday here at the Jersey shore, we had what the news outlets were calling a “Bomb Cyclone.”  I’m not a meteorologist, so I don’t really know what that means.  In lay man’s terms, it means a huge, windy snow storm.

I was hoping for a lot of snow, but last year there was hype about a different snow storm that never really materialized into much.  Schools had closed the night before and we didn’t really get much snow.

This time was very different.  I woke up on Thursday to huge snow drifts.  It was difficult to tell how much snow we actually got here because it was extremely windy, so snow was being blown into massive snow drifts.

I thought that AJ and I could go outside to play in the snow, but we didn’t last too long.  The wind was insane and if you faced it, the snow pelted you in the face, which wasn’t exactly comfortable.

But we still had some fun before going inside for hot chocolate:

My Jury Duty Adventures

A few months ago, I received a juror summons in the mail, asking me to appear at the superior court this past Monday for jury duty.

Initially, I was somewhat disappointed about the timing since I had the entire summer off because I’m a teacher, so I didn’t really want to miss a day so early on in the school year.  But once the date approached, I became excited because I was interested in learning more about the whole process.

People had warned me to bring a book because jury duty is usually a long day of waiting.  I read the FAQs online so I would know what to bring and what to wear, and then I waited to check the website the Friday night before my Monday appearance.

I was on call for Monday, which meant that I could go to work on Monday, but I would need to check the website again that evening to see about Tuesday.  I was definitely disappointed that I didn’t get to go on Monday, so when I checked the website that evening and saw my number, I was excited.

I changed my mind about my outfit so many times.  I wanted to look appropriate while also being comfortable.  I didn’t want to wear anything that might cause lawyers to excuse me from a jury if I got that far.  I chose blue dress pants, a white and blue striped shirt, a salmon cardigan, and Sketchers brown simple shoes.  I had my hair in a low ponytail.  I debated not wearing my crucifix necklace because I didn’t know if they would want to avoid a religious person, but then I decided against it.  If they didn’t want me because of my faith, then their loss.

The morning of jury duty was extremely boring.  We reported at 8:30am to sit in a huge room full of people who looked bored and annoyed.  We had the rules explained to us before checking in.

We were told that we would receive a $5 stipend for the day.  I can’t believe it’s only $5.  This is 2017.  You can’t even go buy lunch for $5.  As a teacher, my pay isn’t docked for jury duty, but I can’t imagine being someone who lives paycheck to paycheck.  If they are selected for a 3-day trial, they will receive a measly $15.  That seems absurd.  I know that they say that a person is excused if they can prove financial hardship as a result of being on a jury, but I don’t know how lenient they are with that.

Then, we were told that if we are public school employees, we needed to tell them when checking in because we were not allowed the $5.  He said that we couldn’t “be greedy.”  I was not upset about the lack of $5, but found it funny that he could even say with a straight face that we would be “greedy” if we took the $5.

While in line to check in, they played a video about the importance of jury duty and our rights as citizens of the US.

By 10am, nothing had happened.  Thankfully, there was wi-fi, so I actually got quite a bit of work done on my laptop.  They announced a bunch of names and everyone called got to go up to a court room.  I was hoping to hear my name, but I didn’t.

Around 11:40, a man told us that there were three cases and that the only one that still needed jurors would not be ready to call them up until after lunch.  So while we were supposed to leave for lunch at 12:30, we got almost an entire extra hour!

I had packed lunch, planning to eat outside or in my car, but I have a friend who lives close to the courthouse, so I went to her house since she works from home.  It was really nice to get to have a random Tuesday afternoon lunch with a friend since I’m usually working at that time.

After lunch, we went back to waiting.  Then they started calling off more names.  The line of people was getting really long, so I was not expecting to hear my name.  Then I realized that they were reading the names alphabetically, so I waited in anticipation as they got closer to my name.

Sure enough, I heard, “Stephanie….” and a long pause before the woman butchered my name (typical, since I have a foreign last name).  While other people were visibly upset when their names were called, I had the opposite reaction.  I was absolutely ecstatic to get to go up to the court room and see the whole process.  But because the group of us was so large, I knew that my chance of actually being chosen for the jury was quite small.

We entered the courtroom and each of us had to grab a pad of paper and a pencil.  The judge introduced the lawyers, the plaintiff, and her family to us and then explained a brief overview of the case.  It was a civil case.  The defendant had hit the plaintiff’s car, which had already been admitted, but the plaintiff was suing due to health problems that she has been having in the three years since the accident.

He told us that he would be asking us 22 questions as a group and we were instructed to write down “Yes” or “No” on our notepad.  Once it came time to call jurors into the jury box, anyone who responded “No” to every question could take a seat to be questioned further.  Anyone who responded “Yes” had to go to speak to the judge and the lawyers to see if they could be excused from the case.

The initial 22 questions asked us things like this:

-Did we recognize the plaintiff/lawyers?

-Did we recognize the names of any of the witnesses / medical providers?

-Had we ever been involved in a lawsuit?

I was really excited when we got to question #22 and I had answered “No” to each of the questions.  I was wishing that instead of randomly calling jurors, they could have just asked who answered “No” to everything and even who might volunteer to serve on the jury.  I definitely would have raised my hand.

I snuck a peek at the papers that the people on either side of me had.  Both of them had a few questions marked “Yes.”  The man to my left was clearly aggravated with jury duty and just kept sighing through everything.  And then there I was, hoping and even praying (I know, I’m ridiculous, but I really wanted to experience court) that I would get called.

Most people had answered “Yes” to at least one of the questions, so it took forever to get seven people into the jury box.  Once they got to the seventh person, I was feeling disappointed.

Then the judge told them that he would ask them more questions so that the lawyers could get to know them.  He explained that the lawyers had a certain number of jurors that they could excuse for any reason, which is called a peremptory challenge.

These questions went as follows:

-Occupation / former occupations if you were in other fields

-Household – spouse? his/her occupation / children? their occupations

-Hobbies

-Favorite TV shows and new sources

-If you could speak to anyone, dead or alive, for 15 minutes, who would it be and why? (excluding anything religious and family)

-Is our country too litigious or is it too strict in its regulations that prevent people from suing others?

-Would you make a good juror and why?

Since I had all the time in the world while sitting there, I wrote down my answers to each of the questions.  I was struggling with the one about which person I’d like to speak to.  I’m glad that I wasn’t juror #1 because she didn’t have any extra time to think about her responses and she was visibly nervous.

I first thought of Jesus, Mother Teresa, and Gandhi, but they’re all religious.  Then I thought of the machine gun preacher.  Nope, still religious.  I have always loved Eminem, so I wrote his name down first, but even though I love his music, I think it would actually be terrifying to speak to him in person, and I would probably have nothing to say.  I settled on Ishmael Beah, a former child soldier from Sierra Leone.  I thought that might be a risky answer since it’s very different from everyone else’s answer, but it was the best option I could come up with.

Jurors kept getting eliminated left and right and I found the whole process fascinating.  I loved hearing all of their answers.  More people watch the Food Network than I had realized.  Nobody has any opinion about whether or not people sue too much.  That baffled me since I feel like I have an opinion on everything.  Most people also didn’t really have hobbies.  Their hobbies were just playing with their kids and grandkids.  I thought that was a little sad.  I know I’m younger than everyone else who was questioned, but I’d like to think that I will have something else that I enjoy doing in my life other than playing with grandkids.  Some people mentioned different types of sewing or painting.  One lady was a drummer.  But most of the responses were dull.

I’m really interested in racial equality in our country and I’m currently reading a book called The New Jim Crow about mass incarceration in the United States today and how much racial discrimination exists within the justice system.

In this case, everything the book said was absolutely true.  Now, this was not a criminal case, so it’s a bit different than the cases against drug dealers, or people caught with drugs or weapons, but I was still observing everything.

The plaintiff was an African American woman.  The judge and all three lawyers were white.  The first seven jurors were all white.  I started looking around the courtroom at the other potential jurors.  There had to be over 60 people in that room and there was not one African American.  There was one Hispanic woman and one Indian woman.  Everyone else appeared to be Caucasian.

I know that alone does not mean that the case would involve any racial discrimination, but it sure does make it more likely.  From this experience, I would argue that a jury is definitely not a random sampling of people in a particular county.  Anyway, I could get carried away with all of this, but back to my actual experience yesterday…

While listening to each of the potential jurors, I was trying to guess which ones would be excused.  I was correct about many of them.

-That lady has a husband who is a physician and her children are also physicians, so they’ll eliminate her since it’s a carse involving bodily injury. “Juror #2, thank you, but you are excused.”

He said he would meet his great-grandfather.  They clearly said not to choose a family member.  I would eliminate him for being a bad listener.  Yep, juror #4 was excused as well.

Her boyfriend is a state trooper and she hesitated for way too long when they asked her if she would be able to be impartial.  Juror #5, gone.

-She just keeps saying how nervous she is.  I don’t think they’ll like that she’s terrified this entire time.  How will she make a good decision if she can’t calm down? Juror #1, dismissed.

I know that this is not nice, but she has lots of visible tattoos and seems kind of trashy.  I doubt they’ll take her. 

Why does everyone keep saying they would be a good juror because they’re honest?  It’s driving me crazy.  You’re in the jury – your honesty doesn’t really matter.  More significant qualities include: ability to remain impartial, decision-making skills, focus, good listener, etc.  All of these women just keep telling us they’re honest.  Congratulations, but you’re not the one on trial!

Okay, you get the point.  Next thing I knew, they were dismissing the woman I had judged for her visible tattoos and my name was being called.

“Stephanie _____?” said the clerk.

“Yes.”

“Did you respond “Yes” to any of my 22 questions?” asked the judge.

“No,” I said, trying to stop myself from grinning.  I grabbed my bag, and walked into the jury box and into the sixth seat.  I had to try really hard to avoid smiling too much.  I didn’t want them to think I was the ditzy blonde who was overly excited about this experience.

I had to answer each of the questions and because I had written them down, I was ready to go, unlike many of the other people who had been in the jury box.  I was getting so tired of hearing the judge repeat the questions over and over again.

I talked about my job as a teacher and my college job as a sports medicine assistant.  I mentioned how I enjoy working out, running, and volunteering.  I said that I get my news from Yahoo, BBC, and Al Jazeera and that I don’t watch any TV, but that Prison Break was the last show I had watched.  I explained why Ishmael Beah was the person I would choose to speak with, mainly because I love volunteering in Africa.  And I told them that I do believe our society is too litigious.  I gave them the example of people suing for their hot McDonald’s coffee and how that type of lawsuit just causes more restrictions on the rest of us.  I said that I did believe that I would be a good juror because I could be fair and impartial.

When I finished, I was nervous that they wouldn’t like my answer about the 15 minute conversation.  The other jurors either couldn’t pick anyone or they picked famous musicians.  Then came little miss Stephanie, explaining why she wanted to talk to a former child soldier.  I though it seemed a little too extreme.  Every time a lawyer would pick another juror to dismiss, I would hold my breath, hoping that my name would not be called.

Then, the defendant’s lawyer said something in lawyer-speak that I understood to mean that he was happy with the seven of us.  My eyes widened.  The judge turned to the plaintiff’s two lawyers.  They went to speak to the plaintiff.  I heard her say “Yes,” and tried to calm myself.  These lawyers also said that they were satisfied.  YESSSS!

While some of the people around me were visibly disappointed, I was so excited that I would get to go to an actual trial.

The judge told us that we should feel proud of ourselves since they had gone through 38 people before selecting the 7 of us.

The judge explained all of the rules.  We were not allowed to speak to anyone about the case until its completion.  We could not research anything regarding the case online, including looking up the names of the judge, lawyers, witnesses, plaintiff, or defendant.

After he explained everything, we were sent home and told to report back at 9am today.

I called my mom, so excited to tell her the news since she had always wanted to serve on a jury and has never been selected.  I couldn’t tell her any details about the case, but I was so excited to see the trial.

Today the seven of us jurors sat in the waiting area.  Some of them seemed content with being selected.  One woman said she had served on a criminal case previously and that she was happy because this was supposed to be a two-day trial, whereas her last one lasted longer than a week.  One man was pretty disgruntled, saying how he must have selected the short straw.

The clerk met us and escorted us into the court room.  After sitting down into the same seats in the juror box as yesterday, he judge said that he had good news for us: the case had settled, so jurors were no longer needed.

What?  My hopes were crushed.  I was so excited to experience the trial.

He explained that situations like this happen sometimes because the parties involved realize that they really have no idea what the jurors will conclude about their case, so it might be more prudent to just settle.

I did not expect that, especially since we had been told that this case had taken three years to get to court.  Oh well.

Despite my disappointment, I was able to get home much earlier than I had planned and the weather was beautiful today, so I even had time to go to the beach, which I couldn’t have done if I had been at work all day.  It’s also good that I’ll get to go back to work tomorrow so that my students don’t need another substitute.

I’m still excited that I was picked.  It was a fun experience.  Maybe one day I’ll actually serve as a juror for a trial.  Or maybe not.  But that was my experience and I really enjoyed it.  Now I won’t be summoned again for at least three years, so I guess we shall see what happens next time.

I know that this blog makes me sound ridiculous, but these past two days were really exciting for me.  It’s kind of a weird topic to be so excited about, but you know, it’s the simple things in life.

 

Dear News Sources, Did You Know that People are Dying in Somalia?

I’ve already written posts previously about American egocentrism (see: American Egocentrism Strikes Again and American Egocentrism – Back at it Again), but it is a constant source of frustration for me.

I have been hearing lately about the desperate situations in which many people in eastern Africa are currently finding themselves due to famine as well as violence.  Most of this information I have come across because I follow the Machine Gun Preacher’s Facebook page after having found myself very interested in his organization, Angels of East Africa, which helps those suffering, after watching the film Machine Gun Preacher with Gerard Butler.  If you haven’t seen it, I highly recommend it.  The Machine Gun Preacher, Sam Childers, started out by choosing to go to Sudan to rescue children from the LRA and Joseph Kony.  These children were taken from their families, often forced to kill their own parents, and then were trained to kill.

I could go on forever about Sam Childers, but that isn’t the point here.  If I had not been following him on social media, I would have been like one of many Americans who are completely unaware of the current devastation in Africa.

There are also major problems occurring in Syria due to their current civil war.  There are tons of Syrian refugees right now.

There was also a recent situation where 40 or more Somalian refugees headed for Yemen were killed by an air strike.

Many people here in the United States fail to pay attention to the news at all.  However, even those who try to maintain an awareness of the world around them may have missed what is happening in countries like Somalia right now.

Why? Because American news sources are doing a poor job reporting much about it.  Even the world news sources aren’t paying as much attention as they should be.  Here is a look at some recent headlines from the home pages of these news sources from Saturday, March 18th, 2017.

New York Times:

Screen Shot 2017-03-18 at 1.38.25 PM

 

 

Screen Shot 2017-03-18 at 1.38.36 PM

CNN News:

 

Screen Shot 2017-03-18 at 1.36.39 PM

Screen Shot 2017-03-18 at 1.36.52 PM

BBC News:

Screen Shot 2017-03-18 at 1.58.02 PM

Al Jazeera:

Screen Shot 2017-03-18 at 1.42.50 PM.png

Okay, you get the idea.

Out of all of those sources, Al Jazeera was the only one that mentioned the problems in Syria.  The crises in Somalia and Syria are devastating right now.  There are people dying every day.  Yet out of four major news sources, only one of them mentioned it on their home page.  I could have guessed that it wasn’t going to be the American news source.

Now, what would happen if I specifically looked for world news within these same sources? (I skipped Al Jazeera this time since all of their news is world news.)

NY Times world news:

Screen Shot 2017-03-18 at 1.57.09 PM

 

CNN News world news:

Screen Shot 2017-03-18 at 2.00.25 PM.png

 

BBC News:

Screen Shot 2017-03-18 at 1.41.17 PM

Yep, just what I suspected.  Even the world news sections fail to mention the travesties taking place right now in countries like Somalia and Syria.

Yesterday, I was watching Casey Neistat’s video and it gave me some hope that although our news sources do a pitiful job informing Americans about certain problems in the world, maybe other famous people can do the job.  Casey Neistat gained popularity for his YouTube vlogs.  In this video, he mentions a project that his friend, Jerome Jarre (famous on Vine and Snapchat) came up with, with the help of actor Ben Stiller.

Jerome decided to look into what it would take to get a Turkish Airlines flight to be loaded with food to bring  to Somalia to help the many who are starving right now as a result of their famine.  Fortunately, Turkish Airlines agreed to work with them.

Here is the video:

Casey Neistat posted his video yesterday, March 17th.  It is currently March 18th at 2pm and the $1 million goal was not only met, but exceeded:

Screen Shot 2017-03-18 at 2.11.18 PM.png

That is absolutely incredible.  They were able to raise over one million dollars to help those dying of starvation in less than 24 hours.  As of right now, there were 42,186 donations.  Many of the donations are small amounts.  $5 here, $8 there.  Obviously there were some larger donations as well, but this goes to show how far a small amount of money can go.  It also shows that people do care to aid those in need if they were just aware of the situation and given a way to help.

Why must it take people like a random Vine star to bring awareness to issues like this?  Shouldn’t we already know about these sorts of problems from our news sources?  From our president?

Despite my frustration regarding the media, stories like this give me hope. Maybe the news outlets will cover the story because Casey Niestat and Ben Stiller are involved, which will provide even more awareness about the issues.

I know that it is easy to get wrapped up in our own little circle of friends and family, to only pay attention to local news that affects us directly.  I am guilty of this myself at times.  But we have to remember that even when our problems seem like a major burden, we are blessed to be living in a country in which most of us do not find it difficult to meet our basic needs.

We are rarely, if ever, in a situation where life or death is dependent upon whether or not we are able to find a source of water.  We do not have to hide in the bush while the LRA soldiers come looking to kidnap our children, rape our women, and murder or mutilate the rest of us.  We do not have to fear that the next thunderstorm may decimate our home.  If we get diarrhea, it’s an inconvenience, but not a death sentence.

I am thankful to be an American, but America, I expect more of you.  I know that people are up in arms about some of the things that Donald Trump has been doing lately.  I can assure you that I am not his biggest fan.

But despite all of that, we must remember that at this moment, someone in Somalia is taking his or her last breath, simply because he or she has gone too many days without a bite to eat or a sip of water.

School Dress Codes are Not Sexist

Lately, I have been seeing articles about students and parents outraged over the dress codes at their schools and how sexist they are.  People have begun fighting back against these dress codes since there are more rules for the girls to follow.

Well, I’m sorry to break it to you, ladies, but let’s take a trip back to anatomy class: you have more private parts that need covering than men, plain and simple.  Nothing about the dress code in most schools is sexist.  Schools simply wants both male and female students to dress modestly and appropriately.

Image result for school dress codes

Let’s take a look at common dress codes and determine if any of the requirements are, in fact, sexist:

No exposed stomachs.  Boys don’t typically wear belly shirts, but if they wanted to, they couldn’t, just like the girls.

No exposed backs.  Again – boys don’t tend to wear backless shirts, but if they did, they would be breaking school policy just like the girls.  I’ve seen male students wear those workout tank tops where they basically cut the sides off of a regular t-shirt.  It exposes their whole side from their armpit down to their hip.  They get in trouble for those shirts just like a girl would get in trouble for a backless shirt.

No cleavage.  Men don’t really have cleavage, so it’s not sexist, it’s just the reality of female versus male anatomy.  Guys aren’t typically wearing low-cut shirts anyway.  If they were, then they would be breaking the dress code.

No spaghetti straps, tube tops, or halter tops.  I’ve never seen a guy wear a spaghetti strap tank top, but that wouldn’t be allowed either.  As a teacher, I would never wear a shirt like that without a sweater on top.  It’s not appropriate.  Students should learn that there are settings in which they can wear that type of attire, but that they must also dress appropriately when the occasion calls for it.

-No leggings as pants.  As a teacher, I really appreciate this rule.  Do you know how many girls wear thin or worn out leggings and don’t realize that their striped, polka dotted, or floral underwear is clearly visible to everyone around them thanks to the florescent lights?  Or worse, the tiny thongs that my female students were wearing under their leggings was also visible.  It’s awkward to see that.  Do I tell my student that her underwear is showing?  Or does she know and not care? Or do I just ignore it and act like I don’t see it?

Leggings should not count as pants.  They’re fine for the gym or lounging around on the weekend, but they aren’t school appropriate.  Boys definitely stare at girls’ butts when they are wearing leggings.  Do we really need those extra distractions in school?  In most schools, teachers aren’t allowed to wear leggings as pants either.  I am in no way offended by that.  Leggings are skin-tight.  Every piece of fat, muscle, or panty-line is visible.  They simply aren’t appropriate workplace attire.

I still wouldn’t call this sexist, since boys also wouldn’t be allowed to wear leggings as pants either.  Girls would probably be staring at the boys butts (or more than just that) if the boys were wearing leggings to school.  They’re distracting to both genders.  It just so happens that leggings aren’t popular for most males.

No vulgar shirts. This rule bans shirts with any vulgar language, drug or alcohol references, or inappropriate images.  I tend to see more boys who wear these types of shirts, but still, this has nothing to do with gender.

No hats. No gender is being discriminated against here.  I make both my male and female students remove their hats and hoods.

Image result for school dress codes

An article from Teen Vogue asserts that these rules are sexist and that while it’s true that boys become distracted by some of the girls’ clothing items, it’s something that they need to learn to get used to since it’s a part of life.

I disagree.  Sure, there will be distractions, but do they have to be a part of our schools?  Absolutely not.

I know from male teachers that they feel very uncomfortable when their female high school students are wearing tiny shorts or skirts, or have half of their breasts exposed for the world to see.  They don’t want to get caught staring. But even as a female teacher, it’s sometimes hard to avoid staring when a 16 year old girl walks into my room dressed in an outfit that would be appropriate only for a nightclub.  I don’t want to see her butt hanging out of the bottom of her shorts, even though it’s not something that would ever turn me on.  It’s shocking, so most people would do a double take.

The article says that these dress codes “reinforce a message you’re already constantly given outside of school: the way you look is more important than your education. Of all places, a school should make sure it values a girl’s chance to learn over her appearance.”

No, not quite.  Rather, they teach students that beach attire is appropriate for just that — the beach.  In most schools, girls can still wear shorts and tank tops, if the shorts aren’t super short and the tank tops have more than a thin spaghetti strap.  When they have a job one day, we want our students to understand that their sexy nightclub outfit might not be fitting to deal with customers while working retail, let alone entering a more formal profession.

Why are people not arguing that these dress codes are sexist in the work setting?  Because they realize that we need some sort of standard to follow.  Is it a crime to see a glimpse of a girl’s back when her shirt slides up a little too far?  No.  But where is the line?  With the completely backless shirts that exist nowadays, we need some rule in place for our students.

The same is true for prom dresses.  It is now popular for girls to wear two-piece dresses, where the top is little more than the size of a sports bra, with a completely bare back and stomach.  Some of these dresses have a tiny little portion of the midriff exposed, but students are always pushing the envelope, looking for sexier dresses, so many schools had to ban two-piece dresses altogether.

Image result for two piece gown sexy

Image result for two piece prom dress not appropriate

Others are completely backless, or have huge cut-outs.  While that may be acceptable on the red carpet, our high school juniors and seniors are 16-18 years old.  There is no need for them to be showing off their whole body.  Small cut-outs aren’t a major problem, but again, students take things to the extreme.

Image result for backless prom dress

Modesty should not come with such a negative connotation.  There are plenty of gorgeous gowns that still leave something to the imagination.

Image result for acceptable prom dresses

It amazes me when parents fight back against these rules.  Why would you want your 14 year old daughter to expose her body?  You’re so mad that she can’t show her cleavage that you want to fight the school board?  Maybe you should put your time into helping her to excel in her classes and work on her career goals instead.

Students go to school to learn.  There is no need for such sexy clothing in the school environment.

Dress codes are there for a good reason — to remind students that their number one job at this point is to be just that — students.  They are not at the club or at the beach.  They are in school to learn how to be productive citizens of the world and with being a productive citizen comes the ability to distinguish which attire is appropriate for which setting.

 

Admitting Your White Privilege Doesn’t Make You Racist

I previously wrote a post about My White Privilege about a year ago.  This year, I used a new textbook for my AP English Language & Composition class.  We were working on the gender unit when I stumbled upon a new text that I assigned my students to read for homework last week.

It’s entitled “Just Walk on By” by Brent Staples, which is a piece in his memoir, Parallel Time: Growing up in White and Black (published in 1994).  Here is an excerpt:

“At night, I walked to the lakefront whenever the weather permitted.  I was headed home from the lake when I took my first victim.  It was late fall, and the wind was cutting.  I was wearing my navy pea jacket, the collar turned up, my hands snug in the pockets.  Dead leaves scuttled in shoals along the streets.  I turned out of Blackstone Avenue and headed west on 57th Street, and there she was, a few yards ahead of me, dressed in business clothes and carrying a briefcase.  She looked back at me once, then again, and picked up her pace.  She looked back again and started to run.  I stopped where I was and looked up at the surrounding windows.  What did this look like to people peeking out through their blinds?  I was out walking.  But what if someone had thought they’d seen something they hadn’t and called the police.  I held back the urge to run.  Instead, I walked south to The Midway, plunged into the darkness, and remained on The Midway until I reached the foot of my street.

“I’d been a fool.  I’d been walking the streets grinning good evening at people who were frightened to death of me.  I did violence to them by just being.  How had I missed this?”

In his piece, he explains how he is viewed as a criminal before he commits any crime. Being a black man is his only crime.

Staples is a well-educated man who has a PhD in psychology, yet he will continue to be viewed as a criminal based solely on the color of his skin and his gender.  It is now 2017, but being a black man still comes with many negative connotations that I will never be able to fully understand as a white woman.

My students have very diverse backgrounds.  In the one class in which I was teaching this piece last week, I only had two male students present, and one of them was a tall, black male.  He is an extremely polite young man.  He’s a good student with a great work ethic.  He plays on the football and basketball teams.  But he expressed agreement with the author’s assertions, providing instances when had been viewed as a criminal or a thug simply because he is a tall black male.  He even described some frightening instances in which police officers acted aggressively toward him or his family despite no crime having taken place.

Reading “Just Walk on By,” my heart breaks for a few reasons.

First, it is such a pity that this is still a problem in the year 2017.  Things have obviously progressed since the times of slavery and legalized segregation, but we cannot be content with the way things sit right now.  Relative to the 1950s, we’re living in a utopia for African Americans.  But that means very little.

It also frustrates me because I know that many white people deny their white privilege, which just perpetuates the problem.  It does exist and it must be addressed.  Denying white privilege does not do any good.  Accepting it does not mean that you are racist.  I know that I have white privilege.  Although I am half Brazilian, which could in some cases cause people to view me a bit differently, I appear on the outside as a typical white girl — blonde hair, blue eyes.  I am not intimidating.  I do not look like a criminal.  By accepting my white privilege, I am not saying that I am better than anyone.  Instead, I am acknowledging the fact that society puts me on a pedestal.  I am not feared.  My intelligence and education are not questioned.  I am not given second glances by the police.

And last, my heart breaks in knowing that I will never understand what it feels like to be in the position of Brent Staples or my student who related to the piece.  I cannot fathom walking down the street and seeing people cast back second glances, quickening their pace, locking their car doors, or crossing over to the other side of the road to get away from me.  I cannot imagine how it must feel to be feared simply because of being.

Staples says how it was at twenty-two years old when he “first began to know the unwieldy inheritance [he’d] come into–the ability to alter public space in ugly ways.”  He continues to say that it was “clear that I was indistinguishable from the muggers who occasionally seeped into the area from the surrounding ghetto.”

Those who deny white privilege must not understand the recent problems regarding police brutality.  It is undeniable that a black person who is stopped by a police officer must act extra kind, polite, and gentle.  And even if he does, there is still the chance of a wrongful conviction, or even death, simply because of his skin color.

Our society teaches us that the black male must be feared.  This is what we grow up being brainwashed by each day, mainly through the news and media.  Although Staples probably feels some frustration when people fear him, he understands and sympathizes for them.  He acknowledges that the “danger they perceive is not a hallucination.  Women are particularly vulnerable to street violence, and young black makes are drastically overrepresented among the perpetrators of that violence.  Yet these truths are no solace against the kind of alienation that comes of being ever the suspect, against being set apart, a fearsome entity with whom pedestrians avoid making eye contact.”

My student is only 17 years old and he is already aware of this reality.  He was born into a body which will benefit him on the court and on the football field.  His mind and intelligence will be an asset through his schooling and future career, but ultimately, because of his body, he will be feared and judged without reason.

Staples explains how he eventually “began to take precautions to make [himself] less threatening.”  He says that he is careful where he walks, especially at night.  He tries to leave enough space between other people so that he does not feel as threatening to them.

My student actually admitted to doing similar things.  He told our class how he often notices people glancing behind at him, checking his proximity.  He said that he will sometimes cross the street to walk on the other side on purpose so that the person in front of him does not feel threatened.

I will never be able to relate to that.  Why?  Because I am white.

I am able to greet people I cross paths with on the street without them feeling unnerved.  I will probably not be mistaken for a criminal simply because I walked too close to a crime scene and was assumed to be connected.

I love my job as a teacher, mainly for all of the connections  that I am able to make with my students.  But along with those connections comes emotional grief.  It pains me to know that for this young black student, it does not really matter how much I teach him, or where he goes to college; he will not be able to change the body he was born into.

Can he accomplish great things?  Absolutely.  But unless this world changes, he will have a more difficult time achieving greatness than if he had been born a white male.  I know the shameful truth that in many situations, he will be viewed as a lesser version of a white male who has the same education, grades, and work ethic.

Maybe his height, size, and even race give him an advantage with football or basketball.  Some would say that his race could get him into college more easily thanks to affirmative action. But depending on his career goals, he will have to work so much harder than his white counterpart to achieve similar end results.

Some people like to say that this isn’t really true in America in 2017.  After all, we had a black president, didn’t we?  But one black president mean does not nullify the existence of racism and privilege.

I don’t know Obama’s full life story.  But I am sure that he had to work tooth and nail to achieve the success that he did.  The same is true for his wife, Michelle.

Neither of her parents had graduated from college, and some of her high school teachers even tried to convince her not to apply to Princeton because they believed that she was setting her goals too high.  She had to earn her respect as an intelligent woman despite her race.

Growing up without much money, I had an intense drive to succeed, to get through college, and to begin my career as a teacher.  I know that I worked hard in college, but did I have it a little easier because I was white?  I believe so.  Had I been black, I would have had to work even harder to prove myself equal to those around me in my schooling and college.  The intelligent black male or female is still viewed today as the exception, not the norm.

Admitting your white privilege does not make you racist.  It doesn’t make you the bad guy.

Instead, it means that you are aware that you were born into some level of privilege simply because of your skin color.

It means that you have a responsibility to admit and remember this fact so that you can work towards changing the status quo.

It means that you must use that privilege to enlighten those around you about that fact so that we can one day find equality.

I am a white woman.  I was born into a body that does not lead to doors being shut simply because of my appearance.  The same is not true for all of the babies being born into black bodies at this very moment.  They will face bigger obstacles than me for no reason other than the color of their skin.  That is the reality of white privilege.

 

Are the Side Effects of Birth Control Really Worth It?

Yesterday, I was reading a CNN article entitled “Women Rush to Get IUDs Because of Trump.”  Obama’s Affordable Health Care Act guarantees free contraceptives to most women.  Trump wants to change that, so women are rushing to determine their birth control plans.

Many are choosing to have IUDs implanted.  According to CNN, an IUD costs around $1,000 to insert and it can last for up to ten years.

So before I get into the problems surrounding The Pill, let’s get into IUDs.

IUDs

They can perforate the uterus upon insertion, or if they accidentally move around inside of the woman.  Although non-cancerous, they have been proven to cause ovarian cysts.  They can cause problems with a woman’s menstrual cycle, in addition to headaches, mood swings, nausea, and acne.  Although the IUD doesn’t create infections on its own, if a woman gets a genital infection and she has an IUD, the infection can much more easily be spread into the uterus and fallopian tubes.

Now, I would rather not experience any of those side effects, but what amazes me is that multiple websites readily admit that the Mirena IUD causes ovarian cysts.  They list it as one of the “common” side effects.  It isn’t even like it’s something that is hidden from the general public.

In addition, lawsuits have been filed against Mirena for not being more forthcoming in the past about the uterus performation that can occur if the IUD moves.  There have been over 500 lawsuits against Mirena for this reason.

I’m sure that many of the women flocking to have the IUD inserted are well aware, and that’s what astounds me — that women readily accept potentially life-threatening side effects so that they can have sex without risking pregnancy.

Pregnancy is so terrible that women would rather face cysts and perforations of the uterus.  Really?    You know, condoms have pretty high rates of pregnancy prevention as well.  And as far as I know, they won’t rupture your uterus.  And there’s something even better – Natural Family Planning (NFP) that is completely free.

And then there’s the Pill.

The Pill

I was having a conversation last night with a friend who had stopped taking the pill due to some side effects that she was experiencing.  She mentioned how it made her feel extreme levels of anxiety as well as depression.

I am a high school English teacher.  Without considering this potential correlation, I had noticed over the past few years of teaching that I have many females with anxiety issues.  I know that the stereotype is that females are more emotional, but I have seen girls who have abnormal levels of stress and anxiety.  I have also seen many girls writing in their journals and other assignments about their experiences with depression.

I know that depression can exist on its own, but my conversation with my friend made me wonder if there could be any link between this increase that I’ve noticed in anxious females and birth control use.  After all, many girls start taking birth control as soon as they get their period.  Some of them take it for pregnancy prevention, while others are prescribed it because of acne or menstrual irregularities.

Upon doing a little research, I stumbled across this CNN article, “Birth Control Linked to Depression, New Study Says.”

According to the article, 30% of women eventually stop using the pill because of side effects.

“We have known for decades that women’s sex hormones estrogen and progesterone have an influence on many women’s mood. Therefore, it is not very surprising that also external artificial hormones acting in the same way and on the same centers as the natural hormones might also influence women’s mood or even be responsible for depression development,” said Dr. Øjvind Lidegaard, a professor at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark and lead supervisor of the study.

Lidegaard performed a study that involved one million Danish women ages 15-34 over the course of 14 years and he did not include any women who had been previously diagnosed with depression.

Here are some of his findings:

Among all hormonal birth control users in the study, there was a 40% increased risk of depression after six months, compared to women who did not use hormonal birth control, the researchers found.

Adolescents seemed more vulnerable to this risk than women 20 to 34 years old. Further studies are warranted to examine depression as a potential adverse effect of hormonal contraceptive use,” the researchers wrote in their study.

According to the article, 62% of women between ages 15 and 44 use some form of birth control.  16% of them use the pill, 16% use female sterilization, and 7% use IUDs or implants (National Center for Health Statistics.)  Other studies have shown 4 out of every 5 American women use birth control.

Now I don’t know about you, but a 40% increased risk of depression is absolutely cause for concern.  40%?!? Those are pretty good odds.

Of course some OBGYNs were quoted in the article about the fact that more needs to be studied since “causation is hard to prove.”  One doctor said that “Although this study suggests an increased risk of depression with combined hormonal contraception, the increase does not seem so great as to significantly change how I counsel patients.”

Really?  You don’t plan to counsel patients any differently?  You know that there is a pretty good chance that they could become anxious or depressed as a result of the pill and that isn’t going to change that much for you?

The CNN article continues to say that although some side effects of birth control include things like strokes, there are also health benefits like pregnancy prevention (well…isn’t that the point?), menstrual cycle regulation, and acne.

Think about the 13 year old girls who are prescribed this pill only because of acne.  Depression is a better alternative to skin that isn’t clear?  Okay, your face is flawless, but I’m sorry to tell you that you might have a stroke.

So you won’t get knocked up, your cycle will be normal, and your skin will be clear.  You might just have to deal with a stroke here or there.  No big deal.


Now I’m one of those people who does not believe in contraception at all.   My opinion stems from my religious beliefs, but I also try my best to live an all-around healthy lifestyle.

There was another CNN article published about the fact that some women are opting to ditch birth control because they have realized that it isn’t healthy to mess with your hormones and reproductive organs the way that birth control does.

Natural Family Planning

This article talks about women switching over to Natural Family Planning (NFP).

I was shocked to even see an article about this on CNN’s website.  NFP was something that I had only heard about through my Catholic college or Catholic friends.  CNN even admits that it was started within the Catholic Church, but it is apparently becoming more secular.

The way that NFP works is that the woman monitors her cycle, bodily changes, and temperature to determine when ovulation occurs and then she chooses not to have sex on the days when she is fertile.

The woman interviewed in the article explained that she switched to NFP once her doctor told her that she was at a high risk for strokes as a result of her birth control.  She was 29 years old, yet at risk for strokes.  Kudos to her for taking action and ending her birth control.  Many other females accept the horrifying risks so that they can have sex as they please.

In the article, an OBGYN said that 1 in 4 women using NFP will get pregnant.  However, it also says that if it is used correctly, it has a 99.6-99.4% rate of success in avoiding pregnancy.  That does require women to take their temperature daily and monitor their bodies, but isn’t that a much better alternative to depression, strokes, weight gain, acne, etc?  It’s effective as long as it’s used properly.


So I know that plenty of women will disagree with me, but I’m absolutely supportive of Trump wanting to change Obamacare’s free contraception.

I mean, almost nothing in life is free anyway.  For what reason should contraception be free?  A woman will not die without her birth control.  There are sick people all across the country who cannot afford the medications they need in order to survive, yet our taxpayer dollars are helping people to have sex without worries.


And if you’re interested, here’s a previous post about the dangers surrounding NuvaRing:

Risking Death to Prevent Pregnancy?

Abortion Funding Changes

Donald Trump is not my favorite person in the world.  Let’s just get that straight.  I was not thrilled for his election or inauguration. (Though I wouldn’t have been thrilled about Hillary’s either, for that matter.)

But I have to admit that I am very happy about one of the first things I’ve heard him doing now that he is president.

Today, he signed an executive action to reinstate the Mexico City Policy.  This basically takes away funding from NGOs (non-governmental organizations) that perform abortions overseas.

According to CNN, this policy was first implemented during the Reagan administration and then rescinded during Obama’s presidency.

Of course, there are many people who are up in arms today, many of whom argue that this is the first step in restricting women’s rights:

“Donald Trump has turned his anti-women rhetoric into policy, and made it more difficult for women and families all over the world to access vital reproductive care. He really is living up to the lowest of expectations,” NARAL’s president, Ilyse Hogue, wrote.

Abortions being legal is not pro-women, despite what pro-choice people would like to have you believe.  And abortion being illegal is absolutely not anti-women.

To abort a baby is to take a human life that was created by a man and a woman.  The baby is just as much the man’s child as it is the woman’s.  The only difference is that the woman must carry this baby within her body.  I am not trying to make light of that situation.  I know that being pregnant is no easy task.  But to call abortion a woman’s issue ignores that fact that the man is 50% responsible for that pregnancy and that he has rights to that child.

If a woman has a baby, the father has legal rights to that child.  If the couple separates, that father must pay child support.  That is because we know that the child is not the woman’s property alone.  The father had an equal part in the pregnancy as the woman.

Why is the same not true of abortion?  Why must it be viewed solely as a woman’s issue?

If you think about the babies being murdered by abortion, it is clearly more than a woman’s issue.  It’s an issue of life and death, regardless of gender.

I’m not going to get into all of my reasons why I believe that abortion should be illegal right now, because I could go on all night.  But I absolutely applaud Trump for this bold move.

People like to argue that abortion does not affect those who do not support it; they simply choose not to have an abortion.  Depending on our laws, though, they are wrong.

Until the signing of this law, my taxpayer dollars were going toward abortion funding, not only within my own country, but overseas as well.  It is bad enough that I am, in a way, helping to kill innocent babies here in the US, but in foreign countries as well?  Don’t I have the right to choose not to fund what I believe to be murder?

Murder, after all, is the premeditated killing of another human being.  A baby is a human being.  It breathes, feels, grows.

If a pregnant woman is murdered, the killer receives two murder charges: one for the woman and one for the unborn baby.  Our laws, therefore, are contradictory.  In one situation, a fetus is viewed as human and its death is called murder.  In the other situation, the fetus is viewed as a bunch of cells and its death is called women’s rights.

A woman who I know from my old job recently had a son born prematurely.  He was born at 24 weeks this past fall.  He was just 1 lb, 9 oz.  Depending on the state in which this woman lived, she could have aborted that fetus at that same age.  Did he have some developmental issues?  Of course.  But today he is able to breathe on his own and he is still improving.

Abortion is not anti-woman or anti-man.  It is anti-life.

I heard about the women’s march that was going on this weekend.  I had no interest in attending because in many of the locations, the right to abortion was one of the issues that women were standing up for.

It saddens me to know that because I don’t condone murder, I will never stand up for so-called women’s rights or feminism.

Yes, I believe that women deserve equal pay for equal professions as men.  Yes, I believe that women are intelligent, capable human beings.  But does that give them the right to kill with the argument that it’s “their body”?  Absolutely not.

To be pro-life is more pro-women anyway.  Many women face terrible side effects from going through with abortion.  There are physical side effects like fever, nausea, infection, and death.  Then there are many emotional side effects, ranging from depression and guilt, to suicide.

The woman behind Roe v. Wade, whose name is Norma McCorvey, says that her part in legalizing abortion in 1973 was the biggest mistake of her life.  She started her own pro-life outreach in 1997 after realizing the flaws in her previous pro-choice attitude.

The annual March for Life is coming up this Friday.  When in college, I traveled to DC for the March for Life, which fights to protect life at all stages.  That is the march that I support much more than the women’s march.

So kudos to you, Donald Trump.  I may not see eye to eye with you, or feel warm fuzzies when I hear your name, but I am thankful for this small step that you have just taken in terms of fighting back against abortion.