Free speech or death

The young adult novel – “The Perks of Being a Wallflower” – contains a fictional teenage boy in his freshman year in high school tackles tough subjects like rape and homosexuality.

Another YA novel – “Baby Be-bop” – has been condemned by some as explicitly vulgar and anti-Christian.

A battle is brewing in one city over whether the public library should offer books like these. Some have even called for a book-burning.

Personally, I don’t think they should be banned (or burned). And this is why . . .

First a little background on the battle:

Ginny Maziarka of Wisconsin was unhappy with the content of some of the books in the West Bend library. She claimed the public library offered books in the YA genre affirming the gay lifestyle, but it offered no books affirming the heterosexual lifestyle (such as titles written by “ex-gays"). When the board did not heed her suggestion to add those types of books, she appealed to the library board and began blogging about the issue. The local newspaper picked up the dispute. From there, opposition formed and the tensions ignited.

For the complete story of the West Bend, Wis., book battle, click here.

Library fight riles up city, leads to book-burning demand

I see a couple of problems here.

First of all, Maziarka has claimed there aren’t any books affirming the heterosexual lifestyle. But isn’t that what most mainstream fiction is – silent affirmation of the traditional lifestyle?

Popular adult fiction writers like Nicholas Sparks, Jodi Picoult and even Stephen King haven’t – at least in the books I’ve read by them – featured a homosexual protagonist.

If popular YA authors, like J.K. Rowling and Stephenie Meyer, include a homosexual in their novels, they are minor characters. And other YA authors – Judy Blume quickly comes to mind – have already written (and dare I say beat to death) stories of heterosexual teens coming of age.

Second, Maziarka – who is the mother of four – said she doesn’t want her children exposed to the content in these books. I don’t blame her. This isn’t something I’d want my teenage daughter reading either.

But whose job is it to police that to which our children are exposed? As a God-fearing Christian, I don’t want my daughters to read anything by Phillip Pullman or Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins until they’re spiritually mature enough to cope with the views of those authors, but I’m not going to infringe upon the rights of an atheist or agnostic down the street who may find nothing wrong with those works.

I simply make sure I know what my teen is reading.

I don’t know about the library in West Bend, but I know the library in my hometown offers books from a variety of viewpoints. (If you really want to read a good coming-of-age book, check out “Watching the Tree Limbs” by Mary DeMuth. Excellent stuff.)

Thirdly, where do you draw the line?

“5. And the men of Gibeah rose against me, and beset the house round about upon me by night, and thought to have slain me: and my concubine have they forced, that she is dead. 6. And I took my concubine, and cut her in pieces, and sent her throughout all the country of the inheritance of Israel: for they have committed lewdness and folly in Israel.”

Some might call this piece explicit or over the top, but it’s a passage from the Book of Judges in the Bible.

The frightening thing all Americans need to remember is that our culture is always shifting, always moving, and what some now take for granted could eventually be a thing of the past.

Not so long ago, prayer in school was as common as ketchup at McDonalds.

That’s not so anymore.

Not so long ago, it was laughable and absurd to think that a man would be able to marry another man.

That’s not so anymore either.

How long, then, could it be before religious views are villainized to the point where the majority of citizens call for a ban of certain holy texts because they’re explicit or promote “outdated views” or spur threats of internal violence?

It’s an awful thought to consider, but it’s not so far fetched. First amendment rights need to be protected even moreso than Fort Knox, and these books – even the ones that contain passages we may or may not like – are protected, too.

A word from my soapbox

A note from Kat: I'm making a rare venture into politics today. Coming from a family of health-care providers, it's a topic I feel pretty strongly about. I promise I won't make this a habit.

*******************************************************************************

To her dismay, Patient X discovers she's pregnant.

Patient X decides she's not ready to be tied down and asks her doctor to either abort the pregnancy or refer her to a clinic that will.

On one hand, Dr. Y has an obligation to treat her patient.

On the other hand, Dr. Y is a Christian. To take part in the termination of any pregnancy -- even indirectly through referral -- violates her ethical code.

What's a health care professional to do?

Well, since the enactment of Roe v. Wade in the mid-1970s, a national conscience clause law has protected doctors from performing abortion and sterilization procedures. The Church Amendment exempted private hospitals receiving federal funds from any requirement to provide abortions or sterilizations when they objected on the basis of religious beliefs or moral convictions.

Some subsequent conscience clauses protect pharmacists, physicians and other health care providers from discrimination and disciplinary action for not providing certain medical services that violate their conscience or ethics.

Just before George W. Bush left office, he proposed the Provider Refusal Rule that was enacted on Jan. 20 -- the day Barack Obama took office. The rule expanded the "conscience clause."

Under the rule, all workers in health-care settings (from doctors to techs) can refuse to provide services, information or advice to patients on subjects such as contraception, family planning, blood transfusions and vaccine counseling -- if the service goes against the provider's ethics. The rule cuts off federal funding for thousands of state and local governments, hospitals, health plans, clinics and other entities if they do not accommodate doctors, nurses, pharmacists or other employees who refuse to participate in care they feel violates their personal, moral or religious beliefs.

Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) said she believed the rule was so broad even cashiers at Walgreens could refuse to provide medication for someone if the cashier had a religious objection.

Last month, the Obama administration began its move to overturn the policy. (The 30-day public comment period on the measure ends this week.)

Opponents of Bush's Provider Refusal Rule say the regulation is so broad that it could allow workers to decline to participate in many other types of sensitive medical procedures -- from blood transfusions to end-of-life care. In certain areas of the country where medical providers are scarce, those refusals could put patients at risk.

Officials with the Obama administration have stressed that the president remains committed to protecting the rights of health-care workers who do not want to participate in abortions.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said to CNN: "Protecting the right of all health-care providers to make professional judgments based on moral convictions and ethical standards is foundational to federal law and is necessary to ensure that access to health care is not diminished, which will occur if health-care workers are forced out of their jobs because of ethical stances."

Now, no one is saying the conscience clause isn't important. Heck, if the government stripped the conscience clause altogether the health care system would collapse.

Catholic hospitals would cease operations if health-care providers were required to perform abortions. (That's 12.5 percent of all community hospitals nationwide and accounts for 15.5 percent of all hospital admissions.) You could just about imagine that other faith-based hospitals would follow suit.

But I'm not talking about stripping the conscience clause altogether. I'm talking about Obama rescinding Bush's Provider Refusal Rule.

I understand where Perkins is coming from. I don't think any health-care worker should be forced to make a professional judgment that goes against their moral convictions and personal code of ethics.

What do you think?

Should health-care workers be required to provide services/products that go against their personal code of ethics? Should a nurse be required to administer morning after emergency contraception treatment? Or do all health-care providers have a duty to treat their patients regardless of moral objections?

An open letter to the presidential candidates

With the election a mere week away, I've decided to make a rare venture into politics with today's blog post. Feel free to add, in the comments, items you are looking for in your next president.


Dear Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama,

Lately, it seems, you've both done a lot of talking without really saying anything. You point fingers at each other and say, "Well, at least I haven't done what that guy did, so you should vote for me."

I'm tired of voting for the lesser of two evils.

And in light of the struggles with which our world currently contends, that's not enough anymore. Since neither of you have said the magic words that will get my vote, let me tell you what I'm looking for in a leader.

1. I'm looking for a leader who puts his heart for America ahead of his loyalty to his party. I don't care whether you call yourself a Democrat or Republican. As far as I can tell, slapping a label on someone -- even if it's yourself -- is a big step backward.

2. I'm looking for a leader who remembers a large part of America exists between Los Angeles and New York City.

3. Im looking for a leader who knows what it's like to live from paycheck to paycheck for at least a year, one who knows the difference between living and surviving, one who knows that there are folks out there struggling to pay for the prescription medication that keeps them tethered to life. Come out of your crowd long enough to realize most Americans can't afford a $50,000 car and $800/month health insurance.

4. I'm looking for a leader with skills at diplomacy, one who understands that other cultures exist -- ones that are much different than our own -- and that it's best for Americans to focus on what's going on in their own backyard.

5. That being said, I'm also looking for a leader who will finish what we started. Our next leader needs to discern the appropriate time to withdraw from Iraq. Bring our boys (and girls) home soon and safe.

6. I'm looking for a leader who will spend my money wisely. I understand the bailout, but I'm not handing over my hard-earned check to Uncle Sam to put more money in the pockets of executives. I demand accountability.

7. I'm looking for a leader who will remember that I, as an American, have inalienable rights.

8. I'm looking for a leader who will choose his cabinet wisely. Ask yourself this question: Who do you trust with your grandmother's and/or grandchildren's life/health/safety/future?

9. I'm looking for a leader who plays by the same rules as Joe the Plummer, Sally Housecoat and Johnny Lunchbox.

10. I'm looking for a leader who will use his brain for business and justice and follow his heart for America.

I don't want empty promises. If you, John McCain or Barack Obama, cannot stand up for these things, then neither of you deserve my vote.

Sincerely,

Kat the Reporter

I vote no politics

I haven't hid my feelings in the past. I hate politics.

I mean I absolutely HATE politics.

I believe my monumental dislike for all political debate and the mudslinging that always accompanies it stems from working as a reporter during election years. I've worked at a newspaper for 10 years now, so this presidential election will be the third I've endured in the media.

So, why am I writing a blog post about politics?

Well, in case you haven't guessed, this is a rant.

I also serve on the parish council of my church, and we had a meeting last night. (I'm Catholic, but like John Kennedy said, don't hold it against me.) A representive from one of the other church organizations attended our meeting last night as a guest, offering an update on what his organization is doing as far as charity in the church. Before he relented his position at the podium, however, he began a lengthy diatribe about which presidential candidate deserved our vote. Based on a single issue (you guessed it -- abortion), he told who NOT to vote for.

This was not our pastor who said this. In fact, our pastor sat in the corner and said very little.

I literally had to restrain myself from walking out of the room, which would have been a very cumbersome thing to explain later because I'm sure everyone would have assumed by my actions that I'm pro-choice.

But that's not why. (Frankly, my feelings on the issue are not anyone's business and will remain unspoken. See? I'm learning how to be a politician already.) Honestly, I would have been perturbed if this guy would have told me who not to vote for based on his feelings about NAFTA or the Vietnam War or the Yalta Conference.

I wanted to walk out because I just HATE politics. They don't belong in church. And the election of a political leader needs to be based on more than just his or her stance on a single topic. The wanna-be leader's stance on other social justice issues need to be taken into account.

But I stayed in the meeting, bit my tongue and decided to suppress my irritation until morning when I could write a scathing blog on how much I hate politics.

Liberal left-wing filth

Over lunch, I saw a car that wins the prize for Most Obnoxious Bumper Sticker of the Year.

It said, "What right does the liberal media have to push their filth on me?"

Is this question for real? What does it supposed to mean? Who is this liberal media? What do you consider filth? And most importantly, why would anyone question who gave who certain rights when it comes to media?

It's called the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

One's definition of filth could be another's definition of art.

Take, for example, almost any reality show on television. I know folks who are offended by the cussing, innuendo and strong sexual content often found on these shows. My niece, however, finds them riveting.

Who are you to tell her she can't watch the show because it offends you? If you censor the show because you don't like it, you take away the joy others find in that particular "artform." It's easier and better for everyone that you just turn off the show you find offensive.

But it goes against my morals and offends my religion, you say.

Here's the wake-up call some people have trouble getting through their heads: Not everyone believes the same things you do, and if you go back to that First Amendment, you'll see that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

There should be a code of professional and ethical conduct people follow, but if we start basing our moral code on one religion or the next, we'll eventually be no better than those third-world countries whose women are repeatedly beaten and raped because -- let's face it, in most world religions women are viewed as the subservient sex. (Not an opinion, just a sociological observation.)

I can only assume that the person/people whose car(s) sports this bumper sticker are referencing "liberal media" news outlets. They're only reporting the news. They're informing YOU about the events going on in YOUR world. If you think they have a slant on it you don't like, turn it to another station. That's YOUR right.

In other words, it's like your Momma always said: If you don't like it, don't look at it.