fashion clothes

Watching Dick Clark's Rockin' Eve on television a few days ago, I wondered silently in my head why anyone would take anything that Jenny McCarthy says seriously.

Then I remembered that countless people have hinged major parenting decisions on her words.

Then I remembered that she penned not one, but three books about autism. In those books, she advocated vigorously for the connection, dismissed by several scientific studies, between vaccines and autism. She didn't just imply that her child developed the condition immediately after being vaccinated, she basically stood on a soapbox for years and screamed it, then told people that it can be cured.

When her son was diagnosed in 2005, she made the prevention and treatment of autism her main focus in life. She poured all her energy into it, much like most parents facing the condition.

What she had that most other parents don't was pre-existing fame. She used it, oh did she use it. She used it to wax poetic about possible causes and latched quickly onto the idea that vaccines had caused his condition, then she took that and ran with it. She was on television programs, she was interviewed for magazines, she wrote books, she quickly became the poster child of the anti-vaccine movement among the parents of our generation. She started a website for parents, soliciting donations even.

In 2010, when her son magically recovered from the condition(1), it was fairly quickly hypothesized in a Time article she was interviewed for that he actually had a condition known as Landau-Kleffner syndrome which causes speech impairment and can be associated with long term neurological damage. She knew then that he may never have been autistic at all, but held fast to the idea that he was and that she had cured him. She started to backpedal on her vigorous crusade against vaccines, and started to say that they just needed better research instead of parents refusing them entirely. She still stuck to his diagnosis of autism and his alleged recovery from it, though. 

By 2010, though, her books were out there in the world, being carried into the offices of pediatricians by well-meaning parents terrified of needles and vials as ammunition in their argument against vaccines.

She is still standing behind them now. She responded to the most recent controversy, which isn't even a new controversy since it is pertaining to the 2010 interview, with this statement:

Evan was diagnosed with autism by the Autism Evaluation Clinic at the UCLA Neuropsychiatric Hospital and was confirmed by the State of California (through their Regional Center). The implication that I have changed my position, that my child was not initially diagnosed with autism (and instead may suffer from Landau-Kleffner Syndrome), is both irresponsible and inaccurate. These stories cite a “new” Time Magazine interview with me, which was actually published in 2010, that never contained any such statements by me. Continued misrepresentations, such as these, only serve to open wounds of the many families who are courageously dealing with this disorder. Please know that I am taking every legal measure necessary to set this straight.

Maybe he does have autism. Maybe he doesn't. Maybe no one should really be listening to whatever she has to say about it in the first place. Last time I checked, she was an actress, not a medical professional.

Made by my dear friend at Manderstanding. It's a joke. Sort of.

The only study that has ever shown a link between vaccines and autism was debunked as fraudulent, and every other study looking for a connection has found none.

Does this mean that we can just wash our hands of the cause of autism and decree from the mountaintops the safety of vaccines? No, it doesn't. I say this not just as a blogger, but as a mother who elected to delay and space vaccines for one of my children because he demonstrates hyper sensitive autoimmune re-activity. I say this as someone who studied for years in the field of public health and can read and understand the papers released when studies are completed with a cynical eye. I say this as someone who worked on the legal staff of a hospital.

I know, because of my background, that medical studies are not ever as clear cut as the media tends to make them. I always, always, always do further research into the funding of the study, where it was performed and look for the players in the background that may be skewing the results, even if unintentionally. I say that I absolutely think that there needs to be more study in the areas both of autism research and vaccine safety. I say that I don't believe we understand enough about either. I've written about the cases where the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program paid out settlements to families alleging a connection. 

I say all these things because I am a well educated parent who happens to be well versed with medical literature. I do my own research. I discuss all vaccination decisions with both my pediatrician and my son's endocrinologist. I don't rely on what an actress said in a book.

No one should.

Doesn't mean that no one did.

Current research tells us that vaccines do not cause autism. 

Current research tells us that vaccines prevent diseases that can cause illness, injury and death.

She knew that, and she wrote all those books anyway.

I haven't read them, I will be the first to admit it. I have to assume that she inserted disclaimers in them about how parents are supposed to talk to their pediatricians and that she isn't a medical professional. I have to assume her lawyers would have forced her put disclaimers in them.

I also have to assume that a lot of people took what she wrote to heart, as she shared this painful journey of a mother desperately seeking answers for her child. I saw the interviews where she cried on television, she railed against the medical establishment. I can only imagine how her words would jump off the page and burn themselves into the minds and hearts of parents in the same place she said she was.

The only reason she was on those television shows, in the pages of those magazines, the only reason her books sold as much as they did? The books where she professed to heal autism?

Her fame.

She used it, and her son's condition, to generate more fame. Her soapbox was bigger, more visible, with a better sound system. It even helped land her a spot on The View.

I have to hope that she did it because she believed it. I have to hope that she wasn't just taking advantage of her son's issues for publicity and screen time. I have to hope that she really felt like she was doing the right thing. I have to hope that she was convinced she was right. I have to hope she was just a scared parent looking for answers.

I have to. Because if she wasn't any of those things, it doesn't make all of this a terrible mistake, it makes it sick and wrong.

There is no way to know how many people believed her. No way to know how many people carried her book into their pediatricians' offices and stood their ground, refused shots for preventable diseases. No way to know how many of those kids contracted diseases they could have been protected against. No way to know how many others were infected by those kids. No way to know how many of them died. No way to know how damaged the effect of herd immunity is because fewer and fewer kids are fully immunized.

This page tries to keep a tally, though it's impossible to say how much of this is because of her influence, and how much is attributed to the anti-vaccine movement in general. This book talks specifically about the damage that people like her have done and the very real consequences of the anti-vaccine movement.

The damage she has done puts an exclamation point on the danger of people who use their fame to manipulate others. She isn't just influencing small trivial things, here. She is influencing life and death decisions and taking no responsibility for it. She will, however, enjoy more time in the spotlight, thank you very much, even if it means threatening a lawsuit.

This is her reputation at stake, after all. That's more important than misleading millions of people.

(sarcasm)

(just in case I needed to make that clear)

(1) I would have linked to the Time article containing the actual interview, but it now requires a subscription.

Marijuana in Colorado
As of this morning, recreational marijuana use is legal here in the state of Colorado. If you plan to light 'em up, there are some nuances of the law that you're going to want to educate yourself about before you do it.

I encourage you to read up on the laws themselves, and consult an attorney if you have legal questions. (I have to say that, wink, wink)


- It's legal to possess an ounce or less and consume marijuana within state limits so long as you are over 21 years old.

- You can only buy an ounce at the most at a time.

- Recreational pot will be much more expensive than medical pot, mostly because of all the taxes being added. Actual prices will vary from shop to shop.

- If you buy some for someone else, you can absolutely share it with them (assuming they are also over 21), but the second money changes hands (even if they think they are just paying you back), it becomes a drug sale. Just don't.

- You can buy from multiple shops on the same day, but are only allowed to have in your possession one ounce at a time. The shops are not enforcing carry limits and the police have said they don't really intend to either, but if you get caught with more than an ounce, you'll be arrested.

- Marijuana possession and use is still technically forbidden by federal law, but it seems that the feds have no real interest in trying to enforce those laws. They are more concerned with enforcing laws prohibiting resale and transfer, interstate enforcement and underage use.

- Legally purchased marijuana must be consumed in the state. If you leave the state of Colorado, you are subject to the possession and use laws of whatever jurisdiction you enter.

- The marijuana available for recreational use will be lower "octane" than medical marijuana concentrations.

- There will almost certainly be a shortage. In fact, by the time I get this finished, many of the shops may be out of pot already. The same law making possession and use legal today also makes growing legal, so shops can only sell the inventory they already had on hand for medical use. Odds are they will run out fairly quickly.

- You cannot use marijuana in public places, and many public venues have specifically forbidden possession and use on their grounds. The airport in particular has forbidden marijuana as well as all ski resorts.

- If you are renting an apartment or house, whether you can possess and use is up to your landlord.

- If you own your own property, you can smoke indoors without an issue, but patio and backyard use is questionable. Front yard use is probably not legal, but we'll just have to see how the enforcement plays out.

- You can still lose your job and employers can place drug restrictions on employees. THC stays in your system as long as a month or more, and will show on tests. Even if you only use in your off hours, you can still be fired.

- At the current time, all marijuana purchases must be done with cash. Banks for the most part are refusing to allow shop owners to use banking services, including credit and debit card machines. Many shops do have ATM machines inside or nearby.

- There is nothing in the current law that requires shops to track purchases, but that could change. There are cameras required in every shop and legal ID must be shown to enter.

- People who travel here to purchase pot will be limited to a quarter of an ounce per day, and could have a harder time finding somewhere to smoke it since public smoking is prohibited and individual hotels and motels can set their own rules.

- You can be charged with a DUI for driving under the influence and use while driving is strictly forbidden. No one is exactly sure what the cutoffs will be for specimen testing on this, so basically just don't do it.

I think I hit most of the major points. There are a few resources out there with great Q and A sections and more details on the specifics of certain parts of the law.  Washington also is allowing recreational marijuana use, but I am not as familiar with those laws.

Other Laws
There are something like 40,000 new laws going into effect today. There's obviously no way that I can cover them all, so here are a few of them.

- There is now a fee of $95 or 1% (whichever is larger) of income being charged to adults who choose not to carry health insurance under the Affordable Care Act.

- Many new treatments and services are required to be covered by health insurance plans, also under the ACA.

- The minimum wage is being raised in 14 states.

- In California, students can use bathroom facilities and join sports teams according to the gender they identify with, even if it is different than their gender at birth.  They also restricted firearms ownership among patients who have made threats to therapists, restricted fracking and will allow illegal immigrants to apply for driver's licenses. Nevada and Maryland will be issuing driver's licenses as well.

- Oregon will grant grieving family members two weeks paid leave after a death, allow mothers to take placentas home from the hospital after birth and prohibits schools and employers from demanding that students and employees surrender social media passwords.

- Arkansas, Alabama and Rhode Island all have new voter ID laws going into effect.

- Both Connecticut and New York are requiring registration of assault rifles and high capacity magazine weapons.

- Illinois banned drone usage without a warrant and prohibited them from interference with hunting and fishing. They also banned tanning bed usage by anyone under the age of 18.

At some point last night, I put my phone down and sighed. It seemed like everyone on the internet was completely and totally preoccupied with the controversy over the words spoken by Phil Robertson and the resulting moves A&E made in their wake. 


I would like to discuss the First Amendment issue here since that seems to be the most talked about online. Essentially, there isn't one. Really. I say this not just as an opinion based on what he said and whether I think it should be protected speech, but as someone who has actually studied Constitutional Law in depth.

The First Amendment protects against governmental intrusion upon the freedom of speech. Phil absolutely has the right to say whatever he wants to here. He has not been arrested, detained or silenced by the government for doing so.

What he doesn't have the right to, is to say whatever he wants to say without consequence. His public persona is one that A&E has a right not to do business with, and if he says something they take issue with, there is no obligation on their part to keep employing him.

Their decision to suspend him from filming in the wake of these events is purely a business one...and in all likelihood a smart one, at that. Those who call for public support of the Duck Dynasty show, those who are going out and purchasing DD merchandise to show their solidarity are actually supporting A&E, who has the licensing rights to the merchandise, and who should be the target of their frustration.

In fact, this controversy has resulted in a huge amount of publicity for both the show and the network, which makes the cynic in me wonder if it wasn't all staged.  Particularly since it's a week before Christmas. Hmm.

It is the industry, after all.

If you want to make the argument that their personas aren't manufactured (or at least embellished) for television because it's a reality show, you should check out what the family (already wealthy from the duck call sales) looked like before they were on TV. Go look at that, then tell me it's not all for show.

Told you I am a cynic.

I have had a few people ask me if I am annoyed that he was even asked what he was in the interview in GQ. The short answer is no. I'm not surprised by much, actually, and it's pretty clear that the questions were asked because they would be answered, and those answers would get a lot of attention. Reporters like a story with traction, and this one had a ton of it.

Personally, I wasn't surprised by what he said in the GQ interview. Frankly, I'm not sure that A&E was. They certainly shouldn't have been. I will not even get into what he said or didn't say, because at the end of the day, that's not important. He has his views, he is entitled to have them, he is entitled to speak them, and though I may not agree with him, that's not important to this discussion.

Trust me when I say that those discussions are all over the internet right now if you are interested in finding them. I'm not about to start one here.

Being entitled to having and speaking those opinions, though, doesn't confer any protections in the private world of employment.

It seems that some of the people rushing to his defense, as well as those in a hurry to attack him haven't read the article itself. Whether he should say what he did is a subjective question, but whether he can is an objective one. He can and he did, but that doesn't mean that he should be insulated from the effects of his words. The lack of said insulation isn't a Constitutional issue.

As a writer, words are my medium. I say things. I have opinions. I write them and put them out there for the world to see. I don't get to tell the rest of the world that they have to listen to what I say, but they can't decide not to associate themselves with me based on what I write. Neither does Phil. The people who read what I write can absolutely choose to stop talking to me, stop reading what I write, stop being my fans, even stop being my friends.

It has happened before, it will happen again.

I don't live in a fantasy world where I am covered in bubble wrap and fully insulated from the effects of what I do and say.

Neither does Phil.

A&E can decide they don't want to do business with him moving forward.

And it has nothing to do with the First Amendment.

There has been much discussion in the media of late about how many Constitutional rights have been systematically infringed upon. The Patriot Act has undermined rights for over ten years now, and all the leaks about spying have thrown more fuel on that fire. The FBI has admitted flying drones over the United States airspace without warrants. DOMA was struck down as unconstitutional earlier this summer, and just this morning, a federal judge ruled that the "Stop and Frisk" policy being employed by the NYPD is unconstitutional.

There is a long and growing list of laws being challenged on the grounds of Constitutionality, and it seems like every time a law is struck down, five more are written.

One caveat that many people don't necessarily understand about Constitutional rights is that they are, for the most part, only binding upon the government. Originally written to protect citizens from federal intrusions, they extended to state (and lower governments) later on through selective incorporation and the due process clause.

Constitutional rights don't exist between citizens, only between citizens and the government. They also don't exist between private parties of any sort.

This truth is what had me shaking my head a little at a story that ran on the news last week here locally.

A man requested the help of the television news station when he was told by his landlord that weapons of any kind, including guns, were not allowed on the property. There are more and more landlords around the country instituting these types of bans, and it's entirely within their legal right to do so as long as the property is privately owned.

In this particular instance, the property was not entirely privately owned and was partially funded with public grant money, so the ban was overturned - but only because the property itself wasn't wholly private.


Landlords of privately owned lands have the right to decide what happens with their property, and have a fairly wide range of things they can prohibit possession of. They are business owners, not government institutions, and can dictate how they want their business run. For them, gun ownership is just an issue of property possession, much like animal ownership, and they have the right to refuse to lease to tenants who own those items.

If a tenant is discovered to possess weapons in violation of lease terms, that is cause for eviction and termination of the lease.

There are those who still cry foul, of course, but the reality is that gun owners don't enjoy special protections under the law like other groups do. Race, ethnicity and religion are not permitted to be used to discriminate between private citizens because they fall into a specially protected class of people. Gun owners, however, do not.

The only claim to infringement is under the Second Amendment, and that only applies when the government is involved.

There is difficulty when it comes to enforcing the bans, particularly if they are newly enacted, because they can only be applied to new lease terms. Privacy laws prohibit the landlord from entering and searching the property for the weapons as well, so it can be impossible to know who owns guns and who does not, although it usually becomes fairly obvious once Second Amendment rights are asserted.

As long as a landlord doesn't attempt to enact changes to the lease prior to the end of the current term, a private landlord can legally ban guns, can legally refuse to rent to gun owners, and can terminate the leases of those who violate the provisions.

I promised myself earlier this morning that I wasn't going to write about this, but by now you all know how well those kinds of promises tend to pan out. As the day wore on and more and more calls to boycott Rolling Stone appeared in my Facebook feed, I knew this was coming.

Before any of you start screaming at me, I ask that you read what I am about to write...since it appears that most of the people the most angry about the magazine clearly didn't actually read the article.

In case you haven't been online or near a television today, Rolling Stone magazine published a cover story today about Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, also known as the Boston bombing suspect.


If you haven't read the article, I urge you to go read it (when you're done here of course) before you jump to conclusions about what it says just based on the image on the front cover.

Incidentally, I do not like that they chose this image, but I understand why they did. On first glance, it glamorizes the suspect, which is unacceptable particularly if the article never gets read. It sure gets your attention, though, which is what it was intended to do.

Reading the article instead of dismissing it would go a long way to explaining why they put his picture on the cover in the first place.

What often gets lost in the chatter about the bombing, about the suspect, about the police presence that resulted from the chase and hunt for him is hugely important: the motive. From the beginning of the investigation, from the moment he could speak, he has been consistent in what the reason was.

Instead of just dismissing whatever his reasons are and condemning him as a terrorist, maybe we should listen.

The bombings in Boston were a response the the US drone strikes around the world, supposedly aimed at members of al-Qaida, that have killed well over 4,000 people, many of which are innocent civilians, women and children. Even more people have been injured and maimed by these bombs.

What people here in the US don't seem to comprehend is that in the eyes of many others around the world, particularly the Muslim world, we are now viewed as terrorists.

And they are right.

We justify the drone strikes because they cost us less in resources and American lives, and are seemingly tolerant (or unaware) of the reality of what our military is actually doing.

His brother, Tamerlan, far more radicalized than Dzohkhar was, roped him into the plan. I do not say this to diminish his reponsibility, nor does the article that accompanied the photograph, but to explain why we should all be worried about it. Let me be clear here. I do not absolve him of fault in any way.

The reason that picture is on the cover is that he could be any kid in the US, any college student that participated in sports activities, got good grades and smoked pot when he was at parties.

Dzohkhar was an American teenager. He was handsome, as evidenced by the picture taken before the bombings. He was funny. He fit in. He had friends. He joined clubs. He played sports.

No one suspected him of ever being involved in something this atrocious.

None of his friends believed he could have been associated with such horrific violence.

There was almost nothing in his past to indicate he was a threat.

He wasn't on a single watch list, even though his older brother was.

This is why this picture is important, because Dzohkhar could be anyone, and you wouldn't even know until it was too late.

The article, had anyone actually read it, contained all kinds of background on his life, his friends, his interests, his academic past. He was not radicalized, in fact most people who knew him well have said that he rarely mentioned religion in any context.

What should come out of this article, what will come out of this article if you can get past the anger over a picture, is the very real threat that kids like him pose to our safety. It is how the threat is not far away and distant, it's not even radicalized. The danger is in how easily young people can be manipulated, swayed to the extremes, how quickly they can go from a kid at a party to a terrorist. It is how many other young men are out there with older brothers and cousins and friends like Tamerlan, who are justifiably angry that our nation has declared war on their people abroad.

We can't sit here in the confines of our boundaries and declare that we can haphazardly drop bombs on people all over the world and believe for even one second that we aren't making enemies every single time we do it.

Some of those enemies aren't over there.

Some of them are here.

They are angry.

And they have every right to be.

This is what is important. The motive.

It is why we must fundamentally change the way we think here. Why we absolutely must understand that our actions, even and especially the remote guided ones, are not without consequence. We are making enemies all over the world and providing them with reasons to hate us.

We are throwing gasoline on the fire, then wondering why it blows up in our faces.

Peace will never come in the form of a bomb.

Read the article before you condemn it, understand why that picture is on the cover, and realize why it's so important.

Please.

Today is a historic one in our nation, certainly, but requires a little bit more explanation than the mainstream media tends to give.

Lucky for you all, I've been glued to the interwebs for hours already and have read all the opinions.

I will go over each case, and tell you what the effective results are. I will also tell you what these opinions do not cover, and what doors have been opened for future litigation on the subject of marriage equality.

US v. Windsor, aka the DOMA case
In this case, a lesbian couple was legally married in Canada. They lived in New York state, which recognized marriages performed in other states at the time. Upon the death of her partner,Windsor was made to pay estate taxes on the inheritance from her wife. She sued the United States government claiming that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was unconstitutional because of the unequal treatment she received under federal tax provisions.

In the ruling today, the court struck down Section 3 of the law as unconstitutional for violating the fifth amendment's protections of due process and equal liberty.

This case says that the federal government must recognize and treat equally all marriage sanctioned by states.   It is imperative that people understand that this ruling does not create a constitutional right to marriage equality. The opinion hinged on the fact that the parties in question had a marriage legally recognized by the state of residence at the time. The court narrowly held so, based on the facts of the case.

This case implies that the federal government may be required to treat all marriages equally in relation to federal laws. How this will actually play out in real life depends on how the rest of the government reacts. Of particular interest is how, if at all, this case will affect gay marriage partners who are citizens of other nations, currently involved in deportation hearings. Will it permit gay spouses to live indefinitely in the United States as  a right associated with marriage? Only time will tell, and those will likely be some of the most immediate questions.

There are several other questions left unanswered by the opinion. This case in particular involved the tax code. Is Windsor entitled to recapture the monies paid to the IRS wrongfully? It would seem so, as that was the core of her case.  How would it affect other parties in similar situations? Are the rights conferred retroactive in any way? We don't know.

Only Section 3 was struck down in this case, leaving the rest of the law arguably in effect. Section 2 permits states to refuse to acknowledge gay marriages performed in other jurisdictions. The next logical challenge would involve this provision, as it's essentially a direct violation of the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution.

The ruling requires the federal government to treat all marriages equally, but does not require the same of the states. It does not mandate that all states allow or even acknowledge gay marriages.

This case opens the door to a great amount of uncertainty and new litigation. Congress could move to change laws, the President could issue executive orders as well in light of it all, but as with everything it seems in this country anymore, it's more likely that most of these issues will be teased out in court.

It is a step, albeit not as big a one as many think, in the right direction.

We'll also ignore, for the moment, that the same standing issue that resulted in Perry being dismissed existed here.

Hollingsworth v. Perry, aka the Prop 8 case
The California Supreme Court said there was a constitutional right to gay marriage. Marriages were performed and rights conferred. Voters then disagreed, and Prop 8 was authored, worded to not just ban gay marriage but define marriage as only between a man and a woman. It narrowly passed as an attempt to circumvent/overrule the court.

Gay couples were given rights, then had them taken away. A case decided that those married while it was legal had recognized rights still but no further marriages could be performed.

Further challenges to the law were filed. The state government refused to defend Prop 8 in court, so those who drafted it stepped in. Essentially the decision today says that if the government refuses to litigate the case, an individual cannot do so either, so the appeal was improperly granted. The parties did not have standing.

It appears that the main result of this case is to reinstate the right of gay marriage in California. There is an injunction prohibiting enforcement of Prop 8. For now at least, gay marriage is legal in California, though I am sure another challenge will be mounted (and am also sure that any challenge attempted will fail).

I had to work pretty hard on cutting the list down this week. There are a lot of things pissing me off right now, not the least of which is that I absolutely hate it sometimes when I suspect something about someone and then it turns out I am right.

I really hate that.

Goddamn intuition.

Anyway, these are the things that you may have heard about this week in the news that are chapping my ass.

Oh, and The Musings of Munch decided that I needed a logo for Tuesday, so here ya go.



Kidnappers
This week, three women escaped the home that they had been kidnapped held captive for close to a decade or more. At least one of them gave birth to a child during that time. As the days and weeks progress, more details and information about their captivity will come out.

There are things that we can surmise from the limited information already available. Assumptions that it's probably safe to make, the main one being that these girls were taken and abused for all those years.  That even if they may have physically been able to escape at some point in the past, there is a psychological aspect to kidnapping that damages the ability of the captive to think that way.

I think there is much value to be gained from what other women, freed after years of captivity have said. Elizabeth Smart is one who can educate us about how and why these monsters are able to manipulate these women. She can give insight into why the way that we teach children about sexuality can help or hurt them if they ever find themselves in these situations. Her cause now is to fight against abstinence only education, as she says that part of the reason that she didn't try to run when she could have was that she believed she was like a used piece of gum, flawed and ruined in the eyes of a society that is unforgiving towards women who've been abused, regardless of whether any of it was her fault or not. That is powerful information.

Misinformation in the land of Plan B
Last week, the FDA recommended that Plan B, also known as the morning after pill, be made available without a prescription to all women 15 years old and over.

The administration is challenging that decision, though the reasoning behind the challenge isn't crystal clear.

What has happened since the FDA's statement is that everyone and their brother has been talking about the morning after pill, what it means, what it does, what the rights of teens are versus the rights of their parents, and so on and so forth.  Unfortunately, though, in those discussions, there is a great deal of misinformation being thrown around. Let's clear some stuff up.

First, the morning after pill is not an abortifacient. It will not work to terminate an existing pregnancy. It interferes with ovulation and/or implantation - effectively stopping a pregnancy from occurring.

Second, while the dosage of the hormones in the morning after pill is higher than a single birth control pill, it is widely accepted as a safe dose.

Third, the risk of side effects from taking the morning after pill are low, much lower than the risks that accompany even the most uncomplicated pregnancies.

Fourth, as much as people want to believe that their children will remain abstinent and talk to them immediately if they have sex, that just doesn't happen in the real world.

Fifth, as many as 20% of teen pregnancies are the result of rape and/or abuse, often at the hands of family members. Those girls should have access to this medication without the involvement of their family members, some of which may be the very ones abusing them.

I could go on and on here, but I will stop. Some of the rhetoric I've seen in the last week scares me, especially when it comes from parents who seem so sure that they can control everything that happens to their children. I remember being a teenager, and I can assure you that even though I was mostly a good kid with mostly good parents, I didn't listen to them all the time. I didn't tell them everything. To assume that your kids will do what you say, even if it wasn't what you did, simply because you decree it from the mountaintop is wrong. It creates a false sense of security and does nothing towards equipping those children with the information they very well may need to deal with life in the future.

In an ideal world, teenage girls wouldn't need the morning after pill, this is true. No one would. But we don't live in an ideal world, now do we?

The Immigration Debacle
Immigration reform seems to be one of the big hot button issues these days, and in the wake of the Boston bombings now people are calling for a re-evaluation of every immigration policy in existence. Decisions made in haste and based in fear rarely go well, and it would serve everyone to take a step back here and be more objective.

The larger issue at hand is that the US is a....wait for it....nation of immigrants. Yet, there are large groups of people here who seem to believe that we need to erect walls and keep out everyone else. We made it here, so let's lock it down.

Walls don't work. Coast guard patrols don't catch everyone. Rogue armed men walking the border in the desert scare the shit out of people like me, if I'm being honest, especially given the truth that those who try to come to this country, whether legally or not, are doing it for one reason - to have a better life.

I struggle the most with the deportations that are happening with increasing frequency that take parents away from children. As of December, that number was over 200,000 parents. I'm sure it's higher now. Those children are citizens, born in this country with every single right that everyone else here has, and yet their parents are being shipped off and too often those kids end up in foster care. Forget the discussion of the rights of those parents...what about the rights of those children?  Shouldn't being raised by their parents be an important enough reason to let them stay?

I don't claim that there are simple solutions here, I don't claim that the system is without flaws, I don't claim that there aren't people who come here illegally with intentions to milk our system. What I do know is this - the path to legal citizenship isn't as simple or easy as most people think. There aren't pathways currently for those people who came here illegally initially to become legal citizens without fear of deportation. Children born here to illegal immigrant parents should have the same rights as children born to citizens, because all those kids are supposed to be equal citizens in the eyes of the law.

In the past few days, some of my most conservative friends on Facebook have been ranting about the trial of Kermit Gosnell. Questioning why the case isn't being covered by the mainstream media. Wondering why more people aren't aware of who he is, what he is charged with, and all that.

I completely agree that the case needs more coverage, but I refuse to use this case as some argument against abortion in general. In fact, more than anything, it's an argument for accessible, safe, legal abortion.


I have received a few requests from people to write about this, and while I realize that those requests are really just thinly veiled baiting attempts to try and stir the pot of abortion, I'm choosing to write about it anyway.  Because it's my blog and I can.

As anyone who's read anything I have written for any length of time could tell you, I'm a liberal.  Specifically, I am a liberal of the flaming, bleeding heart variety, or so I've been called on numerous occasions.

I am pro choice and have written about abortion many times in the past. I've written about the countless restrictions that have been placed on it around the nation in the last few years. I've written about the underhanded techniques employed to shut down clinics. I've written about the laws that make it difficult to obtain the earliest abortions. I've written about the state laws mandating providers have privileges at hospitals to administer abortions, and how every hospital denied those privileges.

Abortion is a contentious topic in this country. It always has been. It's also supposed to be settled law. And yet it isn't.

Some states seem determined to end it all together.

What they don't seem to realize is that whether abortion is legal or not, women will still have them. For as long as there have been unintended pregnancies, there have been terminations. In every time period of humanity, in every corner of the world, in every income level, age group and social status, women have had abortions. Erecting barriers to legal, safe abortions doesn't make them go away. It just forces them into back alleys and endangers the lives of women.

It forces them to see men like Kermit Gosnell in dirty clinics, to hand over whatever cash people like him demand.  It puts them at risk for diseases, for complications, for death.

The women who saw Gosnell, at least from the interviews I have seen, went there because Planned Parenthood was always loaded with protesters.  His clinic flew under the radar, and he would bend the rules if he had to in order to "take care of things".

What these women walked into was something out of a nightmare. Bloody chairs, contaminated and disease ridden used instruments. Most of them were heavily drugged so they weren't fully aware of what was happening. Some were there not voluntarily, but dragged there by family members.

He performed thousands of abortions a year, always received payment in cash. His employees weren't licensed in any field to perform the procedures they did. He fudged gestational ages to circumvent state law that cut off abortions at 24 weeks. Many of his patients ended up in emergency rooms with retained partial fetuses, with perforations, with infections. Some contracted diseases from the contaminated instruments. Some needed hysterectomies. Some died.

He's on trial for the death of one of those patients.  He's also on trial for the murder of 7 newborns.  It's alleged that he would deliver the babies at whatever gestational age they actually were, the 7 in the case all alleged to be well past the point of viability.  Born alive, he cut their spinal cords with scissors to ensure their demise.

It is horrific. Unimaginable. Criminal.

He's on trial because he broke the law.

He's on trial because he employed unlicensed employees.

He's on trial because he was performing abortions past the legal limit, delivering babies.

He's on trial because he was delivering those viable newborns, then killing them.

He's on trial because at least one of his patients died due to his actions.

He's on trial because he violated state laws pertaining to abortion.

He's on trial because he violated health codes and made women sick.

He's on trial for criminal acts.

He's not on trial because he is an abortion provider.

Up until 24 weeks, abortions are legal in Pennsylvania. Providers are supposed to refuse them past that point. Providers are supposed to be licensed. They are supposed to follow health codes. He didn't do any of those things.

He killed women.  He killed babies.

And he made a ton of money doing it.

I can assure you that the vast majority of abortion providers in this country are shocked and appalled by what he is accused of. He does not represent the abortion provider community. He represents a last resort for desperate women who felt they had no other choice. He represents the absolute worst in humanity - a man that would take advantage of those women, seeing an opportunity to make a ton of money, quick and literally dirty.

Why wasn't he investigated for the health code violations?

Why wasn't he investigated for employing unlicensed employees?

Why weren't the hospitals the sick women ended up at reporting him?

Other details are coming out now that seem to say this was almost a sick hobby for the man, keeping fetal feet in jars on shelves and dead fetuses in the fridge with his lunch.

This man is a monster, of that it seems everyone can agree.

What he is not, however, is the face of abortion.

He is quite the opposite.

He is the exception. The extreme.

He's proof of the fact that we need to make it safe and accessible in early phases of pregnancy to save the lives of women and to avoid the horrors that happened on his watch.

He's proof of the fact that these providers need to be held to health codes and licensing standards.

He is proof of the fact that legal or not, hard to obtain or not, women will never stop having abortions. People like him will make sure of that.

The facts of this case are disturbing to say the least, and if you tend to be repulsed by criminal law, you might want to stop reading here.

Don't say I didn't warn you.


Steven Smith is scheduled to be executed in Ohio next month.  He was convicted of aggravated murder for the death of six month old Autumn Carter.

Smith, dating the baby's mother at the time, attacked and raped the child so violently that she died of her injuries in the middle of the night as her mother slept.  The facts seem to show that she was probably suffocated from the weight of his body as well.

Yes, you read that right.  This man raped an infant girl, and she died as a result.

Smith laid the unresponsive child next to her mother after he was done.  The mother, realizing what he'd done accused him of killing the baby and ran to the neighbors for help.

When his blood alcohol content was measured at 11 a.m. that morning, almost eight hours after he attacked the child, it was still .123.

He claimed from the beginning that he did not intend to kill the child, just rape her.  He also claimed that his intoxication was somehow a defense and/or should mitigate the charges.

The prosecution elected to charge him with capital murder, aggravated by rape.  He was not charged separately with rape.  The jury, left with the only choices to acquit him or find him guilty of the highest capital charge, found him guilty.

He's staging a last minute appeal, asking for mercy from the court, begging not to be put to death - hinging it all on the issue of intent.

The felony murder rule is an interesting piece of legal history.  In essence, it says that when a violent crime is committed and someone dies in the process, intent is transferred to the murder even if the defendant did not intend to kill someone. The intent is shifted, implied, imparted.

Traditionally, murder charges require levels of intent and/or premeditation depending on the degree.  Manslaughter charges, however, do not.  Manslaughter is a legal finding of guilt for the death of someone else, and does not require intent. Manslaughter is punishable by prison time only.  In order to get a capital conviction, as Smith did, the defendant must be charged with, and found guilty of aggravated murder.

Smith and his lawyers claim that under Ohio's felony murder rule, because there was no intent, he cannot be guilty of aggravated murder, and should be exempt from the death penalty.  When the felony murder rule is applied in Ohio, second degree murder is ordinarily the charge.

Of direct import to the case here, aggravated murder can be charged under Ohio's felony murder rule when a death occurs during the commission of another crime only when the defendant intended for the person to die.  Purposeful death is required. (Ohio Revised Code 2903.02(b))

Smith claims he didn't want the baby to die.  He's always alleged he didn't intend for her to die.  He's always claimed that he didn't have intent for murder. His lawyers have always claimed he can't legally be put to death for killing her under the law he was charged with and found guilty of.

Technically, he is making a sound legal argument, at least under Ohio's interpretation of the felony murder rule.

A sound argument that seems unconscionable and disgusting.

It's hard if not impossible to find a single ounce of sympathy for a man who committed a crime as unspeakable as this one.  Time will tell whether the court decides to show him mercy here.  He's quickly running out of it.

Tick tock, Mr. Smith.

A few days ago, I asked my readers if there were any subjects they wanted me to write about.  One of them suggested that I discuss the case of the Mexican girl who gave birth last month. 

Dafne was impregnated last year at the age of 8.  She has maintained that the father of the baby was her 17 year old boyfriend, though local Jalisco authorities have not been able to locate him.  They are looking to press rape charges.

As more days have passed since the story first broke, bits of information are coming out.   The girl's mother is a prostitute, and may have enlisted her daughter into the trade.  Her own mother.

Dafne is one of eleven children, and appears to be the primary caretaker for the other kids.  At 9 years old.

Though she has maintained her story that her boyfriend is the father, her stepfather is also a suspect and the authorities want to test him for paternity.  It's said he bathed with her and shared her bed.  Shudder.

Doctors performed a c-section on the girl, stating that her body was not developed enough to endure childbirth.

Then the doctors violated her more.

They sterilized her while they were performing the c-section.  Without her mother's consent.  Without her consent.  They just decided that she shouldn't ever be able to have children again.

At nine years old.


My heart breaks for this child, who has never lived the life a child should.  She is already the responsible "parent" for the rest of her family, may have been forced into the sex industry and/or abused by family members and ended up pregnant at an age when most girls are still playing with baby dolls.

As if all that isn't enough, she was victimized by the doctors too.

I need to believe that what they've done is a crime here, and hope that the authorities will press charges against the doctors as well.

Their intentions don't matter, their condescension doesn't matter, their beliefs about whether she should ever have children as an adult doesn't matter.  Whether they thought they were making the right choice for her doesn't matter.  It wasn't their choice to make.  

They could have placed an IUD, they could have done implantable birth control, they could have put her on the pill.  They could have asked first.  They could have found a way to ensure her safety and well being instead of doing what they did which was send her home to the mother and stepfather who have already harmed her.

This child has been violated.  She has been victimized.  She has had both her childhood and her free will stolen from her.  Her youth, her innocence, gone.

This is truly one of those situations that most people would rather not have an awareness of.  We don't want to know about things like this.  We would rather stay in our bubbles than grasp the truth that children are being abused all over the world in unimaginable ways.

The more I learn about the situation, the more I am shocked and appalled that things like this happen.  The more I want to believe that things like this cannot happen.  The more I want to believe that something can be done to prevent this from happening to other children.  That something can be done to help them.

The ugly truth is that this isn't just about one child.  How many are like her?  In Mexico?  In other countries?  Here, in the United States?

More than you'd want to know, I can guarantee it.

Her age is the most shocking part of this puzzle, but there is an argument to be made that we shouldn't only be shocked because she is 8.  We should be shocked that this happened at all.  It shouldn't be news just because she is 8. She isn't the youngest, and she's not the only.  This happens to girls, still very much children, all around the world.  Almost every single one of them at the hands of an abusive family member, though more than a few were child brides or forced into the sex industry.  

This is the first case that I am aware of that also had the added insult of forced sterilization.

This is the side of humanity that is hard to stomach.  Even harder still because most of the time, the abuse isn't brought to the attention of the authorities until the child ends up pregnant.

I have to say I was surprised that the WHO statement on adolescent pregnancy glosses over child pregnancy.  Though girls under the age of 15 do not compose the majority of youth pregnancies, they are there, and often occur for different reasons than the girls over the age of 15.  It's a different problem entirely, because it's primarily one of abuse.  These are children, young children, far too young to consent to anything.  Too young to have any grasp of birth control.  They are true victims.

Education won't necessarily save these kids from these situations.  Contraceptives won't save them either.   Their families, the ones charged with their care, are often the very ones abusing them.

I look at my girls, ages 7 & 9, and I can't fathom living in a world where they could be victimized like this.  My heart hurts for Dafne, and for all the other little girls lost.

Recent reports from ABC news state that the doctor implanted a contraceptive device into the girl's arm, not sterilized her.  Also, the stepfather has been confirmed as the father of the baby.

Back when I was in college, in the time of the dinosaurs, I ran a program that placed college students in hospital nurseries.  The mission of our organization was to ensure that infants left in the hospital for longer than a few days had someone to hold them, to feed them, to love them.  Many of the hospitals we supplied volunteers to had serious problems with abandonment, with mothers who were arrested shortly after birth and the babies were left.  There were drug addicted babies and babies with the most serious medical problems I have ever seen. 

I spent a lot of time in the NICU back then, I heard the stories of these brand new lives and the challenges they would be facing.  I took small comfort in knowing that I had done what I could as a 20 year old college student to make them feel loved, wanted and welcome in this world, even if only for a few days. 

As part of my job overseeing the organization as a whole, I had to recruit other students to facilitate the programs at each hospital.  One of my goals was to begin a program at Children's Hospital, not just for newborns, but for any of the children who could use a friendly face while they were there.  It took a lot of convincing, but we got the program launched, and I needed someone to run it. 

One person was eager to help.  He was energetic and kind.  He was working towards a career in physical therapy, and had a genuine interest in helping kids.  It was a perfect fit, except for one thing.  He checked the box on the application that told me that he had a criminal record.  I had to ask him about it as part of the background check, both for our program and on behalf of the hospital. 

He'd been an impulsive teenager and made some bad choices.  He was convicted on several misdemeanor counts of larceny.  He'd been placed on probation, and was free of all that when he sat before me, with hope in his eyes.  I got the sense immediately that his life had been made more complicated because he was required to check that box on other applications in the past. 

I asked him a few more questions, we talked for a long time.  I knew that he was trustworthy, I knew that he'd learned from his mistakes, I knew that he was genuine.  And he was the best hospital coordinator I ever had. 

I'll never forget the tears in his eyes when I told him that I'd call the hospital, I'd take care of telling them, that I would do whatever I had to do to make this happen.  Not many people had taken a chance on him, but I was willing to. 

I tell you this story because I need to.  Because there is another story in the news right now that is in so many ways similar to this one, but the magnitude is so much greater.  And I'm not at all sure how I feel about it. 

In 1997 in Colorado Springs, a 16 year old boy named Gary Flakes was convicted in a murder trial.  Two teenage boys were killed with shotguns at close range.  Two teenage boys were in the car and carrying the gun that night.  Both defendants were convicted, Flakes being one of them, though neither was convicted of murder.  Flakes has always claimed that his co-defendant was the shooter.

Flakes was specifically convicted of accessory to murder after the fact and criminally negligent homicide.  He was tried as an adult. 

The time Flakes spent in prison wasn't uneventful.  He had over a dozen disciplinary actions against him, including inciting a prison riot.  When he was released initially, he violated the terms of his probation and was put back in jail for a few months. 

Now a free man, he is married and has claimed that he's dedicated his life to mentoring youth.   A few months ago, he announced plans to run for City Council.

His co-defendant is still in prison.  He says that through the teachings of Malcolm X, he is a changed man.  He's become a devout Muslim.  He says he is enrolled in school.  He says he wants to give back to society, he wants to make a difference.  Some people believe him.

The families of the victims are outraged.  In their eyes, true justice was not served here.  The victims were shot at close range with a shotgun.  Neither of the defendants were convicted of murder.  Though they were both tried as adults, they were not convicted of the most severe offenses, and used creative lawyering on appeals to try and have their sentences reduced.  He was not a model prisoner and violated his probation.  They don't believe for one second that he deserves the right to run for office. 


In the state of Colorado, however, Flakes is considered a citizen just like anyone else.  Colorado is one of only five states that restores the right of a convicted felon to vote, and there are no laws forbidding a convicted felon from running for or holding office here.

I am torn.  I live in a world where people have to be allowed second chances.  Where the past shouldn't be allowed to dictate everything about our present.  Where I've been the person who took the leap of faith, who put her own name and reputation on the line to go to bat for someone who needed it.  He served the time for the crime he was convicted of, but is that enough?

I'm not sure.  I don't think I'm convinced that he's truly paid his dues to society.  Serving out a sentence isn't all that is involved in restoring someone to society.  Maybe with more time, with more work to give back to the community first.  Maybe.  His opponents take issue with his lack of experience, especially the fact that he does not yet possess a college degree. 

The story has received a lot of attention here locally, both in support of him, and in opposition to the entire idea of it all.  Personally, I am glad, very glad, that I'm not a resident of Colorado Springs, and that this will never be my decision to make.

I wish him luck for the future, whether it involves public office or  not. 

I wish, more than that, for peace in the lives of the families of the victims.

Abortion.

There, I said it.

Before some of you read any further than that first word, you're emotionally invested.  Angry.  Upset.  Fired up.

Some of you may refuse to read further, finding only fault and flaw with what I write, and that's fine.  It's your choice to believe what you believe, just as it's my choice to believe what I do. 

See what I just did right there, with that pesky word choice?

This week saw the 40th anniversary of the landmark case Roe v. Wade, one of the most misunderstood, vilified, inflammatory decisions ever handed down by the United States Supreme Court.

While many people believe that Roe v. Wade grants women the right to abortion as a blanket assertion, it doesn't.  What that case did was guarantee that pregnant women have a legal right, under the right to privacy extended by 14th Amendment due process clause, to an abortion.  This right is to be tempered with the State's rights to protect women's health and protect the life of the unborn.  As further cases teased out the specifics, the court has held that the point at which the scale can tip in favor of the state is when the point of viability is crossed, when the fetus would be able to live independently outside the womb.

Since Roe v. Wade, there have been countless cases involving state laws that attempted to place restriction on the right to seek an abortion.  Some have failed, some have succeeded, some are new and more radical than anything we've seen before. 

The right wing conservatives seem determined to never let this issue rest, and refuse to let settled law be settled, always finding new and novel ways to attempt to undermine women's rights.

In the past two years alone, over 130 new laws restricting abortion have been passed throughout the United States.  Some require ultrasounds, some require waiting periods, some require consultation.  There have been restrictions based on the age of the mother, changes to rules about insurance provisions, and strict limits on later term abortions.

Eventually, most of these laws are challenged in the legal system, but potentially the biggest obstacle to women seeking abortions is access.  There are several states that only have one provider in the entire state.  Mississippi passed a law last year requiring all abortion providers to have privileges at a hospital, so the hospitals all declined to extend privileges.  No privileges, no providers. 

Texas has begun requiring vaginal ultrasounds and that the mother listen to the heartbeat prior to any procedure.  They also have discussed forbidding all medication induced early abortions, essentially forcing women to undergo surgical removal.  Arizona has banned almost all abortions past 20 weeks, citing fetal pain as the reason.  A few states persistently introduce personhood legislation in every term as an attempt to indirectly undermine abortion rights.


The most recent addition to pending legislation made me wonder what exactly has happened to our country.  The fact that the proposed law was written by a woman makes it even harder to stomach. 

New Mexico state representative Cathrynn Brown (R), proposed a law that would attempt to force women impregnated through rape to carry the fetus to term, giving the reason that the child conceived is evidence of the crime. 

“Tampering with evidence shall include procuring or facilitating an abortion, or compelling or coercing another to obtain an abortion, of a fetus that is the result of criminal sexual penetration or incest with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime," the bill says.

A felony of this level could warrant up to three years in prison.  She would incarcerate women for having abortions after a rape.  After the media caught wind of this unimaginable law, she attempted to clarify the motivation behind the law, saying that it was to discourage the rapists from seeking terminations of their victims pregnancies. 

By punishing the victim, she plans to punish the criminal, so she claims.

Here's the thing that people like her don't want you to know....the products of conception removed after an abortion can as easily be tested for genetics as a baby born at term.  There is absolutely no reason to force these rape victims to carry pregnancies that result from a violent crime in order to obtain proof that a crime happened in the first place.

By using terms like legitimate rape, by attempting to force rape victims to carry the children created from criminal acts, these lawmakers aren't just attempting to undermine abortion rights, they are attempting to undermine women's right, period. 

I still can't wrap my head around the fact that a woman proposed the New Mexico bill. 

If that doesn't make you sick enough, how about this fact???


Not only are they trying to prevent you from aborting the baby conceived through rape, in these 31 states, rapists are not treated any differently than any other biological father.  They can seek visitation of the child, shared custody even, forcing the victim to undergo years and years of reminders, of this man forcing his way into her life repeatedly. 

Why do the rapists seem to have more rights than the victims?

If you aren't outraged yet, you should be.

The Catholic Church has long held the view that abortion is immoral, and constitutes a mortal sin.  There are very rarely ever exceptions to that belief, the only one being commonly accepted is in regard to terminating ectopic pregnancies.  Rape, incest, and saving the life of the mother are not considered exceptions.

The fetus is claimed to have a soul of it's own upon conception.  Ironically, early church teachings actually made a distinction between unformed and formed fetuses, ascribing a greater sin to the killing of a formed one.  Using that logic, very early abortions were a lesser crime in the eyes of the church.  Today, though, all abortions tend to be treated as one and the same by the church.

Last year in Ireland, Savita Halappanavar died because a Catholic hospital refused to perform an abortive procedure on a dying fetus that turned septic.  They claimed that so long as the fetus had a heartbeat, they were bound by the church to preserve life. After the baby died, the fetus was removed, but it was too late to save her.

In 2009, an entire family and several doctors were excommunicated from the Church in Brazil for performing an abortion on a nine year old girl who had been raped by her step father.  Even though the abortion was believed to have saved the life of the child, and she was impregnated with twins through a violent sexual crime, it wasn't enough in the eyes of the Church. 

In 2009, a nun who sits on the ethics board at a hospital in Arizona was excommunicated and had her position stripped after she agreed that a mother of four should have an abortion to save her life.  The mother had developed severe pulmonary hypertension at 11 weeks along and had a risk of death near 100% if the pregnancy continued, which would have ended the life of the baby as well.  The Church didn't care, saying while medical professionals should certainly try to save a pregnant mother's life, the means by which they do it can never be by directly killing her unborn child. The end does not justify the means.

Though I strongly disagree with the Church's decisions in the above cases, at least they were consistent.  A life was a life from the moment of conception.  Now, they seem to be arguing against themselves. 


In 2006, Lori Stodghill presented in the emergency room of a Catholic run hospital in Colorado.  Seven months pregnant with twins, she died when a blood clot formed and lodged in her heart, triggering a massive heart attack.  The obstetrician on call, also her personal physician, did not answer the page from the hospital, and the twins both died in the womb shortly after the mother. 

Her husband sued both the hospital and the obstetrician for wrongful death, alleging that the refusal to answer the page by the doctor and the inaction from the emergency room staff resulted in the deaths of all three.  Had they performed an emergency C-section after she died, the babies lives may have been saved even if the mother's may not have been.  He sued for wrongful death of all three.

The lawyers for the hospital have spun on their heels.  Where the Church has for years asserted the claim that all life begins at conception and is worthy of equal protection under the law, they are now claiming protection under state law, which currently dictates that unborn fetuses are not persons with legal rights.

Essentially, what the take away is here is that they will argue for the sanctity and protection of human life at any stage, unless they are going to be held liable for the loss of it in court.  Here, they claim no responsibility for the lives of the twins.

So far, the hospital has won.  Hypocrisy works. 

Instead of holding the strength of their convictions, and possibly making a huge argument that unborn babies are indeed persons as they have alleged for years, they went the opposite direction and hid behind the state law that they have fought to change. They have an opportunity here to bolster their claim that all life is precious and worthy of protection, but they aren't.  They're making a point for everyone who has opposed their arguments instead.  Amazing how money can change the rules of the game. 

The case has been appealed to the State Supreme Court.