Tag Archives: Can of Worms

The Pro-Life Generation is not on Tumblr


I’m disgusted.

Background: I got a tumblr just to see what it was like. My best friend from high school virtually-introduced me to new people who I’m now following. (No, I’m not telling you my tumblr URL, it’s attached to real me and we’re not going there.) Anyway, these new people seem to think that “abortion rights” is synonymous with “women’s health” and is a good thing.

Because everyone seems to think that this bill is about banning abortion in Texas (TEXAS, people, why the hell are you messing with Texas), I did some research. And I went to known left-leaning media sites for my information because I know that they’ll report the bare minimum of the bill and then emphasize its terrible results.

From Huffington Post:

The bill would ban abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy and force many clinics that perform the procedure to upgrade their facilities and be classified as ambulatory surgical centers. Also, doctors would be required to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles – a tall order in rural communities.

“If this passes, abortion would be virtually banned in the state of Texas, and many women could be forced to resort to dangerous and unsafe measures,” said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund and daughter of the late former Texas governor Ann Richards.

From CNN:

The bill would ban most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy and tighten standards on abortion clinics and the doctors who work at them. Critics say it would shut most of the abortion clinics in Texas.

From the New York Times:

The bill would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, require abortion clinics to meet the same standards that hospital-style surgical centers do, and mandate that a doctor who performs abortions have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.

NPR, while it glossed all of those facts completely and focused solely on the “banned after 20 weeks of pregnancy,” did give me the name of the bill: SB 5. So I looked that up, too.

This is the full text of the bill which was discussed. And its amendments are here. I’m going to try to sift through the legalese and summarize the bill article by article.

Section 1: Requirements of a Physician

-Physician must have admitting privileges at a hospital with OB/GYN facilities within 30 miles of the clinic

-Physician must provide a way to contact him in the event of complications and give the woman the name, address, and phone number of the hospital nearest to her, also in the event of complications

Section 2: On Abortions After 20 Weeks

-Physicians may not induce/perform abortions at or after 20 weeks post-fertilization

-Physicians must determine gestational age of unborn child before performing/inducing abortion

-Exceptions: immediate medical emergencies threatening the life of the mother

Section 3: On Abortion-Inducing Drugs

-Abortion-inducing drugs may only be administered/prescribed by a physician

-If the physician is administering the drug, both physician and patient must be present at a registered clinic

-If the patient is administering the drug, she must follow the directions

-None of this applies to actual medical problems (ectopic pregnancy, extraction of miscarriage, pre-existing medical conditions in the mother which require treatment)

-Physician must give patient the label of the drug (with all its facts, dosage, warnings, etc)

-Physician must do a follow-up with the patient post-administration/use of the drug within 14 days to confirm the abortion and assess the bleeding

-Physician must show reasonable effort in ensuring the patient makes the follow-up appointment

-If the patient has a severe adverse effect in response to the drug and physician knows, physician must report it to MedWatch

Section 4: Health and Safety Code [effective September 1, 2014]

-Abortion clinics must meet standards of ambulatory surgical centers

Section 5: Health and Safety Code

-Lists requirements of physician’s report

Section 6: Occupations Code

-Lists all the ways a physician can have his license revoked

Section 7: Occupations Code

-(I’m not sure. Possibly just embellishes the ramifications of Section 6.)

Section 8:

-repeals a part of the Health and Safety Code which wasn’t present in either document found

Section 9:

-Clarification and ass-covering

Section 10:

-Mention of precedent, more legalese

Sections 11 and 12:


And now we read this summary. Let’s see… bans abortions after 20 weeks. Yes, that would send “feminists” into a snit. The rest? Welcome to the medical world, abortion clinics. You wanted to be taken seriously? Now deal with the fact that you have to comply with medical standards. Your clinics must meet the standards of an outpatient surgery centre. Nothing earth-shattering there. Your physicians must have admitting privileges to an OB/GYN-equipped hospital within 30 miles–this is in case of complications. This also makes sense. Also in case of complications, patients know where their nearest hospital is and where/how to reach their physician. Unreasonable? This is par for the course. Physicians must do follow-ups. Also normal. If the drugs fail horrifically, they need to be reported–I would HOPE so. That’s the whole point of the FDA.

Oh, and the ban on late-term abortions is flexible:

If Subchapter C, Chapter 171, Health and Safety Code, as added by this Act, prohibiting abortions performed on an unborn child 20 or more weeks after fertilization is found by any court to be invalid or to impose an undue burden as applied to any person, group of persons, or circumstances, the prohibition shall apply to that person or group of persons or circumstances on the earliest date on which the subchapter can be constitutionally applied.

Being pro-life myself, I really don’t like the loose wording and enormous amount of loopholes here. However, if requiring the standards of abortion clinics to meet those of outpatient facilities will cause almost all of them to close, then clearly you’re doing something wrong in the first place. Get used to regular inspections. Get used to high sanitation. And get the hell over it because if you’re performing surgeries and expect your patients to walk out of there later that day, then these things are fully expected and exactly normal.


Give the world a soap box…


Yep, it’s called Facebook.  It’s horrifically annoying.  It’s almost even more annoying when it makes its way into the real world.

I have a number of issues with Facebook, yet I continue to use it for reasons of communication; and believe me, as soon as I finish college, I am getting rid of it and forcing everyone to e-mail, call, or *gasp!* visit me.  Nonetheless, I’m still there right now, and am therefore subject to whatever my friends want to announce to the world.  And sometimes my classmates decide to get into a heated debate on Facebook and yell about it in the middle of studio time (so it’s not like I can even just leave).

Dear world,

Facebook might be your soap box, but this is mine.  Here, nobody knows who I am; and if you do, you’re a friend.  Which means that most people who comment are more comfortable saying things–at least in my opinion.  You don’t know me… you have a right to a screenname, so I wouldn’t know you, either, unless you wanted me to.  Not a bad deal; the internet at its finest.

If Facebook is your soap box, please do me an enormous favour and stop expecting everyone to be completely okay with the flooding of our newsfeeds with political stuff.  Seeing the same stuff over and over again gets old; to be honest, I got really tired of all the pope stuff, too, and I do love Pope Francis.  If I want something, I’ll go find it myself.  I am tired of all the stupid red equals signs as profile pictures.  You seriously think that just by changing your profile picture to something political, you’ll make a difference to anyone, aside from annoying them slightly?  That suggests that if I changed my profile picture to something from an anime, people who don’t watch anime will start to care about it.  The answer is no, they won’t, and they’ll probably just roll their eyes at me for it.

You can’t change the world through Facebook.  You can’t change it through a blog, either, but at least I’m not forcing you to read this by nature of you being my “friend.”  If you read this, you came to read it.  Some part of you went out of your way to check my blog.  If I go to Facebook to stalk pictures from my school’s Beaux-Arts Ball, I am inundated with political commentary, whether I want to or not.  So much for everyone getting along and living and letting live.

I disagree with you, red-equals-sign-posters.  I disagree with you on the basis of natural law and the fact that marriage is about children.  I also disagree with you for even jumping on that bandwagon; you can’t come up with something more creative?  Honestly?  I’m rather disappointed.  If you’re excited about the legislation, post something, don’t just change your photo, and be prepared to back up your position.  Unless, of course, you live in the magical world where everyone agrees with you and nothing bad ever happens.

Irritatedly (but still in Christ),


Weighing in on the LCWR debate


I’m sure that, by now, everyone has heard the arguments about the investigation of the Leadership Conference of Women’s Religious (LCWR) by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).  Nationwide protests have occurred to “support the nuns.”  And countless straw-man arguments have been made against the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.  I’ve been reading and watching these things all over the interwebz… for instance, this video (as hosted on Crescat) where a very patient and awesome priest calmly debates with a rather erratic and emotional protester, or this recent post about an NPR interview.

Now, I’ll be quite honest.  I’m not 100% sure why the CDF is investigating the LCWR.  I am 95% sure that the investigation has been going on for some time (as per information I heard from I-don’t-remember-where-maybe-Fr.-Ted-in-that-Crescat-video but definitely someone who Knew Stuff).  And I am 100% sure that, if the sisters are actually walking the straight-and-narrow, they have nothing to fear from the CDF.  At all.  Don’t get me wrong, this isn’t any justification for governmental invasions of privacy or whatever–simply that the job of the CDF is to make sure that every organization who claims to be Catholic is actually true to the Truth.  If they smell something funny or get reports of something illicit or immoral, they will investigate.  Simple as that.

However, in this debate, there is a lot of vagueness, misunderstanding and, quite frankly, point-missing.  My goal here is to add a little substance to the straw-man arguments and make them into flesh-and-blood people, if possible.

To begin: not all sisters are part of the LCWR.  Father Ted in the above video says so himself.  Having only had contact with Sisters of Saint Joseph, I can’t speak much on personal experience.  Nevertheless, the LCWR does not represent “all the nuns.”  (I won’t get into the difference between nuns and sisters, or how many “sisters” disparage “nuns” because “all they do is sit around and pray.”  That’s a rant for another time.)

Something which constantly and inevitably comes up in these discussions is something to the effect of this: “But look at what the hierarchy did with all those pedophile priests back in the 60s through the 80s!” or whatever time period they so choose.  I will never, ever justify the actions of these priests or the bishops who covered them up.  Nor will I simply “explain it away” by blaming the culture of the time.  Those men did horrible things.  Nonetheless, the Church is a hospital for sinners, rather than a museum for saints.  AND–let me just say this–pulling out the horrifically-abused “pedophile priest” argument in the midst of a conversation about whether or not the LCWR is actually in union with the teachings of the Church is an absolute non sequitur.  It’s like discussing how Germany is saving Greece’s sorry butt economically and then having someone interject, “But the Nazis killed so many people in the Holocaust!”  True?  Yes.  Horrible?  Yes.  Pertinent?  No.

Another note: “the nuns” in the LCWR aren’t the only ones in the world feeding the poor.  They’re not the only ones within the Catholic Church feeding the poor.  Some of them don’t even feed the poor and instead work at fancy private pseudo-Catholic high schools teaching watered-down theology.  Having seen my fair share of sisters who are rather “rah-rah” for “women’s leadership” (another rant for another time), I’d be inclined to say that sisters (more often nuns, who live in community) who keep a more humble profile and don’t feel the need to be in a “Leadership Conference” would be out and about doing charity work.

Basically, do your research.  If you’re going to get upset about something, know what’s going on.  Remember that the LCWR represents a portion of the female religious, not all of them.  And please, keep your personal beefs and pet peeves with the Church within their relevant arguments.  Galileo, pedophile priests, the Spanish Inquisition, and the Crusades all have their rightful places.  For instance, discussions and debates about religious groups adhering to the Faith or about the validity of the Sacrament of Baptism under strange circumstances (I’m from Rochester, ’nuff said) are not those places.



Something has been bothering me as of late.  It is rampant, and particularly egregious on college campuses.  This issue is the intensely fallacious tendency to compare libido to hunger.

To begin, those who even consider the idea are working under a false set of premises.  Not only is their world-view painfully skewed towards Idiocy, but They Fail Biology Forever.  You do not become emotionally attached to the food you eat at dinner.  Sure, you’ll favour some over others.  And if something is particularly tasty, it may release endorphins.  But oxytocin is completely out of the picture when eating dinner–however, it is the reason women “go crazy” and become possessively attached to men after sex.  It’s the same hormone shows up right after childbirth, allowing mothers to connect with their children.  Chemical bonding is strong.

Not to mention that one’s sex drive is, unlike hunger, not necessary for the survival of the person experiencing it.  People die of hunger all the time.  I have yet to hear of someone (outside of truly bad fanfiction or The Onion) who died of sex deprivation.  I’ve heard of it being used as a method of persuasion (Lysistrata, anyone?) but never actually heard of anyone dying from it as a direct cause.  (If it has ever really happened, post it in the comments please.  I’m curious.)

The problem here is that, while libido and hunger are both innate human cravings, the act of sex carries with it a LOT more implications than the act of eating food.  You can taste around, try foods, etc–and your body isn’t thinking that you are bonding yourself to this food for life.  That’s what it thinks when you sleep with someone, however: that’s why all the hormones and chemicals go crazy.  Your body is hard-wired to be monogamous for life.  That’s what it really wants.  And isn’t modern society all about treating our bodies well and giving them what they want?  In all serious matters, you think of both the short and long-term consequences of your actions.  If you want to get in shape, you develop a regular exercise routine (that’s the short-term) and then gradually get in better and better shape (that’s the long-term).  If you want to become a professor of philosophy at a university level, you must first go through undergrad, a Master’s program, and a PhD program.  The short-term is picking your schools and the long-term is the end goal, something you desire.  For some reason, though, college students are willfully ignoring the long-term consequences of their actions (and these actions come in many flavours) and instead choosing to live solely in the moment.  Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for seizing the day (carpe diem, anyone?), but somehow you need to acknowledge the fact that you will wake up in the morning and face the consequences, be they good or bad.

Calling all XX’s


Hello, ladies.  Some of you may have seen this.  Some may not.

My mother just e-mailed me this link and I decided to pass it along.  We need to stand together on this issue and point out that our government does not know what is “best” for us.  Pass it along to your girlfriends, sisters, mothers, daughters… gentlemen, pass this along to your wives and every woman you know who will be interested.

Because we all know that undermining religious liberty is just Not Cool.

The Impudence of Modern Thought


I’ve noticed something as I sit in my architecture courses… every time the role of religion-in-the-city-throughout-history is mentioned, it is somewhat glossed over.  It makes me laugh and cringe at the same time.  The Church has played an enormous role throughout the past two millennia.  Glossing over this fact just makes you look like… well, a rather ignorant modernist.  Sometimes beyond ignorant, if you decide to outright deny it.  For example, we were discussing the 19th century urban re-design of Paris.  Amongst the many coloured lines were two big, bold, red lines.  The legend, when explaining these red lines, read “Big Cross” (in a language which resembled French but wasn’t quite).   My professor then proceeded to tell us that he’s pretty sure it’s not religious.  I was about to break into hysterical laughter–of COURSE it’s probably religious.  It’s PARIS.  Paris tries to think it’s Rome.

Speaking of Rome, that came up in the same lecture–the urban re-design of Rome in the 16th century.  Of COURSE there are churches on every corner.  Of COURSE the Pope wanted to build more churches or try to bring the focus back to them.  Rome is the seat of the Church… but somehow this point is constantly missed and glossed over.

The Catholic Church exists, and it is alive today, and it was extremely prominent in Western culture.  Those who deny Her blatant and heavy influence on history and today’s society are doing something more than simply being “politically correct”–they are truncating history down to the “culturally friendly” parts and ignoring the honest and sometimes ugly truth: the Church is powerful.

Yes, I said it.  Powerful.  And while power corrupts, the Church is not a human institution–oh, but we threw that idea out in the trash along with our morals and our children.  The big bad Catholic Church ought to be ignored and left alone–She’ll die out in time.  Have you SEEN how old those Massgoers are?  Especially at those Traditional Latin Masses!  And oh, those Marchers for Life are even worse!  (My favourite is hearing that the Marchers for Life are “all old men.”  Giggle, snort.)  The result of this horrific “ignore it and it’ll go away” mindset is that so much of history has been edited down to ignore the Church–or, if there’s something you can’t ignore (like the Crusades, the favourite Church-basher’s argument) to pitch the Catholic Church in a horrendous light.  (I may do another post on the Crusades.  Comment if you think that’s a good idea or not.)

Long story short: we are living in a culture so hedonistic it has attempted to erase the Good out of itself–and out of its past.  Congratulations, Western civilization.  You’re throwing away the Truth and replacing it with Ego.  Looks like it’s all over and Ayn Rand has won.

Related Link: Wherin We Discuss Art

O Come O Come Emmanuel : Advent Hymns :: Gilligan’s Island theme song : Emily Dickenson poems


If you can’t read the title of the post, you failed English class at some point in your education.  The point of it, however, will be explained shortly.

One of my biggest pet peeves of the Advent season is the tendency of many Novus Ordo churches to put all the songs of the Ordinary to the tune of “O Come O Come Emmanuel.”  It reminds me very much of the fact that all Emily Dickenson’s poems, due to the fact that they are written in ballad style, can be sung to the tune of the Gilligan’s Island theme song.

The question is now: what happens when you sing the Ordinary to the tune of Gilligan’s Island?