:: The S.I.C.L.E. Cell ::

:: Sunday, February 29, 2004 ::

YMCA refuses to disassociate from Planned Parenthood saying that they "take no position" on abortion. Lest we forget:

"...YMCAs are obligated by the national YMCA constitution to pay dues to the YMCA of the USA, adopt a non-discrimination policy, and uphold the mission 'To put Christian principles into practice through programs that build healthy spirit, mind, and body for all.'"

Now, is it a Christian principle to take "no position" on abortion? And isn't helping Planned Parenthood, an organization fat off of dead children and emotional agony, sort of "taking a position"? Furthermore, isn't "no position" always really a position? Who was it that said "If you aren't for me, you're against me,"?

Imagine someone saying they take no position on what Hitler did to the Jews in WWII. How about "no position" on slavery? Would this be the admirable tolerance that so many liberals prize? Would this embody "Christian principles"? Aren't folks who say they take "no position" just fooling themselves?

They aren't fooling me.

:: ashli 7:59 AM # ::
...

Children are the purpose of life. We were once children and someone took care of us. Now it is our turn to care.
~Cree elder

:: ashli 1:36 PM # ::
...

Aborting your baby? Wash your hands.

Just how "safe" is abortion? No one knows, and here's why.

In addition to being involved in the death of the woman mentioned above, Planned Parenthood, who always fights any kind of parental notification laws, is hosting a forum promoting parent-child communication. Haha!

When I was a teacher I had a student come to me with a tick on her head. Its little mouth was burrowed probably a millimeter into her scalp just sucking happily away. Since we could not reach the child's parents to receive permission to remove the tick, I was advised by my principal to leave the parasite there for this child's parents to remove when she got home, as this was interpreted as a "medical procedure". I thought this was totally stupid.

Get this straight: If you live in Florida, your child can't get a tick removed from her head without your permission, but she can get a second trimester baby removed from deeeep within her body without anyone's permission... provided she has the cash.

Bear in mind that if she is wounded in the abortion, it is her parents, not the state who kept them in the dark, who will have to foot the bill however many thousands of dollars it is, and they will have to live with a physically and perhaps emotionally wounded child.

Tick removal? Gotta ask Mom and Dad. Late-term baby removal? It's none of their business. (And this is good for Planned Parenthood's business.)

Where, might you ask, is Planned Parenthood holding this forum? Well, at the local YMCA of course! This is not surprising when you consider that the national mission of the YMCA is "To put Christian principles into practice through programs that build healthy spirit, mind and body for all." WHAT?!

This ol' world just makes a whole lotta sense.

:: ashli 12:05 PM # ::
...

Cookies, anyone?

As soon as I am well enough I am going to buy a box of Girl Scout cookies just to say thanks to the one Texas chapter that finally wised up and disassociated from Planned Parenthood. The Bluebonnet council of the Girl Scouts of America will no longer financially support the killing of future Girl Scouts.

Planned Parenthood was "shocked" and abortion drone Pam Smallwood had this to say:

"The children of Central Texas now have been given the clear
message that the bullying tactics of a few are more successful
than an informed democracy."

Our democracy will never be informed as long as Pam and others like her continue to vote against such ever-so-slightly related things as, oh, I dunno... abortion information acts! She works for Planned Parenthood, for Pete's sake. An informed democracy is the last thing she wants.

Also, our little Pamie failed to mention that "the Girl Scout leadership found 90% opposition to their alliance with Planned Parenthood of Central Texas."

According to Pam 90% equals "a few". Now, I'm not real good at math, but 90%... that's kind of a majority, yes?

Pam's description of democracy reminds me of the U.S. majority who opposed abortion in the early seventies when seven MEN decided on abortion for a nation that didn't want it. Democracy? Is this like the mayor of San Francisco ignoring the majority vote against gay marriage and issuing illegal licenses anyway?

I'll bet democracy would actually work much better if it wasn't for certain Democrats.

Anyway, buy some cookies!

:: ashli 12:28 PM # ::
...

RU486:
What Mommy saw...

:: ashli 9:22 AM # ::
...

I got this letter today:

"Look at the picture at the top of ProChoiceVoice! That's what their movement is really all about!

The funniest thing is that they choose to put that picture above an article attacking crisis pregnancy centers for allegedly showing deceptive pictures of dead fetuses."

A picture of a mother interacting with and loving her baby... yes, that's what abortion is all about!

Oopsie! Don't look now, but they've lost their minds.

:: ashli 8:34 AM # ::
...

More Girl Scout news...

One Texas chapter of Girl Scouts is sponsoring a Planned Parenthood event called "Nobody's Fool". Planned Parenthood, our nation's number one abortion provider, in fact, intends to make fools of everyone who will listen including Girl Scouts. Deception for profit is their primary goal.

"Nobody's Fool" (which should be called "Planned Parenthood's Fool") is a sexual education event that targets minors and promotes abortion. The event actually includes literature that states that abortion is an acceptable practice. (PP is also taking the message to the churces in it's "Talking About Sex in the Sanctuary" campaign. Included is the message that sex is a normal, healthy part of teenage life. Isn't that what the Bible says? Oh well, who needs the Bible in church?)

Beth Vivo, one of the characters who made the Girl Scout sponsored abortion promotion possible now makes this appalling statement:

"We hope [boycotters] will not approach Girl Scouts, young girls, and try to speak to them about this because, certainly, the girls would not understand what they're talking about, the context of it."

In the hackneyed attempt to paint "pro-lifers" as the bad, child-harming villain, see how she uses the term "young girls" to convey the kids' contrasting innocence. Don't make victims out of them, she implores. Yet it is she, in part, who took their innocence and used it to make victims out of them. They do not understand abortion, she conveys. Don't expose them to the horror of it, she pleads... all the while using them to promote sex and abortion to minors in the community. Beth's message is: The children mustn't know what they are doing or what we have done to them. Telling them would hurt them so shhh...

Meanwhile some parents are aware enough to be outraged and have explained Planned Parenthood's role in abortion to their young Scouts, an explanation that has left their innocent girls in tears.

Many of us however are not shocked that under the guise of "Nobody's Fool" Planned Parenthood is already duping innocent little girls at the tenderest age.

Lest we forget that children, especially the young ones, are a cash crop for PP.

Cha-ching.

:: ashli 9:14 AM # ::
...

The incredible lengths they will go to in order to deceive.

For "pro-choicers" who use the Bible to sell the lie of abortion...

For those who are listening...

:: ashli 9:54 AM # ::
...

A raving pal did a little snoop work and uncovered an interesting correlation between Pam Smallwood's abortion-related activities with the Girl Scouts and Smallwood's abortion-related activities with public libraries. Pam is a busy little abortion bee! Buzzz, buzzz!

I went here and was informed:
"You'd be surprised what a Girl Scout cookie can build."

In fact I was surprised to learn a Girl Scout cookie could build a legacy of death, deception and glorified violence against females, yessiree! I was in Girl Scouts and I gotta tell you, we were building campfires and s'mores, so yes, yes I am a little stunned.

While looking at the tasty, newly abortion-related cookies I noticed that Samoas have been renamed, probably due to a few cheesed-off, culturally sensitive Hawaiians. That's cool, that's cool, but in light of the recent Planned Parenthood connection to Girl Scouts, let's do some more renaming just for fun.

Possible Girl Scalp Cookies:

Pinatas = Premie Pinatas
Caramel Delights = Delightful Caramels (aka D&C's)
Peanut Butter Patties = Potential Pattys
Shortbread Cookies = Suredead Cookies
Thinmints = Thinhints
Peanut Butter Sandwiches = Pulverized "Peanut" Sammiches (Those li'l "Peanuts" make a delicious sammy!)
Reduced Fat Lemon Pastry Cremes = Induced Fetal Product Screams
Animal Treasures = Animal Pleasures (part of the proceeds will go to PETA for the protection of rat fetuses and other animal rights issues)


Strong values. STRONG values. Oh Pam, you're doing such great things with the life you've been given!

Death sure tastes good on a cookie!

:: ashli 11:03 AM # ::
...

Girl Scout cookies? None for me, thanks.

:: ashli 9:30 AM # ::
...

One of the first things an abortion supporter does when a new abortion supporting law is passed is to pat him/herself on the back for all the hard advocacy work. However, if you corner one and explain to them that their advocacy hurt you, then they will quickly explain to you how you achieved your abortion all on your own without any help or influence from them or anyone else because, well heck, it's a woman's choice.

The rules:
1. If you are happy about losing your child in an abortion then thank your abortion provider or local "pro-choice" activist.

2. If you are sad about losing your child in an abortion then you have no one but yourself to blame, you silly, silly girl.

:: ashli 9:05 AM # ::
...

4D sonogram at 11 weeks.

:: ashli 3:05 PM # ::
...

For many years after the loss of my child in a second trimester abortion I held on to secret thoughts of straddling a burning clothing iron naked. I wanted to mutillate and seal the part of my body that had been used to kill my child. It was the entrance and exit of death, and I wanted my sex completely obliterated; it disgusted me so.

I fantasized also about getting a hysterectomy and taking my uterus home in a jar where I would remove it and slice it into as many pieces as I could, to actively hate this part of myself into oblivion.

I settled instead for burning my lost child's initials in my hand over and over again through the years. This self-abuse is always at a private crisis point related to thoughts of who I lost and how. I know it is strange and unacceptable, yet at times has been an almost necessary compulsion. The burning is in lieu of suicide; it is, unlike abortion, pain I understand and know how to deal with.

:: ashli 2:49 PM # ::
...

If you work for Eckerds you do not have the right to choose NOT to kill children.

Eckerds will never see another dollar from me until they change their policy of forcing employees to participate in the killing of children.

Write and tell them what you think.

:: ashli 12:14 PM # ::
...

ER was weird last night. Wasn't expecting all that abortion stuff. One of the nurses was confiding to another nurse that when she was fifteen she was going to abort her son but didn't have the money. She scrimped and saved until she had enough and went to the abortion facility. They called her name but she couldn't bring herself to do it. She left and came back another day but it was "too late". (Implies incorrectly that there is a time limit on abortion. I wish they would have had her say "...it was too late there and I didn't have the money to go to a late-term clinic.) She says, "And now, when I look at my son..."

She doesn't finish the statement by saying, "...and think of what I almost did to him," but it is implied. Her nurse friend surprises her with her own SICLE. The friend remembers the Strawberry Shortcake calendar on the wall. I liked the contrast and gave one point to the writers. The friend doesn't say much about the SICLE itself except to mention the Strawberry Shortcake calendar, and then she sits in quiet reflection thinking of her own life and the other nurse's comments about her son.

Later we see a pregnant patient approaching the nurse (who did not abort) to help her abort. This patient was initially ecstatic to find out that she was pregnant but the nurse with the son reminded the patient of her bad situation and basically said that because of her circumstances she "had" to seriously consider whether or not she really wanted to continue the pregnancy. The happy new mom wouldn't hear of it... until the next scene where her horrible boyfriend is manhandling her and berating her saying things like, "You're not going to keep it. You're going to get rid of it!"

So of course, in the last scene she slinks back to the "caregiver" who suggested that she seriously think about abortion.

Strange. The writers make a big "pro-choice" advocate out of the woman who didn't abort (and who cringes when she thinks of what she almost did to her son). They also show the patient being totally pressured and oppressed by her boyfriend... and by this nurse who is "only trying to be helpful" as she suggests a "solution" that she herself is ultimately glad she never experienced.

I'm not sure what kind of message the show was trying to send, if any. However, I think this probably read as a Planned Parenthood ad for the typical viewer. Bad situation+crummy boyfriend+"caring" nurse=abortion. End of story.

To add to the confusion, the nurse says the girl was gang-raped even though it is painfully obvious that the girl has no self-esteem and participates in "threesomes" to please her boyfriend who thinks she is "sexy". The threesomes are so violent that she is in the hospital getting stitches deep in her vagina. How is abortion going to solve the problem for the character in this situation?

It seems to me that abortion will only empower the men who are using the girl as a mere sperm receptacle. Her self-esteem certainly can't be expected to rise after aborting her helpless little child. The violent, deviant sexual encounters will most likely continue and may even get worse. It seems to me that what this character needs is not abortion but lots of positive help to turn her life around. Having her baby could actually help her very much. She could hook up with awesome, long-term groups that only work with pregnant young girls or young, single moms. Such programs focus on turning the life of the mom around for the better.

The show portrayed the situation pretty realistically I think, which is why I found it so disappointing. The mom wanted her baby, but there was no way anyone was going to let her make that choice. Not all women have uber strong personalities that lead them to be outspoken and fight for their own rights... especially when they are in a crisis. The boyfriend was hateful and coercive, and the compassionate nurse "knew better".

The boyfriend is so "coercive", by the way, that he gets physical with the nurse who tries to call the police regarding his behavior. He grabs her arm and she tells him to let go, which he doesn't, so she whoops his arse. Of course she gets in trouble with the limping lesbian (Carrie) who runs the ER. The arse-whooping was in self-defense, but the writers have somehow made it an anger issue instead; the nurse is busted for attacking a guy because she was angry that he and his cronies gang-raped the patient (even though the patient admitted that she consented to everything to please her boyfriend).

I personally thought it would have been more empowering and accurate if the nurse explained that the guy put his hands on her and she defended herself. That, however, wouldn't have given Carrie anything to gripe about, and it's not an ER episode if Carrie isn't ranting about something. (She's just one notch below Romano on the "panties in a wad" scale.)

Anyway, it was weird.

If this entry seems incoherent it may have something to do with the hyperactive pre-schooler who is quite literally jumping all over the room with a plastic sword, a green balloon and a snake made out of Silly Putty.

When I look at him (and think of what I did to his sibling)...

:: ashli 10:40 AM # ::
...

"Will bash this puppy's brains out for money"

:: ashli 4:17 PM # ::
...

Attend the tale of Sweeny Todd:
What do forty million dead babies mean to Planned Parenthood?
Why, chili of course! Those rapscallions love their ground meat!

Oopsie:
When asked repeatedly if the Peterson crime involved one victim or two Gloria Feldt skirted the question. Finally, she opined that Laci was "the victim".

Kent Willis, executive director of the Virginia ACLU, was asked the same question on a radio show, and he deftly replied:

"That baby was not a murder victim."

That one gets the SICLE Cell award of the week for most revealing blunder. Kent, Kent, Kent... don't you know that when referring to a baby you are supposed to use "pro-choice" terms such as "product of conception", "fetus" or "chili ingredient"?

:: ashli 9:12 AM # ::
...

The weather is going to be rainy and crummy all this week. I am going to be so depressed. The sun really cheers me up. Some days it's almost like I can handle everything that has happened as long as the sun is shining. That's how time changes things.

After I lost my Tennessee I always appreciated the rain and the darkened sky that it brought, because, when my loss was new, I regarded the sun as something of a blight. The world was ruined for me, and I appreciated it when the world acted like it! Sunshine is a happy thing, a slap in the face to a newly grieving mother. Time passed... much time... and now things are only sadder when it rains. The sun to me now is again a happy, hopeful thing... warm, soothing and hopeful.

The pain of terrible circumstance never goes away, but it changes. In some ways it's easier, in some ways it's harder. It is what it is. Ever-present, ever-changing...

There is comfort in time; There is life after the death of a child... even when you don't particularly want there to be.

It sneaks up on you.

:: ashli 10:55 AM # ::
...

If you are against abortion... pay for abortion procedures.

So much for "choice".

:: ashli 9:20 AM # ::
...

First, I would like to express my sincere disappointment and sorrow regarding the conclusion of the case of Carlie Brucia, the eleven-year-old girl who was abducted and murdered this week. Like everyone, I had hoped for a much different outcome, and I am so sad thinking of not only what she must have gone through but what her parents will go through for the rest of their lives. No healthy parent ever gets over the loss of their child, and a "bad death" makes grief all the more complicated. They will have to live with this forever.

(Anyone find it appropriate to invite them to a weekend "healing" retreat?)

If you would like more information on how to prevent your child's abduction or how to help a child escape an abductor please order the Escape School Abduction video. I have it, and it helped me to prevent my own child's abduction at a park where a woman was trying to remove him from a swing and get him into her car. Scary stuff, but I had recently seen the video, and it encouraged me to stay hyper-alert constantly. It paid off big time and is well worth the measly six bucks.

We now return you to today's scheduled blog...

It has come to the media's attention that an Eckerds pharmacist refused to fill a prescription for a pill that can act to prevent or abort a pregnancy. The drug is commonly referred to as the "Morning After Pill". If you're having trouble with the link manually type in:

http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/localnews/news
8/stories/wfaa040202_am_pharmacy.79625125.html

The pill works to prevent conception, which is called "birth control", and to prevent an already living human being from implanting in the womb, which is called abortion. In the case of this pill, the woman doesn't actually know if she is pregnant or not, but the drug doesn't require that she does. The pill acts, and the swallower has to wonder for the rest of her life if she actually killed her child or just prevented a pregnancy. In the same way, the pharmacist has to wonder if s/he contributed to the death of a child. Some folks don't like to take chances with the lives of children.

When the pharmacist refused to take part in a possible abortion several "pro-choice" advocates protested the pharmacist's personal, private choice not to be an accessory, which just goes to show "pro-choicers" are only "pro-choice" when it comes to doling out abortion.

This case reminds me of the thing in New York where "pro-choicers" made sure med students no longer had a choice of whether or not they wanted to learn how to abort children but instead made abortion techniques required study. Why? Because not enough students freely chose to be involved in abortion. This worried the "pro-choicers", who decided to remedy the problem by invading peoples' privacy and rights and forcing them to study abortion. Their obvious duality invalidates such clever, overused slogans as "If you are against abortion don't have one." The bumper sticker should go on to say... "but if you are a med student or a doctor or a pharmacist, you had better participate whether you like it or not... or else."

The things I love most about the media report are the quotes. Media bias is fun if you're looking. It's like "Where's Waldo?" for adults. In this report Waldo can be seen quoting the pharmacist. The quote does not actually come from the pharmacist, it comes from a friend of the girl who spoke to the pharmacist (she said she said s/he said). So the pharmacist is represented by a comment the pharmacist may or may not have made.

I tend to think the pharmacist, who has a degree, probably understands the drug enough to relate that it is designed to prevent pregnancy and to abort a pregnancy. Unfortunately, the pharmacist is painted as a misinformed idiot who incorrectly assesses and informs others of the drug's action. Just like a pesky "pro-lifer", huh.

Now for the cream filling...

One of the protesters is quoted as saying:
"Pharmacists aren't supposed to play God."

Yummy!

First of all, "playing God" is just what the pharmacist does NOT want to do. That is the whole point. S/he is trying to stay out of the very natural process of a possible pregnancy. If the Eckerd's customer has become pregnant then a natural process will take place if not interferred with. Interference, however can effectively end the life of the growing child and THAT, my friends, is "playing God."

Pop Quiz:
Which of the following better illustrates the concept of "playing God?"

A) Person wants to force another person to participate in an activity that will possibly end a child's life.
-OR-
B) Person refuses to participate in an event that will possibly take a child's life.
-OR-
C) Person disagrees with Planned Parenthood and is not "pro-choice".

If you said A, then you understand the concept of "playing God". If you said B or C, congratulations! You are "pro-choice" and don't know your arse from a hole in the ground. The media wants to talk to you!

The same lovely protester went on to say:
"If you need the medicine, they should give it to you."

The first thing that comes to mind is that the protestor does not understand the difference between want and need. The second thing I wonder is if insurance paid for the pill. All I know is that when I had a tube sticking in my arm, wrapped internally around my shoulder, stuck into my chest and lying juuuuust outside the opening of my heart delivering life-sustaining fluids to my body tissues, I had a heck of a time convincing the insurance company to grant the pump prescribed by the IV techs who installed my peripherally inserted central line. I NEEDED a pump; a gravity drip would not do. My insurance said "Too bad for you," and denied me the NEEDED pump. Because of this denial, my life was put in danger and my health (and my growing child's health) declined significantly due to severe dehydration. This caused other problems and finally, my insurance gave in when faced with the possibility of legal action.

My pump was NEEDED. If I had gone without the pump (for as long as I turned out needing it) I would have probably died. Without the "Morning After Pill" the probablility is that the woman wouldn't have died but instead may or may not have had a baby. Let's put "life-sustaining treatment" and "lifestyle-sustaining treatment" on the balance and see which one weighs in at necessity. For women who conceive in rape it goes much deeper than a mere lifestyle issue. Even so, "I can't carry a baby conceived in rape" and "I don't want to carry a baby conceived in rape" are two different things.

Another protester's comments:

"After being raped and assaulted, to come into a pharmacy to get a prescription that is stocked there - an FDA-approved drug - and to be shut down, that's a second assault."

Killing a child is more of a second rape-related assault than being told, "Hey, I don't want to potentially contribute to a child's death." Even if the rape victim isn't pregnant, there will always be a question of "Did I or did I not kill my child?" That can be a second assault emotionally. Rape involves lots of secondary assaults whether you become pregnant or not.

A friend says people tended to blame her for the rape. That's a secondary assault. Memories still assault her when she and her husband are intimate. Etc. Rape is rape; it's horrible. You can't take a pill or have a surgical procedure and make it go away. Why kill or possibly kill someone trying?

This is my second favorite comment because it comes from the boneheads at Planned Parenthood:

"To be faced with a pharmacist who moralizes to her, we find outrageous."

Teehee! Since when is refusing to be involved in a possible abortion moralizing to someone else? Using the same logic, couldn't we say that by requesting the potential abortion drug, the customer is moralizing to the pharmacist that it's OK to abort the littlest, tiniest baby? That might be offensive to the pharmacist.

"Will you hit me in the head with a hammer?"
("No.")
"How dare you moralize to me!"

Roe v Wade is the biggest moralizer of all. It says that all these pregnant mommies who are patting their bellies and playing Mozart through their navels are a bunch of idiots because they've got nothing inside. It's wrong for them to think they have babies in there. It's wrong of doctors and pregnancy books to refer to the products of conception as "babies". It's wrong of women to grieve if they suffer a miscarriage or a stillbirth. After all, Roe v. Wade says those things that came out of their bodies were nothings. We who respect the lives of growing children are all, all wrong! And not only wrong, but BAD! Roe v. Wade, the biggest moralizer of all!

It's ridiculous. The customer asked the pharmacist to be involved in a potential abortion and the pharmacist said, "I don't feel comfortable with personally being involved in that." Sounds like these two are both making personal choices. But Planned Parenthood doesn't like it, because one's personal choice affects the other's personal choice. (They can't see that, day in and day out, that is what abortion is all about.) Now, are you jotting the rules down?

Rule number one: You are allowed to make your own personal choices as long as you agree with Planned Parenthood and abortion. If you disagree, you will be bullied, manipulated, insulted and misrepresented.

More from the PP protester:
"This is not a chemical abortion; this is a large dose of birth control pills to prevent an unwanted pregnancy."

Hitler: "This is not a gas chamber, it's a relocation facility."

This is where I stop laughing. Deception never gives me the giggles. A friend of mine wrote just last week to ask about the "Morning After Pill". She went to dear old PP who told her exactly what the lying PP protester claims (and what the media printed) above. This friend was ready to down this pill, but she had suffered the loss of one child through abortion, and the resulting emotional pain is at times unbearable for her.

Something nagged at her regarding the pill. It nagged enough that she wanted to confirm that the pill could not cause an abortion. When she found out that it CAN act as an abortion, she was disappointed obviously, because she really didn't want to be pregnant. But she was also angry that she had been lied to by PP and relieved that she got accurate information before she had taken the pill.

By giving out false information, PP is making sure women do NOT have the right to make choices. If someone lies to you and says you could not be aborting your child when you could be, then you have not chosen potential abortion; they have chosen it for you. For some, the potential is more than they are willing to accept. My friend almost TOOK this pill because PP lied to her!!

In the media report, Eckerds, at least leaning "pro-choice" by the very stocking of the drug, reassures the public that the naughty pharmacist has been reprimanded for choosing not to be involved in the potential abortion. How comforting it is to the "pro-choice" movement that certain people are not allowed to make personal choices with their own bodies without punishment.

You've got to love those wacky, wacky "pro-choicers" for the vast amount of entertainment they provide if nothing else.

The bottom line in this debate is hey, if I don't want to help you kill someone then by golly I shouldn't have to. And if I'm not sure whether or not I am helping you to kill someone then I should have the right to err on the side of caution.

Confound it, folks! If people have the right to kill people then people ought to have the right NOT to kill people.

End of story.

:: ashli 8:44 AM # ::
...

Well, I haven't been able to comment on it until now, but a little time has passed since "Black Friday", and I want to talk about what happened.

I got a phone call on the 7th anniversary of my SICLE. The woman on the other end is working on a massive truth campaign relating to abortion. I am working on a similar effort and so we are in contact. She's a nice gal, and I so appreciate what she is doing for women, children and families, but... she's clueless on some fronts.

You know how... verbal, literal and adamant I am about certain things. Touchy you might even call it. This poor gal made the mistake of referring to women with SICLEs as "those women". I am not mature enough yet to let that sort of thing go all the time.

"I am one of 'those women'," I reminded her. It is possible to hear someone blush over the phone. Embarrassed, she apologized and said, "I'm not used to talking to women who have had abortions."

"First of all, I didn't 'have' an abortion. I lost a child in one," I said. (It was the sanguine death anniversary of my child; gimmie a break.) Of course, she didn't understand. "You see," I continued, "I've 'had' a hamburger, I've 'had' an appendectomy, but I lost a child in an abortion." Annoyed, she reminded me that common terminology is "had an abortion". I explained that I don't like the term, because it sterilizes abortion, cleaning it up into a neat little package of surgical procedure and the abortion industry doesn't need our help in that area. I explained that a woman loses much more than she gains by aborting her child and the focus should be on loss: the child's loss and the mother's loss.

PEOPLE NEVER UNDERSTAND ME when I get on my soap box re: the language of "had an abortion". They think I'm just trying to be difficult. There are just some things I refuse to accept - like the neatness, the tidyness of "I had an abortion." I'm a stickler when it comes to this. Which embodies the true situation more? "I had an abortion," or "I lost a child in an abortion,"? Accuracy doesn't cost much; It's only three more words to say it right.

I also informed my new friend that she had plenty experience talking to "those women". "You talk to them all the time," I insisted. "You just don't know it." She acknowledged that it was probably true and told me of a woman she met at a store who just blurted out that she'd had an abortion. "There are healing programs that help you go through the grieving process," she consoled the lady. So tidy, so easy, so trite. Sigh. Could I excuse her? No, I could not. It was "Black Friday".

"Let me ask you something," I said. "Have you ever lost a child?" Of course she hadn't. She even told me, "I can't even talk about this subject, because I don't even want to imagine it." I pressed her. "You don't want to imagine it?" She answered, "No, because it's just too painful to think about." I asked her how she might heal from such a loss if she couldn't even think about it. She admitted that such a loss might be the one thing in life that would devastate her, that she might not be able to heal from. And I said, "But yet you tell a woman in a department store that she can just join a "healing" program." Defensively she replied, "I didn't say it was easy; it's a process." I wanted to know when the process ended. Because you see, to me, the concept of "process" infers stages of beginning, middle and end. Healing, to me, infers reaching a point where one is "all better". "It's a process," one who never lost a child reiterated.

She then launched into an anecdote about some neighbors who lost two children in a car wreck umpteen years ago and how the mother of those children still lives and laughs. "But I'd be willing to bet there are some times when she still cries about it," she perceptively guessed. "Then she hasn't truly 'healed' from the loss of her two children," I shot back. "Well," she explained, "She's not a Christian."

Oh boy. I wanted to know how loving Jesus makes one love one's children any less than someone who doesn't love Jesus. I demanded to know why she expected Jesus to heal the pain of abortion 100% of the time when He doesn't always grant healing to every other pain on this earth. Poor woman. She just wasn't prepared. "Well, we've got to give 'them' hope," she said. While it was a good comeback, it still left me unsatisfied. We should call it what it is: "help" or "comfort" but not "healing".

Stumpy went through physical therapy, but he never got his arm back, and I'll never get my child back. He's without an arm, I'm without a child. We press on, but there never comes a day when it doesn't just suck.

As some of you know, my ex-step mom lost her only child on Thanksgiving night recently. He was 37 and she lost him legitimately. In other words, no one denied he was a person and she had nothing to do with it. No one has suggested to her that she "heal" from his death. No one would dare. It would be like a slap in the face. How the heck do you do that? When do you ever wake up and not love and miss your kid anymore? She attends groups, but no one calls them "healing" groups. It would totally trivialize and invalidate the whole concept of mother-child love and the profound grief that a mother feels when a child dies.

My God, my God! Is that what it is? That must be it! This woman on the phone with me must be one of the elitists! We, "those women", do not merit the kind of legitimate, validating compassion that my ex-step mom receives because others do not believe, can not conceive, can not fathom that a mother could have an evolved mother-child bond and abort. It's just as my mother-in-law said when she knocked me over with her reason for not stepping in:

"I didn't think you could actually do it."

I was underestimated. Or OVERestimated it seems. She knew I loved my child and had tried desperately to have him/her, but I simply did not know how to cope with my physical illness and, for a short time, I lost some very important cognitive ability. I killed my child to end months of what seemed at the time like unbearable physical suffering and disability. My mother-in-law didn't know. She didn't know that I was one of "those women".

"Those women" exist on a lower level than women who haven't SICLEs. It doesn't matter what our circumstances were; we are just teat-dragging vestiges, a few genes away from understanding the tremendous bonds of legitimate mother-child love, the kind of love you don't heal from when broken by death.

One well-respected forerunner in the "healing" movement, a person who developed an entire "healing" program once told me that she knew instinictively that if she ever lost one of her own children she would never heal from it.

!!!

How could she make such a hypocritical statement? Could it be that she applies different standards to women with SICLEs? It's easy for dopes to heal from guilt and their sack-sorry idea of "love", but legitimate moms don't heal and it's preposterous, unthinkable to suggest that they ever could. What? The condescension is undeniable.

It riles me up when SICLEless women start dabbling in the "healing" processes of women who have lived through killing their own children. It would be like a twenty-four-year-old businessman going to counsel Vietnam Vets, telling them how they can go through a weekend retreat and "heal" from the hell of war. Sheesh, it makes me livid!!!

Anyway, the gal on the phone said the subject was too heavy to discuss anymore and graciously admitted that she didn't feel confident about anything she was saying to me. I appreciated that. I hope she thinks about our conversation the next time she has the urge to pass out a Hallmark card to a stranger in a department store. Instead, our conversation will just probably confirm everything she has suspected all along about "those women".

:: ashli 11:40 AM # ::
...

There Goes My Life, recorded by country cutie Kenny Chesney, is a wonderful "pro-life" song that makes me teary-eyed each time I hear it. The video is even more compelling. It's the story of a young couple (high school or college aged) who finds out they are pregnant. At football practice the girl tells the boy she is pregnant and he reacts by sort of freaking out and telling her, "There goes my life." She starts bawling and the boy goes to the locker room and cries by himself thinking of all the plans he made will never come true.

Plans change.

In the next segment Chesney sings "That mistake he thought he made covers up the refrigerator..." and we see pictures of his beautiful blonde toddler plastered all over the fridge. As he watches his li'l punkin toddle up the stairs he smiles and thinks to himself, "There goes my life."

In the final segment she is older and drives off for college as he once again cries and remarks, "There goes my life."

I like the song because they don't abort the baby and the guy realizes that his "mistake" is not really a mistake but instead is his daughter, his life. He doesn't leave his girlfriend or shirk his responsibilities. Perhaps that doesn't represent the majority of cases, but some guys are decent and stick around, and the video is a good message to send to guys today.

Give it a listen.

There's another country song, Long Black Train, recorded by Josh Turner. The video is more obviously "pro-life" than the actual song because in one segment it shows a desperate young pregnant girl considering abortion or some equally dark, life-wasting deed. The actual song makes no reference to her situation, so you have to rely on the video to know something of what the recording artist may feel about the subject of life, death and abortion. However, a read of the lyrics conveys that the Long Black Train is anything that appears to be a solution but is actually a nefarious, death-dealing lie. That certainly applies to abortion, and I'm pleased that they were brave enough to include the image of the young pregnant girl in the video. Food for thought.

It's interesting how free country music artists are to sing about God and to express such unpopular ideas as not killing your children. I always hated country music when I was younger. Thought it was for dentally, mentally challenged suckers. Turns out the only sucker was me.

:: ashli 10:59 AM # ::
...