A brief political rant

So, here I am, my first real, true blogging experience.

I have to admit, I've had this great blog in my head for like a year now, all about my experiences being a mother, my reasons for wanting to blog in the first place. It has some great quotations about the motherhood and the self, about the idealistic portrait of motherhood vs. the reality. Anyway, the reality of motherhood, at least for me, is that I've had this great blog idea in my head for a year, and I haven't actually had time (or, honestly, inclination, when I did have time) to sit down and type it.

So, instead of my great, wonderfully written blog about motherhood (that will hopefully make it out into cyberspace eventually), I've been inspired to sit down and type in reaction to my Facebook newsfeed. I have a variety of friends with a variety of opinions, and I try my best to avoid putting too much controversy on my page. Okay, okay, I post controversy sometimes. But, today, I desire a full out rant, and I think my Facebook page is probably the wrong place to do so. Thus, my blogging adventures begin.

Through the wonders of Facebook, I came across this:
The Pink Ribbon and the Dollar Sign Christianity Today A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction
This article made me angry. It made me confused. I do actually agree with some of the premise of the article. I agree that many churches have ignored and even encouraged a culture of greed. In the gospels, Jesus devotes a majority of his time teaching about helping the poor. He doesn't say to help them if you think they deserve it. He doesn't say to help them if you have the time or the inclination. He doesn't say to help them after you help yourself. He doesn't say to help them after they pass a drug test. He doesn't say to berate them as lazy. He says that the way we treat the least of those in our society is the way we treat Jesus himself.

However, this article, while commenting on a culture of greed, does not encourage its readers to support government measures to support those in need; government measures such as Planned Parenthood, which provides health care services to millions of women that otherwise would have no access to proper care. Instead, it vilifies Planned Parenthood, saying "they'll make a lot of money. And they'll do so off the shredded corpses of children and the raped consciences of women." Planned Parenthood? Making a lot of money? They are a service for the poor! The raped consciences of women? The very purpose of Planned Parenthood is to help women. What??

I understand that Mr. Moore, the author of the article, is anti-choice. Fine. Here's the thing: I am pro-choice, but I think, Mr. Moore, that you and I actually still have a lot in common. I think the choice to have an abortion must be an awfully difficult one. It is one I wish fewer women were forced to make. But I think the way to stop women from having to make such decisions is to go back to this culture of greed you were talking about. Let's create a world where women don't have to have abortions because they don't need to. Women that have access to health care, such as that provided by Planned Parenthood, are more likely to have birth control, and are therefore less likely to need an abortion. Women are less likely to need an abortion if they have adequate childcare so that they can work to support their children. Women are less likely to need an abortion if they have access to programs such as WIC and food stamps. Mr. Moore, if you are pro-life, work dilligently to make sure that women are provided with the proper programs and support to make abortion unneccesary.

This article encourage us to "work to legally protect women and children." Fabulous! Let's work to provide quality health care to all women. Let's support Planned Parenthood. Let's make sure that abortions are rare, but when it is a woman's choice to receive an abortion, it is a safe one. And let's be honest here: if you are arguing against a woman's choice to quality health care, you are not trying to protect her but to control her.