Tag Archives: abortion

Why I Didn’t Participate in the Women’s March

This is a blog I wanted to write on Saturday. Unfortunately, I split my hand open (never use Wusthof while discussing the inauguration) and went to the ER instead.

For TLDR folks, you can skim down – to the purple part. 

So, I grew up in CA. To be specific, I grew up in many parts of California – from LA to the Central Coast to the Silicon Valley, and now I live in the East Bay.  I find it mildly amusing that given how in high school, I was the “conservative one” (comes from a typical Asian-religious family upbringing), so many of my current peers consider me as someone with more of a “liberal bend.”

I benefited from a rich, liberal education in Palo Alto. I loved it!   Well, middle school, of course, sucked (I moved in 7th grade and had to deal with kids who were dealing with their own personal demons… I guess I just was an easy target?)… but high school allowed me to branch out with different interests and I’m still super fond of my memories and friendships from there.  Honestly, where else would a poor pastor’s kid get to try rich kid sports in a fancy pool, blow glass, study film, and do labs of the same caliber as an intro college class?  Also, Paly let me have a diverse (read: not Asian-only) group of friends.

In college, God saved me.  I always knew of the hypocrisy of the church, and in my own blindness, I sought to melt into a large congregation so that I could “do my duty.”  Through people that He placed in my life and through the Bible, the clarity of what it means to be a Christian (trusting in Jesus Christ’s finished work when he died for my sins and resurrected — not in any of my own actions or my own thoughts of who He is) … finally became clear. And in His mercy, I came to learn the beauty of the word, submission.  Of course, I learned other things too — but that’s my favorite part about college.

In graduate school, I finally realized how “minority” I was.  I began to be able to put vocabulary to elementary playground experiences.  And, the Internet had evolved to the point where I saw firsthand black and brown men being killed for being loud rather than docile.

When I began working, I began to learn what people might mean by “school to prison pipelines.”  How segregation still occurred via zipcodes and high school “accelerated tracks.”  I answered questions that I didn’t even know were allowed when I was a kid… questions like, “Why don’t they mention Korea in Asian history?” or “Where is Asia-America within US history?” or even “Wait, am I black or white?” because growing up, during that weekend where we talked about Martin Luther King, there was no other.

That’s me.  What else is me?

I’m a teacher. In the last 5 years of my life, I’ve worked with groups that I think may have more of a need for me than groups who have access.

I’m a reader.  I love books and blogs and news.  Never grew up watching TV.  I love satire, I love wit, I love intelligent reasoning, I love pathos.  I graduated from college, so now I have time to read whatever I want.  (I think while I was in college, I only read books of choice between June and August… oh wait, except for when the final Harry Potter book came out and the Twilight series. Don’t discount this blog post because of this confession).

I support public radio.  Grew up with KQED programming on TV (if we were allowed).  NPR is my jam. I just discovered KPFA (more local-er news).

I am Korean-American who grew up in a rural town.  This means that as a kid, I knew what it meant to be a victim of childish racism. This means that I know what it felt like to receive only one version of history.  This means I thought I was white but was the unattractive, flat-nosed, “chingchangchong” oriental on the playground.

I am a Bible-believing Christian. I believe that the Bible has truths that transcend our current social lenses. I believe that as a created being, my God, the creator, knows more about who I am than I can on my own.  I can go into the logic behind this — but that would derail. I only include this because it’s a huge part of …

Why I did not participate in the Women’s March.

.

Why I did not participate in the Women’s March.

Minor Personal Reason 1: I don’t know what we’re protesting.  Protesting a man makes no sense to me.  Protesting the voting system also makes no sense to me.  Historically, marches and protests were in tandem with asking for something specific, and then also using the provisions in place (which I don’t deny people are doing – with the internet, it’s so easy!).  I did not vote for DT. Seeing him makes me cringe.  But who a person is isn’t his policy (although…. listening to the confirmation hearings… okay, won’t go there).  I think he’s just the first president we’ve had where we can actually see who he is.  I realized, MOST presidents have decorum.  Until now, it was almost a given that you had to have a good facade to be president.  This man is ridiculous.  But quoting Aziz Ansari, “Change doesn’t come from presidents.”  We

Minor Personal Reason 2: The Popular Vote vs. Electoral Vote issue.  Okay, I get that lots of people feel angry/annoyed that their vote “didn’t count,” and I also get how there are different views on why/how the electoral college was created.  I think what people in large cities are ignoring is the fact that if the popular vote was the only thing around, our country would be driven by policies favored by urban areas.  Major Cities-driven politics is one very likely cause of why people rallied to DT.  Sure, gerrymandering may have something to do with it — but how many of us have actually paid attention to working-class folks prior to 2015/16?  I know at least at HGSE, everyone’s all up in urban education – ain’t no one setting a foot into rural ed.  So yeah, I don’t agree with the “2 million strong” thing either.  It would suck if counties of SF, NYC, Denver, and LA were driving politics for the whole nation, no? Even if they had more people?  Groupthink is real.

Aside: Here are the older links regarding the county votes:

Major Political Reason: Women’s Rights Are Human Rights is misleading.  As a young, female teacher of Asian descent, I agree that women deserve the same rights as anybody else and that we get to make decisions about our bodies.

But, you know, given education? … you don’t get a free pass for irresponsibility especially if that free pass includes, you know, killing a person.  No thank you.

Why am I claiming that it’s irresponsibility (and dare I say, selfishness?)

A very teeny number of abortions are due to rape or incest or health of the mother. The last actual percent fact I could find on the Internet was from 1989, so I’m ignoring that… but I did go to the CDC site (to check how many are done by kids <19) and AGI (reasons for abortion) to confirm that anywhere from 75%-95% of abortions are due to personal choice, or “a woman’s right to choose.”   What was super interesting is how people aren’t asking about the rape/incest cases after the ’90s.  My conspiracy theory? It’s because we don’t want to know / acknowledge that the “must” situations don’t actually exist.

By the time we realize they exist, they’re a mini-human.  At this point, we know that an egg is an egg, and a sperm is a sperm.  When they come together, they actually make a little fetus. A fetus that, by 8 weeks has fully functioning organs.  They react to painful stimuli at 24-26 weeks (jury’s still out on whether they fully “understand” that it’s pain though). They’re genetic makeup is completely their own.  And, the earliest preemie ever to be born was at 22 weeks (rounded up).. you can abort a kid at 24!.

I teach kids. A lot of them are unwanted by society – I know this because of the reluctance to spend money on them, the reluctance to look at research to see what’s best for them, and you know, how a lot of them are being killed.

I don’t know where you would draw the line on “This is where I stop advocating for unwanted people without a voice.”  Is it when they graduate from your class?  Is it when they drop out?  Is it when they’re “only in kinder” (nevermind that their brains are probably way spongier than when I actually get them).  Do I not advocate for them because they can’t speak words?  Because they’re small?  Is it because they’re in the womb?  Is it because it’s 3 days before they have all their complete organs?  Is it when they’re only a “blob of cells” (nevermind that if you give it a few weeks, it changes?).

I mean, is it only if it will affect me and my life that we’ll advocate for them?  People are now advocating for Bumblebees.  A bumblebee is smaller than an 8-week old fetus and is less complex. Come on now!  (PS: Also, I think people are substantially more important than animals – God made them in His image. Yup! I believe that! Obvi, this doesn’t mean abuse the earth – y’all know this girl is green.)

Again, choice, to me, sounds like, “If you’re wanted, you live; if you’re unwanted or , you die.”  

I think it’s SO interesting to me to hear my friends argue in favor of IDEA and working SUPER hard to make sure that all of our students get their plans and have their needs met, when the hidden elephant in the room is that in 5-10 years, as technology increases and as we clamor for abortive rights  …. we probably won’t even have children with special needs because they’ll probably be aborted if found with an issue.  Just google that – it’s no secret. (we might also lose females and minorities – because given world-trends, they’re the main victims of infanticide anyway).

 I feel like our solutions are ultimately, not out of a care for people, but out of what holds most utility.  This is why we have a tendency to overdrug kids rather than offering support in the form of people and time.  This is why the way we care for our veterans is so horrible — all the “new” innovations to help people overcome PTSD by engaging with other people is not new. It’s just time consuming.  Back to abortion – I know, it’s easier to terminate a pregnancy rather than deal, as a society, with unwanted children or low-income families.  But imagine if we spent all our time and money on that rather than on killing.

Planned Parenthood? Please. This is a HUGE money-making industry.  Out of every 8 people they serve, 1 gets an abortion (in addition to their other services).  They count abortion (with its cost) as equal to giving someone a pregnancy test.  That 3% number is a myth… and this was where I got SUPER disappointed in the reporters I follow… how they are willing to get into the nitty-gritty of other facts, but not into this area. They know better – it will tank their careers because PP has a huge lobbying group.

Anyway, at the end of the day, we have science – we can see the craziest 3-D ultrasounds ever. Doctors have been prolonging life and saving life in times and places that our grandparents never even dreamed of.  So, this issue? Is mainly an issue of “my body mine” without concern about the risk you take.

How does your body make a baby? Sex.  There is a risk involved. There are also PLENTY of ways to mitigate that risk.  If it doesn’t work out – don’t just kill the baby because it’s smaller than you or an unwanted responsibility. 

Lastly, I don’t need to hear from people telling me to then put money into safe-sex programs because that is not the only other solution.  There are SO many things that affect this issue… and also, it’s again, really condescending, to assume that I’m not.

PS.  I did not know of any of the “exclusion” things that happened with the march until a few days later… I’m trying to sort of.. pause on my news intake until they calm things down over at the white house.  smh…. just saying this isn’t a response to that.

It’s my birthday, I can alienate folks if I want to…

This week’s hot topics (in no particular order): 

  1. Never-ending race-based police brutality (and denial of it)
  2. Call for extraditing the dentist that killed Cecil the lion
  3. Planned Parenthood funding
  4. Meek Mill v. Drake

I’m gonna talk about #3.

Amidst the histrionics on both sides, I’m having a hard time finding numbers.

Plus, their site is down right now (8/2/15)

Plus, their site is down right now (8/2/15)

This is my.. rudimentary start…
Planned Parenthood received $360 million in federal funding. That’s $360,000,000.

If only 1% of that went towards abortions, that means, it would be $3,600,000 … which is still $3.6 million. (Although I believe it’s 3% so.. let’s round to $10 million).

About 50% of federal revenues come from income tax. (nationalpriorities.org)

so $5 million of federal revenue goes towards abortions.

I know that seems really tiny. I know PP’s services are more than just abortions. I’m pretty sure no one’s going to shut them down.

But, my $0.02 is this.

I’m working at a school that focuses on our community. I don’t think we could do so much within our community if we were a huge federal organization (like TFA). I don’t know if “scale” is always the best when human well-being is in question. If we truly care about family planning, early pregnancies, relationship abuse.. I really do think it should be more localized. When organizations get huge, that’s when you get the callousness and depersonalization (which might be why we saw people sipping wine and discussing baby parts — let’s not decry the footage, the WHOLE thing is available online if you think it’s doctored). So, if PP were defunded, I wouldn’t mind. I’d keep working where I’m working, go down the pipeline, and figure out how best to PREVENT these things in the first place and how best to SUPPORT with long-term well-being in mind.

This year, an estimated 640,000 babies were aborted (less than 1% due to rape). Eeks. Since PP began, almost 7 million (7,000,000) babies have been aborted. (http://www.numberofabortions.com)

Sure, to some a fetus is a “cluster of cells”, but let’s be real. Anybody who took high school biology knows we’re ALL a cluster of cells. Cell > Tissue > Organ > Systems > Body #amirite? haha.

So again, it comes to the question of personhood and when that begins. The line is getting grayer and grayer as people are now able to abort late-term pregnancies.

I get that we all have a right to our own body… but I’d like to quote a friend here (who’s currently pregnant):

I have a right to my own body. I DO NOT understand why I have a right to HERS. I support and am thankful for a woman’s rights to health, safety, and happiness. It kills me that those rights are not extended to the little one inside of me, and that I, her mother, am granted the right to take that away.

For me, the main mind-boggling part is it really just SEEMS like it has to do with *want*. If the baby is *wanted* the baby is a boy/girl. If the baby isn’t wanted, it is a fetus/parasite. That just seems so contradictory and unfair… that someone’s future could be determined by whether or not he/she is wanted. Especially since data  shows that there are many reasons for abortions – but only about 1/8 have to do with health risks.

Couple that with data that seems to show that abortion locales are predominately located in low-income, minority neighborhoods, and that females are more likely to aborted than males……. To me, this is where human rights truly come in and where I think I could give a voice to the voiceless.

This is why – even though I know many of my friends/contacts on social media would disagree with me – I’ll still pipe up when I can. At the end of the day, I can’t just go with what others tell me and what the Bay Area would deem popular (I used to support PP too). There is too much at stake for that.

“Silence in the face of evil is itself evil. God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.” – Deitrich Bonhoeffer

PS. Things that bug me

  • Reading invectives hurled at people who want their federal tax dollars to not go towards abortion.  Or just the fact that right now, people are using clever and humorous ad hominem, slippery slope, and strawman arguments…
  • Planned Parenthood’s power and political clout
  • This article reflects a majority of my views but speaks with so much vitriol, I wasn’t able to share it on Facebook for fear that people would focus on the bones and miss the meat  (aka throw the baby out with the bath water).

Black History Month is over

But Thurgood Marshall is timeless, and I recently came across this piece of his that I read a few years ago.  The lines still resonate.  Man, when I was little, I didn’t want to be the first female president, I just wanted to be on the Supreme Court.  I felt (and still feel) that they were actually the ones who shape the important decisions of our nation.

“The Sword and The Robe”
By Thurgood Marshall

The task of interpretation is the cornerstone of the judicial process.
 As we undertake it, we must strive for neutrality. None of us is perfect, and I recognize that neutrality is more ideal than real. Each of us brings along to the judicial role certain preconceived biases. It is, I suppose, impossible to make a decision totally uninfluenced by them. But we as judges must try to do so to the extent we possibly can.This ideal of neutrality is particularly hard to maintain in times such as these, when our society faces major unsolved problems. Indeed, we judges are frequently criticized these days for our neutrality. For example, it is argued by some members of our society that the judiciary has not taken an active enough role in combating crime. It is urged that we as judges, should take sides, that we should stand shoulder to shoulder with the police and prosecutors. Convictions should be easier, appellate review more rapid and resort to habeas corpus – what the founders of this republic called the Great Writ – drastically curtailed. All of this frightens me, because when I was in law school, I was taught not that judges were there to see the defendant convicted and punished in every case but that they were there to see justice done in every case. Of course the state had to carry a heavy burden to obtain a conviction. Of course appellate judges would weigh each case carefully. Of course an individual, once convicted, could attack his sentence later. This, so I was taught, was not to coddle the guilty but to protect the innocent. I was raised in the days when the prevailing maxim was: “It is better that a thousand guilty people go free than that one innocent person suffer unjustly.Well, that’s just what I was taught, and maybe I was taught wrong. But the suggestion that we as judges take sides frightens me for another, more fundamental reason as well. As I have said, judges are required in our system to be as neutral as they possibly can, to stand above the political questions in which the other branches of government are necessarily entangled. The Constitution established a legislative branch to make the laws and an executive branch to enforce them. Both branches are elected and are designed to respond to everchanging public concern, and problems. Indeed, as we were reminded just last November, the failure of either branch to respond to the will of the majority can quickly be remedied at the polls.

Bar the framers of the Constitution recognized that responsiveness to the will of the majority may, if unchecked, become a tyranny of the majority. They therefore created a third branch – the judiciary – to check the actions of the legislature and the executive. In order to fulfill this function, the judiciary was intentionally isolated from the political process and purposely spared the task of dealing with changing public concerns and problems. Article III judges are guaranteed life tenure. Similarly, their compensation cannot be decreased during their term in office – a provision, as we have recently seen, that certainly has its tangible benefits, Finally, the constitutional task we are assigned as judges is a very narrow one. We cannot make the laws, and it is not our duty to see that they are enforced. We merely interpret them through the painstaking process of adjudicating actual “cases or controversies” that come before us.

We have seen what happens when the courts have permitted themselves to be moved by prevailing political pressures and have deferred to the mob rather than interpret the Constitution. Dred Scott, Plessy, Korematsu, and the trial proceedings in Moore v. Dempsey, come readily to mind as unfortunate examples. They are decisions of which the entire judicial community, even after all these years, should be ashamed. There have also been times when the courts have stood proudly as a bulwark against what was politically expedient but also unconstitutional. One need only recall the school desegregation cases to understand why this ability to stand above the fray is so important.

Our central function is to act as neutral arbiters of disputes that arise under the law. 
To this end, we bind ourselves through our own code of ethics to avoid even the appearance of impropriety or partiality. We must handle the cases that come before us without regard for what result might meet with public approval. We must decide each case in accordance with the law. We must not reach for a result that we, in our arrogance, believe will further some goal not related to the concrete case before us. And we must treat the litigants in every case in an evenhanded manner. It would be as wrong to favor the prosecution in every criminal case as it would be to favor the plaintiff in every tort suit.

We must never forget that the only real source of power that we as judges can tap is the respect of the people. We will command that respect only as long as we strive for neutrality. If we are perceived as campaigning for particular policies, as joining with other branches of government in resolving questions not committed to us by the Constitution, we may gain some public acclaim in the short run. In the long run, however, we will cease to be perceived as neutral arbiters, and we will lose that public respect so vital to our function.

I do not suggest that we as judges should not be concerned about the problem of crime. Every thinking American is worried about it. And just about all of us have lurking somewhere in the back of our minds what we consider the ideal solution.

But when we accepted the judicial mantle, we yielded our right to advocate publicly our favored solutions for society’s problems.
The tools for solving these problems are in the hands of the other branches of government because that is where the Constitution has placed them. That is also where we should leave them. I therefore urge that you politely disregard any suggestion that you give up the robe for the sword.

Personal semi-related plug:  Just like they overturned Plessy v. Ferguson, we can overturn Roe v. Wade.  Stop the gendercide.  Stop the racism.  Search both sides for yourself (instead of swallowing skewed “facts“).  Take responsibility.  And realize that it’s not simply speaking out for life but also promoting preventive actions and safe, safe, respectful, and SAFE spaces.  
Thurgood Marshall, you may have been pro Roe (unfortunately, in a case with fabricated premises), but that doesn’t disqualify your powerful words.  If anything, it shows how no matter how hard we try to be neutral, human beings are easily swayed.  A reminder to be all the more vigilant in our thoughts and convictions.