Freedom's on the March alright... right across your face.
A whole slew of wonderful freedom loving news today. First this story, found on Suburban Guerrilla. Someone needs to right a book "What's wrong with FLORIDA,"
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/04/27/fla_agency_gets_teens_abortion_blocked/
A 13 year old girl, living in a state shelter, found out that she was pregnant two weeks ago. She planned to have an abortion.
"Her caseworker arranged for transportation and help. But the state Department of Children & Families asked a Palm Beach County juvenile judge Tuesday morning to block the procedure."
Here's the kicker...
"The state agency argued the 13 1/2-week pregnant girl -- described as L.G. in court documents -- is too young and immature to make an informed medical decision, according to the ACLU appeal."
So, she's too young to make a mature decision about having an abortion. But she'll be plenty mature and capable (living in a shelter, at the tender age of 13) of having and caring for a BABY right?
I can't even extrapolate on what this child is about to have to go through. And can I just say, score one for abstinence only sex education...
Next, from Truth Out, NO LITERATURE FOR YOU!
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/042705N.shtml
Alabama Rep. Geral Allen has drafted a bill that would prohibit public school libraries (and college, and public libraries) from buying new copies of plays or books by gay authors, or with gay characters. He says, "I don't look at it as censorship. I look at it as protecting the hearts and souls and minds of our children."
Yes, Mr. Allen. Because the state of the public school system is such that we really need to prohibit further learning, especially all that evil, evil reading that goes on in schools.
What does he want to ban?
Tenneesse Williams.
Truman Capote.
Gore Vidal.
Alice Walker's "The Color Purple," because it has lesbian characters.
"The Color Purple?" Is going to turn kids GAY? Wait, it gets better. Allen originally wanted to ban "some Shakespeare," but after criticism (ya think?), he narrowed the bill to exclude the classics (PS- he has no definition of what constitutes a `classic')
"Librarian Donna Schremser fears the `thought police' would be patrolling her shelves"
No shit, Donna.
"And so the idea that we would have a pristine collection that represents one political view, one religious view, that's not a library," says Schremser.
Way to go, Donna. That's what I'm thinking.
What is Allen's problem?
"It's not healthy for America, it doesn't fit what we stand for. And they will do whatever it takes to reach their goal."
My rage-o-meter just pinned at apoplectic.
Not healthy? Not what we stand for as Americans? "They?" Who they? YOU, Mr. Allen, are the "they" who will stop at nothing to reach your goal.
I thought we stood for free speech? For freedom of expression, freedom of education, freedom of religion and sexuality? I though we were the country that was bringing freedom to the rest of this oppressed world of ours?
Apparently Freedom is on the march, just not here in America where 13 year old girls living in shelters are FORCED to keep their unplanned pregnancies and where in Alabama you can't read anything that refers to, mentions, alludes to, or includes anything that might possibly be construed as perhaps considering alternative lifestyles as acceptable.
Last but not least, from Daily Kos, posted yesterday.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/27/14458/3396
Scientists are working on, and have had success in making an HPV vaccine. HPV infects at least "80% of women by the age of 50 (from the CDC)," and several strains are known to cause cervical cancer. Thus, a vaccine would be a good thing, right?
Not so fast, freedom loving American. In order for the vaccine to be effective it needs to be given to women, prior to becoming sexually active. Doctors suggest that girls around the age of 13 (as we now know, many are sexually active) be vaccinated.
Bridget Maher of the Family Research council says this can't be allowed to happen. "Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a license to engage in premarital sex."
What? Protecting young women from a potentially fatal, cancer causing virus may lead to them having sex, therefore it cannot be allowed.
Am I the only one who things we're living in a cartoon?? Seriously, what the hell is going on around here? Who's asleep at the wheel, and can we please plot a course BACK TO REALITY?
cross posted at
http://screamingme.blogspot.com/