The Soccer Mom Vote

Rocking the vote

I've previously alluded to my late awakening with respect to politics.  In high school and college I would listen to the news, but not place any real significance on stories related to domestic or foreign affairs -- unless it was a story that impacted me directly.  It wasn't until I started living on my own that I began to develop a real world view.  That was about the time that Rock the Vote (RtV) was beginning to gain momentum.

Does anyone else remember RtV ads on MTV in the early 1990s?  I recall Madonna, Woody Harrelson, and members of the Red Hot Chili Peppers (among others) encouraging me to get out and exercise my right to vote.  RtV at that time was groundbreaking in its focus on how to get the largely untapped youth demographic (ages 18-25) passionate about politics and interested in voting.

While browsing the news a couple of weeks ago, I was surprised to learn that RtV is still around, over a decade after it was first founded.  Unfortunately, RtV's road has been a rocky one over the past several years: the organization has fielded criticism stemming from financial and leadership issues, claims of ineffectiveness, and charges of reported bias toward a liberal agenda.

Even though RtV is still alive and kicking, I can't count it to be the thing that will get *my* kids interested in political and social activism -- and not just because of RtV's problems described above.  The idea of using influential celebrities to encourage political activism is a solid one, but I believe an interest in political and social issues must be established before the age at which kids recognize (and strive to emulate) famous actors and singers.

So, with or without RtV, how can I make sure my kids are engaged in political and social issues?  How do I provide them with the motivation to get engaged when they are young, so they don't become a political late-bloomer like their mom?

With ideas gleaned from the resources linked below (and help from my husband J and friend Nicole Soccermom), I've come up with a basic list of strategies to use with my girls, who are now 5 and 2.  This will be my game plan in raising two politically and socially aware citizens:

Start small and grow up.  We don't have to introduce politics to our children by making them recite the Preamble to the Constitution when they are learning to talk (though Schoolhouse Rock is great for that!)  We can teach them gradually, and build later lessons on the early concepts.  For example, many simple behaviors can eventually morph into an opportunity to teach social and political concepts: teach your small child not to litter; as your child grows, encourage him to pick up litter that he comes across in his daily walk to school; perhaps as a teen your child would then be motivated to organize a litter clean-up activity within his school. 

Give kids a community view.  A sense of community is a critical foundation of many social institutions, including schools, churches, non-profits, (and even soccer fields!)  We are connected to our neighbors in both a local sense and a global one, but if kids don't learn early how their behaviors can impact others (positively and negatively), they are unlikely to evolve from a "what's in it for me" kind of attitude.  We, as parents, must explain the significance of our kids' roles as part of larger communities -- within the family, town, region, state, and/or nation.  When kids can see beyond a narrowly defined world view, they are less likely to be complacent about social and political issues.

Keep them informed.  It's nearly impossible for any of us to be involved in political and social issues if we don't keep up with what's going on in the world.  For this reason, it's important to ensure that our kids understand what's happening in the world around them -- with the content they are exposed to at age-appropriate levels, of course.  Since my oldest daughter is just learning to read, she's not at the point yet where she can follow her own news stories (and I prefer not to expose her to TV-based news) -- but soon I will be searching for a kid-friendly source of news to serve as a basis for family discussions. 

Set an example.  Our kids are more likely to be passionate about political and social issues if we demonstrate that we are, too.  On Election Day, take them to the polls when you vote, and explain who you are voting for.  Write letters to your Congressional and State representatives, when appropriate, to express your views on issues impacting your community.  Participate in community meetings and hearings, and bring your kids to listen to the discussion.  Volunteer for causes that you are passionate about.

Supplement classroom learning.  Sure, our kids get a lot of their civics lessons in the schools, but it helps them to absorb their lessons better if they are supplemented with family-based activities.  Traveling with your kids to visit historical and political places of interest is a fun way to combine learning and pleasure.  We are fortunate to be within an hour's drive of Washington, DC, with its wealth of federal government offices -- I look forward to bringing my girls to the White House, Congress, the American History Museum, and other sites as they grow.

Encourage critical thinking.  Foster an environment of open discussion when discussing political and social issues -- this encourages kids to think broadly about issues when forming their opinions, rather than adopting a narrowly focused mindset.  Don't be afraid to share your own views, but play devil's advocate sometimes so that your kids can understand the complexity of these issues.  Be careful to emphasize differences between personal opinion and fact, and teach your child to back up their position with factual statements rather than emotional ones.  This will teach your kid to hold her own in a political discussion or debate (and prepare her for the analysis she'll need to deploy in her history class essays!) 

Feel free to provide feedback and/or add your own ideas in the comments!  And don't forget to rock the vote with your kids -- whatever your approach.

--
Resources for additional information:

Ben's Guide to U.S. Government for Kids: The host for this site is a cartoon Ben Franklin, who provides lessons on U.S. government for different grade ranges.  With a daughter entering kindergarten next year, I browsed the K-2 material and found it informative, objective, and age-appropriate.

Elephant, Donkeys, and Pundits, Oh My! Talking to Kids About Politics: This article from AboutOurKids.org features recommendations for talking to children about politics, organized by age group.  It's brief, but full of helpful advice.

The Democracy Project: This PBS Kids website describes, in simple terms, the role of government in our lives.  It also includes a mini lesson about the importance of voting.

What Kids Can Do: A teen-focused site which emphasizes civic engagement, philanthropy, and community activism. 

When Did It Become Socially Acceptable to Hate Children?

By now, you've all seen the headlines.  Toddler's Temper Ousts Family From Plane in which a family was ousted from their Air Tran flight when their toddler threw a temper tantrum.  My first instinct was pure fury because this could have so easily been our family at Thanksgiving.  I blogged quite extensively on my own blog about how poorly my son behaved on our flights this past November.  He, too, threw many tantrums, especially when it came time to be buckled in.  My fury grew as I read a local columnist (who has children of her own, not that you'd know it from her attitude) praise the airline with the column "You love your kids, We don't.  They annoy us."  She went on to say Air Tran was her new favorite airline and how she wished managers of restaurants, movie theaters and churches would follow suit.  She said "airline travel is bad enough with long lines, cramped cabins...without the bonus of shrieking toddlers."   She had several supporters write in, advocating banning children from air travel all together - even lumping them in with smokers. 

You know, she was right about one thing.  Airline travel IS bad.  Unless you are lucky enough to have the money for first class, the seats are cramped, the food (if there is any) is bad, the bathrooms are tiny and they stink.  Our fellow passengers can be rude (reclining seats should be banned outright) and everyone seems to be tired and cranky.  If we are so unhappy, imagine how it must all seem to a toddler, a virtual stream of motion, now asked to sit still in a tiny area and be still and not make a noise.  I imagine I would throw a tantrum too.  And in this particular case, as an astute reader on my own blog pointed out, we were not there so we do not know exactly what happened.  If these parents did not buckle their child in, tantrum or not, then yes, the airline did have a responsibility to the other passengers to get in the air by asking them to leave.  In our case, we put Tigger in his seat and buckled him in, like it or not.  Because we are his parents and he will do as he is told.  Granted, this means he screamed and cried and had a fit, because, hey, HE IS FOUR.  And four year olds (and three year olds, etc.) don't exactly control their emotions very well when they are tired and out of sorts, as they tend to be while traveling.  Asking them to behave like miniature adults is asinine.   Saying that my husband and I are not "controlling our children" when they scream and cry and yell or behave in any way that does not involve standing perfectly still and silent, is moronic.  Making us feel like bad parents when they are at their wits end and lack the sophistication of an older child to hid it, is absurd.

Granted, as they get older, our expectations for proper behavior will grow along with them.  In the meantime, we will do the best we can.  We will continue to travel (though not on Air Tran or Delta), go to restaurants (granted, we only go to family friendly ones and we don't hesitate to leave immediately if they act up too badly), go to church (but leave them in the nursery until they have the maturity to sit in a service), go about our daily lives.  There is no other way for them to learn the proper way to behave without exposing them to these situations.  Staying at home with them 24/7 is not an option.  And we shouldn't be made to feel that we are imposing on our fellow citizens simply by bringing our children into contact with them.  The sad thing is, children have always acted this way (even the adults who are so quick to criticize now).  It's just recently that it's become acceptable to be hateful in our reaction to them.

Wal-Mart and Infant Nutrition

I recently received an email about Wal-Marts “All Things for Baby” series, asking me to “make time for baby” by coming to a “Nutrition & Feeding Educational Seminar” sponsored by Similac. All those quotes? Yeah, that’s me feeling a wee bit sarcastic. See, like so many of my contemporaries I’m already leery of Wal-Mart. But when they start offering seminars about nutrition and get a formula company to foot the bill, that leery level ramps up to something more like downright distrust.  Is there any chance that breastfeeding will be the main focus of this discussion? Methinks it will get a mention but is not likely to be the star of the show.

Now I know that formula vs. breastfeeding is one of the many issue over which mothers butt heads. I understand all the arguments people make about why they “couldn’t” breastfeed. But the truth is very simple: formula is not almost as good as breastmilk; it’s not even close. From Dr. Linda Folden Palmer’s Baby Reference site:

A recent study published in the journal Pediatrics, (May 2004), titled "Breastfeeding and the Risk of Postneonatal Death in the United States," reports a 21% reduction in infant death for having EVER breastfed.

An update to the article (available here) points out that the study focused on industrialized nations.  She goes on to say:

A more-recent large-scale study taking place in poor areas of Ghana, India, and Peru found a shocking 10.5 times the number of deaths for those not breastfed versus those exclusively breastfed. Partially breastfed infants had 2.5 times the risk of death as those exclusively breastfed. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 2005

OK, so all feelings aside, I think it is fairly safe to say that formula is in no way a proper substitution for infant feeding in cases where mom can offer breastmilk. And that statement is based on this one study.  By far, it's not the only one out there.  IF mothers knew this, would those who say they “just want their body back” after pregnancy make the choice to formula feed? Would women who have latch issues in the beginning simply give up, or would they visit a lactation consultant for help? And most importantly, would mother’s chuck breastfeeding altogether when they feel as though they can’t make enough milk to sustain their infant or would they see the value in giving any bit that they can?  And why is it considered taboo or pushing an agenda to educate women about breastfeeding rather than handing out free samples of an inferior product?  Quite frankly, my "agenda" won't cost you a thing, so what do I have to gain by "pushing it"?

Ultimately, I’m terribly interested in what this “Nutrition & Feeding Educational Seminar” on February 3^rd will really be all about.  I’m planning to attend and hoping that Wal-Mart will be big ol’ lactivist, showing the divine benefits of breastmilk and handing out contact cards to La Leche League and local lactation consultants.  Based on their claim that you can “Get Samples and More at Participating Stores!” I’m thinking it’s basically a formula marketing scheme. With that in mind, maybe calling up the company and requesting that we set up a breastfeeding information table might not be a bad idea. Anyone out there have other ideas? Anyone out there want to learn more? Check out some of my favorite links on the subject:

Dr. Palmer's site

Baby Milk Action

La Leche League

Natural Family Online (in particular, check out their article about when it has to be formula)

Men Should Not Wear Spandex

The last posts here on the Soccer Mom Vote were excellent ones, were they not? Julie has me pushing the envelope to feel the love and Steph has me all fired up at the prospect of a new and hopeful audacity infiltrating the White House. Hey, it could happen.

Julie asks us to “Make an effort to be kind to others - smile and say hello, chat with the grocery store cashier, allow another driver to merge, summon up your reserves of patience even when you think you might blow your top.”

I’m answering Steph’s optimism and Julie’s call for kindness with a proposal of my own. What better way to prepare yourself and your community for a political revolution of hope than by first abandoning your own tendency to stereotype? What, you don’t stereotype? Oh, ok. Maybe it’s just me.

I’m not suggesting you’re a bigot. Or a racist. Or a misogynist or a redneck or a hippie or anything of the sort. I know you’re intelligent. You’re open-minded. I really like you, after all. I’m talking about the low-level assumptions we tend to make. The assumptions we make without thinking. I know you don’t necessarily pass judgment. You’re above blatant typecasting. But what passes through your mind that might keep you from assigning a stranger that blank slate that would make it easier to smile and say hello?

I have always been a firm believer in the idea that, apart from Olympic-level cyclists and professional ballet dancers, men should not wear spandex. For aesthetic reasons, if nothing else. I see men in spandex occasionally and I confess to forming an opinion about them. But why? Who am I to form an opinion about someone I know nothing about, based on how they’re dressed, of all things? I know nothing about these men, aside from possibly their strap size.

It’s a lot less difficult to lend a smile to a stranger when you’ve assigned that stranger a blank slate. Let’s say you see a wealthy looking older man with a lovely young thing on his arm. Maybe he’s a little frumpy and drives a Mercedes and she’s half his age and very well coiffed. Do you give him, or her for that matter, a blank slate, or do you make assumptions?

When you see an eighteen year-old frat-boy type driving a Hummer, do you give him a blank slate? (I admit to especially hating the Hummer and I have to consciously fight the urge to cast the dude as the personification of all things anti-environmental.)

When you see a woman carrying a yoga mat with hair under her arms, do you assume she’s a raging liberal? When you see a man in a suit walking into a “News Stand,” do you make any assumptions about him politically? What assumptions do you make about the panhandlers downtown? About a woman who appears to be a hooker? About the people picketing in front of an abortion clinic or any young women trying to get in?

Maybe you don’t make assumptions, but maybe you do. And maybe your assumption would be right. But there’s an off-chance you’d be wrong. I met a woman recently who is a transsexual. I assumed she’d be at a minimum politically liberal, if not an avid Bush critic, but I was way off. She has two thriving kids and considers herself the ultimate soccer mom (and she very well may be). She's an ex-military right-wing conservative who doesn't necessarily support gay rights. Holy moly. I never would have guessed. The point is, you just don’t know. People are complex. Maybe the dude in the Hummer borrowed it and is running late to meet Al Gore at a book signing. Ok, probably not. I'm not suggesting you abandon all common sense. But you never know.

I’m not saying I don’t have the right to dislike the look of a man in spandex. I stand firm on this point. I find it unattractive and I’m not budging. But who knows what he’s like or who he votes for? I certainly don’t.

Show each other some love

“I don’t feel like I did something spectacular; I just saw someone who needed help,” Mr. Autrey said. “I did what I felt was right.”

- Wesley Autrey, quoted in The New York Times

The President had a lot to say in his State of the Union address last night.  And Senator Webb had a lot to say in the Democratic response.  There's much that deserves to be analyzed and commented upon, but what really made an impression on me was Mr. Autrey - the man who saved another man's life earlier this month in New York.

"Show each other some love," he said, according to President Bush.

Some love, indeed.

That doesn't necessarily mean leaping off a subway platform to flatten yourself against the floor of the tracks while a train roars to a stop above you.  You don't have to risk your life or empty your savings account.  But where you can give a little extra - time, money, consideration - why not do so?

Frankly, I think consideration would be the easiest and most effective means of showing love.  Make an effort to be kind to others - smile and say hello, chat with the grocery store cashier, allow another driver to merge, summon up your reserves of patience even when you think you might blow your top.

When I was assigned to the Pentagon, most people there walked around with sour expressions.  I understand - it's a tough place to work.  But I sailed through the halls, beaming and greeting every person who met my eye - "Good morning, sir!", "Good afternoon, ma'am!", "How are you, Sergeant?"  By the time my four-year tour was over, even the UPS delivery people recognized me and said hello back.

Love is such an easy thing to give, and it makes all of us feel so good.  There's plenty of time to argue about the viability of the new health care initiative and to debate the pros and cons of sending more troops to Iraq.  Let's temper the serious discussion with a little love now and then.

Invite Al into your living room

For FREE!

If you are like me, and haven't yet watched An Inconvenient Truth, but want to, click here to sign up for a free copy.

The Audacity of Honesty?

I am one chapter into a book for which I've been on hold at the library to read for many months now. It is a book about someone who has managed to raise my curiosity a great deal. Barak Obama is the rising star of the Democratic party. Not since JFK has a young and fairly inexperienced politician raised this much enthusiasm and national attention. And, while I tend to vote more conservatively, I will admit that this man has my interest both for the potential of his political power and for what he might be able to do with it.

An October 2005 article the British journal New Statesman listed Obama as one of "10 people who could change the world." And, I certainly believe this. The man somehow seems to bridge the huge valleys that have been dug between the two political parties, not to mention he has the ability to transcend race by appealing to both black and white America.

In researching Obama for this post, I learned a great many things. His father was from Kenya and his mother from Kansas. He was the first black President of the Harvard Law Review. He worked the streets of New York and Chicago early on in his career as a civil rights lawyer. His first attempt to run for office was a miserable failure. In the book I am reading, "The Audacity of Hope," Obama discusses his insecurities and low feelings at losing his first run in politics. His words are what get me even just pages into the book--honest, direct, unafraid to admit his misgivings or flaws--just plain REAL.

His honesty could be his political downfall, although I hope that it is not.  He has admitted to experimenting with drugs in college during a period of personal searching. Never before in my recollection, has a potential presidential candidate been so open with his past mistakes. He is not afraid to say he "inhaled" and some would say with that he takes a big risk.

Although, I don't know about you, but to me this is damn refreshing. I feel that both the Bush and the Clinton administrations were darkened greatly by scandals and secrets. From Travelgate and Monica Lewinsky, to the many questions raised about Halliburton and Bush's real reasons for entering Iraq, I feel like the American public is sick of the smoke and mirrors among our politicians. I know that I am. Obama makes no apologies for his past indiscretions, but rather talks about them as if they were just a piece of a puzzle to who he is as a man. And, that's something to which most people can understand and relate. We all make mistakes. We are all searching for ourselves, and we hope that our mistakes can be the things that change us into the person God put us on the Earth to be, rather than things that continue to shadow over us the rest of our lives.

Quite frankly, I'd rather have someone running my country who can admit to mistakes but also show how he's learned from them. While national security must be protected, can we hope for a new era in politics of honesty coming from the Oval Office? Do we really have the audacity to believe it can happen in our lifetime?

Obama's name on the Democratic ticket could actually be even more significant than Hillary Clinton's, because he might draw out a segment of the population who doesn't normally get politically involved and vote. Perhaps he can invigorate Americans out of their political apathy and get them involved and learning about what is going on in the government again.

But, I have concerns too. Obama could hold back to let Clinton run, missing his window of opportunity. Should they both try to get on the ticket, he could split the vote among, thereby leaving the Democratic nomination on shaky and unpredictable ground.(Does anyone else have flashbacks to H. Ross Perot here?)

As a typically more conservative voter, all of these things should appeal to me, of course. A Democratic party split can only help the Republicans in their quest to remain at the top spot in the White House. A Clinton win for the race could anger a lot of Obama backers, thereby weakening the party's voting power. An Obama win could do the same for female Democratic voters. But, something else really strange and unexpected could happen. Obama could begin to win over those millions of people who fall in the middle and just want to see something good and positive happen for our country. What if party lines began to disappear at the voting polls? Stranger things have happened, don't you think?

I am only one chapter into Barak Obama's second book, and yet I already know that I will be getting on the library's list for his first book, "Dreams from My Father." While, I still do not know that I will vote for Obama should he run nor do I know where he stands on a great many issues as of yet, I feel like I'm looking at a man who can and will make changes in our country whether I agree with him or not. And, from what I have learned of him so far, he seems to reflect the thinking more of my own generation rather than that of my parents. And, all party lines aside, that interests me greatly.

Time magazine featured Obama last year and described him quite aptly as "the political equivalent of a rainbow--a sudden preternatural event inspiring awe and ecstasy." The world will learn February 10^th if he has chosen to run for President, or if he will sit back and let Hillary Clinton make a go of it this time around. And, as I continue my personal quest to become a more knowledgeable voter this year and learn more about this man, I for one am hoping for our country that his rainbow has a pot of gold at the end of it.

It's Time to Rise Up, Ladies!

First of all, let me say - "You go, girls!"

I have been energized by the topics and discussions I've been introduced to here at The Soccer Mom Vote.  In fact, when I first joined up I thought I knew what I wanted to write about for my first post, but after reading some of your writing I've been inspired with several other ideas (one of which I am writing about today) including thoughts about racism, gender issues, religion and spirituality and how I will raise my own children in regard to both.  Most of all, I feel empowered in knowing that there are so many other women, mothers in particular, like me out there who are not only thinking about the tough issues, but who are willing to act on what they believe in.  Which brings me (finally) to today's topic.

Back in May I read this article in one of my favorite publications, The Nation, and it inspired me.  I had just started to take a real interest in politics, and had even signed a few of those email petitions about raising the federal minimum wage and saving the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but reading an adaptation of "The Motherhood Manifesto," got me all fired up.

Authors Joan Blades and Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner used The Nation article to highlight a few of the biggest problems facing mothers today (quite appropriate for the Mother's Day issue, don't you think?) by sharing the stories of several mothers in different economic and familial situations, and while I identified with a few, I was outraged by others. 

The duo pointed out that almost three-quarters of mothers are currently working outside the home and that the wage gap between mothers and non-mothers is wider than the wage gap between non-mothers and men.  As pointed out in a previous post by Claire, the United States is one of only three countries in the world without paid family leave and according to research cited by Blades and Rowe-Finkbeiner, "25 percent of 'poverty spells,' or times when a family's income slips below what is needed for basic living expenses, begin with the birth of a baby," due in part, for sure, because of the poorly designed and insufficient Family and Medical Leave Act.  The article also highlighted a study by Cornell's Shelley Corell showing that, "Mothers are 44 percent less likely to be hired than nonmothers who have the same résumé, experience and qualifications; and mothers are offered significantly lower starting pay."  Single mothers fare even worse because employers don't like having to pick up the tab of medical benefits for the entire family (something usually taken care of by the husband.)

I could go on and on, as Blades and Rowe-Finkbeiner do in their book and on their website MomsRising.org.  Instead of just writing a book filled with research and a long laundry list of complaints, The two have created a movement with the following mission - to work for family-friendly policies that truly support and benefit not only mothers and fathers, but employers who will see less employee turnover, happier, healthier employees who are willing to go the extra mile in their jobs because their companies go the extra mile for them.

The "Manifesto" as it is referred to goes like this: M = Maternity/Paternity Leave; O = Open, Flexible Work (Flex-Time); T =TV We Choose & Other After-School Programs; H = Healthcare for All Kids; E = Excellent Childcare (Quality and Affordable); R = Realistic and Fair Wages

Not a bad start, huh?  And what's unique about this group is the "action" part of it.  These ladies don't just talk a good game, they move to change the status quo.  Currently, MomsRising.org is working on pushing legislation in Pennsylvania that prevents employers from discriminating against mothers in hiring practices.  Did you know that it is legal for an employer to ask you whether you are married, whether you have children and how many children you have? That an employer can legally choose NOT to hire you because of your answers to those questions?  Sounds crazy, doesn't it?  But it happens everyday.  Moms Rising is working for real life solutions to many issues like these, but they can't do it without our help.

You see, 46% of the American workforce is female and approximately 85% of those women are or will become mothers while they are working.  So it would seem that we in fact have a tremendous amount of power - if we choose to use it. 

I mean, if all the mothers working in corporate America decided to go on strike tomorrow, who would do all of their work?  They need us, ladies, and I think it's time for mothers and fathers to make some demands.

If companies find it beneficial to offer quality healthcare as a benefit to their employees, why not quality childcare and flex-time?  If they want to keep attracting the best candidates, they have to up the anty in incentives. And while we're at it, let's make fair wages and paid family leave the new law of the land.

The helicopter

One of the reasons I’m ignorant about topics like stem cell research is that it takes time, patience and sometimes loads of research to fully understand them. And, as a work-from-home mother to a busy toddler, it’s much easier to glean my information from the 20-second sound bite on the evening news than it is to dig deep into the issues. What I’ve learned about stem cell research and the controversy surrounding it is that it’s not a cut and dry issue that’s likely to be solved in the near future. Too much is at stake on both sides of the argument.

Because the topic of stem cell research is an extremely broad one, I’ve only scratched the surface in my studies thus far. But I want to share with you what I’ve learned and how I feel, personally, about it.

The basics

According to Wikipedia:

“Stem cells are primal cells common to all multi-cellular organisms that retain the ability to renew themselves through cell division and can differentiate into a wide range of specialized cell type…As stem cells can be readily grown and transformed into specialized tissues such as muscles or nerves through cell culture, their use in medical therapies has been proposed.”

Stem cell researchers hope their work will provide treatments and even cures for diseases and damage including spinal cord injuries, diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, birth defects and strokes.

Of particular interest to scientists in this field are embryonic stem cells because they can differentiate into almost any cell type, unlike adult stem cells which aren’t as adaptable and can only grow into a few cell types. Amniotic stem cells were recently found to have potential in the research arena but also aren’t thought to offer the full scope of cell types provided by embryonic stem cells.

The debate

AGAINST: Opponents to federally-funded stem cell research argue with the methods currently necessary to obtain embryonic stem cells: harvesting them from recently donated or discarded and about-to-be destroyed embryos. Retrieving stem cells from the embryos terminates them. Religious and conservative groups believe that every embryo is a human being who deserves a chance at life. In addition these groups oppose the use of embryos, even those already slated for destruction, because they believe the resulting research and potential monetary gain would come at the expense of human life.

FOR: Those championing stem cell research believe that with federal dollars behind it, research would make great leaps quickly, producing cures and treatments at a rate that would be impossible without it. According to Time Magazine’s article on the topic back in 2001, “Right now most scientists steer clear of stem-cell research because they have to: if any part of their lab receives federal money (and most do), they can't touch this research. If that changes, hundreds of labs across the country, including medical powerhouses like those at Harvard and M.I.T., would probably begin work on stem cells. Scientists would be able to share findings freely and review one another's conclusions. The government could choose to regulate how embryos are cultivated, handled and ultimately destroyed. Treatments would probably come sooner.”

Research without federal backing can, and is, being done but at a much slower and substantially less efficient pace.

Which side am I on?

Since becoming a parent two years ago I find myself identifying more with the right-to-life cause than I ever have before. In the past I was always a staunch pro-choice advocate (and I still believe that it’s a choice every woman needs to make for herself and legally should be able to make for herself). But for me, motherhood has only enhanced my belief that life is sacred. As I examine the question, “When does life begin?” I’m hard-pressed not to answer, “At conception.” And while this post is not specifically about abortion rights, many believe that stem cell research is as much a pro-life/pro-choice debate as abortion is. Although my personal views on abortion have shifted, I tend to agree with the Stem Cell Research Foundation (SCRF) on whether or not it’s ethical to use embryonic stem cells for research purposes: “The SCRF supports obtaining human stem cells from discarded embryos, or from fetal tissue, and notes that it in no way alters their final disposition. Thus, stem cells destined for destruction can instead be saved to develop future medical benefits, provided that the donors of discarded embryos or fetal tissue are fully informed and give consent.”

But what about the recent research about the use of amniotic stem cells? Wouldn’t it be more ethically correct to retrieve cells from the amniotic fluid of a pregnant woman? As I began researching this post a little over a week ago, breaking news discussed the possibilities surrounding the use of amniotic stem cells. Conservatives touted this research breakthrough as an ethically viable alternative to using embryonic stem cells. But while this news is interesting, it’s important to note that only embryonic stem cells are known to be able to recreate the 220 cell types necessary in the human body. In her recent article titled, “The Stem Cell Merry-Go-Round,” Susan Estrich points out that Anthony Atala, the author of the amniotic stem cell study, followed the release of his study with a statement saying, “Some may be interpreting my research as a substitute for the need to pursue other forms of regenerative medicine therapies, such as those involving embryonic stem cells. I disagree with that assertion.” He also stated that it is, “essential that National Institutes of Health-funded researchers are able to fully pursue embryonic stem cell research as a complement to research into other forms of stem cells.”

Embryonic stem cell research's potential is far too great to ignore. It seems to me that the best way to honor life is to improve upon it. And using embryonic stem cells that will eventually be destroyed anyway seems to be not only practical but--dare I say it--a gift. Not using these stem cells reminds me of the story of the man who died in a flood. A helicopter came to rescue him but he waved it away, so convinced was he that God would save him. When he got to heaven, he demanded to know why God didn’t come to help him. St. Peter replied, “We sent you a helicopter! What more could you want?”

Making a decision about using embryonic stem cells for research and whether or not the government should fund it is a gut-wrenching, difficult job. But for me, the greater good outweighs the evils. Maybe embryonic stem cells are the helicopter God wants us to take.

Additional resources:

Washington Post Timeline of Stem Cell Debate – July 18, 2006
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/18/AR2006071800722.html

From Time Magazine: The Stem Cell Debate – August 21, 2001
http://www.time.com/time/2001/stemcells

A conversation with Michael J. Fox
He's laughing at himself. But not at Parkinson's
http://mednews.stanford.edu/stanmed/2004fall/fox.html

fear of flying

My friend Zane recently flew from Jakarta, Indonesia to Phoenix, Arizona with his toddler son and four-month-pregnant wife.  They had several stops, but the last leg was from San Francisco to Phoenix.  All of them are U.S. citizens with U.S. passports, though they currently live in Indonesia.

Their experience going through security was awful:

"I decided to go first. My wife, who was pushing our sleeping son in the stroller, was next in line. I walked through the metal detector first without incident. “Please remove the baby from the stroller and place the stroller on the conveyor belt!” bellowed the male security person to my wife. My wife, exhausted, called me to help her break down the heavy stroller while she lifted our son from the stroller. As I tried to return through the metal detector to assist my pregnant wife and son I was stopped by the male security guard. “You cannot go back through the metal detector.” ... My heart sank and my blood boiled as I stared at my pregnant wife as she struggled to break down the stroller, my bleary eyed son resting on her shoulder."

Reading this reminded me of the lengths that we all go to now at airports.  I have to take off my coat, my belt, my watch and my shoes just to go through security.  My laptop must be out of it's case, in it's own bin.  I can no longer travel with only carry-on luggage because of the restrictions on liquids and gels.  It is incredibly inconvenient.  It tries even the most experienced and patient traveler.  And if you're traveling with children?  Don't expect anyone to cut you any slack.  In fact, you might be more suspicious.  (I had to laugh out loud when I found one of those checked baggage search declarations in Claire's bright pink Dora the Explorer backpack.)

Zane ends his letter with this statement, which really struck a chord with me:

"My hope and point in writing this letter is to ask that in your efforts to incorporate rigorous and sound security policies that you do not sacrifice the values of respect, dignity, and compassion toward all men, women, and children."

What do you think?  Have you traveled by air since 9/11?  What have your experiences been?  And on the larger scale, have we already sacrificed our personal freedoms too much for the sake of the "war on terror"?  Or are these regulations a reasonable means of protecting our nation's safety?

Talk.