James Woods, Mike Pence, and the Hamilton Cast

  

Image source: Celebrity of the Year

This is the story of how James Woods held a door for me (okay, the story is not really about that)... Several years ago, I was with a group of people at an Olive Garden near Providence, Rhode Island. As we were leaving the restaurant, a gentleman coming in held the door for us. Instantly, I recognized his face: James Woods, a RI native celebrity. But I was the only one in my group who recognized him. After he walked in, I turned to my party and said, "Oh my gosh, that was James Woods!" One of my dining companions was excited but a little incredulous. "Are you sure it was him?!" I was sure. After all, I had watched "Shark" regularly back then. I knew what he looked like.

A part of me wanted to follow him back into Olive Garden and get an autograph or picture. But it was late - we had already finished our dinner - and here he was just going in to eat his. It didn't feel right to accost him, though I suppose celebrities are used to such interactions. But that dining companion of mine who doubted me wanted to go back in to speak to him, and did. I wouldn't call that rude. It wasn't the choice I made, delaying his meal for a minute, but the person I was with intended no rudeness or disrespect by taking up a moment of his time.

I was remembering this encounter today in light of the discussions of the Hamilton/Pence controversy. Some feel the actual substance of what was said was rude and disrespectful which I'm not even going to address because the amount of mental gymnastics required to twist their words into something rude is just beyond my ability to even deconstruct. What has resonated with me is the suggestion that the theater was not an appropriate time or place for these words to be spoken, for him to be addressed as the future Vice President. That's why I'm mulling over my celebrity encounter and the choice I made to not insert myself into his personal space.

I'm wondering, can celebrities like James Woods really expect the public to ignore them in public or does being a celebrity mean you've accepted that you will constantly be recognized wherever you go? Our paid entertainers don't seem to mind, they just accept it as part of the job. But really, actors and musicians don't work for us. They don't owe us their time or attention. They don't serve the public.

But Mike Pence is not an entertainer. He is a public servant. He signed up for the job of working for us, representing us, and yes, listening to us. I can't quite get on board with the idea that he is entitled to go out in public and leave his job behind. He's our Vice President-elect and will be serving us for at least four years. He doesn't get to clock out of that role. Speaking to him should not be considered "off-limits" nor should there be any concerns about the public nature of addressing him. This is the job he has willingly chosen, a public position. He deserves respect, certainly, and I believe the cast of Hamilton gave him that in their words. But I don't believe respect means that he deserves to step outside of his role and move through society as a regular citizen when he simply is not a regular citizen. He now answers to an entire nation. And it is our responsibility to treat his position with both respect and accountability.

Is the Rage Over Red Cups Real?

  

I've watched in fascination as the Starbucks Red Cups Controversy has unfolded. By now you've probably heard the story, some Christians were upset when Starbucks unveiled this year's holiday cup: a plain red ombre cup with no decorations. Despite the fact that the cup is red and green (from the Starbucks logo) which almost everyone knows is distinctively Christmas-y, the new cup was considered an assault on Christmas, therefore we should be offended because... Jesus. Right. Then we had a lot of people respond pointing out how ridiculous it is to get upset over a paper cup, how there are actually real problems in the world, and how Starbucks usually doesn't feature anything distinctively Christmas on their holiday cups anyway. And finally, the latest development in this saga is that some are now questioning whether there ever really were people legitimately upset over the cups in the first place, or is this a marketing ploy by Starbucks or a conspiracy from the media to make Christians look like idiots?

Here's what I think. First, the beauty of social media is that we can go back to when this controversy started and see that there really were people upset over the cups who most likely are not shills of Starbucks (unless you think Glenn Beck is secretly employed by Starbucks, in which case you definitely are a die-hard conspiracy theorist). Second, is the media milking this? Maybe, but only to the degree that the media milks everything because of course the media loves a good story. The more attention a story gets, the more page views, the more advertising revenue. But no, I don't believe this is a conspiracy against Christians (more on that below) or a conspiracy to help give Starbucks free advertising. The real reason why this story has gone so viral is because it's such an obvious target. It's so easy to make funny memes attacking the stupidity of complaining about a cup or serious memes pointing out the very real problems in our world today that dwarf the pettiness of whining over not having a Baby Jesus snowman on your coffee cup. I have seen a lot of great responses, all from everyday people like you and me, just average citizen sharing their thoughts. This story has gone viral largely because we the people have responded in a viral way. And that's a good thing! It's great that the voices of reasons are banding together to shout down the insanity of those complaining about a paper cup.

But Bristol Palin claims that media coverage has hyped the Starbucks story and "is just another attempt by the LEFT to make Christians look stupid." She also claims that those who are upset with Starbucks are "one small group." Based on these statements, I'm guessing that Palin did not do any research on the origins and evolution of this Starbucks frenzy. Let's look at some numbers. Bristol Palin is a public figure who had her own reality television show on Lifetime and appeared on Dancing with the Stars (making it to the finals and taking third place). Her Facebook page has almost 458,000 fans. The man who started this Starbucks-hates-Christmas cup circus is Joshua Feuerstein, a former pastor who has become a social media celebrity due to his inflammatory far right wing posts and video rants. He has nearly 1.88 MILLION Facebook fans. Do the math. That's almost quadruple the number of Facebook fans that Palin has. It is Feuerstein's Facebook page that Palin refers to as "one small group." But somehow this man posts an anti-Starbucks video to his "small group" of fans, who then repost it over half a million times, resulting it in being viewed over 15 MILLION times in just six days. Then he claims that as a result of his initial video/post, "tens of thousands Christians invaded Starbucks" to express their displeasure with the alleged removal of Christmas from Starbucks stores:

Glenn Beck - who in case you're wondering, has almost 3.25 million Facebook fans - has also posted against Starbucks using the hashtags ‪#‎stopthepcmaddness‬ ‪#‎standforCHRIST‬ ‪#‎merryCHRISTmasstarbucks‬. In his post, he linked to an article praising Feuerstein for his plot to get baristas to write Merry Christmas on cups but pointed out, "While this is cute to do this, don't forget he just gave them his money to write on the cup. Who wins?!" Feuerstein playfully commented that Beck was slamming him, to which Beck responded that he was not and he thinks Feuerstein is "clever":

So, we have an internet figure with a fairly large following and a very well-known, mainstream conservative figure both posting against Starbucks. Collectively, they could have over 5 million Facebook followers (though there's no way of knowing how many of their fans overlap). There is also the conservative news site Chicks on the Right which has posted against Starbucks twice since the controversy started (here and here) as well as Right Wing News which posted an article titled Christians Livid After Starbucks Releases Unusual Holiday Cups, on November 5, the day the story first broke and before it was a trending story on social media. Yesterday, Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump chimed in to suggest that maybe we boycott Starbucks and actor Rob Lowe tweeted this:

Between their program to have baristas lecture me about race and now their removal of "Merry Christmas" I'm officially over @Starbucks #done

— Rob Lowe (@RobLowe) November 10, 2015

Yet, Palin wants to blame the LEFT media for hyping anti-Starbucks outrage?! That's called deflection. Here's a novel thought: why don't we blame the people who are actually voicing outrage against Starbucks? And instead of blaming the media for reporting on the negative behavior of these individuals, we could blame the religious people for actually engaging in this negative behavior. We could blame Feuerstein and Beck for using their substantial platforms to complain about an issue that makes Christians look stupid. We could even take it a step further and blame the people who give Feuerstein a platform (by the way, the left wing media didn't make almost 2 million people like this dude's page). Some of these individuals who "like" him are my own Facebook friends (ah yes there is no privacy with Facebook). So for all of you who "like" Mr. Feuerstein... congratulations, you have helped make a lunatic a mouthpiece for Christianity.

So is the rage over red cups real? Yes, it is real. I doubt Joshua Feuerstein's claim is true that "tens of thousands" are invading Starbucks to demand that the baristas write "Merry Christmas" on their cups, but we can thank him, not the liberal media, for posting that lie.  Regardless of the exact numbers, we know that it is true that there are enough high-profile conservatives who are complaining about this to warrant the excellent response we've seen over the last few days.

Source: Facebook

Marriage Equality, Hypocrisy, and Fanaticism

  

Image credit: Wikimedia Commons

It's been quite the week.  Before we have even recovered from last week's controversial news stories, another one is hot on its heels.  By now, unless you live under an actual rock, you've no doubt heard the news that this morning, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a landmark ruling extending marriage rights to same-gendered couples.  As a somewhat conservative Christian with somewhat liberal social views (yes, its possible), this leaves me in the awkward position of not fully agreeing with either side in this debate.  So naturally, I decided to write this post to articulate my feelings which may just end up ticking off everybody though I really hope it won't.

Here's the thing, I believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible and believe that homosexual sex is forbidden. That's where I'm not on the pro-LGBT side fully.  But that's pretty much where it ends. I also believe that unmarried heterosexual sex is forbidden, as well as some (though certainly not all) divorces and remarriages, so I really dislike how homosexuality has become the "whipping boy" of Christianity while these other issues get mostly a pass.   It's fairly obvious, to me anyway, why this is the case.  We all need a way to make ourselves feel better about our own sins.  I mean, Jesus even said that we like to point to the speck in our brother's eye rather than deal with the plank in our own eye.  And it's a lot easier to point fingers at a gay man than at ourselves, while we're hitting the buffet like gluttonous pigs.  But hey, being prideful and overeating is not as bad as being gay, right? No, actually, even the most literal reading of the Bible can't point to a place that tells us that the acceptable evangelical sins are less serious to God than everybody's favorite biggie: "the gays."

While we're talking about hypocrisy, I couldn't help but note how ironic it was that on the eve of this marriage ruling, conservative darling Bristol Palin announced her second pregnancy.  Just to recap who Bristol is: she is the daughter of former vice-presidential hopeful Sarah Palin, an abstinence advocate, and outspoken against same-sex marriage and families.  Yet the thrice-engaged yet never married Ms. Palin has now conceived her second child outside of the bonds of holy matrimony.  Bristol is receiving a tremendous outpouring of support from her conservative fan base, if her Facebook page comments are an accurate indicator.  And I am really happy to see that - shaming single mothers is detestable.  She needs and deserves support and I am glad conservatives aren't turning on her, even though she's kinda turned on them. After all, she has gone on record saying, in a rant against President Obama and his support of same-sex marriage: "we know that in general kids do better growing up in a mother/father home." I actually personally agree that it is ideal for kids to grow up with both a mother and a father in the home, or at least two parental figures in the home (but that's only if they're actually good parents). It's just ironic, though, that conservatives in general tend to be very vocal about how children of same-sex couples are disadvantaged by not being raised by opposite-gendered parents...and then rush to support Bristol as she brings yet another life into a fatherless home. (Granted, Bristol's firstborn does have an actual father though he has no custody rights to his son and only sees him on a visitation basis.) It puzzles me that they can with a straight face (haha) argue that two women should not raise a child, but apparently its okay for just one woman to raise a child?

This highlights the very huge problem American Christians face in their rabid opposition to marriage equality.  In order to consistently judge LGBT couples, we also should be judging any and all deviations from the intact traditional family.  If we're being fair and logical, I mean.  But despite conservatives' best efforts to paint gay couples as the reason for the decline in the nation's morality, homosexuality as an assault on the institution of marriage, and same-sex couples as unfit parents for children...some of us know the truth.  We know that 4 out of 10 live births are to unwed parents (a number that has increased roughly 25% since 2000).¹  We know that nearly 40% of marriages end in divorce.²  And we know that plenty of heterosexual couples are raising children in broken homes, either with split parenting or one parent entirely absent.  In fact, less than half of American children (a mere 46%) are being raised in a home with two married parents in their first marriage.³  So please, conservative evangelicals, do us a favor.  Stop pointing fingers at LGBT people and blaming them for the decline of the traditional family. Perhaps instead take a good hard look at the way heterosexuals aren't exactly modelling how to uphold the institution of marriage or have intact traditional families.

That brings me to another thing: letting same-sex couples marry is not persecution of Christians.  Mike Huckabee made the irrational claim today that marriage equality is a serious blow to religious liberty.  Seriously? So according to him, my religious freedom is impinged upon if a cohabitating LGBT couple down the street from me is granted a marriage license.  I'm having difficulty processing exactly which religious liberty of mine is affected by this.  Is it my religious liberty to disagree with their lifestyle?  Doesn't appear to be since Huckabee has certainly been vocal about his disagreement and no one is restricting his voice.  Please. This persecution paranoia needs to stop.  It is completely out of control.  Newsflash Americans: religious liberty does not mean you can impose your religious standards on everyone else.   And speaking of imposing on everyone else, the Civil War has been on a lot of people's minds lately due to the recent Confederate flag controversy (I may blog on that next week actually, so stay tuned!) but did you know that civil war is also related to the marriage controversy?  That's right, earlier this year James Dobson made the statement (or perhaps "threat" would be a more accurate word) that if the Supreme Court rules in favor of marriage equality, it could lead to another civil war.

Let's just pause a moment to let that sink in.

Okay. So the Civil War is kind of my thing; I've had this weird fascination with it for over 15 years. But even if you don't know much about it, you probably realize it was a pretty devastating event for this nation. It is baffling that anyone would bandy that phrase around so lightly. Civil. War. Think about what that means. Brother fighting against brother. Friends killing each other.  Unimaginable destruction of resources, homes, property, and livelihoods.  Do we get that this happened on our own soil and was caused by our own citizens against one another?  It was an unspeakable horror.

But aside from that, it is astonishing that anyone would feel strongly enough about stopping marriage equality that they would entertain the idea, even for a second, of killing over it.  Killing any person at all, let alone their fellow countrymen and women!  This begs the question, does the god Dobson claims to follow really want us to kill people over a piece of paper?  And if he does, is that really a god and religion worth following? (Its definitely not the god I believe in.)   The sheer lunacy of this should be obvious yet James Dobson is not some fringe freak like Fred Phelps whom everyone writes off.  No, he is well-respected and followed by many, many evangelical Christians.

I made the statement in a Facebook discussion a few months ago, without knowing about Dobson's absurd threat, that conservatives would practically die trying to stop marriage equality.  I meant it metaphorically then. It's such a cliche phrase: "That's a hill they are willing to die on."  At the time, if someone had challenged me and asked if I thought people would literally be willing to die over this, I would have responded, "Of course not!" without any hesitation. But now...now we know that some appear willing to actually sacrifice human life on this altar of religious fanaticism.  At least, that's what Dobson's words suggest and the apparent support he gets from his fellow marriage equality opponents. Whether he really means what he said or is just throwing around inflammatory rhetoric is debatable, but either way he should be ashamed of his statement.  And we should be appalled that a man who claims to represent our faith is defaming the name of Christ by trivializing the value of human life. By disregarding what Jesus said when He told us the second greatest commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself.  By sending the message that Christians are willing to wage a holy war against those who don't comply with our beliefs.

Honestly, its during times like these that I think evangelical Christianity has become a joke to a watching world. It's one thing to be personally opposed to same-sex marriage. I'm personally opposed to many things, like getting drunk. (Fun fact, never have been!  But I am not interesting in legislating away anyone else's right to get drunk.) Where did we get this idea that we as Christians are supposed to police our fellow citizens' personal morality? There seems to be a disturbing trend among Christians in going to one extreme end or the other on any controversial spectrum, as though if we don't actually manage to stop marriage equality, we are by default guilty of supporting it. How about considering the idea that we can just sit back and let people get married or get drunk or practice another religion or no religion at all, if that is what they desire? And leave the judgment up to God? And don't try to tell me that we have a moral obligation to stop people from sinning. Until I see Christians out fighting against divorce with the same passion that they've fought against marriage equality, I'm going to call bullshit on that one.

____________________________________________________
Notes:
1. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/08/13/birth-rate-for-unmarried-women-declining-for-first-time-in-decades/
2. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/marriage_divorce_tables.htm
3. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/22/less-than-half-of-u-s-kids-today-live-in-a-traditional-family/

Responding to Victims: Mockingly or Lovingly?

  

Image credit: FreeDigitalPhotos.net / photostock

A few weeks ago, I shared on my Facebook profile wall a link to a Homeschoolers Anonymous article exposing a cover-up of child sex abuse involving a well-known homeschooling magazine.  Predictably, many in the homeschool community remained silent on this issue or, even worse, actually defended those who are allegedly complicit in this heinous affair.

Then earlier this week, a young homeschool graduate posted an article claiming to be a homeschool "victim" survivor.  The article included references to "trauma" from her parents and a "cruel" mother. Sounds serious, doesn't it?  Yet the article was actually a satirical piece on how great her homeschooling experience was, an experience she felt the need to describe in an entire article full of opposite-meaning statements.

Statements like these:

"One of the very worst things about 'home schooling' was the socialization."
"My Mom was a special kind of cruel, you see, she MADE me take public speaking, knowing I hated it!"
"I have no idea how I survived the mental trauma of being raised by two people who honestly thought it best for me to pursue a few deep relationships versus having a ton of friends."

Now, I like sarcasm just as much as the next person.  No, that's probably not true.  I love sarcasm, probably more than the next person.  But I draw the line at stuff like this which, whether intentionally or not, makes a mockery of human pain.

Sadly, it didn't surprise me much that despite the misappropriation of victim and abuse terminology, the article received a generally positive reaction (it has now been reportedly shared over 35,000 times on Facebook).  This is troubling particularly in light of the fact that this homeschooling-is-so-awesome-so-let's-sarcastically-refer-to-ourselves-as-victims piece also included as its main image the very same image used in the Homeschoolers Anonymous abuse exposé until it was later removed due to copyright infringement.

Aside from the image copyright issue - which raises the question of how those running a 5+ year old blog would actually be totally ignorant of how copyrighted images versus public domain images work - it is bizarre that anyone would use an image of a gagged woman to represent an article about their positive homeschooling experience.  And not only is the woman in the image gagged, she also has her arms crossed shielding her body, classic [real] victim posturing.  Its no surprise that this image was originally used for an article about sex abuse since its a very fitting visual representation of that topic. 

What is a surprise is that the author of the "homeschool survivor/victim" piece later posted a disclaimer that it was totally not intended to discredit real abuse.   It is possible that this young person is just naive and genuinely ignorant of how her sarcasm comes across as callousness toward abuse and that for some reason, she did not realize that stealing an image intended to depict a [real] abuse survivor makes zero logical sense in an article praising the benefits and positives of homeschooling.  We can give her the benefit of the doubt here but this still raises concerns about how a young woman who touts herself as being well-rounded would not realize that being a victim is just not a topic that one uses jokingly or sarcastically.  

The normal reaction to hearing about a child being abused is revulsion, horror, disgust, maybe a twisted feeling in your stomach.  What is not a normal reaction: taking the image from an article on abuse and using it for an over-the-top sarcastic piece about how awful fantastic your homeschool upbringing was.  

Maybe that isn't exactly what happened here, but one thing that I do know is definitely happening - the homeschooling community is being shaken up with story after story of sexual, physical, emotional, and spiritual abuse among not just individual families but also widespread abuse within influential organizations.  These stories are disturbing enough but the reactions to these accounts raise a whole new issue.  I have seen a variety of outright denials, victim blaming, victim shaming, attempts to silence these stories using passive aggression or spiritual manipulation, and perhaps worst of all, the many who continue to stand in open support of organizations and individuals who face substantial and reliable accusations against them.  Wake up, people.  We have a crisis in our community and attempting to cover it up is not only despicable on a moral level but is also doing nothing to make it go away - which seems to be the goal for those who wish to silence this difficult topic.  The other day I read a comment from someone who said something to the effect of "negative stories damage the name of homeschooling." Wrong.  What is damaging the name of homeschooling is the fact that we care more about silencing the voices of victims than we care about actually showing compassion and love toward those who have been mistreated.   That we would rather attempt to perpetuate a selfish agenda of making homeschoolers look perfect than be willing to admit that sometimes wolves are hiding among us.  That we mistakenly believe homeschooling itself is in jeopardy if we even acknowledge that there are real stories of abuse.

As a second generation homeschooling parent, I obviously love homeschooling.  It's the right choice for our family (at least right now - we never know what the future holds). But a homeschool community that cares more about it maintaining an artificial reputation than about promoting truth and compassion is not a community I want to raise my children in.  So I will continue speaking out and adding my voice to those who are standing in solidarity with the broken and remaining committed to holding our community accountable, not because we don't value homeschooling but precisely because we do.  Will you join us?

Hobby Lobby: Ethical or Confused?

Amidst the many frenzied, pro-Hobby Lobby statements swirling around the internet lately, Janaury 5th is now being called "Hobby Lobby Shopping Day."   Suddenly, if you want to be a good Christian, you should be taking a moral stand on Saturday by buying some craft supplies!  Well before rushing out to buy stuff that you probably don't even need, have you considered that the Hobby Lobby case is not as cut-and-dried as it appears to be?

But first, a few disclaimers:  

1. As a Libertarian, I'm not a fan of government imposing health insurance regulations on private businesses.
2. I believe that the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution is quite clear that any and all powers that are not delegated to the Federal government, elsewhere in the Constitution, are reserved to the States. Thus the health insurance issue being handled at the Federal level is a clear Constitutional violation, and would be more appropriately handled at the state level.
3. I am pro-life.

So it sounds like I should be totally supportive of Hobby Lobby's "brave moral stand," right?

No actually - the more I've read about it, the more it seems to me that their stand is illogical, hypocritical, and actually not pro-life at all - according to their own definitions, anyway.

Hobby Lobby has gone to court over their moral objection to emergency contraceptive drugs, labeling them as "abortion-inducing." But emergency contraception is, as the name suggests, simply contraception.  Contraception = preventing conception.  The primary mechanism of these drugs, like regular birth control pills, is simply to inhibit ovulation which would obviously prevent fertilization.  This may be confusing as many lack a fundamental understanding of how conception actually works and do not understand how a pill taken hours or even days after sex could possibly prevent conception.   And that's okay, you're not supposed to be an expert on these things unless you're a nerd (*cough* like me) who researches stuff like this.  However, that Hobby Lobby is either unaware or pretends to be unaware of the similarities between regular hormonal birth control pills and emergency birth control pills is irresponsible at best and dishonest at worst. 

First, let's look at how normal hormonal contraceptives are designed to work, such as in the commonly used "Pill."  The combined pill is taken once daily: for the first 3 weeks a pill providing synthetic estrogen and progestin is taken; for the final week an inactive placebo pill is taken.   In oversimplified terms, during the first 3 weeks, the hormones in the Pill primarily work to prevent the ovulation process from taking place.  If the ovaries do not release an ovum (egg), then it is impossible to conceive. In the last week, the inactive pill serves no purpose other than to reinforce the daily habit of taking a pill.  During this time since she is no longer receiving any hormones, the woman sheds the uterine lining, like a normal menstrual period.

A second type of birth control pill is the progestin-only pill, also known as the mini pill.  Because it does not contain estrogen, it does not consistently prevent ovulation and relies more on thickening cervical mucous to prevent sperm from reaching an ovum.

During a woman's normal cycle (ie, when not using hormonal pills), the uterine lining begins slowly building up again after the end of menstruation.  This processed might be altered while taking hormonal pill; because of the synthetic hormones inhibiting the natural ovulation cycle, it is possible that the thickening process is affected resulting in a thinner endometrium (uterine lining).  This is only a problem if ovulation does take place (a greater possibility with the progestin-only pill), making conception possible.  If this happens, the fertilized egg (zygote) may reach the uterus to find the endometrium is not thick enough for successful implantation.   Many brand names like Alesse, Loestrin, Ortho-Cyclen, Yasmin, and Ortho Micronor clearly acknowledge this possibility in their drug facts.      

But Hobby Lobby is not concerned about the possibility of these drugs interfering with implantation.  In a statement released by their attorney group in September 2012:

The Green family has no moral objection to the use of preventive contraceptives and will continue its longstanding practice of covering these preventive contraceptives for its employees. 

In other words, the Hobby Lobby owners feel that regular hormonal pills, patches, implants, etc, are preventive contraceptives that raise no moral issues for them.  

The statement continues by specifying which hormonal drugs that they do object to:

However, the Green family cannot provide or pay for two specific abortion-inducing drugs. These drugs are Plan B and Ella, the so-called morning-after pill and the week-after pill.

So let's look at the implied claim that these drugs are abortion-inducing in a way that regular hormonal contraceptives are not.  First, the Plan B pill: according to the manufacturer, Plan B works similarly to regular hormonal contraceptives.  How is this possible, since it is used after the fact?  The answer lies in the simple fact that conception can take place several days after sexual intercourse.  That's right, sperm can live in a woman's body for up to 5 days before actually fertilizing an ovum.  This is why the Plan B can be effective at preventing conception even taken 72 hours after intercourse.  Like regular contraceptive pills, the primary mechanism of Plan B is to inhibit ovulation.  It can also alter transport of sperm and/or ova in the fallopian tube prior to fertilization (this would decrease the likelihood of conception if ovulation does take place).

The charge of Plan B being an "abortion-inducing drug" seems to based on the drug's potential to thin the uterine lining, which could possibly interfere with implantation in the event of both ovulation and conception taking place.  Go back a few paragraphs...this is exactly what can happen with regular hormonal birth control too.  And breaking this down logically: taking a pill every day for 3 weeks that can interfere with your uterine lining is probably going to affect that lining a lot more than a pill you take once (or twice) mid-cycle.  At least a woman who is not on regular pills will have had her uterine lining thickening normally, without any hormonal interference, ever since the end of her last period.  Taking Plan B may affect its continuing thickening but will not have had any affect on the entirety of her cycle the way the daily Pill might.  

The other pill mentioned in Hobby Lobby's statement is Ella, which is also a morning-after pill, not the "week-after pill" as they incorrectly suggest.  It can be taken up to 5 days after intercourse, while Plan B can be taken up to 3 days after intercourse.  Ella is a synthetic progesterone agonist/antagonist which is intended to either prevent or postpone ovulation.  It differs from other hormonal methods because in clinical trials, it was shown to be effective at delaying ovulation even once the ovulation process had started [for the nerds: it delays ovulation by 5-9 days even if the LH (lutenizing hormone) peak that triggers ovulation has taken place].   As with the other hormonal methods we've already examined, Ella can also have an affect on the thickness of the uterine lining and implantation. 

The bottom line is, because both Plan B and Ella have the potential to thin the uterine lining and interfere with implantation, if their primary mechanism of preventing/delaying ovulation fails, it is perfectly reasonable for Hobby Lobby to have a moral objection to these drugs.  However, since regular hormonal birth control has just as great a (and perhaps even greater) chance of affecting the uterus and implantation, Hobby Lobby's position of support for regular hormonal contraceptive violates the very beliefs they are supposedly upholding.  It is strangely ironic that people will be turning out on January 5th to applaud Hobby Lobby for taking a stand against "abortion-inducing drugs" when the company has also inconsistently announced their financial support and moral approval of other drugs that are equally "abortion-inducing."  

Secondhand Fashion Week: Day 7 - Happy Easter!

Today I must confess that this is not my actual Easter outfit, since what I wanted to wear was brand new (a $50 dress bought for $7 on clearance at Kohl's - YAY!). Later I modelled an outfit that I would ordinarily wear to church were it not a special occasion. Eddie said it looked kind of goth, but in a cute way. I am also wearing a special ring that my Nanona (great-grandma) gave me when I turned 16. I don't wear it often since it's a genuine opal and I worry about shattering it!

Liberty is wearing the same dress that I wore for my first Easter in 1986! The rest of her outfit was obtained more recently than that but is all still secondhand with the exception of the bunny ears in one of the pictures. Unfortunately I don't have any pictures of Liberty and I together due to a tragic diaper episode that left her entire dress soaked.

I am wearing...
Black top by Canyon River Blues, secondhand from my mom (free)
White cami by Old Navy (not secondhand)
Skirt by Tracy Evans Limited, secondhand from my sister-in-law Jen (free)
Ring, secondhand from my great-grandma (free)
Shoes by Kenneth Cole Reaction, $1 from a rummage sale
Necklace, from my honeymoon in Gatlinburg (not secondhand)

Liberty is wearing...
Dress by ??? (no tags), secondhand from her mommy (free)
Tights, secondhand from a friend of my mom's (free)
Shoes by George, secondhand from her cousin Taryn (free)
Bonnet, $? secondhand from Goodwill
Bunny ears, from Target (not secondhand)

Visit AmandaBeth Online to learn more about this fashion event!

Secondhand Fashion Week: Day 6 - Pink and Blue

For Day 6, Liberty is appearing in two different outfits because the one I planned on having her wear ended up being too warm for her to actually wear, but I really wanted her to wear it since it kind of matched mine. So she will be appearing by herself in the dress she actually wore all day (to her cousin's birthday party) and appearing with me in a different dress.

I am wearing...
Pink sweater by Cejon assecories inc., secondhand from my sister-in-law Jen (free
Dress by Old Navy, $5 from Goodwill
Earrings, secondhand from my friend Laura (free)

Liberty is wearing...
Sweater by The Children's Place, 50 cents from a garage sale
Dress and kerchief by Blueberi Boulevard, $3.50 from a garage sale

Here Liberty is wearing...
Sweater and dress by The Children's Place, $3 from a garage sale

Visit AmandaBeth Online to learn more about this fashion event!

Secondhand Fashion Week: Day 5 - Enjoying Spring

I was really excited yesterday to have my husband home in the afternoon to take our pictures, but then I didn't have time to post them yesterday or today until now! Oh well, better late than never!

I am wearing...
Top by Self Esteem, secondhand from my friend Julie (free)
Cami by delia*s (not secondhand)
Skirt by Faded Glory, $1 from a rummage sale
Ring by Avon, secondhand from my gramma (free)

Liberty is wearing...
Top and pants by Disney Classic Pooh, $3 from a yard sale
Lacy headband, 50 cents from a consignment sale
Shoes by Circo, secondhand from her cousin Taryn (free)

Visit AmandaBeth Online to learn more about this fashion event!

Secondhand Fashion Week Giveway!

Image: Inspired Boutique
AmandaBeth Online is offering an adorable giveway for handmade fashiony note cards! To learn how to enter, check out the entire post about this giveway: Giveaway 2 - Inspired Boutique Fashion Cards!!!!

Secondhand Fashion Week: Day 4 - Painted Piggies

Liberty is 9 months old today and in celebration of this occasion, she had her toenails painted for the very first time. It was perhaps a bit too optimistic for me to hope that she was old enough to stay still for this process... I end ed up having to repaint several toes... several times. In the end I managed to get some decent looking piggies and then I painted mine to match.

My hair is straight today because I went for a long-overdue trim (my bangs are no longer straggly!) and my stylist blowdried and straightened my hair. This is a rare event for me, so I shall probably celebrate by not washing my hair for several days. :) Anyway, my outfit today is dressy because I wanted a chance to include one of my few pairs of secondhand shoes (I only have one other pair, which will also be making an appearance later in this event). They're strappy sandals that are super cute but kind of uncomfortable (why can't adorable shoes also feel good?!).

I am wearing...
Floral peasant top by ByChoice California, secondhand from my sister-in-law Jen (free)
Black cami by Old Navy (not secondhand)
Rayon gauchos by Geoffrey Beane, secondhand from my mom (free)
Shoes by Mudd, $1 from a rummage sale
Claddagh ring, secondhand from my mom (free)

Liberty is wearing...
Sundress by The Disney Store, $3.50 from a consignment shop
Lacy headband, 50 cents from a consignment sale

Visit AmandaBeth Online to learn more about this fashion event!

Secondhand Fashion Week: Day 3 - Ribbons and Flowers

I decided to try to take my own pictures today, which was an interesting experience without a tripod. I tried to take some pictures outside, but that didn't turn out so well, so I went inside and propped the camera up on my ironing board. I managed to get a few usable shots, but overall I think I definitely prefer having someone else take my picture (ie, torturing my husband by getting him to take way too many pictures).

Today I am wearing what is probably my favorite secondhand find - embroidered crop pants (actually I think they're supposed to be capris, but they're more like crop length on me because I'm short, I mean, fun-sized) that I bought while I was in Missouri visiting friends. I got to use my friend Julie's mom's employee discount to get them half-price!

I am wearing...
Top by goodclothes, secondhand from my sister-in-law Jen (free)
Pants by New York & Company, $3.50 from a consignment shop
Organdy hair ribbon, salvaged from a shower gift (I think... can't remember exactly but I know I didn't buy it and it was previously used on something else, thus definitely secondhand!)

Liberty is wearing...
Onesie top and pants by Carter's, about $1 from eBay (I bought this in a lot with several other clothes, so it didn't have an exact price)
Mary Jane socks by Trumpette, $2 for 6 pairs from a consignment sale
Organdy hair ribbon, cut from the same piece as my ribbon

Visit AmandaBeth Online to learn more about this fashion event!

Secondhand Fashion Week: Day 2 - Sweet Serenade

My Day 2 outfit was supposed to have been actually photographed on Day 2, but we ran out of time before Eddie had to leave for work and then he ended up having to work late and by the time he got home, Liberty was asleep. So I had to wait until today, Day 3, to actually get the pictures. Then I didn't have enough time to get my actual Day 3 clothes photographed, so later I'm going to experiment with taking them myself. (And did I mention we don't own a tripod? We do have tons of books though, so maybe I can make a tower...)

Anyway, my Day 2 outfit includes an accessory that is also secondhand - earrings! I rarely get used earrings... in fact I don't think I've ever bought any, but I do have a few pairs that were given to me. I actually forgot that I had this pair until I was digging through my jewelry trying to find something to match my top. So, once again, Secondhand Fashion Week has helped me rediscover something that I had forgotten about!

My photos also feature a few (non-wearable) secondhand items. My piano was given to me by my wonderful mother-in-law and the picture (a Sandy Lynam Clough) hanging over the piano was purchased on eBay.

I am wearing...
Pink top/attached blouse by Carolyn Taylor Essentials, secondhand from my sister-in-law Jen (free)
Jeans by Land's End, secondhand from my mom (free)
Pink & silver earrings, secondhand from my friend Laura (free)

Liberty is wearing...
Top by Jumping Beans, $1.50 from a garage sale
Cordoroy pants by Sonoma, $1.50 from a garage sale
Ballet-style shoes by Disney Classic Pooh, 50 cents from a garage sale

Liberty's top, pants, and shoes all came from the same garage sale. I love the outfit so much that it's what she wore for her 6 month portrait!

Visit AmandaBeth Online to learn more about this fashion event!