Recently in National Category

Sharron Angle, a Nevada Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, told conservative radio entertainer Bill Manders that she cannot and will not accept abortion under any circumstances, specifically stating that women who are victims of rape and incest should not be allowed to access an abortion.

From a press release by the Nevada State Democratic Party:

Manders: Is there any reason at all for an abortion?

Angle: Not in my book.

Manders: So, in other words, rape and incest would not be something?

Angle: You know, I'm a Christian and I believe that God has a plan and a purpose for each one of our lives and that he can intercede in all kinds of situations and we need to have a little faith in many things.

Ask any Christian if his/her God is mighty and I'm sure you'll soon learn that the Christian God is so powerful that he defies human understanding. I've yet to understand why a God with so much power would only be able to accomplish certain tasks through horrific means. Yet, if we are to agree with Angle, this is exactly what we must believe.

But don't overlook the first answer Angle gives to Manders when asked if there is "any reason at all for an abortion." Angle says, "Not in my book."

According to Angle's book, women who suffer severe pregnancy complications should die instead of accessing abortion services. I guess the woman's grief-stricken spouse and other children can just have a little faith that God works in mysterious and, at least according to Angle, horrific ways.

I had a short facebook discussion this week with Brent Oleson, author of The Marion Contrarian blog and member of the Linn County Supervisors. I initiated the discussion after I read a post by Brent and took exception to his use of the phrase "prima donna" in a post that was critical of a certain female state lawmaker.

I began the discussion as an educational exercise because I believe that many of us are guilty of using words that infer something we never intentioned. For instance, do we want to "man the desk" or are we "staffing the desk"? Is the gem man-made or is it synthetic? Is the person who leads a team of workers a foreman or a supervisor?

In each of my examples, the words and phrases used essentially hold the same meaning. Their differences lie in the eyes of the beholders.

Brent stated that he viewed the term "prima donna" as gender neutral -- a position he said was backed up by a quick check of the dictionary. I haven't taken time to double-check his assertion, because it ultimately isn't germane to the discussion at hand. As writers, especially blog writers who often produce inasmuch to sway as to inform, we need to be able to see our word choices through the eyes of readers and set aside those that tend to muddy our key point.

When I clicked over to Brent's post, I was greeted by a picture of the female legislator followed immediately by a photograph of the villain character from the Wizard of Oz. I cringed, but was at least thankful that Brent hadn't pulled the lawmaker's face into the Oz graphic -- or had otherwise gone in search of a silly photo her family had posted on facebook. Then I read Brent's direct comparison of the female legislator to "the wicked witch of the west" -- I guess because the two graphics weren't explicit enough.

When I finally began to hit the main point of his post (sixth paragraph) I was sidetracked by the prima donna phrase. At that point, I was no longer paying much attention to the information Brent was presenting. I was still reading, mind you, but my brain was going through a mental flow chart to determine whether or not the writer -- someone I believed to be a basically good person -- was intentionally using sexist imagery to bolster his position.

I didn't and don't want to think that is the case, but for better or worse the seed has been unnecessarily planted. Brent has a legitimate beef against the lawmaker based on policy, but he chose to preface his argument with the subject of gender. There is no doubt he scored a few "good ole boy" points and likely a few laughs for his "cleverness," but only at the detriment to the thoughts he really wanted to convey.

In that respect, he not only perpetrated an injustice against the lawmaker, but an injustice to the cause that he hoped to represent.

Few have forgotten the idiocy of August 2009 when U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley and other conservatives falsely proclaimed that health reform legislation would include "death panels."

"In the House bill, there is counseling for end of life," Grassley said at a town hall meeting held in mid-August. "You have every right to fear. You shouldn't have counseling at the end of life, you should have done that 20 years before. Should not have a government run plan to decide when to pull the plug on grandma."

The statement struck a chord because most Americans fiercely believe that government, insurance companies or really any other-than-family influence should not play a role in end-of-life decisions. The ironic thing is that those who were yelling the loudest while carrying the "Obama lies and grandma dies" signs are the very individuals who believe there are instances where the government should decide such matters -- and not just in the case of capital punishment.

To be clear: Sen. Grassley, Sarah Palin, U.S. Rep. Steve King, former N.Y. Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey, U.S. Rep. John Boehner, U.S. Rep. Virginia Foxx, Newt Gingrich and a host of other conservatives, who like to tout "small government" beliefs, advocate and want the government be involved in end-of-life decisions.

Don't believe me? Ask any one of them how they feel about abortion when a mother's life is at risk.

It is not logical or ethical to use some fictional lack of autonomy in end-of-life-decisions as a scare tactic, but it is even worse when those making such hallucenogenic statements would stand up and fight for the ability to enact it. Under the rules these "conservatives" would enact, women, regardless of circumstance, would be forced to carry dangerous pregnancies to labor, term or death -- even when there is no hope of a living child ever resulting from those pregnancies.

The Omaha World-Herald points out the obvious: Refusing to care for pregnant women, including those who have come into the country illegally, ultimately only punishes the future child and the taxpayers.

Now we know how far some Nebraskans will go to make a political point.

They'll not only support, as a general rule, the blocking of prenatal care for pregnant women in Nebraska if they aren't U.S. citizens. They'll even support blocking care for such women who are already pregnant and need the care now.

That's the remarkable signal that a large contingent of the Nebraska Legislature, as well as Gov. Dave Heineman, have sent State Sen. Kathy Campbell. They've told that lawmaker -- one of the few in the Legislature to stand up resolutely on this issue -- to forget about her proposal for Nebraska to cover part of the prenatal care costs for these women.

But on top of that, they even told her to forget about her modest fallback alternative, which would have helped cover the prenatal costs for such women who are pregnant now and need the help...

By refusing prenatal care for the women, the legislature is not only endangering the pregnancy, but gambling with taxpayer dollars. That is, the moment a child is born, that child is a U.S. citizen who has his/her own access to Medicaid. If the lack of prenatal care has resulted in a premature delivery and long stay in a neonatal unit, Medicaid (i.e., the taxpayers) will cover the bill. 

What makes the stance even more distasteful is the fact that the Nebraska legislature is currently debating a bill, the "Abortion Pain Prevention Act," that would ban all abortions after 20 weeks unless they were being performed to save a woman's life or "avert serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function."

For those readers who know the circumstances surrounding my own late-term abortion, it will come as little surprise that I find this proposed legislation to be significantly disturbing because no exceptions are made for fetal anomalies -- even those, like anencephaly, which almost always result in the death of the child minutes or hours following birth.

(Ironic note one: Because of the brain absence associated with anencephaly, the children that are born alive are typically blind, deaf, unconscious and unable to feel pain.)

The Nebraska legislators who support the measure, as well as those individuals pushing for its passage, want to appear as protectors of the children that would eventually be produced from the pregnancy. They want to write a law on faulty science that claims there is a certain point in time when a fetus can feel pain, and, therefore, abortion should not take place.

Yet at the same time they are arguing this faulty "compassionate conservative" viewpoint, they are also unwilling to care for women who are pregnant, or protect the children they carry. 

(Ironic note two: According to the Centers of Disease Control, Hispanic infants have an increased risk of anencephaly.) 

It is clear that the Nebraska legislators who support these bills have absolutely no interest in either caring for or protecting women, children or families. They do not care about women, because neither of these bills does anything to advance the plight of women in society or to provide health care services. They do not care about children, because if they did, they would want to provide each child the best prenatal care possible. They do not care about families, because they are willing to write their own "death panel" legislation that would take one of several horrific choices away from families who experience a devastating pregnancy.

They care only about further restricting access to abortion and feathering their political nests prior to the next election. 

If you don't believe that statement, then please explain why a Minnesota law professor, originally from Oklahoma, is one of the key strategists involved in pushing for additional abortion restrictions in Nebraska. Did I mention she's running for U.S. Congress?

Seven years ago today a 23-year-old woman was crushed by a bulldozer while acting as a human shield for homes and other development in the Gaza Strip. To this day, the events surrounding her death are in dispute.

Rachel Corrie was a student at Evergreen State College in Washington state who had taken a year away from her studies to work for peace in Gaza. She was a member of the International Solidarity Movement, a Palestinian-led group that seeks to change the current conflict between Palestine and Israel through nonviolent protests.

Her parents, Craig and Cindy, have fought to learn the truth of what happened to their daughter since the horrible event occurred. They also believe that if the events surrounding Rachel's death had been more transparent, other deaths and injuries to peace activists and journalists in the conflict area -- such as the shooting of 37-year-old American Tristan Anderson a year ago -- would likely not have happened.

Just this month the Corrie family began providing testimony in Haifa court (in Israel) as part of the civil suit they have brought against the country -- something the family said on Democracy Now! that they were encouraged to do by members of the U.S. state department.

Although Iowans are not always as in-touch with international news as they are with current domestic events, the name Rachel Corrie is likely familiar to many who followed presidential hopefuls throughout the state in 2007. It was not unusual for friends and family members to ask presidential candidates about the case at Iowa events, and to ask for support in their quest for justice.

According to those on the scene the day of her death, Rachel was sitting in the path of the bulldozer as it moved toward a home owned by Palestinian medical professionals. When the bulldozer did not stop or change directions, she climbed into the mound of dirt and rubble being gathered in front of the machine so that she would be in the direct line of sight of the driver. Despite her wearing a fluorescent jacket, the bulldozer continued to advance, and she was pulled under the pile of dirt, rubble and, eventually, the bulldozer itself. Seven other members of the ISM team dug her out once the bulldozer moved. She was transported to A-Najar hospital where she later died.

Today, we remember Rachel Corrie -- her courage and passion -- but we must not forget the countless others who have taken life-changing or life-ending stands in an effort to promote peace or right a perceived wrong. We can never fall into the trap of condoning, regardless of our particular stance on a specific conflict, the violent taking of one who stands in non-violent protest.  

Claire O'Brien, a former Dodge City Globe reporter that refused to identify a confidential source in court, was fired from her job last Friday.

According to a report in The Topeka Capital-Journal, O'Brien believes the termination was punishment because she told media outlets that the corporation that owns the Dodge City paper had refused to pay for her legal representation and attempted to block her efforts to find independent counsel.

Her confidential source revealed himself to authorities after O'Brien was fined $1,000 a day for contempt when she initially didn't show up to testify. The contempt citation and fine were rescinded after she eventually testified in a closed hearing.

O'Brien said that after that Feb. 12 hearing, she was forced to sign some disciplinary forms, including one claiming she had defamed GateHouse Media.

She also found the locks on the newspaper building had been changed after the hearing, and she was the only reporter not given a key, O'Brien said. Other work restrictions included a requirement that a manager be present whenever she was in the building, O'Brien said.

O'Brien published a story Oct. 13 based on a jailhouse interview with Sam Bonilla, a man who eventually pleaded guilty voluntary manslaughter and aggravated battery. The story was considered controversial because it hinted that the situation had stirred up anti-Hispanic sentiment. 

Times are hard for reporters. Yet, if O'Brien's version of what transpired at the paper is true, then this is a much larger blow to collective journalists, especially in Kansas, and freedom of the press as a whole.