On Socialism

Have you heard or read words about "socialism" lately? Indiana Senator Todd Young’s organization sent me an alarming text message this week: "Socialism is no longer a fringe idea on the left. It's winning primaries and raising millions." This was followed by a link to a site where I could agree or disagree that "socialism is a growing threat in America" and donate to the senator's ongoing efforts to protect us.

I also read a recent column by conservative commentator Cal Thomas citing Fox News interviews with people from four different countries where socialism failed and citizens suffered because of it: Cuba, Venezuela, China, and the Soviet Union (which hasn't existed for 35 years).

Can we look briefly at socialism? Wikipedia describes it as an economic and political system "characterized by social ownership of the means of production as opposed to private ownership." Instead of large companies being owned by individuals, they are owned by the public, the community, a collective, or a cooperative.

When I was a public library director, several people, mostly children, asked if I was the library owner and, if not, who was? I struggled to explain that, like public schools, public libraries (along with towns, cities, counties, and fire districts) are local government units, supported by taxes, regulated by the government, with no individual owner. Is that socialism? Would we be better served by privately-owned institutions designed to make a profit for their owners? America has experimented with private for-profit prisons. Have these proven to be inherently better than community-owned units overseen by local government? Is that the direction we need to be moving?

As a rural dweller, my electricity comes from an R.E.M.C. (Rural Electric Membership Corporation)  cooperative. My husband and I and every other customer of the local R.E.M.C. own it. It is regulated by the Indiana government, but is not part of the government. There is no owner beyond the customers profiting from the sale of electricity. Is that socialism? Should I campaign to overturn such cooperative organizations and join a big utility company designed to turn a profit for the corporate owners?

Back to Senator Young’s warning. Here in America, we have self-described "Democrat Socialists" winning not only primaries, but elections. U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont, U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez from New York, and New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani, are examples. Are they hoping to turn the U.S.A. into the next Venezuela or Soviet Union? Are they unaware of the disasters coming from past experiments with socialism?

Here's where things get confusing. If socialism is officially about taking the means of productions out of the hands of big corporations and private owners profiting from them, why are these Democrat Socialists so focused on things like universal health care, various forms of welfare, free education, public transportation, childcare, and elder care? Why do they talk about raising taxes on wealthy individuals and for-profit corporations in order to make society more equal? Is this a cover-up for their secret plans to take over the means of production and turn us into the next Venezuela?

When I think of socialism in America, I think of things like Medicare and Social Security (<- see the 'social' there?). Under Social Security, the government collects taxes from all workers and provides monthly checks to the elderly who are no longer able or willing to trudge off to a job every day.* Medicare is tax-supported health insurance for those same elderly people. That is the type of wealth redistribution supported by our Democrat Socialist candidates. Countries that have tax-supported health care for everyone, such as Canada, the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Norway seem to be doing okay under those systems. A Canadian friend was shocked to learn that here in America we deal with medical billing and insurance issues while in the midst of a medical crisis. That is the case if we're fortunate enough to  have insurance. People without insurance often suffer and even die because medical care is too costly for them. Is that the type of country we want to live in? Do we want a country where children go to bed hungry because single mothers can't find jobs that pay well enough to cover childcare and living expenses? Currently, our social "safety net" is being dismantled by people with excellent incomes. The changes are making life extremely difficult for people who work harder for longer hours, but make far less money than those behind the changes. Is that the direction we want to move as a society?

Last week the local newspaper published an article about the cost and difficulty of building sidewalks in small towns to give people a place to walk more safely as pedestrian fatalities increase. Is the answer for every property owner to pour a sidewalk in front of their own home and hope everyone participates? Is that the position of those who are so afraid of socialism in the U.S.?

Wealth and power go together. What we're seeing is the rich and powerful using our political system to persuade ordinary voters to vote in a way that lets the wealthy hang onto the money they have collected from all of us as overpayment for the goods and services they offer. Please, don't let people scare you into voting a certain way because they want to save those rich corporations and individuals from being required to contribute to the general welfare of our society. There is so much good we can do when we collect funds from all in proportion to their wealth and work together to benefit all. Let’s build some sidewalks!

-----

*I have heard people explain Social Security as something like a private bank account they have with the U.S. government, where they contribute funds during their years on the job that are held in trust and eventually repaid to them. That is not quite the way it works. Current workers pay into the system that supports current retirees. When you retire, you will depend on younger workers to keep the system solvent. It is a social system, not a private retirement account.

On Loaded Surveys

 A survey arrived in our snail mail the other day. All it took was a glance at the title to figure out the people behind the survey are not interested in my opinion. It is called the "National Opinion Survey on the Marxist Hijacking of Higher Education."

"Marxist hijacking of higher education," eh? Okay, let's see what these alleged Marxists are doing.

———

Section 1: Marxist Ideas Rapidly Gaining Acceptance

Issue Summary: Critical Race Theory

Supported by the far-Left, critical race theory aims to replace the American idea of equal individual rights with the anti-American idea of unequal rights based on identity. This theory is pushed in colleges and universities using taxpayer money.

——-

Next are a couple of questions asking if I have a problem with this. The obvious correct answer is 'Yes, I think this is terrible!'

I suspect the people behind the survey have not actually listened with care to a university professor explaining critical race theory (CRT). Nor have I. However, a Google search tells me that CRT is "an academic framework stating that racism is systemic and embedded within legal and social institutions rather than just individual prejudice." In other words, it's not only you and me and our neighbor individually who may view ethnic minorities in a negative light. Historical prejudice is built into some of our laws, policies, and social practices and continues to produce unequal outcomes even after individual biases may have changed.

This seems like an interesting topic to me. Is it possible that American society is structured in a way that makes success easier for some people than others? If so, who is affected, how significant is the effect, and what evidence supports those conclusions?

As a left-hander, I live in a society designed for right-handed people. At the buffet I visited last week, all the serving spoon handles were pointed toward my right hand. I awkwardly picked up each spoon with my left hand, dipped food onto my plate, and then carefully returned the spoon to its right-handed position for the next person in line. Because society designs systems to be as convenient as possible for those in the majority, minorities need to adapt. No law requires spoon handles to point right, but it is the custom.

At the buffet, I just needed to deal with spoon handles at an awkward angle. Years ago, however, when my high school physical education teacher did a unit on golf, we were all directed to a stack of right-handed drivers. Every single swing I took failed to connect with the ball. Swing after swing. It was obvious to me, my teacher, and my classmates that I had zero golf skills. None. The teacher found a left-handed club for me the next day. I still didn't win any prizes, but I could at least hit the ball. It turns out I didn't have zero skills after all. I needed different equipment before my golfing skills could be accurately assessed. As a right-handed golfer I am a complete loser. But I am not actually a right-handed golfer.

Which brings us back to Critical Race Theory. Do ethnic minorities in America face similar issues but with far deeper impact than awkward moments in the buffet line or golf balls sitting stubbornly on the tee while being fanned by a swinging club? Again, I turn to internet resources and discover CRT is a theory coming out of legal scholarship that suggests ethnic minorities in America often run up against laws and customs that white people can more easily navigate. It digs into the hows and whys of those barriers and possible ways to address them. This, to me, seems worth at least discussing on college campuses.

A theory is a possible way to explain the world we live in. Someone develops and tests an idea against data and the most promising theories are offered to students for further evaluation and discussion. Some are accepted; others are rejected. CRT is just one of many theories that are taught in university classrooms. Studying theories in different areas of science and philosophy is part of the learning process.

Am I upset about CRT? No. Do I think CRT "aims to replace the American idea of equal individual rights with the anti-American idea of unequal rights based on identity"? Huh? It doesn't introduce "unequal rights based on identity." It suggests our society already has "unequal rights based on identity" and asks if there are ways we can make things more equal.

Do the people who sent me the survey want to read what I have written here? No. (That is a theory, but I'm pretty confident it is valid.) So I'm telling you instead. Thank you for sticking to the end!

By the way, the survey has eight more examples of how Marxists are hijacking higher education. And the solution to all of them? Send money to support the Save American Education Campaign. It turns out, what they really want is my money, not my opinion. And fear is the method they have chosen to persuade me to transfer some of my wealth to their pockets. (At least that's my theory.) If it also makes me vote against future funding for our state universities, that might be a bonus for the small private college collecting the returned surveys.

Standing Up to a Bully

On Thursday, December 11, 2025, the Indiana Senate rejected by a vote of 31-19 the mid-decade redistricting plan demanded by President Donald Trump and his cohorts. It was the right thing to do. The federal government has no say in how states draw their congressional map, and the Indiana constitution authorizes only one redraw per decade. Plus, it was unashamedly promoted as a way for the Republican majority to disenfranchise Indiana Democrats entirely in the U. S. House of Representatives. It was a call to cheat.

Now we wait to see what happens next. A very strong school bully said, in essence, "If you don't cheat for me on this test, I'm going to take all your lunch money for the next three years!!" And enough Indiana lawmakers said, "We don't cheat in Indiana" to carry the day. The bully is now enraged. There have been multiple threats against the personal safety of Republican state senators who voted against the plan, along with their families.

Ordinarily, we could go to the school administration and ask that something be done to protect us from this school bully and his thugs. However, our school analogy breaks down at this point. Somehow, our bully has been made school superintendent and the entire administration is scared to cross him. In fact, the teachers themselves urged us to cheat for him and were infuriated when we refused to do so. He has persuaded many parents and school board members he is working in their best interests by keeping riff-raff out of the school. All while enriching himself on the lunch money he is collecting from students too weak to resist him.

What can we do now? Do we wait a year for a new school board election and hope the bully loses power? A year without lunch is a long time.

It was the right thing to do. And doing the right thing always beats doing the wrong thing. It remains to be seen what price there is to pay. What I have heard so far, beyond the immediate threats to lawmakers' safety, are promises to "primary" the holdouts by endorsing Trump loyalists to defeat them in the next election cycle. There is also the question of federal funds that come into Indiana. We have crossed a powerful bully. But that bully is neither all-powerful nor immortal. As Henry Wadsworth Longfellow wrote during the American Civil War, "The wrong shall fail, the right prevail." It was good to see a majority of Indiana Senators come down on the side of fairness, even after 58% of Indiana Representatives (82% of Republican Representatives) voted to redistrict.

Voting Options

It is interesting watching what is happening in Indiana right now. When President Trump pressured Indiana legislators to redistrict in an attempt to switch the two (out of nine) Democrat U.S. Representatives to Republican in 2026, Indiana voters rallied against the move. Our state senators then declined to meet in special session to push forward the redistricting.

Now Governor Braun has announced he will support challengers in next year's primary election to defeat Republican senators opposed to redistricting. So now we have dyed-in-the-wool Trump loyalists signing on to move Indiana even further to the right.

Maybe that seems like a good idea to you. Or maybe you can help the current office-holders defeat their challengers.

IF, however, these attempts to “primary” our current office-holders in preference of less independent candidates are successful, I hope my most thoughtful Indiana friends will consider voting for Indiana Democrats.

Three things you should know:

1. Indiana Democrats are no more “evil” than those claiming that Democrats are evil. Whatever your position on the depravity of mankind is, it applies equally across party lines.

2. Indiana Democrats are not “baby killers.” I've never figured out what people mean by that. Do they think Democrats set up abortion clinics in their basements and personally perform abortions after hours? I presume not. So are they holding Democrats personally responsible for every abortion that happens whether or not they have any connection to the individuals involved? If we hold politicians responsible for every death of a vulnerable person that occurs due to bad policies they support, we are going to have some serious issues!

3. Indiana Democrats are not “pro-abortion.” I know of absolutely no one who is encouraging young women to practice “unsafe” sex and then “just get rid of it.” Abortion is a terrible form of birth control! The cost is high -- financially, physically, and emotionally. For the woman undergoing the procedure and for those involved in the decision. Why would anyone be in favor of that?

What Democrats are in favor of is diversity, equality, and inclusiveness. I see those as Christian values. It is time to seriously rethink our politics.

Pregnancy and language

Language matters. I propose that we make an intentional change in how we refer to pregnancy. Rather than saying a woman “got pregnant” or “fell pregnant” (per our Brit/Aussie friends), let's say what actually happened. She was impregnated.

Getting pregnant speaks of something the woman did. She got a cup of coffee yesterday and got pregnant today. Being impregnated brings the man into the picture as the one behind the pregnancy rather than the woman.

Even if the woman is a willing participant in the act of being impregnated, she does not do it on her own. A man can impregnate a woman against her will. It's a lot more difficult for a woman to become pregnant without a willing man. It doesn't happen by accident.

Reasons for unwanted pregnancies

There are at least three reasons for an unwanted pregnancy:

1. Ignorance. The woman didn't realize that pregnancy could result from what was happening.

2. Lack of resources. She didn't have access to birth control.

3. Poor choices. In the heat of the moment, neither the man or woman used birth control.

4. Lack of options. A man's “yes” overpowered her “no.” Whether he used physical force or verbal or emotional pressure, he made the choice to have unprotected sex.

Methods for reducing unwanted pregnancies

Education and access to reliable birth control reliably prevents pregnancy for millions of women every day. Every woman needs access to those resources. Every man needs to avoid impregnating a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant.

Politicians use abortion to manipulate conservative voters into voting for people who will restrict people's rights. The real solution is to the abortion issue is to make sure no woman is ever impregnated who isn't ready to bear a child.

What we're seeing currently is that politicians who campaign with promises to limit women's reproductive options are also willing to curtail the freedom of other vulnerable people in our society.

So let's fix our language and work together to make sure all women have the resources they need to avoid being impregnated and that men carry full responsibility for impregnating a woman against her will.

"Ain't It Awful?!"

"Ain't it awful?"

A decade or more has passed since someone first introduced me to the phrase “Ain’t it awful?” We can say, "Ain't it awful?" when talking about what is happening in the church, in schools, in our town, in our world. People don't generally use these precise words, but the phrase is useful to evaluate the words they do use. They are sharing news that shocks and offends them and would like others to agree that what is happening is terrible. A surprising number of people seem attracted to terrible news and almost enjoy calling attention to it. This opens up a market for alarming "clickbait" headlines.

A few days ago, a Facebook friend shared a post containing a screenshot from a Daily Wire article. Among other things, my friend said, "It's so scary that this is actually real life!!" That seems pretty close to saying, "Ain't it awful?" Two other friends commented on her post, agreeing that what is happening is just plain awful.

The shared post

I cautiously clicked on the shared post. The author was a self-described "health activist" with 257,000 followers on Facebook. Her bio says she is a "speaker of truth you don't want to hear but desperately need to know." I scrolled through her posts. They offered alarming news. Her reward for sharing that news is clicks, comments, and many followers. I was now a new set of eyes on her content thanks to my Facebook friend bringing her post to my attention.

Like I said, this activist shared a screenshot of a Daily Wire article. It did not include a link. What we could see was the headline: "Movement Barrels Forward to Euthanize 12 Year Old Children in Canada." There was smaller print about how experts say this validates the "slippery slope" argument.

My first thought was: 12-year-old children, specifically? All of them? If not, how many? Who gets to choose? What if there are 13-year-olds causing trouble in Canada? Or rebellious 16-year-olds? Why is Canada fixated on euthanizing 12-year-olds? Will they need to close their high schools in a few years for lack of students?

The Daily Wire Article

It was time to hunt down the article behind the headline. For that, I needed a search engine. Copying the exact headline into Google quickly led me to the article. I discovered I could read up to seven articles before I hit the paywall at The Daily Wire. I truly appreciate that access.

Click... The Daily Wire gets credit for a hit on Google. And I am offered other clickbait.

Click... The Daily Wire gets a new visitor. And I am offered other clickbait.

Click... The author of the article gets another view. My friend and the "health activist" have delivered one more set of eyes to these internet content providers.

And what did I find? This: "Advocates for assisted suicide in Canada, where it's been legal for just under a decade, are pushing to expand the practice to children." Aha! 12 is the minimum age these advocates are proposing, not the target age. And the subject here is "assisted suicide," not "euthanasia." (Both end in death; the difference is in who makes the choice.)

How many are advocating for lowering the age limit for assisted suicide? The article doesn't say. It zeroes in on one group known as DWDC -- Dying with Dignity in Canada. The article doesn't tell me how large that one group is nor how many of those involved in the group have signed on to this proposal to lower the minimum age for assisted suicide. Nor does it identify anyone outside the group as advocating for this change.

The author of the article goes on: "Experts say the advocacy shows there was merit to the 'slippery slope' argument made against the law from the outset."

What experts? How many experts are saying this? The author of the article quotes one. Extensively. I can't tell from the article if anyone else made the "slippery slope" argument a decade ago and is now saying, “I told you so!”

So what do we have here?

After investing way too much time, here is what I know:

1. Euthanasia is legal in Canada. And several other countries. You and I may not approve of that fact. The citizens of those countries are probably unconcerned about our opinions. Either they are monsters who are fine with their weakest and most vulnerable citizens simply being killed off or this topic is more complex than we can comprehend from this one clickbait article. Maybe more research would reveal that Canadians are less heartless than they appear at first glance.

2. At least a few outspoken people in Canada think "mature minors" should have the option of assisted suicide within a set of guidelines. You and I may think that's an awful idea, that there is no world in which a minor (or anyone else, for that matter) has clear enough vision to choose death over life, regardless of how much pain they suffer. (And even if there were, how would authorities assess someone's maturity level?)

We are allowed to hold that opinion. As far as we know from this article, the vast majority of Canadians agree with us. It is only the scary headline and the concern of the author and the one expert she interviewed that implies anything different. There is no mention at all in the actual article of these advocates making any headway in pushing through their agenda.

Is this thus-far-unsuccessful push to expand the current assisted-suicide guidelines something we "don't want to hear, but desperately need to know," in the words of our health activist friend? As Americans unfamiliar with the history and complexity of life-and-death discussions in Canada, do we need to weigh in on this?

3. Scary headlines get clicks. Clicks pay. They keep digital magazines solvent. They generate more assignments for authors. They give "activists" more traffic. More searches, shares, clicks, and followers lead to more revenue. That may be the truly awful thing going on here. People who make money off our alarm are exposing us to an "awful" world that does not actually exist -- at least not yet. Those who are advocating for the rights of minors experiencing severe suffering to choose death have n    ow had their opinions amplified by "ain't it awful" sharing. You and I have been tricked into giving a platform to voices and opinions we find offensive!

Ain't it awful?

Are there awful things happening in our world? Yes! Do we "desperately need to know" about those awful things? Sometimes. If we care about the lives of 12-year-old children, we need to be aware that in-school fatalities in the U.S. are awful, much worse than in other countries. We need to be figure out why the problem is so much worse here and look for ways to make our public schools a place parents can be reasonably confident their children will find safety and value. Sharing the awful news about school fatalities in the U.S. with care and accuracy might prompt people to take action to reduce those statistics.

What we don’t need is to drive traffic to sites that exaggerate and sensationalize bad news or amplify the voices of a few as though they represent an entire population. Can we work on toning down sensationalism rather than spreading it? If we don't have the time or inclination to dig deeper into alarming stories to find the facts behind them, can we just walk away?

Shame On You, Mike Braun!

After weeks of pressure from Washington, D.C., Indiana Governor Mike Braun has announced a special session of the Indiana General Assembly to push forward the idea of redistricting Indiana mid-decade to weaken the influence of Indiana Democrats

Democrat candidates received 40% of the vote for both U.S. President and Indiana Governor in 2024. That 40% is already vastly underrepresented at both state and federal levels. 20% of the Indiana General Assembly is Democrat and 20% (2 of 9) of Indiana's U.S. representatives. Neither Indiana senator is a Democrat.

I have heard all my life that "Cheaters never prosper." This is blatant cheating. The current legislature has no authority to redistrict the state. The Indiana constitution says:

Section 5. The General Assembly elected during the year in which a federal decennial census is taken shall fix by law the number of Senators and Representatives and apportion them among districts according to the number of inhabitants in each district, as revealed by that federal decennial census. The territory in each district shall be contiguous. (History: As amended March 14, 1881; November 6, 1984).

The General Assembly did its job following the 2020 census. There is no authority and no precedent for a mid-decade General Assembly to set aside that work and redistrict at the cost of Indiana taxpayers.

Will cheaters prosper in this new era of government? I will do everything in my power to make sure they don't.

Shame on you, Mike Braun, for trying to drag Indiana into this cheating scheme!! And shame on the Indiana legislators who are going along with it!

https://apnews.com/article/indiana-redistricting-special-session-braun-63f3447efcc34529dfc363a96a763b6e#

The Abortion Issue

One strategy the Republican party has used to secure the loyalty of committed Christians is to advocate for a complete ban on abortion (and to label Democrats as "baby killers").

The cry goes out, "We must protect unborn babies!" This appeals to people who paint all abortions with the same brush, as infanticide by selfish women who want to enjoy sexual freedom without facing the consequences. From this viewpoint, the Democrat message is, "Have fun! Don't worry about getting pregnant! You can just get rid of the problem."

Let's look at this more closely. There are at least three types of abortions. 

   a. spontaneous -- the fetus is expelled by the woman's body prior to full development. (Is this an act of God?)

   b. elective -- a woman who finds herself pregnant requests that the pregnancy to be terminated. This generally happens as soon as possible after the pregnancy is confirmed so the woman can get on with her life with as little discomfort as possible.

   c. medical issues -- early delivery of a baby because of severe health issues involving either the mother or child. These are the late-term abortions that get so much press. Women in this last group have accepted, even embraced and celebrated the pregnancy until something dreadful changes their course. This dreadful thing comes in many forms and each case needs careful counsel by professionals.

Anti-abortion laws tend to be a blunt force solution aimed at women in the second group, but they also affect those in the first and last groups. Offering medical care to those experiencing some form of spontaneous abortion can be a liability under strict anti-abortion laws. Inducing labor for a fetus that has died in utero or been shown to have abnormalities incompatible with life is also a liability. Sacrificing the life of the baby in order to save the mother is a tragedy for all involved, as is sacrificing the mother's life in order to save the baby. These scenarios involve excruciating choices far more complex than any law can anticipate.

A recent advertisement for a pregnancy test shows the relief women experience when seeing their results. As viewers, we are not shown the results and don't know which women are overjoyed by a negative result -- 'Whew! I'm not pregnant!" -- and which are overjoyed by a positive result -- "I'm pregnant! How wonderful!" Nor do we see the tears when the result is the opposite of what is hoped for. But we get the message that pregnancy is a big deal! Barring complications, it is the beginning of nine months of major physical changes followed by the bittersweet trauma of childbirth and the emergence of a helpless human baby bearing the combined DNA of both partners.

It interests me when people say, "If a woman gets pregnant and doesn't want the baby, she should simply give it up for adoption." This is where cultivating empathy can help us. This choice requires the woman to set aside nine months of her life nurturing and birthing a baby she doesn't want or is maybe unable to care for. How will she explain to her family, friends, coworkers, and curious bystanders the circumstances of her pregnancy and her choice to give the baby away? Instead of explaining, will she drop out of life and "disappear" when her condition can no longer be hidden? Will she then let go of the baby she has birthed at such cost as though she were simply a surrogate? Few of us have walked that road. Can we imagine what it is like to do so? This "simple" solution is far more costly than we often acknowledge.**

One aspect of unwanted pregnancies that isn't often addressed is the fact that there is always a man involved. 100% of the time! No exceptions! That man may be a romantic partner or spouse, an acquaintance, a relative, or a stranger -- welcome or not -- but he is always present for the conception and is often more focused on his own desires than on whether the woman he is with would like to give birth to a child if he impregnates her. He is likely physically stronger than she is. We like to think unwanted pregnancies are the result of poor choices on the part of the pregnant woman, but how free is she to make good decisions in light of her relationship with and possible subjugation to the man?

What we need are better ways to avoid the NEED for abortion. The traditional Republican solution has been abstinence. Women who don't engage in sexual activities don't end up pregnant. This has not proven to be an effective method to avoid unwanted pregnancies, however. The human sex drive is incredibly strong!

The Guttmacher Institute reports that the U.S. abortion rate has increased slightly since Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022, even though many states now have strict laws against abortion. That number doesn't include illegal (unreported and unregulated) abortions. It seems to me that we really need to move beyond laws limiting access to safe and legal abortions and focus more on ways for young women to avoid unwanted pregnancies. After all, what woman would choose having her insides scraped out as her preferred method of birth control if she had a less risky and invasive alternative at hand?

As a Christian from the Baby Boomer generation, I value marriage and sexual fidelity, but I know many in our nation make different choices in terms of sexual relationships than I do. Expecting the risk of pregnancy to rein in people’s passions has resulted in far, far too many unwanted pregnancies and resulting abortions, particularly since men often push for and even demand sex while women are the ones who end up pregnant. A vote to ban abortion does not lead to greater morality. What it does is disproportionately punish impoverished and oppressed women who have less independence and access to all forms of birth control by forcing them to bear babies against their will while those with more resources enjoy sexual freedom. That is not righteousness on the part of those passing laws (which seldom effect their own lives). Nor is it the path to every child being welcomed and treasured by their parents. It is oppression of poor women. 

As a follower of Jesus Christ, I want to vote for the oppressed to be set free not further oppressed. (See Luke 4:18) How can we legislate less and care more for the well-being and freedom of every woman, rich or poor, to choose if and when she will lovingly welcome an infant into her arms? How can we best make sure that every newborn baby is enveloped in love?

——- **If you would like to step into the story of a pregnant teenager and the difficult choices she faces, I recommend the movie "Juno" from 2007. It is rated PG-13 and currently available on Hulu. A good book from the Christian fiction shelves is The Atonement Child by Francine Rivers.