The War on Women: My Letters to my Leaders

I know it is incredibly important to speak up about the issues on which our leaders are voting. That is why I'm encouraging everyone to contact their government officials and speak up! Below is my letter that I just sent to my Representative and Senators. Please visit the government pages and contact yours. If we don't speak up, we can't complain later.

http://www.house.gov/
http://www.senate.gov/


Greetings,

I find it important to speak up in light of several bills and laws being proposed by conservative religious lawmakers that severely hamper and undermine my religious freedoms and reproductive rights and those of all women. As my elected government official, I hope you will take interest in my thoughts as it is your duty to fully understand how these laws will play out in reality and how they truly affect the citizens for whom you are supposed to work.

I do NOT support “personhood” laws that declare that life begins at conception. This law is unnecessary and potentially harmful to many women. The intent of this law seems to be to outlaw contraception and abortion, but it is possible to interpret this law in a way that holds women of miscarriage responsible for involuntary manslaughter. These “personhood” laws are of no assistance to our society.

Likewise, I do NOT support banning contraception. There are many women who use these medicines for more than reasons than prevention of pregnancy. Some of these medicines prevent several types of cancer, regulate hormones before attempting pregnancy and assist those afflicted with severe cramping. It negatively affects women to put an outlaw on such medicines that are tools that assist with the health and well-being of women’s daily lives. Of course, these medicines are also used to plan responsibly the birth of children so that women can wait until they create financially solid situations before bringing children into this world.

I do NOT support any ban on sterilization. This may be covered under contraception, but I wanted to shed a special light on it. As a woman who intends to remain without children for my lifetime, I will be turning to sterilization and am so thrilled that the cost will be fully covered under the Affordable Care Act. Sterilization is used by women (and men) who already have children and know their limits well enough to know they are not interested in having any more children because of financial or other reasons. Sterilization is also used by those like myself who are not interested in a parenting role, but would like to continue to support children in capacities such as aunts and uncles and employees or volunteers to children’s organizations. Knowing the limits of one’s life is an important step in being a responsible person. Each person has to have the option to fulfill that for herself or himself.

I do NOT support making abortions illegal and incarcerating doctors who perform them. Although I understand that fetus’ do become humans after completing the gestation period, I do believe that it is up to the individual to choose whether to continue the pregnancy or abort. I believe that there are many misconceptions about abortion and the more people understand it, the better we can do to make sure women do not find themselves in that situation. But outlawing abortions does not stop them from happening; outlawing abortions endangers women who then seek out abortions in unsafe medical conditions. Women need to have options such as abortion and it is up to the individual to use this option or not.

I do NOT support forcing those women who seek to have abortions undergo a transvaginal ultrasound. This is unnecessary, degrading and violates a woman’s ability to choose without harassment. These mandates degrade women who have already thought long and hard about their options. They understand full well what a pregnancy entails and being forced to undergo a transvaginal ultrasound will not change their mind, nor make the choice any easier. It only adds another medical bill to a woman who has made up her mind and it insults her ability to make a decision.

I do NOT support changes being made to sexual education classes such as we have recently seen in Utah. In order to make sure that future generations have information about sexual health, we need to make sure they have ALL the information, including information about contraception. My belief is that ‘abstinence only’ teachings are ineffective and dangerous. Everyone knows that telling a youth not to do something does not ensure they will not do it, but often times can seem like one more rule against which to rebel. Our youth need to grow up with solid facts so they can make solid decisions. After all, half of all pregnancies are unplanned. We fail our children if we don’t give them all the information and let them be prepared for whatever they choose. It is up to parents to ensure that after learning all the facts that the children know what the families want them to practice.

I do hope I’ve covered all my bases. I do NOT support anything that hampers the reproductive rights, freedoms and choices for anyone. It is important that the Federal Government maintain the separation of Church and State. Laws such as those mentioned above undermine that understanding because they are moral teachings of religious groups that are being forced upon millions of people of varying religious, personal beliefs. The individuals that are against contraception, sterilization, abortions and any such things have every right to hold those beliefs and live them out in their own lives, but they have NO right to enforce their beliefs on a nation comprised of individuals from every walk of life. I refuse to stand by and let religious groups overstep their bounds and try to write their beliefs into law. This nation was built upon religious freedom and I refuse to be denied my rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the ways that I see fit. I refuse to be ashamed of my belief that women need access to options to create better lives for themselves and for future generations. I refuse to stand by during this war on women and watch women’s rights be denied and to regress on so much work that has been hard-fought and earned by my predecessors.

While I’ve hopefully still got your attention, I want to assure you that I DO support the rights of non-heterosexual couples that wish to marry. This is very much a civil rights issue. We are talking about the basic rights of millions of people. To me, it matters not that a homosexual couple cannot physically procreate on their own. There was a time when sterile heterosexual couples were frowned upon within religious communities because of their inability to procreate. Those who oppose the right of LGBT persons to commit to each other are looking at it from the stance of religion. LGBT people are not asking to be married in the churches, but to be recognized as human beings by their own government. LGBT couples often times are better parents because they have actively chosen to become parents rather than many heterosexuals who just got pregnant. These LGBT couples need to have the same rights to care for their partners and families as do those who are in heterosexual relationships. If not, their basic rights as human beings and as citizens are being denied.

I do not feel comfortable knowing that there are people from the religious groups that are working so hard to deny the rights of millions of people in this nation. I see those actions as negative, hateful and un-American. This is why I am speaking up and hoping that my voice is being heard. As a nation, we need to ensure that our citizens are being protected, that their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are being protected and promoted.

I sincerely hope that you will keep all of this information in the forefront of your mind as you are asked to weigh in on these issues. As a member of your jurisdiction, I have spoken my thoughts and my beliefs. As my elected official, I hope that you will take this to heart and understand that much is at stake. I entrust you with my wishes, hoping that my government officials will not let down all the women, men and children, gay, straight, transgender, religious, non-religious, human people of this powerful nation.

Sincerely,

D. Smith
Omaha, Nebraska

The Ongoing War on Women: Conservative Lawmakers in 2012

Throughout history, there has always been an ongoing war on women and in the U.S., it's currently being led by religious conservative lawmakers, known to us as Republicans. I'm not drawing a line in the sand, but looking at one that was already drawn, long before I got to the beach. If you ask many people, they will tell you there are only two parties in the U.S.of A: Republican (Conservative) and Democrat (Liberal). There are members of each that see their political party of choice as 'right' and the other party is automatically 'wrong'. Therefore, they have drawn a line in the sand and refuse to step anywhere near that line, instead pointing fingers and calling names at the people on the other side. Lovely, isn't it?

I was raised Catholic, but before long, found my way to a frame of mind that is friendlier and more at peace with my beliefs and inner workings. Each person in this country has a right to choose a religion or to choose no religion. But some Christian-based lawmakers are not content with the separation of Church and State and want to enforce their religious beliefs on the citizens of a supposedly secular nation. I, as non-Republican and non-Democrat, and a woman, have a HUGE problem with this, as do many people I know, male and female.

In the news recently, there are many things that go against the principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There are many Republican lawmakers aiming to criminalize abortion, to deny access to contraception, to basically punish women for wanting to make choices about their procreative life. I'm going to provide links to these articles, briefly explain them and let you fume on them with me.

IN THE NEWS:

• States are passing "personhood" bills to say that life begins at conception and to give rights to fetuses. This law, if interpreted strictly, could have unintended consequences: bans on contraception, criminalizing rape victims and convicting women suffering miscarriages as guilty of involuntary manslaughter. Obviously, one may say, no one's going to take it that far. But then, what is the point of decreeing that a fetus is a person? It is simply a matter of religious agenda, meant to hamper the right of a woman to choose. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/16/us-anti-abortion-senate-idUSTRE81F29920120216 
• Oh and apparently an amendment was made to the Oklahoma personhood bill that says masturbation "shall be interpreted and construed as an action against an unborn child"  What fresh hell?! Oh, and don't even think about putting your aborted human fetus in food either, because that's in the bill too, even though there's no reason to believe it's ever happened. <smacks head>

Here's an image I created to explain how I feel about personhood bills:

When an sperm and an egg combine, you get a zygote, which will possibly develop into a human, but not necessarily so. To say that it IS a human is to count all your eggs before they hatch, which the old adage tells us NOT to do.

• In Virginia, a bill was passed, and will most likely be signed by the conservative governor, that says a woman who wants to receive an abortion MUST have an ultrasound. Since many abortions are done within the first 12 weeks, most women will be forced to have a probe inserted into their vagina, whether they want to or not. Pretty close to rape, actually. That's right. A woman who chooses to have an abortion is going to be penetrated whether she consents or not. Some of the supporters in the article seem to indicate that she was already penetrated once and that's why she's pregnant, so she lost the right to complain about this penetration. But they just want these women to have 'more information'. According to a study: "Weitz summarized her findings in 2010 when she said that “women do not have abortions because they believe the fetus is not a human or because they don’t know the truth.”  The only reason for this bill is to emotionally blackmail a woman and make her feel guilty. The creators of this bill assume that a woman can't comprehend what a pregnancy means. I'm pretty sure these woman know full-well what a pregnancy entails.... hence abortion. Basically a woman will be penetrated against her will AND have to foot the bill for the medical rape. Way to punish women for a choice YOU wouldn't make. The link to this horrendous bit of news. 

Original link here. March is actually scarily close to the one above, but February is detailed below. So half of this is already true. And all of it is f-ing scary/ridiculous/asinine.

• This next bit is a link to how the GOP bitch-slapped women 3 times in one day: (1) ZERO women were present during a hearing on religious freedom and contraception and one woman who DID want to speak was denied because "she wasn’t “appropriate or qualified” to discuss the topic at hand.". (2) Female attendees of a conservative convention were scolded for dressing "“frumpish” or “like two-bit whores. (3) Rick Santorum's billionare backer, Foster Friess, said that women stuck aspirin between their knees as contraception. WAH?!?! Yeah. From the article: "So there you have it: modern women being told by Republicans that they’re not qualified to talk about their own sexual health, are dressed like “whores” and probably need birth control because they’re so slutty. And this is just in one day."
  Here's the video of that asshat: 

And here's the woman the GOP refused to let speak. BOOYAH!

 These three articles/links above are just a small sample of the infuriating amount of punishment being bestowed upon women as part of a religious agenda that has crept into our supposed secular nation. I say 'supposed secular nation' because with so many politicians emphasizing their religion and creating laws that focus on the sexual beliefs of THEIR religion, it is clear that these individuals cannot separate their personal religion from their duty to their constituents to represent them and create fair laws for a nation of people of varying backgrounds.

Other infuriating articles: 

• Female Fox Pundit indicates that women in the military should 'expect' to be raped and also uttered the phrase "raped too much" as if there is a certain number of times that rape is acceptable. LINK HERE.
• A bill has been proposed in New Hampshire to prevent cops from making arrests in domestic abuse situations when they haven't witnessed it. So the cop may see the scene of the crime, but have to leave an abused woman (and children) with her attacker, so the cop can go get a warrant. LINK HERE.

This kind of shit is infuriating. Especially when it happens 'all at once'. It's easy to react when you hear about this shit, bit by bit. You can contact people, lawmakers, ruffle feathers, speak up and let your voice be heard. But to have so many stories appear in such a short time period makes me want to scream. I know that I already have SO many rights in this country and that it has taken YEARS for us to get here. But there are people working to turn back the clock on what has been accomplished. How can we champion for other countries to treat women better when our standards are dipping?  How can we call ourselves a great nation when we are allowing religious zealots to make policies that affect our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? I don't live in Oklahoma, Missisppi, Virginia, New Hampshire or some of these places featured here. But dammit, I KNOW that some idiot will be bringing this crap into my home state before long. We have to fight this. Fight it in your state, let your voice be heard. Contact your lawmakers and let them know how you feel before, during and after this issues come to light.

As a woman and as a human being, I believe every woman should be able to make a choice about her body and it's ability to bring life into the world. 

I do not believe that women only have the option of 'motherhood' or 'spinsterhood'. 

I do not believe that a woman is a whore because she has sex as frequently as men. 

I do not believe a woman is a bad person for choosing to have an abortion. 

I do not believe that men are more qualified to speak on women's sexual health than are women. 

I do not believe that lawmakers have a right to bring religion into the political arena and label it 'right' and any deviance 'wrong'. 

I believe that a woman has a right to be a mother, give up a child for adoption, have an abortion, or do any combination of those actions in her lifetime without judgement or condemnation of her character.
I do not believe a woman should ever be subjected to rape, nor made to feel that it's 'expected'.

I believe that outlawing abortions does not stop abortions but puts women who still seek abortions at risk. 

I believe that women need to stop being punished for our body's capabilities and our decisions that do or do not conflict with biology's unregulated abilities.

I believe this war on women, our bodies, our choices, our access to necessary or desired health care and medicines, this hatred and demoralization, this religious zealousness, this persecution of women NEEDS TO END NOW.

I believe that men who support women's choice are much needed allies in this fight. We love you for standing with us.

So, are you going to stand back and let religious lawmakers legislate the hell out of our bodies? Or are you going to SPEAK UP?

P.S. Here is a link that give more info on the hearing in which women weren't allowed to talk about their sexual health. The article states that moderate and liberal Catholics are now okay with the HHS saying that Catholic institutions not having to foot the bill for the medical things they don't agree with.




OFFENSIVE STUFF BELOW. DON'T READ IF YOU DON'T WANT TO BE OFFENDED. DUH.

       Personally I believe that if Catholic institutions want to continue to deny medical coverage for things they preach against, they shouldn't be allowed to claim to be an equal-opportunity employer and instead admit that they DO discriminate on gender (no female priests allowed) AND sexuality (this includes sexual orientation and a woman's choice to do IVF or have any bit of control over her sexual health). BUT I figured that didn't belong in my little bold list above, since that is more tongue-in-cheek than serious.
      Oh and here are some facts on abortion. I personally like the info about FACE: Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances. 

FACE makes it illegal to intentionally use force, the threat of force, or physical obstruction to injure, intimidate, interfere with, or attempt to injure, intimidate or interfere with individuals obtaining or providing reproductive health care services. FACE also punishes anyone who intentionally damages or destroys a facility that provides reproductive health services.

Something that always bothers me is the pro-life people out there harassing people walking into clinics. If you REALLY wanted to make yourselves useful and practice what you preach, go down the street and learn about fostering or adopting the children that exist NOW that you claim you would care for if the women at the clinic weren't aborting them. Although, and this sounds terrible... I'd rather abort a fetus than to have it end up adopted by some religious zealot that harasses people. BUT because I'm a responsible person, I want to continue to have the right to make decisions in regards to MY body and my life and not be subjected to religious persecution because I don't believe these lawmakers have a right to control my uterus. So those religious lawmakers... they can feck off anytime now! >=P

     So, on a level of '1 to 10', 1 being "not so offensive" and 10 being "Dear Lord, burn this heathen!" how offensive was that? ;)

Girl Scout Cookies, Transgender Children and Planned Parenthood

The following image made the rounds on the internet and garnished my support and the support of others that promote transgender issues as well as Planned Parenthood. What follows is my letter to the Girl Scouts informing them I ordered double my cookie amount because of this image. A rep from the Girl Scouts responded, so you can see what the official standing of Girl Scouts is on Planned Parenthood. Not really a stance, so much as legal jargon to save their butt. Disappointing, but at least they support transgender children.

The image in question that made the rounds on the internet. I think it was supposed to be a conservative scare tactic, but it had the opposite effect on all the liberals ;)

MY MESSAGE TO GIRL SCOUTS:

Greetings,

... I'm sure you are aware that some conservative people may be boycotting Girl Scouts because of the ties to Planned Parenthood and allowing transgender children to be a part of Girl Scouting.

This jpeg had found its way into my facebook news feed. http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxtj8l6XwY1qdm9vwo1_500.jpg

I wanted to let you know that I purchased DOUBLE my order BECAUSE of these issues AND have shared this information with my friends. It's very important to me that young women are well-informed AND that those with different gender identity are welcomed into a supportive environment. I sincerely hope the information in the jpeg is actually true as it makes me feel proud to support the Girl Scouts.

I also hope that you will continue on the path of providing girls, whatever their orientation, a supportive environment that provides them with the information they need to make good life choices.

Thank you!
-D

THEIR RESPONSE: 

Thank you for your message to Girl Scouts of the USA. We appreciate
your interest and kind words. Girl Scouts is proud to be the premier
leadership organization for girls in the country. Placement of
transgender youth is handled on a case-by-case basis, with the welfare
and best interests of the child and the members of the troop/group in
question a top priority. That said, if the child is recognized by the
family and school/community as a girl and lives culturally as a girl,
then Girl Scouts is an organization that can serve her in a setting that
is both emotionally and physically safe.

Further, the Girl Scout organization, including local Councils, does not
take a position on abortion or birth control, nor do we endorse or
provide funding to organizations such that advocate on these issues.

GSUSA does not provide any financial support to Planned Parenthood, nor
do we have any national collaboration or relationship with that
organization. We believe issues related to health and sexuality are
private matters for girls and their families.

We are aware of several websites, some by current and former Girl Scouts
and volunteers, that take issue with the Girl Scout organization on a
number of topics. We applaud these individuals for pursuing the
principles we teach in Girl Scouting regarding identifying an issue that
they feel passionate about and working to address it. At the same time,
we also disagree with many of the points made on these sites, some of
which we feel are inaccurate. Our positions on many of these issues
haven't changed, and we believe these websites do not accurately reflect
Girl Scouting.

For the sake of clarity, once again, Girl Scouts does not take a
position on abortion or birth control, does not have a relationship with
Planned Parenthood on a national level and does not plan to have one.

Because Girl Scouting is a beloved American institution, our name has
the power to draw attention to topics that might otherwise go unnoticed.
As a leadership organization, we must always respect the right of others
to express their views and we will continue to support girls who care
deeply about an issue and have the courage to stand up and take action,
even if we do not agree with what they say.

Thanks again for support of Girl Scouts.

So there you have it. The image from scared conservatives and an official response from Girl Scouts. :)

Book Review: "Beyond Motherhood: Choosing a Life Without Children" by Jeanne Safer, Ph.D.

Book Review: "Beyond Motherhood: Choosing a Life Without Children" by Jeanne Safer, Ph.D.

Like the last book I reviewed, this book was researched and released in the 1990's.

The first thing I must point out is this... at the very beginning of the book (p 3-4), Safer states that she will refer to the lifestyle as 'childless' because no one can deny they are missing something. This immediately altered my perception of the author's viewpoint. I understand that she is trying to point out that by the very terms of it, choosing one option makes choosing the other impossible, and therefore you 'miss' the experiences that choice would have offered. But, as a person who is happy about my childfree choice, I do NOT feel as if I'm missing out. I realize there are different levels of relating to the concept of missing or not missing on the parenting experience within the 'no children' community. But for the author to determine that I am missing out on something does not fit my experience.

In my mind, I can't miss something I never had. I don't miss being a doctor because I never was a doctor. I don't miss owning a Lamborghini because I never had one. Safer contests that even mothers are missing out on the 'no children' experience (note... I'm apparently refusing to say 'childless' in this entry!) because they gave it up. Yes, a mother can miss the freedom she had when she was without children, but it is not the same for me... I can't miss being a mother because I never had children. I could hypothetically miss the idea of having children, but that would be the idealization of the role, not the actuality of it. Just as a mother could idealize being childfree as sitting around and eating bon bons in the bathtub with no interruptions... actually... that is the childfree experience in a nutshell! ;)  (I'm only partially kidding.)

Okay, so that big glaring problem out of the way... the book was pretty decent. It talked about when and how women decided, how personal history affected the decision, childfree marriages, creating an alternate feminine identity and the childfree legacy after death.

I think so not to bore you, I'll just include the quotes I liked. A 'best of' section, of sorts (with page numbers). These quotes are from either the author OR one of the interviewees. My notes are in italics:

• "Being different can be immeasurably enriching, but it marks you. There is a price for the unconventional life." p.19
• "Many people gain maturity by becoming parents, but I hope to achieve it by choosing not to. This demands self-reliance; having no one to live through or to do what you could not, forces you to seek meaning within yourself alone. I know everything depends on me. It really does for everybody, but children can permit parents to elude this essential and disturbing awareness temporarily." p. 34
• "True maturity, I discovered, is doing something even though your mother wants you to." p 36 Hahaha! I like that one!
• "I know in a way kids are a celebration of family and life, but if we had them, we'd have to stop doing what we were put on this planet to do." p 58 This was said by one of the husbands. I find it profoundly truthful to my point of view.
• "Despite the fact that motherhood is supposed to be a woman's supreme fulfillment, for them it seemed more of an obstacle to fulfillment." p 76 Completely true for me.
• "an incredible stubborn love of freedom" p 80 Love it and have it and love that I have it!
• "childlessness is both a preference and a means of self-preservation" p 81
• "The voluntarily childless woman finds maternal responsibility almost claustrophobic." p 85 That one is so me!
• "they see their brand of caretaking more as a choice than a handicap." p 85  I believe this came from a section that reiterated that there are many ways to nurture others and that many CL/CF/IOD women (and men) do nurture through relationships or volunteering or some means and they find these opportunities rewarding because it is a choice, not something forced upon them. That and you can set time limits on those things....kids, not so much.
• "My life is not better or worse than that of a woman with children - it's just different" p 92 (Janet Frank)
• "The daughters of talented, discontented women such as these don't just avoid childbearing in reaction to negative examples; they also feel inspired by their mothers." p 111 Because so much emphasis is put into the nature vs nurture theory when a person goes against the norm, there is often times pointing fingers as to how his or her history affected it. It's important to understand that people who choose to have a childfree/IOD life are not doing so ONLY because they had a 'bad childhood' but they could have had the best childhood possible and still chosen to not have kids.
• "She became herself by being different." p 115
• "She must design her destiny for herself and deal with the world's reaction to her nonconformity." p 144
• "Childlessness is un-American; it's like being a traitor to your flag." p 146 I suppose this is probably true in most countries/cultures as they seem to be very natalistc.
• "to do something you really want makes you feel like more, not less." p 149
• "need an unusual degree of self-confidence and self-acceptance." p 152.
• "... so my sense of myself is pretty intact. I don't miss what I don't have; I'm comfortable with who I am." p 155
• "refutes the assumption that mothers have a monopoly on compassion" p 160
• "She acquired something rare and precious as a result: time to reflect on ways of being that most people don't have." p 168  Is it easier for childfree people to find happiness because they aren't constantly pushing their own needs aside? I think so. We are in tune with our needs in the first place well enough to know having kids isn't right for us. Many people can't even look in the mirror, much less take the time to self-improve. 
• "Friends replace family as the lifelines for the majority of the women I met." p 172  This rings very true for me. I have a strong network of friends that support me in ways my family is not capable of doing. We are born into families of people that may not understand us, but we are blessed when we find others with whom to surround ourselves to ensure our happiness.
• "My life is my child." p 182

Other things of note from the book:

• p. 50 - The author found that studies found that those who opted to not have children were typically the firstborn or only child. I don't find this to be true.
• p. 62-64 talks about the experiences of a woman who had people try to GIVE her their children! She was a war correspondent and these people wanted her to (a) have the joy a child brings (b) give their child more opportunity. I found this to be so interesting! (More interesting than the woman who's best friend cut her off because she wouldn't be a surrogate mother for her!! That's just selfish on the part of that woman demanding that of her friend! Yuck!)
• p. 139. Scientists thought that a higher divorce rate among those without children indicated unhappiness but now realize those without children have an easier time deciding to divorce because they don't 'have to stay together for the kids'. Marriages with zero children tend to be more egalitarian, more cohesive and satisfying, longer-lasting and more fulfilling. 
• p 146-147. Childless women are resentful b/c others (mothers) do not support their choice. This is important. In order to create a healthy society in which all people are encouraged to make a conscious choice about the child decision, the result of each individual's decision should be respected. To not do so creates conflict, which I'm sure we've all come up against. 
• p 148 - a highly developed responsibility makes them choose not to have kids.
• p 148 and around there... had some horrific stories of people butting in and telling strangers they should have kids or they're missing out or they will regret it or they are selfish etc. How rude!!
• p 150-151. One person emphasized the idea of mentally (or verbally, if you're brave!) questioning the people who question you. By being steadfastly childfree and happy about it, you make them uncomfortable because you don't reinforce their choice or because they are unhappy with their choice. 
• p 151-152: Even when a person or couple is happy and comfortable with their choice, there is still a sense of exclusion in the community. "need an unusual degree of self-confidence and self-acceptance." p 152.
• One person mentioned seeing an elderly woman admitted to the hospital w/o family or next of kin. The observer was happy to think she'd have a long list of friends to come to her aid in her old age. To me, that's not exactly true/is idealistic for multiple reasons. Hospitals primarily view 'kin' as the only people allowed to visit or make decisions. I personally don't want several of my family members making my medical decisions because we don't agree on some thing. But hospitals don't even let same-sex partners make the decisions sometimes. So what I'm saying is (a) the system of relationship qualification for legal purposes is broken and (b) the idea that your friends will rush to your aid in your old age is probably just as idealistic as the concept that one's own children will care for you.

So, in closing, I liked this book, except for the major glaring bit in the beginning about 'missing out on being a mother'. I enjoyed reading a time capsule of sorts from the childless/childfree/indpendent of dependent army of 20 years ago! :)