Caffeinated Thoughts

Motherhood: The Common Thread of Our American Quilt
When Offending Others Becomes Criminal
ALEC Delays Vote on Anti-Common Core Model Resolution
Health Care and the Problem of Overdiagnosis
Iowa Right to Life Legislative Wrap-up

Motherhood: The Common Thread of Our American Quilt

Posted: 12 May 2012 03:25 AM PDT

Since I was a young girl I have loved to sew. Much like my other interests, sewing is something that relaxes me. I learned how to in Girl Scouts and in fact I earned a badge for sewing, which I promptly sewed onto my Girl Scout uniform sash by hand. I still sew most things by hand including a quilt I am currently working on for my mom for Mother's Day. For anyone reading this who might know my Mom, you are sworn to secrecy. I don't want to ruin the surprise.

This quilt I am making for my mom involves my children's hand prints and is a mash-up of different fabrics, mostly made up from clothes my children no longer wear. Jeans that have been handed down at least a few times and are no longer acceptable for donation to the Salvation Army or St. Vincent DePaul Society. Scrap quilting is my favorite form of quilt because it pieces together different fabrics to create a beautifully unified mosaic. Quilts have long been used to strengthen family ties, preserve memories of old friends, and mark notable events. Thoughts of scrap quilts conjure up images of thrifty pioneer housewives piecing elaborate patchworks for their families or a brightly colored scrap quilt made by a grandmother or aunt during the Depression. Even though quilting has been around for a long time in different countries, the popular image of the quilt is American.

American quilts make for a perfect metaphor for America itself. Quilt researcher Laurel Horton once said, "We Americans have adopted quilts as a symbol of what we value about ourselves and our national history." In fact, throughout history, Americans have used the art of quilting for many diverse purposes: to keep warm, to decorate their homes, to express political views, to remember a loved one and, especially, to tell stories about themselves and the cultural history of a particular place and time. The quilt metaphor, to its credit, suggests that many and varied pieces can successfully be assembled and stitched together to create a beautiful and functional whole without any of the pieces losing their distinct characteristics. Jesse Jackson is noted as saying, "America is not like a blanket-one piece of unbroken cloth, the same color, the same texture, the same size. America is more like a quilt-many patches, many pieces, many colors, many sizes, all woven and held together by a common thread." We are many different fabrics but all part of the same quilt, all united by the same thread of American values. An integral part of the quilt of America is motherhood.

A South African proverb states 'the hand that rocks the cradle rules the nation and controls its destiny". American mothers have had an important role in shaping this country since its inception and carefully crafting our destiny as a nation. Our founding mothers, women full determination, creative insight, and passion like Martha Washington and Abigail Adams raised our nation using courage, pluck, sadness, joy, energy, grace, sensitivity and humor — to do what women do best, put one foot in front of the other in remarkable circumstances, and carry on. Martha and Abigail were two mothers who sacrificed for their own families and for us today, the "unborn millions" to come as George Washington called us. These women lived loudly for liberty and wove together their different American experiences through the common thread of motherhood. Motherhood and their distinctive seasons in life influenced the decisions they made.

By the time George Washington became commander-in-chief of the Continental Army in 1775, his wife Martha was an empty-nester. Three of her four children had died. Jack, her last living son, was grown and married. Martha hoped George would return to Mount Vernon by the autumn of 1775. When the leaves fell from the trees and Washington was still not home, Martha made her choice. She would join her husband in camp for winter, forcing her to endure a month in a carriage over risky rough roads from Virginia to Massachusetts. Traveling put her in greater jeopardy for catching small pox or being kidnapped by the British.

But she did it, year after year, dividing her time between Mount Vernon and being with her husband in camp. She agonized as she missed family celebrations, including the birth of her first granddaughter in August 1776. Yet she prioritized being with her husband, even when her sister and mother fell ill and could have used her help. Historians estimate that Martha spent 50 percent of the war with George in camp or close by.

Abigail faced a different scenario. Once again, her place in motherhood influenced her choice. Unlike Martha, Abigail's children were young and dependent. In 1775 her oldest of four children was ten; her youngest, three. She became an income-earning mother, sacrificing companionship with her husband in Philadelphia to care for their children and land back home. When John Adams left Boston to join the Continental Congress in Philadelphia, he gave up his law practice, half of their income. Abigail rose to the occasion, offering to manage the other half—their farmland—in his absence. She became an income-earning mother, sacrificing companionship with her husband in Philadelphia to care for their children and land back home. She stitched together solvency to keep them from the poorhouse. "I hope in time to have the reputation of being as good a farmeress as my partner has of being a good statesmen." Abigail faced numerous hardships: labor shortages, tenants who abandoned their crops, counterfeit money schemes, and inflation, among others.

Why did Martha and Abigail sacrifice so much? Love and patriotism. Motherhood not only perpetuates civilization, it defines it. We do the same today, we mothers sacrifice much whether we work outside the home or work at home. Mothers provide invaluable benefits to all, and their work is priceless. As Ann Crittenden wrote in 2001, "The very definition of a mother is selfless service to another". She cites two old sayings in connection with motherhood: A Jewish adage says, "God could not be everywhere, and therefore He made mothers". And an Arabic proverb puts it this way, "The mother is a school; if she is well reared, you are sure to build a nation".

I wonder if there were mommy wars during the Revolutionary War period. Do you think Martha used to complain about Abigail's parenting style to George? Do you think John Adams had to hear about how Martha never worked a day in her life? Somehow, I doubt so. These women among countless others were too busy with the business of helping support and fight for the cause of freedom. Their families were birthing a nation.

So why are we so concerned with how a mother decides to raise her family? Why the desire to fan the flames of a fake Mommy War by the media and political pundits? For the past twenty-five years since Former First Lady and current Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton famously snapped, "I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was fulfill my profession," the talking heads have tried to cause division among mothers in this country and tear at the fabric of our American quilt. The salvos have varied through the years. From Secretary of State Clinton and the cookie conundrum, to complaints that Governor Palin makes being a mother look too easy, to Hilary Rosen's sharp barb at Ann Romney implying she never worked a day in her life despite being a mom to five sons.

Do the media honestly think that by devaluing the parenting skills of First ladies, Vice Presidential Candidates, or wives of candidates, they will help to divide America and tear apart the common threads that unite us as a people? Do visions of Tiger Moms versus Slacker Moms or Helicopter Moms versus Green Moms or Stage Moms throwing it down on the school playground dance in their heads?

Being moms in the real world not the media swirl is not anything like that. I honestly NEVER hear this ridiculousness on the ground from real actual women. In my children's classes, the mothers are well-off, struggling, solidly middle class, biological parents, adoptive parents, single parents, working full-time, staying home full-time, working from home, working part-time, and perish the thought – we even have a stay-at-home dad. WE HAVE NEVER, NOT ONCE, HAD A WAR. Nary even a battle. No arguments about who is good, better, best, bad, or worst at parenting. We all help at school, drive on field trips when we can, arrange play-dates and sleepovers, meet for coffee, help each other out when we get in a jam, and volunteer.

Last Sunday, in fact, I witnessed this unreported phenomenon of mothers actually helping each other first hand. I have made some new friends recently. One of them was going to run a race and didn't have child care for her children. My other friend stepped up and watched her children. She not only did that, she brought those children to where their mother was competing so they could watch her cross the finish line. These two moms take time to encourage each other and me every week. I love them for it and it makes the job of 'mommying' much easier. These amazing women I am proud to consider friends take the time to affirm that they 'see' each other and me for that matter. Even though we might choose to raise our children by different methods, we still appreciate each other as Moms who are doing the important work of shaping our nation through our children's lives.

My relationship with my mom is a lot like that too. We chose to raise our families in different ways. My mom earned a degree in economics and worked full-time as an elementary school teacher. I earned a degree in Computer Science but elected to stay home to raise our six, yes six children. Even though our choices are different, my mom continues to be proud of me in the choice I made. In the family room of my parents home sat a simple framed saying. It read

Suddenly, or not so suddenly,
A woman discovers her MIND,
Her ability to ACHIEVE,
Her ability to SUCCEED.

And her life will not,
Cannot,
Ever be
The same.

I used to love to look at that simply framed statement because it always reminded me of my mom. My mom is the strongest woman I know. She taught me that hard work and integrity build a woman's good name. She sent me a copy of this saying to encourage me as I raise my family.

So, I would like to ask a favor this Mother's Day. How about instead of focusing all of our energy tearing down the women who get up every day and "suit up" to play and keep this nation from falling to its knees, whether it be in a full blown business suit or yesterday's spit-up covered yoga pants, but who openly acknowledge that what they are doing comes with great sacrifice, we laser focus in on growing the economy, rather than trying to bribe voters, and in the process saddling our kids with tons of debt? Support families, and then let those families, especially mothers make their own choices. We know best, not government. So stop trying to manipulate mommies. Recognize that regardless of whether or not mothers' work is paid or unpaid, the work of caregiving is important to us all and should be valued. That's right: Mothers' work should be valued.

It isn't widely known, but there is powerful precedent for declaring the quilt metaphor to be the best descriptor for America. During the Civil War, Henry W. Bellows of the U.S. Sanitary Commission compared women's work to a "great national quilting party." At this party, American women created a National Quilt of "many patches, each of its own color or stuff", he wrote, which were "tacked and basted, then sewed and stitched by women's hands, wet often with women's tears, and woven in with women's prayers." Bellows predicted that the new quilt that would emerge at war's end would "tear anywhere sooner than in the seams, which they have joined in a blessed and inseparable unity."

We live in a time of discord. Politicians berate each other uncivilly in the halls and chambers of the Capitol, while pundits scream at each other on so-called news shows. Americans seem more polarized than ever, divided into red and blue camps, yet we long for compromise and cooperation for the good of the country and everyone in it. Most of us want to believe that Americans can come together to create a functional whole, just as numerous pieces of fabric can be joined to form a beautiful quilt. We want to believe that we can still pitch in together to accomplish tasks that need to be done, as we did in mobilizing all sectors of our society to win World War II. Most Americans do care about what happens to others, honor our heroes, and believe that we can air our disagreements and come to compromise in a cooperative and civil manner. For all these reasons the American quilt has become both cultural icon and national metaphor. That is appropriate, for in their various forms, both elaborate and humble, they give visual expression to deeply held values and traditions we think of as American at the core. Americans shouldn't be working to tear apart the common threads that unify our nation, they should instead be making the threads that bind our national quilt together, especially that of motherhood, even stronger.

When Offending Others Becomes Criminal

Posted: 11 May 2012 10:15 PM PDT

Jonathan Turley, a professor of public interest law at George Washington University, wrote an op/ed earlier this week that I think is spot on for the most part. He expressed concern over the increasing criminalization of certain kinds of speech. He wrote:

Magisterial District Judge Mark Martin was hearing a case in which an irate Muslim stood accused of attacking an atheist, Ernest Perce, because he was wearing a “Zombie Muhammad” costume on Halloween. Although the judge had “no doubt that the incident occurred,” he dismissed the charge of criminal harassment against the Muslim and proceeded to browbeat Mr. Perce. Judge Martin explained that such a costume would have led to Mr. Perce’s execution in many countries under sharia, or Islamic law, and added that Mr. Perce’s conduct fell “way outside your bounds of First Amendment rights.”

…Western nations appear to have fallen out of love with free speech and are criminalizing more and more kinds of speech through the passage of laws banning hate speech, blasphemy and discriminatory language. Ironically, these laws are defended in the name of tolerance and pluralism.

….Most democratic constitutions strive not to allow the majority to simply dictate conditions and speech for everyone — the very definition of what the framers of the U.S. Constitution called tyranny of the majority. It was this tendency that led John Adams to warn: “Democracy … soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

…Judge Martin’s comments are disturbing because they reflect the same emerging view of the purpose and, more important, the perils of free speech. Judge Martin told Ernest Perce that “our forefathers” did not intend the First Amendment “to piss off other people and cultures.” Putting aside the fact that you could throw a stick on any colonial corner and hit three people “pissed off” at Thomas Paine or John Adams, the First Amendment was designed to protect unpopular speech. We do not need a First Amendment to protect popular speech.

He contrasted free speech with religion which is an appropriate contrast with the primary illustration in his article. We are also seeing religious free speech come under fire in Canada, in the United Kingdom and even here in the United States in the name of tolerance as well. Recently we had a law passed that allows the Secret Service to restrict free speech. We are seeing free speech die a slow death at the hands of political correctness and homosexual rights.

ALEC Delays Vote on Anti-Common Core Model Resolution

Posted: 11 May 2012 08:30 PM PDT

I'm not surprised, but disappointed by the American Legislative Exchange Council executive board decision yesterday to delay their vote on a anti-common core resolution proposed by the American Principles Project, Goldwater Institute, and Washington Policy Center last summer.

American Principles Project sent out a press release on the vote:

Washington, DC – Today, the board of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), after considering anti-Common Core legislation introduced by the American Principles Project (APP), Goldwater Institute and the Washington Policy Center last summer, delayed a decision on whether to endorse the legislation until their next meeting.

"ALEC's delay in endorsing the resolution is troubling and plays into the strategy of the multi-billion dollar private entities that are pushing the Common Core," said APP's Emmett McGroarty. "This issue has been before ALEC for almost a year. The resolution was approved by the ALEC Education Task Force overwhelmingly last December, and ALEC has discussed it at three of its national meetings. The well-financed private entities and the federal government are moving forward with their implementation of the Common Core, and Americans have been cut out of the process."

Dr. Tony Bennett, the Indiana Superintendent of Public Instruction, presented the pro-Common Core case to the board of ALEC. Dr. Bennett is also on the Board of Directors of the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), one of the two trade associations managing the Common Core Standards (along with the National Governors Association). Additionally, he is the Chairman of Chiefs for Change, an initiative of Jeb Bush’s Foundation for Excellence in Education. The Foundation for Excellence in Education and CCSSO have received $1,000,000 and $70,000,000, respectively, from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the primary force financing and pushing the Common Core.

Robert Scott, Texas Commissioner of Education, presented the case for the resolution to the board, which then deliberated behind closed doors. State Rep. Dave Frizzell of Indiana, ALEC's National Chairman, reported that the board found that there was much to like about the legislation but decided to send it back to the Education Task Force due to concerns about some of the language. He stated that the board would forward the details of those concerns to the task force.

This week, APP and Pioneer Institute released a white paper that makes the case against state adoption of the national Common Core State Standards. Co-sponsored by Pacific Research Institute and the Washington Policy Center, Controlling Education From the Top: Why Common Core Is Bad for America argues in favor of a Common Core withdrawal resolution.

The white paper can be seen here:

http://americanprinciplesproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Controlling-Education-From-the-Top.pdf

The Resolution can be seen here:

http://americanprinciplesproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Comprehensive-Legislative-Package-Opposing-the-Common-Core-State.pdf

Regarding the pro-common core model legislation does it really matter what the language says if the process is bad? I don't think so. It's amazing to me that a group whose tagline is "limited government, free markets and federalism" would even consider passing model legislation supporting the common core state standards as they have been an affront to limited government and federalism.

Health Care and the Problem of Overdiagnosis

Posted: 11 May 2012 05:15 PM PDT

By John Hendrickson

As the future of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) awaits its judgment by the United States Supreme Court, policymakers and individuals need to begin looking at different policies and ideas to not only reduce the cost of health care, but also improve the quality of service. In Over-Diagnosed: Making People Sick in the Pursuit of Health, Dr. H. Gilbert Welch and co-authors Dr. Lisa M. Schwartz and Dr. Steven Woloshin discuss the nature of overdiagnosis, which "is the biggest problem posed by modern medicine. It is a problem relevant to virtually all medical conditions."[1]The authors argue that "this book is about the relentless expansion of medicine and our increasing tendency to make diagnoses."[2]

Though many policy problems confront health care in the United States, our nation still has the best health-care service in the world. The American health-care system provides not only quality care, but also an economic system that encourages growth in technology along with research and development in order to increase the quality of treatment. Health care is a large part of our culture. Our society is inundated with health/medical ads on media outlets across-the-board that encourage healthy living, early screening, and new medications, among many others. As the authors of Over-Diagnosed explain:

Americans have been trained to be concerned about our health. All sorts of hidden dangers lurk inside us. The conventional wisdom is that it's always better to know about these dangers so that something can be done… That's why we are so enthusiastic about amazing medical technologies that can detect abnormalities even when we think we are well. That's also why we welcome the identification of risk factors, disease-awareness campaigns, cancer screenings, and genetic testing. Americans love diagnosis, especially early diagnosis.[3]

This is where the problem of overdiagnosis becomes an issue in our health-care system. "Overdiagnosis is a relatively new problem in medicine," as the authors note:[4]

In the past, people didn't go to the doctor when they were well — they tended to wait until they developed symptoms. Furthermore, doctors didn't encourage the healthy to seek care. The net result was that doctors made fewer diagnoses than they do now. But the paradigm has changed. Early diagnosis is the goal. People seek care when they are well. Doctors try to detect disease earlier.[5]

Some of the examples that the authors write about in the book include hypertension (high blood pressure) and diabetes. In regard to hypertension, "before the late 1990s, a blood pressure reading of 160-over-100 was considered the threshold for the diagnosis…; today it is 140-over-90."[6] A similar situation applies to blood sugar numbers when diagnosing diabetes. Welch notes that when he was "in medical school," a "fasting blood sugar over 140" was a diagnosis for diabetes, but today that number has been lowered to 126 as a result of a special committee.[7]

This change in diagnosing both hypertension and diabetes can be both good and problematic:

So everyone who has a blood sugar between 126 and 140 used to be normal but now has diabetes. That little change turned over 1.6 million people into patients. Is that a problem? Maybe, maybe not. Because we changed the rules, we now treat more patients for diabetes. That may mean we have lowered the chance of diabetic complications for some of these new patients. But because these patients have milder diabetes, they are relatively low risk for these complications to begin with. So just like people with relatively mild hypertension, people with mildly abnormal blood sugar levels have less to gain from treatment.[8]

The authors argue that "the problem of overdiagnosis stems directly from the expansion of the pool of individuals in whom we make diagnoses: from individuals with disease (those with symptoms) to individuals with abnormalities (those without symptoms)."[9] In addition, they argue that "all treatments have the potential to do some harm," but a patient who is "overdiagnosed cannot benefit from treatment. There's nothing to be fixed…"[10]

Throughout the book the authors are careful not to dismiss the seriousness of diagnosis, "especially for those who are sick." Nor is it an endorsement for "alternative medicine," but rather "for the many who are (or used to be) basically well — or those who have one illness and are at risk of being told they have others."[11] "The question I'm raising is not whether you should seek out a doctor — and a diagnosis — when you are sick…The question is about when you are well. How hard should a doctor look for things to be wrong?" asked Welch[12]

Over-Diagnosed provides a serious overview of a problem that confronts health care from all directions. The thesis of the book provides a synopsis of why overdiagnosis is a crucial issue:

It is a problem relevant to virtually all medical conditions. It has led millions of people to become patients unnecessarily, to be made anxious about their health, to be treated needlessly, and to bear the inconvenience and financial burdens associated with overdiagnosis. It has added staggering costs to our already overburdened health-care system. And all of the forces that helped create and exacerbate the problem — financial gain, true belief, legal concerns, media messages, and self-reinforcing cycles — are powerful obstacles to fixing it.[13]

Endnotes:

[1] Dr. H. Gilbert Welch, Dr. Lisa M. Schwartz, and Dr. Steven Woloshin, Over-Diagnosed: Making People Sick in the Pursuit of Health, Beacon Press, Boston, Massachusetts, 2011, p. 180.
[2] Ibid., p. xii.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid., p. xiv.
[5] Ibid., pp. xiv-xv.
[6] Peter Van Doren, "The Second Wave of Managed Care?" Regulation, Vol. 34, No. 4, Cato Institute, Washington, D.C., Winter 2011-2012, p. 41.
[7] Welch, Schwartz, and Woloshin, pp. 17-18.
[8] Ibid., p. 18.
[9] Ibid., p. xv.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid., p. 180.
[13] Ibid.

John Hendrickson is a Research Analyst with Public Interest Institute in Mount Pleasant, Iowa. Republished by permission from INSTITUTE BRIEF, a publication of Public Interest Institute.

Iowa Right to Life Legislative Wrap-up

Posted: 11 May 2012 04:45 PM PDT

By Eric Goranson & Norm Pawlewski

The Iowa House Republicans were unable to convince Democrats in the Senate to support the Sweeney Amendment. This amendment would have ended taxpayer funded abortions in Iowa and prioritized family planning funds to ensure comprehensive health care providers were funded to the fullest extent possible.

Iowa Right to Life is profoundly grateful for the brave leadership of State Representative Annette Sweeney (R-Alden). Without her courage and tenacity, we would not have made the strides we did this session. Without her commitment to life, we would not be this close to end taxpayer funding of abortion. Thank you Representative Sweeney!

While the Sweeney Amendment was in Conference Committee, the Senate had State Senators Jack Hatch (D-Des Moines), Joe Bolkcom (D-Iowa City) and Amanda Ragan (D-Mason City), the most rabid pro-abortion legislators in that chamber negotiating for them. They would fall on their sword before giving an inch to life. Pro-lifers solely only had one, our committed pro-life champion, State Representative Matt Windschitl (R-Missouri Valley).

The House refused to fund the section of the HHS budget dealing with family planning and taxpayer funded abortion above the amount in the two-year budget appropriated last year.

This allowed them to come to an agreement on the rest of the budget and adjourn for the year, which they did Wednesday.

The net result is that the appropriations for family planning, certain areas of Medicaid, etc., they could not agree on will run out of money during the next legislative session. The House Republicans have therefore tee’d up the issue and forced a supplemental appropriation vote early on in the next session to deal with abortion funding. If the Iowa Senate is controlled by a majority of pro-life Senators after this November’s election, we’ll be able to finish this debate once and for all regarding prioritizing of funds and the end of taxpayer funded abortions.

It’s important to note that Medicaid is fully funded and anyone needing Medicaid or Medicare services or even family planning services will receive them in the interim.

We are extremely disappointed the House and Senate were not able to come to an agreement on this important issue this year, but are hopeful that the stage has been set for a major victory for the unborn next session.

This election, when it comes to this issue in particular, matters most! Get out the vote!

Goranson & Pawlewski are both lobbyists for Iowa Right to Life.