Guns

Message for any and all of the following: the president, your senators, your congress representative, the U.S. and state attorney generals, the governor, your state senator and state legislator:

I support gun control measures that will keep assault weapons out of private citizens’ hands. I support gun control measures that will allow me to be in public spaces without worrying that private citizens in my vicinity are carrying loaded weapons, concealed or not.

Message protocol. Send and/or call your message. Handwritten, posted mail stands out from the email crowd. Postcards deliver your message quickly and concisely. Phone is timely, but some of us won’t phone.  Provide your name as it appears on your voter’s registration card and your zip code.  Your nine-digit zip helps identify your congressional and state legislator district.  When mailing, provide a return address for post. Provide an email address if you like.

Sending Messages with Love

As the need for The Postcard Storm continues, the value of composing messages from a base of love, rather than from a base of anger gains my front and center attention.  Those of us seeking to help our country maintain a functioning democracy–a grand sounding endeavor, but with some truth in it for all of us thinking so much of the day about politics–need fuel to sustain our political energy.  Personally, anger and frustration wear me out, so I’m leaning on love as my message prompt inspiration.  In the days ahead, you can monitor whether this freshly clarified perspective holds.  It has been a long break–about six weeks–since I last posted.  We’ll see what this new surge of energy brings.  So many of us may want to send a letter of love and appreciation for Texas Speaker of the House Joe Straus’s gifted leadership in 2017 which we with Friends for Civil Action believe resulted in our state, for the moment anyway, being a kinder and economically more viable place (a good economy that all can share in is an important kindness) than it would otherwise have been.  We will miss Joe Straus in the role of Speaker.

Thoughts for September 20, 2017

About the President’s address to the U.N. yesterday:  “Me, first,” or “Us, first” doesn’t seem a good way to run our lives or our political rhetoric.  Instead, looking for the point of intersection of mutual interest among all of us might get us closer to world peace and farther from world war.  I favor language and policy that speaks to bringing together the nations of the world that are invested in helping establish a good and healthy community for their peoples, so we can work together rather than trying to be “sovereign.”

About the Affordable Care Act:  Today’s front page story on The New York Times on the bid to repeal the health law ends with this:  “Besides creating block grants, the Graham-Cassidy bill would make deep cuts in Medicaid.  It would end the expansion of eligibility under the Affordable Care Act, which has provided Medicaid coverage to 13 million people.  And it would put the entire program which serves more than 70 million people, on a budget, ending the open-ended entitlement that exists.  States would instead receive a per-beneficiary allotment of federal money.”  Texas actually stands to gain a bit per beneficiary—a sad day when we become the model, since we are near the bottom, along with Mississippi and Alabama, of caring for the health care needs of our people.  In today’s Austin American-Statesman, there’s an Associated Press article that cites, “The Kaiser Family Foundation said that 50% of companies with three to 49 employees offered health insurance this year.  That’s down from 59 percent in 2010 and 66 percent more than a decade ago.”  This is a reminder that there’s work to be done on the Affordable Care Act, shoring up the Affordable Care public marketplaces, which some states have done with success.  There’s work to be done, but it sure doesn’t sound like the Graham-Cassidy bill is the answer, and there are many outstanding questions on a single-payer model, too. Congress, please talk and find a solution to the health care needs of American people, rather than a political posture.  I favor sticking with the Affordable Care Act and improving the parts that aren’t yet working.

About Governor Abbott’s new staffers:  Friends for Civil Action, let’s write a group letter and introduce ourselves and our desire for inclusive policies that reflect our status as residents of our neighborhoods and the world.

About the plaque, titled “Children of the Confederacy Creed” erected in 1959 at the Texas Capitol:  As reported in today’s Austin American-Statesman, this plaque states:  “We, therefore, pledge ourselves to preserve pure ideals, to honor our veterans, to study and teach the truths of history (one of the most important of which is that the War Between the States was not a rebellion, nor was it underlying cause to sustain slavery), and to always act in a manner that will reflect honor upon our noble and patriotic ancestors.”  Thank you to Speaker Joe Straus, for your response to these words: “This is not accurate, and Texans are not well-served by incorrect information about our history. Those of us who serve on the State Preservation Board should direct staff to identify the steps necessary to remove this plaque as soon as practicable.” In contrast, Governor Abbott says, “Tearing down monuments won’t erase our nation’s past, and it doesn’t advance our nation’s future.”  I say removing monuments to past bigotry from places of honor does advance our nation’s future.  I say no black man, woman or child or anyone of any race should have to pass through a public place where such a monument to the confederacy stands, unless that monument has been given a new context for our new world, recognizing how wrong slavery was and awful bigotry is.

About cutting taxes as an economic stimulus:  I haven’t seen information that speaks to me that demonstrates cutting taxes for the rich–taxes which have been already cut way back from what they used to be–stimulates the economy.  Cutting taxes while adding to the deficit doesn’t seem to be fiscally conservative.  The front page of today’s New York Times, reports: “Senate Republicans, abandoning a key fiscal doctrine, agreed on Tuesday to move forward on a budget that would add to the federal deficit in order to pave the way for a $1.5 trillion tax cut over the next 10 years.”  In September 5th’s Times, David Leonhardt reported that “in the early 1960’s, the typical chief executive at a large American company made only 20 times as much as the average worker, rather than the current 271-to-1 ratio.”  He also noted that legislation signed by Lyndon b. Johnson “lowered the marginal tax rate to 70 percent. Under Ronald Reagan, it dropped to 50 percent and kept falling. Since 1987, the top rate has hovered between 30 percent and 40 percent.”  I oppose tax cuts for the very wealthy and other measures that don’t address the income inequality gap that has resulted in a 271-to-1 earnings ratio for the typical chief executive at a large American company.

Weekly Update from the Postcard Storm

Here are message prompts for Congress today; I’ve underlined the key phrase to make it easy to make your message short:

#1: Chancellor Bill McRaven says about our DACA students, “Congress must now act quickly to provide a bridge for these students to remain in the U.S. and become citizens.”  I agree.  Not only does Chancellor McRaven know about education, he knows about public safety, having led the raid on Osama Bin Laden.  DACA students should not be treated as a threat; they should be respected as a resource our nation needs.

#2: President of the Association of American Medical Colleges Darrell G. Kirch said the administration’s decision, even with the “wind down process described, the implications of this action for medical students, medical residents, and researchers with DACA status are serious, and will interfere with their ability to complete their training and contribute meaningfully to the health of the nation.”  Congress needs to provide a legal pathway for all who have been part of the DACA program and to all immigrants already in our country who do not pose threats to their communities.

Both quotes are from the Austin American-Statesman article, September 6 by Ralph K.M. Haurwitz, page A5.

Before signing off for this week, I want to call your attention to Joy Diaz’s August 31st  contribution to Texas Standard which aired on KUT.  Her presentation of the facts around SB 4 (the ban on sanctuary cities) shows us how intertwined  all the major issues of our times are—in this case, immigration policy and public school finance.

With thoughts of all impacted by Hurricane Harvey,

Molly

Molly Sharpe

Friends for Civil Action

Friends for Civil Action believe inclusive policies are the right policies for community life, public safety, the economy, and the human spirit.  We are an informal network—without dues or infra-structure—of friends and neighbors branching to many neighborhoods.  As we present our goals to elected officials, we do so with civility, avoiding name calling.  We focus on issues that are vital to community well-being.  We are residents of our neighborhoods and of the world.

Letter to The Austin American-Statesman

I submitted this letter to the editor this morning.

I supported the efforts of the Speaker of the House and those in the Legislature who worked alongside of him to keep bills many of us considered harmful to the people of Texas from being enacted during the Special Session.  I was disheartened to see your headline today about Abbott and blame.  Politics isn’t a sport.  The politicians aren’t the story. The policies they are promoting are the story.  Your readers need to know the real pros and cons of the legislation.  In many ways these last thirty days, the Statesman did a helpful job of covering what the bills’ contents were.  Each time the media uses this battle language in headlines, though, we all lose.

Molly Sharpe, Austin, Texas

 

Standing Watch Letters

Here are the three Standing Watch Letters that are being delivered to our elected officials at the Capitol. The Lt. Governor and the Speaker of the House received these letters last week. Ninety-four of us in Austin and Houston have signed these letters, including the Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Texas and five other clergy members.  While I am an Episcopalian, members of Friends for Civil Action represent many secular and faith belief traditions. Our views are rooted in the general belief that we are residents of our neighborhoods and the world and that we want to be good neighbors and good community members.

Letter #1: Why Funding Planned Parenthood is Faithful, Fiscally Prudent Action Relevant to SB 4; HB 14; HB 214, and other bills.

Dear Elected Officials,

I write as a representative of Friends for Civil Action. As someone who has voted for both Republicans and Democrats, I look at both sides of the political aisle.  I do so trying to apply my top three life values—acting kindly, demonstrating empathy, and finding forgiveness—into action.  I aspire to these values, but, of course, fall short of them regularly or even forget about them.  If I adopt a cynical or glib tone anywhere in this letter, that is me falling short of my values.

Today, our topic is funding for Planned Parenthood. No public dollars are spent on abortions.  I support everything about Planned Parenthood.

The contraception, general health care, education and abortion services they provide offer critically needed care for young people, poor people, and people who select Planned Parenthood as their preferred health-care provider.  We need more people to have better access to contraception and reproductive services, not fewer.

I attended the SB 4 hearing on July 21st. The remarks were opened with the statement that millions of Texans oppose funding Planned Parenthood because it is an abortion provider.

I believe millions of Texans support funding Planned Parenthood, but have not made their voices effectively heard in the Legislature.  Many of us, including people who practice a mainline faith tradition like myself, give priority to the mother who is not prepared to carry a child in her womb, much less raise that child.

Take the case of a twelve-year old pregnant girl mentioned as part of mentioned in the July 21st  Senate hearing.  If I were the mother of a twelve-year old pregnant girl, I would want to spare my child the trauma of carrying a baby to term.  I believe there are others in Texas who would want that, too.

Most of all, they would like for their children or those they love who aren’t ready for pregnancy not to get pregnant. Planned Parenthood has a great track record of helping people avoid unwanted pregnancies.

As an Episcopalian, I’m proud of my faith tradition for posting on its advocacy website page the national church’s position on women’s reproductive health care.  My church wants women to have access to reproductive care, including contraception.  My church wants women to be discerning if abortion is under consideration.  Visit http://advocacy.episcopalchurch.org for details.

That doesn’t mean that all Episcopalians are pro-choice as I am, just as it doesn’t mean that all Catholics eschew contraception or abortion.  Nor do all Friends for Civil Action hold my exact views.

Life is complex.  Visualize the forty-year old woman, newly pregnant with two autistic children and a husband who has just lost his job.  The family is in fragile shape. Having another baby will make the family more so.

For me the choice about abortion and contraception is clear.  If a young girl or a mother of any age is put at risk financially and emotionally because the mother is not prepared to carry a baby to term, abortion is a good—even a wise—choice, if the mother or the pregnant child’s support team are pro-choice.

The women who give birth, either putting their babies up for adoption or trying to raise them when they are not prepared to do so, come away scarred.  Others in their wake are likely to be scarred, too.

If we were people who did what we were supposed to, because we were informed—no over-indulgence in alcohol, no drugs, no unprotected sex, no sex that is harmful to one or to others, no bad behavior generally—life would be much simpler than it is.

Good information is a starting point. Information helps some of us behave better, but it isn’t the cure-all.  Brain chemistry and bad luck hold others hostage.

What do we do as a society? Do we keep telling people to behave with the belief that will fix things?

I’ve been around for many years and served on many social service and Episcopal organization boards.  I’ve seen again and again that we can fix some things and will have to continue struggling with other things.

The struggle is complicated each time a baby is born into fragile circumstances.  I don’t believe this is what God wants.  I believe God—the all-know and loving God that many claim—has the capacity to understand and to not want increased suffering for the people already here.

I wouldn’t undo anyone’s life, but in the situation of choosing between the people who are already here and those in the womb, I’m comfortable with choosing the people here when that choice is needed.

Others won’t be, and that’s why that’s their choice.  That’s the meaning of pro-choice.  Provide the latitude for the woman or the people guiding the pregnant child to do what is best in their circumstances.

More than one-third—37.9% of all delivering mothers—last year were single. Not all, but many of these women began parenthood in a highly vulnerable position.

One-half of all baby deliveries last year were paid for by Medicaid.  A baby born into poverty is more likely to stay in poverty than not, based on data.

Babies born into vulnerable circumstances are likely to require a form of public assistance potentially throughout their lives.

Cutting Planned Parenthood funding is a very expensive proposition for taxpayers.  We need Planned Parenthood, a proven health care provider that honors women and their needs, more than we ever have.

I first became acquainted with Planned Parenthood when I was appointed to their board as the Junior League of Austin’s representative.  Of the many boards I’ve served on, I’ve seen no better organization at doing its job.

I believe there are many Republicans, as well as Democrats, that support Planned Parenthood, but that our voices have not transmitted.  Some of us are at work this very week to do a better job of making our voices heard.

Sincerely,

Mary (Molly) H. Sharpe Austin, TX 78703-2833

 

Letter # 2: The Value of Public Schools

Relevant to SB 2 and other Bills

Dear Elected Officials,

As you may be, some of us are weary of the name calling and attacks on people’s intentions.  A few of in Friends for Civil Action have read Dark Money, Jane Mayer’s bestseller. She is a recipient of the Toner Price for Excellence in Political Reporting and the I.F. Stone Medal for Journalistic Independence presented by the Nieman Foundation at Harvard.  Perhaps you have heard of the book or read it.  Ms. Mayer does a good job in my view of keeping a pretty civil tone, but what’s happening, as she describes it, has an epic quality that makes it difficult to remain calm.

Reading Dark Money was where I first learned of The Bradley Foundation’s early investment in “school choice” the movement many Texas legislators are now trying to bring to Texas, first opening the door to this policy approach by proposing to allow public money to follow some special needs students into private schools.

Before going further, let me say that many Friends for Civil Action are all for public charter schools that provide choice to children, because they do so under an umbrella that is accountable to tax payers.

The “school choice” movement involving private schools has advanced to the point where we now have the owner of private schools for profit as the Secretary of Education for our country. I have two friends from church who I know to be kind, caring people who are great fans of Betsy DeVos and know her personally.  I am convinced of my friends’ kindness, but I believe firmly that public schools—not a public and private school mix—present the way of out of poverty for the children of Texas.

As you know, half of the children born each year in the state –that would be 205,000 at least based on the 2015 data I’ve seen and this is a number that very likely is growing—have their deliveries paid for by Medicaid.  Poverty puts them at extreme disadvantage as they start their walks in life. This at-risk population is continually increasing.

To me, it seems an abdication of elected officials’ responsibility to step aside from helping the public school system continually improve.  I believe the Texas legislature needs to fully commit to a quality public education system.  The first step toward achieving that is to reform the way schools are financed–hard, but essential work.

We voters are often not very informed. We are often quite persuadable, based on having a person whose politics we think we like provide a soundbite on why a certain action should become law.  We are even more persuadable if it looks as if we would personally benefit.  I can see why offering teachers a $1,000 raise would sound good to many teachers.  However, I consider such a plan a component of re-election strategy. I see this as a move that is destructive to schools, since the schools are not being provided any money by the state under this proposal to pay for these raises.

It is easy for those of us removed from the day to day lives of running a school–where just about everything is experienced, since schools are the center of children’s lives–to say that it’s bad to spend money on administration and good to spend money on teachers. The truth is a good administrator wants to get as much money to her or his teachers as possible. The school principals and superintendents have a view of what is required to run their schools as effectively as possible with the resources provided. The have local school boards to help further with that evaluation process. Those of us not making the daily walk through these schools don’t necessarily know the needs.

I have sat through several testimony sessions.  I read, hear, and see news reports multiple times a day.  The legislators who are supporting the special session agenda set by the Governor and Lt. Governor seem to me to take pride in rejecting expert testimony and raising up the voice of the individual.

In practice, I think it is foolhardy to put too much trust in the individual.  The example of “parental oversight” providing the accountability factor for public money directed to privates schools presents such a risk factor. We know there are many parents out there that aren’t equipped to make good choices–taking the foster care population, incarcerated parents, and parents suffering from the opioid  epidemic as just three examples. The children of parents in any of these situations need extraordinary interventions to navigate their educations. Private schools aren’t set up for such interventions. This needs to be done by the public, if we are to have hope of continuing as a civilized society. Yes, this sounds dramatic. It’s the presence of the crisis that has brought us out to Stand Watch.

I will detour for a paragraph and mention the “Do Not Resuscitate” legislation proposed as part of SB 4. At the July 21st  health and human services Senate committee hearing, I heard a credible doctor based at Baylor Scott and White hospital testify why the proposed legislation hampered doctors’ ability to give sick patients treatment according to professional standards.  I then saw the movie “The Big Sick” (playing now at the Violet Crown) and was reminded of the medical emergency in my own family two years ago. Medical emergencies don’t tend to unfold systematically. Family members are missing from action. The patient himself or herself may have a brain that is malfunctioning. Different doctors are seeing different patterns from the same images. A medical emergency can be terrifying and require many efforts and much advocacy to get things as right as possible.  Simplifying matters to “it’s the patient’s choice or the family’s choice” in all too many cases doesn’t work. It’s part of the process, not the sole solution.

Back to schools, if we don’t invest in the children of Texas to the very best of our ability, using both the qualitative and quantitative assessment to keep moving forward with the new challenges that are part of life, Texas will quickly become a bleak place to live.

Mary (Molly) H. Sharpe| Austin, TX 78703-2833

Letter # 3: Human Rights, Immigrant Support, and Selected Local Rights are Good for Business and Good for People; Relevant to SB 3; SB 91; HB 46; SB 1; SB 4 (regular session)

Dear Elected Officials,

The days grow dark as the session continues.  The hearts of Friends for Civil Action–at least a good many of our hearts–break for the transgenders who have been singled out and put at the center of a proposed law that has caused IBM, the National Episcopal Church and many other venerable groups to speak out in opposition.  Damage is being done to the business reputation Texas has had; jobs will be lost.  The hurt from this bill proposal is financial and moral.

Texas has a long, close association with Mexico. Many immigrants from throughout Latin America live in our state and contributing citizens who have brought a cultural richness to who we are.  Friends for Civil Action are reasonable people. We understand that borders can’t just be opened up for everyone to pass through.  We understand that immigration is difficult to manage, because so many people around the world live in miserable conditions and historically sought to come to the United States, just as most of our ancestors once did.

Friends for Civil Action join with faith groups who are appalled by the unfriendly SB 4 passed during the regular session that has created fear of deportation among the 1.4 million undocumented immigrants and their family members living in Texas.  We support a pathway to legal documentation for the immigrants who are here in Texas who have come to improve their way of life.  No, we don’t want drug cartel members in Texas. We support reasonable measures to keep them out.  The border wall is not a reasonable measure.  The border wall, a $28 billion project–a meaningful sum of money that could be applied many worth places–will not be paid for by Mexico.  Or if Congress finds some circular way to force that upon Mexico, it will be with cost to the U.S. economy, particularly the Texas economy.  Important habitat is at risk, starting with Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge.  Eighteen-foot walls can be scaled with ladders by people who want into the country badly enough.

Tragically, we have just witnessed what people who are not criminal, but are desperate for escape from a bad life will do to reach what they believe is a place of hope.  The truck in the Walmart lot in San Antonio has burned a memory in our conscious that will be and should be hard to shake.  Marginalizing immigrants as scapegoats who bring badness to our country is wrong. We are a country built on people taking what to others were unimaginable risks to arrive here. It’s a complicated matter.  It’s not a matter fixed with a wall, an ugly wall that will ruin landscapes of Texas we love.  More important, though, are the considerations of people impacted by the wall. My church has on its diocesan website this phrase:  “We honor tradition and strive to live by the examples of Jesus Christ, welcoming the stranger, helping our neighbors and offering love and forgiveness.”

I am tongue-tied as I try to find words about the local ordinances.  Yes, some human rights and other matters are better dealt with universally. Capping property taxes for municipalities has bad fiscal implications for cities, towns, and counties.  Tree needs in Bastrop, Lubbock, Westlake Hills, and Port Aransas are very different and should be legislated locally.  Mostly we are confused and disappointed by the governor who is supposed to be concerned for all constituents proposing actions that are hurtful to municipalities and hurtful to the quality of life in Texas.

Mary (Molly) H. Sharpe| Austin, TX  78703-2833

 

 

 

Standing Watch at the Legislature

Standing Watch with Friends for Civil Action

As part of the Standing Watch project, on July 26th, 27th, and 28th, eighteen representatives with Friends for Civil Action visited the offices of the Lt. Governor and the Speaker of the House to deliver the following message:

We are representatives of the Standing Watch project with Friends for Civil Action.

We are here to present our position on the Lt. Governor’s/Governor’s agenda for the special sessionWe oppose the special session agenda.

We recognize that today our opposition doesn’t carry change-impacting muscle with it.

But we are prepared to be persistent.  We believe that many people in public service want to do more than be re-elected.  We believe there are public servants in both parties who want better lives for their constituents.

We also believe that our democracy is at risk.  We come to you today full of emotion.  We are concerned for the well-being of Texans.  We are sad to see the positive work of our life-times in so many ways being undone so quickly.

We care enough about these matters to trudge through the heat, bringing our less than young bodies before you, to make our case.

We have three special letters we are presenting. The first supports funding for Planned Parenthood, so that people of all persuasions—pro-choice and pro-life—when they are not ready for pregnancy have timely access to pregnancy prevention that conforms with their personal beliefs.

The second letter supports strong public education, which means no public money being directed to private schools.

The third letter supports neighborly treatment of all people, with no one being marginalized. This letter also supports local options, when those options are reasonable.

Each of these letters was signed by at least 92 people, with at least six of these being clergy in the Episcopal Church, including the Bishop of the Diocese of Texas. Friends for Civil Action includes people of many faith and secular beliefs.

Typically, Friends for Civil Action write postcards. Some of us even send tweets. Others of us include phone calling in our repertoire. Newly, we are finding our way to the Capitol to make personal visits.

Standing Watch is a project of Friends for Civil Action, a pro-business and pro-people postcard stormer group.  The Standing Watch project involves personally presenting our point of view in letter form, because a real case can’t be built in a tweet or a postcard.

We are at work to involve people from across the state more fully in becoming informed and making their political voices heard.  Friends for Civil Action believe inclusive policies are the right policies for community life, public safety, the economy, and the human spirit.  We are an informal network—without dues or infra-structure—of friends and neighbors branching to many neighborhoods.  As we present our goals to elected officials, we do so with civility, avoiding name calling.  We focus on issues that are vital to community well-being.  We are residents of our neighborhoods and of the world.

In addition to presenting the letters to the Lt. Governor and the Speaker, we are reaching out to additional elected officials in both the House and the Senate.

 

 

Planned Parenthood is the Fundamental

37.9% of children are born to an unmarried parent. 1/2 of all births are paid for by Medicaid.We are talking about in the United States.  Planned Parenthood is fundamental to fiscally responsible community healthcare. Women must have easy access to contraceptives, reproductive healthcare, and, for those who are pro choice as I am, abortion services. #standwithPP

Letter to the Editor Submission

Letter to the Editor of The New York Times

Re: “With Voters Riled, G.O.P. Senators Lie Low.”

This article started on a high note. It ended by sucking the air out of the room with a downer opinion. A woman on the street asked for her thoughts about speaking to senators, replied, “Helpless.” That was the article’s last word.

This type of reporting does America no good. To be heard, we must speak. We don’t need valuable news outlets such as The New York Times depleting energy, rather than fostering it.  Keep bringing us the facts, as you do so well, but don’t let an on-the-street opinion serve as the wrap up for a front-page story. I know it’s a norm in journalism, but it’s a bad norm.

Molly Sharpe

Austin, Texas

The writer is founding member of Friends for Civil Action, a postcard storming group that focuses on policy and encourages the avoidance of name calling.

I just sent this to the New York Times.  Sunday’s Austin American-Statesman carried my first letter to the editor submission, a message about the need for Medicaid.  Postcard stormers, let’s be bold about speaking in public forums, motivating each other to keep on point as we move forward.

 

LETTER TO BISHOP CURRY

June 30, 2017

Dear Bishop Curry,

I am an Episcopalian—member of St. David’s Austin and board member of the Episcopal Church Foundation and The Front Porch. I’ve been active in the Consortium of Endowed Episcopal Parishes.  My husband Ed and I have both served St. David’s vestry (Ed recently having been Senior Warden for two terms, helping the parish transition into David Boyd’s retirement).  We both got to hear you when you visited the Episcopal Church Foundation Board meeting last fall, and I had heard you previously at CEEP.  We are deeply grateful for your presence and leadership.  I have become politically engaged and have shared your letter to Speaker Joe Straus with the group of 250 people who sometimes write messages with me to elected officials; like you, we adamantly oppose “the bathroom bill.” The radical right is doing such damage to our nation, and in Texas, if possible, things are even worse.  Andy Doyle has received emails from me and heard me speak when he was at St. David’s early this month, and he eloquently addressed our congregation about matters at hand.  Nonetheless, I keep hoping for more from my church. Here’s a message I posted yesterday on my Facebook Feed and Friends for Civil Action blog at http://mollysharpe.blog.  In the context of the church, I think there’s a need to minister to those of us who are pro-choice.     Best, Molly

Action Step for voters: Let your U.S. Senators know that you, as a voter, believe health will be improved and costs significantly reduced by putting Planned Parenthood front and center in our nation’s health plan. Read below if you wonder why I say this. We cannot hope to reduce our nation’s deficit, if our country is sick.  It’s irresponsible to leave people in need without preventive and emergency care. Medicaid pays for half of all births in the U.S.  We need Medicaid. More than that, we need a health care plan that solves problems, rather than abdicating responsibility to provide a tax break for the already rich—a tiny minority of people. Planned Parenthood is foundational to a health care plan that solves problems and reduces health care expense.

June 29, 2017

Re:  Out of the Womb!

Dear Congress and Religious Leaders,

When a woman ends up pregnant, for whatever reason, what if that woman could make a heartfelt assessment of whether she was emotionally ready to carry a child?  What if she could decide whether she had the emotional and financial resources to raise a child?

For those who think there is a God who with each child sends a unique soul never to be sent again, please, please, please, it is time to wake up and acknowledge this is the 21st century.  We were wrong about slavery, racial prejudice, forbidding divorce, treating women as subservient, the nature of family, the nature of gender, and I believe we are wrong about this.  For those of us—and I am one—who are open to the idea that there is a force of creation that cares for us and loves us even in times of huge duress, such a force surely has the capacity to send a soul via a new baby, if the originally designated baby didn’t arrive at the train station.  The Roman Catholic Church asks that there be no contraception—no meddling whatsoever with the possible plan of soul delivery, outside of trying to map your monthly cycle. CAN WE PLEASE STOP THIS ABSURDITY?

I believe that neither Congresspeople nor Religiouspersons have the right to weigh in on a woman’s womb and what happens there, beyond acknowledging that the choice is the woman’s.  The church I was born into and then married into again—the Episcopal Church—has a history of looking at multiple sides of serious matters.  I appreciate this questioning stance. Spending considerable time at church and with Episcopal—affiliated organizations reinforced my moderate viewpoint—my looking-both-ways attitude—until this week’s latest installment in the debate about health care broke my attitude wide open.

There was a day back in the 1980’s when The Junior League of Austin appointed me to the board of Planned Parenthood Austin.  No abortions were performed in their clinics here. I was relieved to be asked to serve an organization valuable to women’s health without having to deal head on with abortion. While I consistently have believed in the right for a woman to choose, if asked, I would have said that I was grateful not to have been faced with the dilemma of abortion.   I now believe that attitude of mine was WRONG.  Deciding for abortion should NOT be a dilemma.

It should be a simple choice for a woman to make, not one weighed down by all the judgments some politicians and some church people have placed on the decision of whether or not to carry a child to term or even whether or not to use birth control.

Providing proper access to abortion and contraception services should be about embracing an amazing solution to one of the huge health care problems facing our country and world—our ability to stop bringing new life into a world when we aren’t prepared to care for the health of that new life.  Let’s be free to exercise that right.

We do this much for our cats and dogs.

My middle-of-the road stance is gone with the wind now.  I fervently believe—where the mothers-to-be believe this also—that mothers-to-be who are emotionally unprepared to carry or care for a child should have the choice to abort. For a mother-to-be who feels differently from me, she needs to make her own choice.  It is not her congressperson’s or her religious leader’s choice, though.  However, I wouldn’t be at all opposed to mandating some education for mothers-to-be about what it means to be a parent, for there are a whole lot of very bad parents out there in our world—the result of being unprepared emotionally and financially for children.

Sincerely,

Mary (Molly) H. Sharpe

1805 Exposition Boulevard| Austin, Texas 78703-2833