Chick-fil-A Vs. Planned Parenthood

Image source: Freeimages.com/Adriana Cal

First off, this post is not intended to convince a supporter of Planned Parenthood that Congress should defund the organization, and it’s not intended to argue for defunding the organization (personally, I’m very torn about this issue). Rather, this is intended to show why it makes sense for pro-life people to support defunding Planned Parenthood despite the fact that no federal dollars are used for abortions in most circumstances.

In 2012, the CEO of Chick-fil-A made statements regarding his support for heterosexual marriage and opposition to gay marriage, and an LGBT watchdog group revealed that the company donated money to organizations deemed anti-LGBT. Those who support LGBT rights decided to boycott the restaurant chain, while those who support traditional marriage went to the restaurants (Wikipedia article). This is a classic example of people using their dollars to vote their conscience.

These events are well-known, but now we’re going to journey to a hypothetical world. Imagine that to help poor people find food to eat, the federal government decided to pay fast food restaurants to feed people. It’s a big stretch, but just work with me for a minute. There are various ways the government could pay for this, so we won’t worry about it. Suffice it to say that the government is paying for this with taxpayer money, and Chick-fil-A is one of the companies receiving money.

Now, taking aside the objections to the government paying fast food restaurants overall, would LGBT advocates be unhappy with the government giving money to Chick-fil-A in particular? It’s certainly possible. Now, imagine that Chick-fil-A assures us that the government money is only used to provide food to poor people, and in any case, only 3% of the company’s total money is used to fund anti-LGBT organizations. Would that appease LGBT activists, or would they still be unhappy with money going toward that organization?

Comparing this situation with the proposal to defund Planned Parenthood is imperfect, obviously, but I hope it gets my point across. Planned Parenthood provides plenty of great healthcare services, but on the other hand, it also kills hundreds of thousands of innocent people every year. (You can consult PP’s two most recent annual reports for exact numbers.) Do its positive services outweigh killing so many people? It’s a tough question. To some, the answer is a firm no, and understandably, these people don’t want to be forced to give money to an organization they vehemently disagree with, just like in my hypothetical situation, LGBT-rights activists may not like being forced to give money to Chick-fil-A.

There's a lot more I could go into, but to keep this post short and focused, I'll end right here. In short, people want the freedom to use their money to vote their conscience and not be forced in any way to support an organization they dislike.

Why Utah's Porn Resolution Is Okay

Image credit: Freeimages.com/Rybson

There has been a lot backlash against the porn resolution that was passed in Utah, and I'm having a really difficult time understanding why. I think there must be a bunch of misunderstandings about this resolution, so I'm going to explain why it's okay.

First, it's important to understand that this is a resolution, not a bill or law. Resolutions are usually a legislatures way of celebrating something or someone, or complaining about something. In this case, the legislators and governor are telling everyone that porn is a health crisis, explaining why, and suggesting that society takes action to address the issue. They're not saying that it's the only health crisis or even the biggest health crisis. They're not spending any money or changing any laws. All they're doing is saying that porn is a problem.

And make no mistake about it, porn is a public health problem in Utah. Is it the biggest problem? No. Off the top of my head, I would say that air pollution, prescription drug abuse, the high suicide rate, and thousands of uninsured Utahns are bigger issues than pornography. But saying that porn is a problem does not at all diminish the significance of the other problems.

Keep in mind that these public health crises are difficult issues to solve. Take air pollution, for instance. For starters, the geography of the Wasatch Front is working against us. No matter what we do, we might always have inversions during the winter. Also, part of the solution is for Utahns to drive less often and for shorter distances, and use public transportation and carpool more. How many of us are willing to take this steps? Not many of us. Should the government step in and somehow force us to take action? That's a hard argument to sell.

Also, the legislature took action on all of these issues. They passed a few bills addressing pollution (granted, these bills have a very small impact), three bills to address opiate overdoses, a bill addressing suicide prevention, and a bill to expand Medicaid coverage. These are small steps in the right direction, and I can understand wanting much larger steps, but I fail to understand how passing the porn resolution is to blame in any way.

Here's the thing: the Utah State Legislature passed 474 bills this session on a variety of topics. Would it be better to pass fewer bills and spend more time on the biggest issues? It's very possible. I'm okay if anyone argues that the legislature passes too many frivolous bills, but to focus on the porn resolution seems silly.

How about H.C.R. 12 Concurrent Resolution Honoring Lin-manuel Miranda, Composer of the Musical Hamilton? Is this a great musical? I'm sure it is. Is passing that resolution the best use of the legislature's time? Probably not. The composer and the play have nothing to do with Utah.

How about H.B. 134 State Work of Art? Is the Spiral Jetty a great sculpture? It sure is. Is passing this bill the best use of the legislature's time? Probably not.

How about H.J.R. 22 Joint Resolution Honoring Utah Valley University's 75th Anniversary? Is this a great university? I sure think so. Is passing this resolution the best use of the legislature's time? Probably not.

Don't get me wrong. I'm a student at UVU, I'm an employee at UVU, I love UVU. Having it honored publicly is pretty cool. But honoring the university doesn't help anyone or solve any problem. Creating awareness about the dangers of pornography, on the other hand, has the potential to help people.

The bottom line is that I'm okay with people complaining about the Utah State Legislature. It's completely reasonable to be unhappy with some of the things they've done and haven't done. But blaming the porn resolution for issues that remain unresolved seems like a red herring.

Top 5 reasons To Never, Correct Anyone's Grammer (or Speling)

Image credit: Brother

First off, this is for unsolicited grammer or speling corrections. If someone asks you for help proofreading then of coarse help them out. However, if they don't ask you to correct they're grammar then don't. Heres why.

1. Its Obnoxious

This is the first and most important reason; correcting mistakes is obnoxious. The whole point of language is to discuss ideas and the whole point of grammar is to ensure that language is clear. Usually though you can understand what someone is saying even if they make a grammar mistake so if you bring it up, it's like in jr. high or high school when the teacher asks a thought-provoking question and someone raises their hand to ask to use the hall pass. Your detracting from the conversation for something that doesn't matter. Its obnoxious

If the grammar is bad enough that you don't understand you can kindly ask for clarification. Be kind not rude. Thats good advice for nearly every situation.

Utah State Legislature - Week 2

Image credit: Freeimages.com/Jean Scheijen

I was very tempted to skip a post this week because most of my thoughts regarding this internship are political in nature and thus off-limits. Plus, I’m already keeping track in a journal. (I’m horrible at consistent journal writing, so the internship requiring me to keep a journal helps.) However, I said that I was going to post every week, so I feel obligated to.

One apolitical part of my intern experience is taking public transportation. I’ve taken it before, but always as a novelty, never as a serious means of getting from place to place. It’s a relaxing, fascinating, and melancholy experience.

Utah State Legislature - Week 1

Image credit: Freeimages.com/Ryan Day

It would be cool if as legislative intern, I could fill my blog with my opinions on the issues based on my more-or-less insider information, but I can’t. As an intern, I work for the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel, which is a nonpartisan organization that assists Utah state legislators in writing laws. So basically, as long as I’m an intern, I have no political opinion—all I do is support my assigned legislator.

However, that doesn’t mean that my blog has to be boring while I’m working on the Hill. (Not that it’s ever exciting because I rarely post.) Let me share a couple thoughts after my first week or so.

First, I’ve been very impressed with the legislators up here. From what I’ve seen, they care a lot about serving the people of Utah. They truly are public servants. Here’s a quote from our textbook, Utah Politics Under the Dome: Representation and the Utah Legislature by Adam R. Brown:

Why I'm Pro-Life

Image credit: FreeImages.com/Sona Psotova

I try to be open-minded and see issues from multiple points of view, and for the most part, I'd say I'm successful. One issue I have a hard time seeing one side of the issue is abortion. I understand pro-choice well enough to understand why some people could be pro-choice, but the fact that more Americans are pro-choice than pro-life is mind-boggling to me. It's incomprehensible because the moral and logical arguments for pro-life seem so much stronger than those for pro-choice.

First off, let me clarify my stance. I think it's okay for a woman to have an abortion in cases of rape/incest or when her life is in danger because those are cases when her choices have been limited, but when a woman chooses to have sex and her life isn't in danger, she shouldn't be able to choose to kill her unborn child. (I know other pro-lifers think that women should be able to have an abortion when the child's health is danger, but I'm not quite sure about the reasoning behind that one, so I'm leaving it out.) For the rest of this post, I'll be focusing on normal circumstances that aren't related to rape, incest, or life endangerment (see tables 2 and 3 on pages 113-114 for reasons why women get abortions).

Lack of Ambition

Image credit: Gavin Mills

Recently, I read the book Catch a Falling Star by Kim Culbertson. It was enjoyable, and the part that struck a chord with me was one of the conflicts that the main character Carter faces. She used to be a dancer, and we find out later in the book that the reason she stopped is because it stopped being fun for her.She felt so much pressure from others to excel, to accept a scholarship to a premier dancing school, and to seek a career as a dancer. After hearing about how competitive, rigorous, and stressful a professional dancer's life is, Carter decided that it wasn't for her and quit dancing altogether.

I can empathize with her. It seems like from the womb, there's so much pressure from home and school to "succeed," "reach for the stars," "get ahead," etc. What does success really mean? Is it the same for everyone? Why should we reach for the stars? What's wrong with the good ol' Earth? Who are we trying to get ahead of? Does this stuff really matter?