I hate election season.  Absolutely hate it.  Whenever it comes around, gloves come off and the mud flies from every side, from every direction, and from every corner of the country.  And lamentably, election season seems to begin earlier and earlier each round.  I have no doubt that campaigning for the 2010 elections will begin in late Jan. 2009, if not before.

But never before have I been truly frightened by an election.  Never before have I felt a deep fear for this country and my future the way I do this season.  I am truly, deeply afraid.  And over and over today I find myself fighting to let go, to put this in God's hands, and to ask Him to take away my fear as only he can.

I think He is using my fear to call me to two things.  The first is more prayer.  The second is to do what I can in this election - and part of that is finally getting this blog entry up and out there for you to see.  So I hope you read it.  I'll be praying that God uses it in whatever he sees fit.  I know it's very long, but please read it in its entirety and pray about it.

First, I'll say we don't have the "perfect" candidate.  Neither candidate fully embraces all of what I believe.  Neither candidate is perfect.  But I would argue that there is a hierarchy of importance in moral and political values.  Some are just more important than others, and the basic fundamental is Life.

Why do I believe this?  Because a person cannot be worried about healthcare, about welfare, about poverty, about war if that person is not alive.    If you are not alive, you cannot immigrate, get sick, be rich or poor, be middle class, have a job, earn a wage, eat, see a doctor, collect welfare, fight in a war, see your kids sent off to war, get married, have friends, go to school, or anything else.  Life is the most basic, most fundamental right.  Its one of the three fundamental rights in the Declaration of Independence ("the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"), and it is the only one required for the other two.  If you are not alive, you cannot pursue happiness and you cannot have or not have liberty.  Our government was established with the express purpose to defend our right to life - therefore we must judge our elected officials (and those who wish to be elected) on their willingness to protect human life, at all stages.

So then the question comes: who falls into this category of "human life."  Are we human beings from conception?  Biology tells us yes.  The very first cell formed by the union of egg and sperm has human chromosomes in a distinct combination from either the mother or the father.  The growing embryo, if left to develop as it should, develops into a HUMAN, not a plant, a monkey, a shark, or a toaster oven.  If you ask a 5 year old whose mother is pregant what their mom will bring home from the hospital, they'll tell you a baby.  They don't wonder whether it will be a kitten or a puppy or a goldfish.  They know, even at that young age, that humans reproduce other humans.

Are we alive from conception?  Again, Biology tells us yes.  For example, Wikipedia says that the conventional definition of life is as follows:
From its first cell, the human embryo does all of this.  They regulate their internal environment, they are composed of cells (in growing complexity), they metabolize, they grow, they adapt, they respond to stimuli, and they reproduce.

So biology tells us that it's both human and that it's alive.  Thus we're posed with a question.  Is it important to protect human life?  If this were an older child we wouldn't have a problem saying "yes".  We don't allow people to say "That's my opinion, but I'm not going to force it on others."  For example, we don't say "Well its my opinion that you shouldn't kill 5 year olds and use their organs for medical research, but other people might disagree, so we need to allow people who don't agree with me to do this."  Nor do we allow child sacrifice or child pornography.  There are people (in my opinion sick, sick people) who truly and honestly believe that child pornography isn't wrong.  But we say, through our government, that such action is wrong and we make it illegal.

So why are our politicians, who say they believe that abortion is wrong, willing to say "that's my religious belief but I'm not willing to impose that belief on others."  How does this possibly make them fit to lead our country?  What does this say about their willingness to protect the helpless, the vulnerable, those without a voice.  If you were without a voice, wouldn't you want someone to speak on your behalf?  If you and your people were being killed, wouldn't you want someone to step in and stop it?

One of my favorite quotes on the subject is from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops:

A government which allows this, which materially cooperates in this, and which codifies this into law, has lost its basis for governing - and a politician who believes that this is ok, has no business speaking for the marginalized and the voiceless.  Just so you know, when I talk about abortion, this is what I mean - using the abortionist's own words (you should hear what I had to listen to as a med school student.  The description of the procedures made me want to vomit.):
This is what people continue to support as legal.  It is legal through all nine months of pregnancy, for any reason, in all 50 states.  If you don't believe me, check your yellow pages under the heading "Abortion."  See what is advertised.

Now I'm going to mention a Candidate's name, for the first time in this whole schpiel.  Not only does Senator Barack Obama support keeping this legal, he has voted four times against a bill designed to protect those precious few babies that survive an abortion and are born alive.  Here's a link to the language of the original bill.  http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/status/920SB1095.html  There are a number of nurses who testified to a committe that included Senator Obama to being wittness to babies being left to die in dark closets or smothered, or neglected.  The Senator has repeatedly defended these votes.  At least two of these votes against this bill were against it with language identical to the Federal Bill that was passed (since then, he has said that if the language were identical, he would have voted "yes".  Clearly this isn't the case).  Now what if he had been President when the Federal Bill was passed?  Clearly he voted against it.  Do you really think he would have signed it?

Our next president may be presented with legislation designed to reduce the amount of abortions occurring, whether through vigorous patient education (on prenatal development, what will happen, etc.) or through parental notification laws.  Our next President may be presented with legislation that will protect health care workers like Jack and I from being forced to participate in abortions by our employers.  Our next President will probably have a chance to shape the Supreme Court.  This issue is important.

Now there is a bill in Congress, entitled the "Freedom of Choice Act."  (Text of the Bill).  Barack Obama has made it one of his promises that this will be his FIRST priority if he becomes president (Documentation Here).  What is the substance of this bill?  This bill says that:

(2) discriminate [undefined] against the exercise of the rights set forth in paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.

So... you might ask.... "What is the problem with that?"  There are a number of them, and I don't have nearly enough space to go into each of them.  This document, probably the best one I've seen on the subject, analyzes the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) very well using a lot of good research.  Please read it and consider what it says.  What laws are in jeopardy (taken from the document above.  Please consult the document to see reasons and rationales for each of these)?

• informed consent laws
• parental notification laws
• laws promoting maternal health, if they result in an increased cost for abortions
• abortion clinic regulations, even those designed to make abortion safer for women
• government programs and facilities that pay for, provide, or insure childbirth or health care services generally, but not abortion
• laws protecting the conscience rights of doctors, nurses, and hospitals, if those laws create even minimal delay or inconvenience in obtaining an abortion or treat abortion differently than other medical procedures
• laws prohibiting a particular abortion procedure, such as partial birth abortion
• laws requiring that abortion only be performed by a licensed physician
• laws prohibiting abortion after viability except when necessary to prevent significant physical harm to the mother
• laws requiring brief waiting periods [usually 24-48 hours] before an abortion is performed
• laws preventing post-viability sex-selection abortions where a mental health reason is asserted for the abortion
• laws requiring that abortion providers maintain certain records with respect to performed abortions
• laws preventing the carrying to term of a cloned human embryo, and quite possibly laws preventing the implantation of an existing cloned embryo for the purposes of bearing the child ("reproductive cloning")

The one I bolded concerns me the most.  If Barack Obama wins and succeeds in getting Congress to pass this Bill (that has already been proposed), it would take effect before I go back to Medical School, and long before I do my Ob-Gyn rotation.  At the moment, my medical school does not perform abortions on campus and cannot require medical students to assist or participate in an abortion.  HOWEVER, this law would strike down those laws protecting me.  The culture around me, at the school, is VERY pro-abortion, particularly in the Ob-Gyn department and without those laws, it is not only possible, it is probable that I could be required to participate in an abortion, an action I find absolutely morally abhorrent.  Even IF you believe that a woman should have the right to choose to kill her baby, shouldn't a doctor have the right to choose whether he or she wants to do that?  Shouldn't a Catholic hospital be able to decide to not offer abortions?  Shouldn't a pro-life medical student be protected from having to participate in an abortion?  This Bill, Supported by Obama, would remove MY right to choose.

But let's take a hypothetical situation.  What if our next President is NOT faced with any of these decisions?  He would still have these beliefs about abortion shaping the way that he thought about everything else.  A person's view on abortion says a lot about what they believe about the dignity of the human person and the government's responsibility to protect life.

A baby, born or unborn, will not be affected by revised immigration laws, universal health care, cessation of the death penalty, a withdrawal from Iraq, or a more stable economy, if it is not allowed to live.  Therefore, I maintain that while a candidate's stance on abortion should not guarantee my vote, it must be enough to disqualify them from receiving my vote.  A government that allows the victimization of the most helpless among us has lost its legitimate basis to exist.

Now, are there other important issues?  Yes.  Most certainly.  But I maintain that these are all subordinate to a candidate's willingness to protect the most vulnerable and most voiceless among us.  After all, this is the primary purpose, the primary basis for government.  If I have time to do the research before the election, I'll address those issues too.  Just War Theory, Subsidiarity (decisions should be made at the lowest social level appropriate to the issue being decided), Economics, Health Care, Poverty, Immigration, etc. are all important issues.  But they cannot trump a candidate's view on the sanctity and dignity of human life, and perfect positions on these issues cannot justify voting for someone who is SO wrong on abortion.

I can understand and recognize if you cannot in good conscience vote for Senator McCain.  But if that is the case, I ask you strongly to consider either voting for a third party candidate or none at all.  Please don't vote for the man who believes that it is ok for doctors to leave babies on a shelf to die.  Please don't vote for a man who believes it is ok for doctors to dismember the unborn before their death.  Please don't vote for a man who has vowed to take away my choice to not participate in an abortion.  A pro-life stance should not be enough to guarantee a vote, but a pro-death stance should certainly be enough to disqualify a vote.  It will certainly disqualify mine.

I'm amazed at how many times in the last week I've run across the movie Drumline.  I suppose with Marching Season upon us, it makes sense.  For those of you who aren't familiar with this movie, it focuses on several members of the Atlanta A&T University.  While it isn't the best movie of all time, I do enjoy watching it.  Why?  Because it reminds me of my days in the Marching Band.

For 4 years of my life, I had a family of over 300.  We worked together, played together, suffered together, and for one week even ate together.  In my High School, there were no alternates (unlike in the movie) - so if you came unprepared (or you didn't come at all) the whole band suffered.  On the first day of Band Camp we learned that unity, that responsibility, playing a game called "Band Up, Band Down."  To learn to follow commands, and function as a cohesive unit, we'd be given one of two commands: Band Up or Band Down.  Band Up meant that you stood, straight and still.  Band Down meant that you crouched, close to the ground, also very still.  You moved as a unit, rising as one, falling as one.  If one person failed, you could be guaranteed that there would be several more rounds.  You learned quickly.

Our Band Director shared many similarities with the director in the movie.  For one thing, they both believe in the motto: One Band, One Sound.  That was just the way they operated.  When you're out on the field you play as one, succeed as one, fail as one.  There are no stars - we're a unit.  Another similarity is their proclivity for the classics.  In my 4 years we played Holst's "The Planets Suite" (Mars, Venus, Uranus, and Jupiter), West Side Story, A Tribute to Stan Kenton and Buddy Rich (including Malaguena, Send in the Clowns, Peanut Vendor, and Love for Sale), and a mish-mash of classical tunes, one of which I remember was the main theme from Great Gates of Kiev (by Mussorsky).  While we played some of the more popular numbers for "fun shows", pre-game, and post game (Eye of the Tiger comes to mind) his philosophy was that half-time was the only time a lot of people in the stands were going to hear classical music.  He believed that it was his (and our) job to educate the community when it comes to great music.

One of the only times that time has ever "stopped" for me (or come close) in my life is playing on the field.  We were playing Jupiter my freshman year and doing the most beautiful section on that piece.  The music was so beautiful that.... well the best way I can explain it is that time slowed to a crawl.

With my sister continuing in the legacy and starting in the Marching Band later this month, I hope she'll learn the same lessons I did.  We work together, we play together, we function as a unit.  One Band, One Sound.