youngraven: (Default)
I just signed a new international petition to stop the gay death law. Will you join in?

http://pol.moveon.org/uganda/?r_by=18903-1417666-vg.mHEx&rc=comment_paste
youngraven: (bunnies)
Thank you for using American Family Association Mail System

Snort. If you knew what I was getting up to with it, Mister Wildmon, you should not be thanking me.

Message sent to the following recipients:
Senator Cornyn
Senator Hutchison
Message text follows:

Leah Youngraven
0000 Town in England Drive
Florid Hump, TX Postal Code

(Right, Florid Hump sounds like a place where hobbitses might live. Snigger.)


June 28, 2008

[recipient address was inserted here]


Dear [recipient name was inserted here],

I urge you to stop and think before you support the Marriage Protection
Amendment of 2008, which would make marriage legal only between a man and
a woman. The idea that families and children need this constitutional
amendment to protect marriage is preposterous. I've been married for nine
years now, and never once has my marriage been threatened by the proximity
- or even the idea - of gay people marrying.

Seriously, who came up with this theory that if homosexuals are allowed to
marry, heterosexual unions will fall into disrepair? Superstition is the
basis of this argument, not fact. How does this protect society at large?
How does it protect people who are single? Marriage is a contractual civil
law. The only 'benefit' I can see this amendment offering is to spare a
particular group of Americans from thinking about what another group of
Americans might be doing might be doing in the privacy of their own homes,
because it's surely not going to stop people being gay. I would prefer the
government not do my thinking for me.

U.S. Senator Roger Wicker has introduced the Marriage Protection Amendment
in the U.S. Senate. Do not join Senator Wicker's quest for Big Government.
Do not co-sponsor of the Marriage Protection Amendment of 2008.

This constitutional amendment states: "Marriage in the United States shall
consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution,
nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that
marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other
than the union of a man and a woman." Tell me, how does this protect the
sovereignty of states? Shouldn't it fall to individual states to decide
whether to pass such legislation? I thought that was the whole idea. Has
something changed? I didn't get the memo, so clue me in, please.

I look forward to hearing from you on this matter,


Sincerely,


Leah Youngraven



The last letter I sent to this effect was responded to with a 'we'll agree to disagree - I'm supporting this legislation'. Perhaps this lot will be a bit more reasonable. Here's the link to the editable form letter, for any of youse who should want to weigh in. I might suggest creating an activism e-mail address, as these people will God Spam you within an inch of your sinful, heathen lives. I will admit to it being a donkey's age since I've learnt anything about the passing of bills and the stages that they go through - so my memory on it is sketchy. Somebody sort me out here, please ([livejournal.com profile] brittlepoetry?). The first letter that I wrote was to a member of the House, one Michael Burgess. He respectfully told me that he intended to support this legislation. As you you have noticed above, the two letters I sent Saturday were addressed to senators. So, does this mean that this thing has already passed in the House and now it's gone to the Senate? 'Cos I'm thinking that it does. Or it could do at the very least. So...why is nobody talking about this? With all the rejoicing and fol-de-rol in California, doesn't it seem likely that somebody should be jumping about, waving, and yelling look over here whilst pointing to D.C.?

I'm going to offer up a quote from Mister Wildmon's original message:

It is vitally important that you forward this message. The liberal media has totally ignored the Marriage Protection Amendment.



You know? I'm thinking he's right on this score. Nobody's talking about this above ground, at least not this month, which means yet more legislation restricting civil liberties will be passed on the sly. As I was writing this letter, [livejournal.com profile] shaddowshoes asked 'how will this benefit society at large' (I quickly found a place in my letter for that idea)? It won't do.
youngraven: (Christ on a bike!)
So...that one that I posted about lobbing spanners into the religious right's wee plans? Well, I've done it again, and this time I'm asking you to do as well.

Here's the link: http://capwiz.com/afanet/issues/alert/?alertid=11451996&type=CO

The rules of the game are simple: offer up your postal code, and when it spits out a representative and a form letter, you change the text to explain to said representative that, actually, you think this is a horrible idea.

Oh, lest I forget, for your edification here's what the furore is about:
Congressman Paul Broun of Georgia has introduced the Marriage Protection Amendment of 2008 (H.J. RES. 89). This amendment to the U.S. Constitution would make marriage legal only between a man and a woman.

And...here's my letter:
I urge you to do everything in your power to block H.J. RES. 89, the
Marriage Protection Amendment (2008), which would make marriage legal only
between one man and one woman. The Constitution was written in order to
grant rights to the citizenry and protect those rights - not to take them
away. I suspect that if you looked deep into your brain of brains, you
will realise that this measure lacks logic and isn't to the betterment of
the American people. I look forward to hearing your filibuster against the
Marriage Protection Amendment.

Thank you for your time. I look forward to hearing back from you on this
important matter.

Sincerely,


Leah Youngraven


Fight the good fight, eh?
youngraven: (Default)
Originally posted by [livejournal.com profile] turtliewings
From a nurse:

"I'll never forget the look in my patients eyes when I had to tell them they had to go home with the drains, new exercises and no breast. I remember begging the Doctors to keep these women in the hospital longer, only to hear that they would, but their hands were tied by the insurance companies.

So there I sat with my patients, giving them the instructions they
needed to take care of themselves, knowing full well they didn't grasp half of what I was saying, because the glazed, hopeless, frightened look spoke louder than the quiet 'Thank You they muttered.

A mastectomy is when a woman's breast is removed in order to remove cancerous breast cells/tissue. If you know anyone who has had a Mastectomy, you may know that there is a lot of discomfort and pain afterwards. Insurance companies are trying to make mastectomies an outpatient procedure.

Let's give women the chance to recover properly in the hospital for 2 days after surgery.

It takes 2 seconds to do this and is very important. Please take the time and do it really quick!

If there was ever a time when our voices and choices should be heard, this is one of those times.

There's a bill called the Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act which will require Insurance Companies to cover a minimum 48-hour hospital stay for patients undergoing a mastectomy. It's about eliminating the 'drive-through mastectomy' where women are forced to go home just a few hours after surgery, against the
wishes of their doctor, still groggy from anesthesia and sometimes with drainage tubes still attached.

Lifetime Television has put this bill on their Web page with a petition drive to show your support. Last year over half the House signed on.

PLEASE!! Sign the petition by clicking on the Web site below. You need not give more than your name
and zip code number.

http://www.lifetimetv.com/breastcancer/petition/signpetition.php

This takes about 2 seconds. PLEASE PASS THIS ON to your friends and family, and on behalf of all women, THANKS."
youngraven: (Default)
From moveon.org:

Subject: Hold lawbreakers Accountable

Hi, For years the Bush administration has been illegally wiretapping Americans' phone calls with the willing assistance of major telecom companies like Verizon and AT&T. Now the White House is putting enormous pressure on Congress to give phone companies retroactive immunity for all the laws they broke spying on innocent Americans.

Here's why: The pending lawsuits against these companies may be the only way we ever find out how far the Bush administration went in breaking the law. President Bush wants immunity for them to cover his own actions.

The problem is, some key Democrats are poised to help him do it. We need to speak out loudly against this move. I just signed a petition urging Congress to reject immunity for lawbreaking phone companies. Can you join me?


http://pol.moveon.org/noimmunity/?r_by=11473-1417666-uo4JzG&rc=paste

Thanks!
youngraven: (mini-me)
A chairde,

My mate [livejournal.com profile] barefootmutt sent this message along to me today. It's really quite simple, you click, and corporate sponsors cough up the dosh. All it takes is a few swift hand movements. A helpful link is provided below. Or should you rather click a button, you can find one and five others like it at my user profile.

Hi, all you animal lovers. This is pretty simple.. Please tell ten friends
to tell ten today! The Animal Rescue Site is having trouble getting enough
people to click on it daily to meet their quota of getting free food
donated every day to abused and neglected animals.
It takes less than a minute to go to their site and click on the purple box
"fund food for animals" for free. This doesn't cost you a thing. Their
corporate sponsors/advertisers use the number of daily visits to donate
food to abandoned/neglected animals in exchange for advertising.
Here's the web site! Pass it along to people you know.

http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com

Go raibh mile maith agat agus slán go foill,
G.
youngraven: (Default)
In the midst of all of the furore in regards to the U.S. government's role in a woman's reproductive choices, it's reassuring to know that somebody on Capitol Hill is looking out for us. Click me.

If you feel that God has charged you with the task of convincing otherwise a woman who is thinking of ending her pregnancy, then - by all means, use all of the spiritual arguments you have ready to hand. Leave the science out of it. Twisting medical information round (e.g., implying that a three-week-old foetus has the cognitive ability and self-awareness of a much older child and thus understands that its life is being ended) to support your agenda is unethical. Remember the bit about how 'two Wrongs don't make for a Right?' Yeh, it applies here.

Profile

youngraven: (Default)
youngraven

April 2013

S M T W T F S
 123456
789 10111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930    

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 23rd, 2017 06:57 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios