#NeverTrump

Posted on March 10, 2016 by jamie

I keep expecting someone to step out from behind a potted plant and say, “Smile! You’re on candid camera!” and then all of America will laugh and breathe a sigh of relief. After the nervous giggles pass and we finish pretending we knew it all along, we will go home and think long and hard about what would have happened had the whole thing been true.

And by “the whole thing,” I mean Donald Trump.

About an hour ago I learned that Ben Carson endorsed Trump. I was never a Carson fan, but from what I understand he isn’t a bad guy or anything. And clearly he’s brilliant, right? He’s a brain surgeon for crying out loud. He’s apparently also popular among “evangelicals,” which may just be the most over- and improperly used word in American media today.

Right now I’m watching a clip of a young black man being sucker punched in the face at a Trump rally by a long-haired man in a cowboy hat. This just a week or so after the Guy in the Red Hat went verbally psycho on Black Lives Matter protestors, and a couple of weeks after Chris Christie’s takeover by Trump-loving aliens.

Have I mentioned the KKK or “small hands” yet? No? Well there are those things, too.

Where’s a potted plant when you need one?

I’m about 99% sure that in 20 years we’re going to find out (assuming there’s no hidden camera, anyway) that this was all a conspiracy. I don’t know if Democrats paid Trump to run to ensure a Democrat would win, or if Trump is paying people to vote for and/or endorse him, or threatening their families, but something fishy must be going on here. The alternative is too terrible to contemplate.

Because that alternative is that there are a whole lot of people in America willing to vote for someone who, whether he himself is or isn’t, doesn’t mind giving off the air of a misogynistic, jingoistic, racist megalomaniac.

The hateful and insulting comments, the atrocious proposed policies, the lack of knowledge and experience to hold the most powerful office in the world, and all those other, more obvious scary Trump traits are one thing. The hate and violence and anger at his rallies and among his supporters are another. The “get ‘em out of heres,” and the “I want to punch him in the face,” and the screaming, punching, “go home” sign-wielding Americans frighten me, sadden me, overwhelm me, embarrass me, and sicken me. They drive me to an eschatological place I don’t want to be.

I get it to a certain point. He’s an outsider. He speaks him mind. His aura is one of success and confidence. He’s sort of like the bad boy/girl you might date in high school. You know what almost universally holds true about those relationships? They end. You don’t marry the bad guy/girl, or if you do, you regret it/get divorced/change the person/change yourself. Four to eight years of damaging, dangerous, and damning governance is a lot of regret. It’s also a long time to stay married to someone you can’t stand. That leaves two options: change him or change yourself.

I won’t say Trump won’t or can’t change. His efforts at self-moderation these last few days have been apparent. Clearly he gets that he needs to be “more presidential,” but in the end, he ends up right where he started: acting as the lowest common denominator. I won’t pretend to know Trump’s internal affairs, but if I had to guess, I’d say the odds of him changing are pretty darn low. So then, will he change me? Will he change us? Change America? I’d like to think he can’t. That even if elected that we’d somehow stand strong against him, singing Kumbaya in front of the White House while patchouli wafts through the air and babies coo from their mama’s and daddy’s slings and front packs and toddlers munch on homemade gluten-free granola.

But I never have liked the smell of patchouli and my kids are far too big for slings and front packs. I can also hear the bullhorn now: “Get ‘em out of here!”

It’s scary folks, really scary. This isn’t about electing a politician with whom we disagree, even on very, very important things such as cluster bombs. Perhaps it sounds extreme, but I would go so far as to say that this is about good vs. evil. Not that Trump is evil, or that Trump supporters are evil. No, I’m not saying that. What I’m saying is, have you ever read Lord of the Flies? Remember Piggy? When you put a lot of non-evil people who have some not-too-kind ideas together in a big melting pot and stir them together—viola!—you get something pretty darn ugly.

Since I still don’t see a potted plant anywhere around, and since I may not ever know if there’s a conspiracy or not, I’m going to have to assume that this is real. Trump himself may be fake—I suspect that in many ways he is—but the voters… the voters are real. If they are both real and numerous enough to put Trump in the White House, I will be so scared, so sad, and so morally wounded that I may have to learn to bake my own granola and enjoy the smell of patchouli. But I’m still not putting my kids in a front pack.

Whole Women, Whole Families, Whole Truths: Saying What You Mean and Meaning What You Say

Posted on March 2, 2016 by jamie

The number of abortions in the United States may have declined by more than one-third over the past two decades—reaching its lowest rate since record keeping started in 1976—but the issue is far from settled. Today the Supreme Court hears its first major abortion case in almost 10 years, and, barring a 4-4 split due to the death of Justice Scalia, will likely hand down a decision by the summer.

This case, Whole Women’s Health v. Cole, questions the constitutionality of restrictions the state of Texas is imposing on abortion providers—restrictions like requiring abortion providers to hold admitting privileges at a local hospital and for centers to meet the same standards as ambulatory surgical centers. Opponents argue that these standards are unnecessary and will cause clinics to close, resulting in significant limitations on women’s access to abortion.

This case has far-reaching implications as the Court is set to consider what regulations constitute an undue burden on a woman’s ability to get an abortion. As it is in all Supreme Court cases of this significance, media coverage is intense, and the protestors are many.

Significantly, this whole discussion is taking place during an election year, which is sure to force presidential hopefuls to address abortion head on. A study by the Barna Group has found that while only 30 percent of the general population places abortion as a priority in determining which candidate will get their vote, 64 percent of evangelicals say the same. And that means, because abortion will again be in the spotlight, this 64 percent will have their views heard by a larger audience than normal.

Of course, neither a Supreme Court case nor a presidential election is a top motivator for pro-lifers* to make their voices heard. Still, if history is any indicator, Whole Women’s Health v. Cole will provide a unique opportunity for influence that may not come around again for quite some time.

So the big question is how best to assert that influence.

Public perceptions of the pro-life movement are often significantly and negatively shaped by high profile cases like that of Robert Lewis Dear, the man who last November shot and killed a police officer and two civilians at a Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs. At his first court appearance, Dear proudly professed guilt and claimed to be “a warrior for the babies.” Not much earlier, a pro-life group released highly controversial, sting-style videos of Planned Parenthood executives that resulted in a wide, public debate about federal funding for the organization. And, of course, we’ve all seen the heart wrenching and anger-inducing footage of protestors blocking young women from entering into clinics, making clear their opinion that the young, scared woman will burn in hell.

There is also the perennial issue of conservative politicians taking a hardline pro-life stance, yet seemingly disregarding the hardships that can come from an unplanned or unsafe pregnancy, and eliminating funding for programs that could either help minimize these hardships or stop the unplanned or unsafe pregnancy from occurring in the first place.

It’s a hostile context, with various “camps” pitted against one another. Surely there has to be a better way, a way far removed from pickets, judgment, hate, and hypocrisy.

To this end, it’s important to remember that when hoping to sway public opinion and/or policy to align with one’s belief system, moral credibility is key. That means the pro-life movement must become one associated with believing all life is sacrosanct—whether in the womb or already born. Perhaps it should go without saying, but the most basic tenant of eliminating abortion must be rooted in compassion and love, and not just for the unborn, but also for the expectant mothers. Certainly, pregnant woman who feel trapped by their pregnancy and are considering abortion should think of the church as the first place to turn for help, not as the last.

Thankfully, there are faith leaders who are opening their doors wide to those both considering abortion and those who have already had abortions. Last year Pope Francis declared that women who have had abortions could seek forgiveness from any priest, without authorization of a bishop. President of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, Russell Moore, wrote of those who have had or participated in abortions, “God has already pronounced what he thinks of this person: ‘You are my beloved child and in you I am well pleased.’ … Offer [] mercy not only at the Judgment Seat of Christ, but in the small groups and hallways of your church.” There are those who will take umbrage at the notion that a woman needs either forgiveness from a priest or mercy from church members, but for many women, both avenues of grace are desired and significant to their lives.

By decreasing social stigma within the church environment, providing non-judgmental counseling and assistance to women suffering at the hands of a partner or family member, and putting in place the go-to tried and true church supports of meals, rides to the doctor, deacon’s fund assistance, and the like, local churches can provide tangible support to women both considering abortion and those who have already had abortions. Shaming, shunning and judging will only drive women from the church.

Of equal importance is the significant contribution of churches and faith-based organizations to social services (the Catholic Church is the largest provider of social services in the world). One of main reasons women give for seeking abortions is financial. In fact, studies show that women with family incomes below the federal poverty level account for more than 40 percent of all abortions, and this particular demographic has one of the highest abortion rates in the nation (52 per 1,000 women). Given that six in ten women who receive abortions already have at least one child, it seems clear that greater systemic support for families below the poverty line is a prime way to reduce abortions.

These numbers indicate that being pro-life is about speaking up and acting on socioeconomic matters just as much as it is on abortion itself. Recognizing this, faith-based non-profits can and do provide subsidized childcare, job training, financial and material support, housing, and counseling for women in the “at risk” category. These efforts should be seen not just as economic in nature, but as essential ways to demonstrate one’s commitment to ending abortion.

Similarly, better educational and vocational opportunities, workplace protections for pregnant women, and low cost, high quality childcare would help reduce the stressors on women who seek abortion for financial reasons. Many of the socioeconomic changes needed must be systemically implemented at a policy level, but others are within the grasp of individuals, places of worship, and organizations.

For those interested in having a direct, personal impact, there are many options other than marches and protests, all of which are considerably more effective. The influence of making ones position known to state and federal legislators through letter writing and phone calls, petition signing, ballot measures that increase socioeconomic support of women and families, and an individual’s voting power cannot be overstated.

For those less politically inclined, there are ways to advance one’s beliefs that may not change laws, but will fulfill the primary goal of both reducing abortion and creating more sustainable futures for those lives once they enter into the world.

Pregnancy centers, most of which are religious in nature, make it their goal to support women through their pregnancies as well as achieve long-term self-sufficiency. Women who might otherwise feel there are no options other than abortion can turn to these centers for help not only throughout pregnancy, but also into the future by learning the life skills necessary to successfully parent a child and run a household.

Despite the high number of women served by pregnancy centers, they aren’t without controversy, and some are more reputable than others. Volunteering at or donating to centers with a track record of providing sustainable assistance with long-term implications is a great way to make a local, direct impact. Before partnering with a pregnancy center, affirm that the center has appropriate medical oversight and licensing, as well as non-deceptive advertising, literature, and practices. Some pregnancy centers have come under criticism for these things, and to truly help women and the unborn, maintaining credibility and compassion, not merely pushing an agenda, is key.

Of course, pregnancy centers aren’t for all women, such as those who feel unprepared to parent. For those in this situation, adoption agencies are often presented as an alternative to abortion. Like pregnancy centers, these agencies provide pregnant women with services to help them throughout their pregnancies, but also help match birth mothers with adoptive families. Many provide prenatal care, help with housing and other expenses, and even maternity clothes and rides to the doctor.

Some of these centers are religious- or state run non-profits, others are privately owned and for profit. As with pregnancy centers, some are more reputable than others and must be thoroughly researched before a referral can be made. Each state has its own regulations, but as a general rule, adoption agencies should be licensed, been in business for many years with a well-maintained reputation, have a high number of successful placements per year, and should not pressure clients into making certain choices. Individuals and faith communities should take the time to research near-by agencies and be prepared to make a knowledgeable recommendation to a woman in need.

In so doing, it must be remembered that for adoption to be a truly viable option, women must feel emotionally and physically able to make it through nine months of pregnancy. This means pro-life advocates must recognize that the reasons women seek abortions can take all kinds of forms, including social stigmas, lack of health care, abusive relationships, family pressures, and financial and work or educational limitations, among other things. Those committed to ending abortion should consider putting time and energy toward finding a workable solution for as many of these problems as possible—although certainly no perfect or easy solution exists, nor does this list address the myriad of needs that present when women become pregnant through rape, or when a pregnancy compromises the mother’s health. Those are complicated, emotion-laden, and highly individual cases that I cannot begin to address here.

Promoting and achieving pro-life goals will come from establishing credibility by honoring the sanctity of life, both born and unborn, and taking compassionate, non-judgmental, prayerful and loving action to reduce the reasons women seek abortion in the first place, primarily their belief there are “no other options.” Simply put, we must give them options.

What if rather than creating picket signs and coordinating protests, efforts turned instead toward creating options by caring for women and families in need, and working towards systemic change that does the same? This is not only a third-way of being pro-life—it is the best way. It’s a way that respects and honors all life, at all stages, without judgment, but with honesty, compassion, and a nuanced understanding of the very real hardships faced by women dealing with an unexpected pregnancy.

State laws and Supreme Court decisions don’t change the fact that the real work of making pro-life mean all life often takes place behind the scenes, through small acts of love and kindness that have a big impact on the lives of many, both those born and those yet to be.

* I use the term “pro-life” because it is the term most commonly used and understood in public discussion. I find it to be a misnomer, however, as those who are pro-choice are not, in fact, anti-life. Similarly, many who may deem themselves “pro-life” for lack of a better term, are not “anti-choice,” although they would limit situations where that choice might be employed.

What Steinem and Albright Get Wrong About Today’s Feminists

Posted on February 11, 2016 by jamie

Longtime proponents of women’s rights Gloria Steinem and Madeline Albright have experienced some resurgence in the media as of late, but not for defending women’s rights.

Instead, they’ve made headlines for what many are calling anti-feminist views.

Discussing the presidential election in an interview with Bill Maher, Steinem suggested that younger women are voting for Bernie Sanders in an effort to meet boys: “When you’re young, you’re thinking: ‘Where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie.’”

The outcry against Steinem was immediate, and she later issued an apology.

Albright, however, has made no such apology for her statement at a Hillary Clinton rally, that “there is a special place in hell for women who don’t help other women.”

Young feminist voters, who in the Democratic party largely support Sanders’ presidential bid, took umbrage at these statements, and an obligatory new hashtag, #notherefortheboys, was born. No one can blame this new generation of feminists for their anger. Steinem’s statement insultingly dismissed young women as too boy-crazy, naïve, and incompetent to have any real understanding of the political process, while Albright’s statement, while one she’s been making for years, used here seemed an explicit attempt to guilt women into voting for Clinton.

You can read the rest of this article at Sojourners, by clicking here.

Why a Pro-Life Christian Supports Bernie Sanders

Posted on February 8, 2016 by jamie

Today I’m happy to feature fellow political junkie, Lucas Jackson, as a guest blogger. Lucas takes on the oh-so-sensitive issues of both abortion and politics, and makes a strong argument for why he, a pro-life Christian, is voting for a pro-choice candidate, Bernie Sanders. Lucas and I would love to hear your thoughts on this; you can leave your take on the issue in the comment section below. And if you want to contact Lucas personally, you can reach him at jacksonlucas149@gmail.com. Enjoy!

Why a Pro-LIfe Christian Supports Bernie Sanders
By Lucas Jackson

Jesus isn’t running for president.

Neither is Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King Jr. or Gandhi. Dietrich Bonhoffer and William Wilberforce also aren’t on the ballot.

No matter who we support he or she will be very flawed.

I’ve watched almost every debate, followed the political cycle religiously and read up on the candidates’ records extensively.

And my takeaway is that the candidate who best embodies my values as a Christian – and it’s honestly not that close – is Bernie Sanders. And while my perspective below is a Christian one, I feel strongly that much of it may resonate with people of other faiths or more secular backgrounds.

Make no mistake – Bernie Sanders’ position on abortion troubles me, and his rhetoric on that issue is largely unhelpful. He calls pro-life Republicans “extremists” and gives no ground to the other side. Marco Rubio showed the type of dialogue the abortion issue in our country so desperately needs at the Republican debate Saturday night, saying that he recognized the right of women to control their own bodies and respected that right but views it as less than the right of an unborn child to life.

But the reality is that the Supreme Court is not going to fundamentally change abortion in America – only a revolution in our political and economic systems will.

Our political system must change because right now it gives us two parties that selectively choose when life matters. We need a realignment that brings together people of conscience on the right and left. But it also must change because it’s corrupt, and our government, like any of us, cannot serve two masters. Abortion will be sacrificed like any other non-financial issue to political expediency when the powers that be (for lack of a better phrase) decree it.

We need an economic revolution that puts the needs of people first and gives women and families the resources they need to both prevent unwanted pregnancy and reduce the economic hardship associated with having a baby and raising a child.

Sanders is not perfect. In most ways he has not yet converted his message of anger at Wall Street and Washington into a hopeful, unifying message of what the future in America can be. He has not elaborated on his foreign policy views nearly enough and stumbled when asked about them in the last debate. As far as my views on gun control are concerned, he’s not as strong as Hillary Clinton.

But Sanders is running a campaign that resonates with my most deeply held Christian values – loving our enemies, serving the least of these, telling the truth, acting with humility. When Jesus overturns the money changers’ tables in the Temple, Sanders says “exactly,” he doesn’t say “yes, but what could they offer me in the way of campaign contributions or speaking fees?” When Jesus says “love your enemies,” Sanders passes up opportunity after opportunity to take advantage of political moments to attack his main rival. He will not run a negative ad. He doesn’t have a Super PAC to run one for him.

When given the chance to savage Clinton – already struggling with the issue of trustworthiness – over her State Department emails, Sanders said “enough about the damn emails.” When confronted about his staff accessing Clinton campaign data, Sanders offered an explanation of what happened and noted he’d fired the staffer. When the debate moderator persisted and said “will you apologize?” there was an audible gasp when Sanders turned to Clinton and said, “Yes. I’m sorry.” Politicians just don’t do that.

When Jesus and page after page of scripture calls us to walk humbly before our God, Sanders seems to be the only political candidate in either party whose campaign is based on something other than “look how great I am.” He rarely praises himself. When he talks about his record, it’s usually to defend it or emphasize facts. Compare that to the other candidates in both parties and the contrast is surprisingly shocking. He is campaigning on an idea, not for his own glory. (I personally think Rand Paul in many ways matched Sanders in this respect, but he’s no longer running.)

And my God, he tells the truth. He does seem to avoid exaggerating or twisting facts, but what is really remarkable is that for all the criticism that his health care and anti-poverty proposals are “unicorns and rainbows,” he’s actually got it exactly right – he says clearly that he can’t get these proposals passed under the current Congress, that the only way we are going to fundamentally change our country is if millions of Americans engage in the political process and demand change. He’s right.

I admit, I also agree with a lot of his policies. Wall Street tanked our economy and controls our political system. Our criminal justice system and economy are corrupt and racially unjust. Climate change is real, almost certainly man-made, and serious. And so on.

But what attracts me to him most of all isn’t that I agree with his solutions, it’s that he’s addressing the actual problems in our society. Agree or disagree with his proposals to fix these problems. But what must be recognized is that Bernie Sanders is offering solutions that actually meet those problems head on, rather than solutions that are politically expedient.

I find his message of revolution to be deeply Christian. Jesus’ message was one of radical love. President Jesus would not accept millions of children living in poverty. He would not accept 30 million Americans without health insurance. He wouldn’t accept the greed and corruption on Wall Street and in our political system.

And that’s what’s so important about Sanders – his message isn’t just that we should fight child poverty, it’s that we shouldn’t accept the idea that poor children are a fact of life. In that sense, he’s not just challenging economic policies or political realities, he’s challenging the fundamental assumptions that underline our political system and our society. That’s what’s so radical – and so Christian – about Sanders.

In challenging our political system, he’s begun to recognize that the solution to our problems doesn’t lie solely on his side of the political spectrum. He’s winning independents who are voting in the Democratic primaries. In New Hampshire, where some undecided voters are choosing between Sanders and Trump, he’s recognizing that our disastrous trade policies have devastated working families on the right and left. There’s space there to forge an unlikely coalition, the type a corporate, pro-trade Democrat like Clinton could never forge. And Sanders went to Liberty University and spoke eloquently about the possibility of working together to fight poverty even when there’s disagreement on abortion and gay marriage. It would have been easy for him to reject the invitation from Jerry Falwell Jr. to attend. But he went.

There are other candidates with redeeming qualities. John Kasich has a unifying message in an otherwise angry primary field. Chris Christie deserves enormous credit for talking about how being pro-life means being pro-life for people after they’re born, like the 16-year old drug addict lying on the floor of Juvenile Hall. “I’m pro-life for her,” Christie said.

Ultimately, we need a President who will challenge the idea that childhood poverty is acceptable. Who will unify people across religious and political lines, rather than turn politics into a team sport. Who will govern effectively with the Congress he or she has, but inspire and lead the country to elect the Congress it deserves. Who will stand up and say that the dignity of human life must be protected, all human life, from the womb to the villages of Iraq and Afghanistan to death row to the streets of Chicago. A President who understands that family values include letting women bond with their baby after it’s born rather than sending them back to work three minimum wage jobs within a week or so after giving birth. A President who radically rethinks how we interact with the rest of the world. A President who is actually pro-life and not “pro-birth,” and understands that abortion rates decline when we address poverty, when we take care of mothers and families, when we end the school to prison pipeline that destroys families.

Until that President comes along, the best I can do is Feel the Bern. And there’s no shame in that.

Immigration: A Matter of the Spirit

Posted on February 7, 2015 by jamie

Marco Saavedra is an artist, poet, writer, and sometime-dishwasher at his parents’ restaurant in the Bronx. He’s also an undocumented immigrant and one of nine Dreamers who, in 2013, turned themselves over to border patrol at Nogales, AZ to lift up the plight of two million deported immigrants under the Obama administration. The previous year he had put himself in the hands of Florida immigration agents to infiltrate the Broward Detention Facility and expose the abuses occurring there. Dozens of detainees were released as a result. Today Saavedra’s deportation case is still pending, but he continues to make art, to voice protest, and to lift up the urgency of the lives of those around him. He speaks with us today about how faith has influenced his actions past and present, and how the current debate over immigration is not simply a matter of politics, but rather a matter of the spirit.

By purposefully placing yourself in the hands of border guards, you could have been deported to Mexico, a place you haven’t been since you were a baby. How did your faith impact your decision to take such a personal and possibly life-altering risk?

Yes, of course, faith has always been crucial in my migration journey. The last words I said before turning myself over to border patrol two years ago were: “There is no fear where there is perfect love” (to loosely quote St. John), and I meant that. And to go further into my past, faith was the only thing left after my parents and I first came into this country illegally 20 years ago; we had already left behind our language, native home, extended family, culture and everything known until that point. Our migration started (as I believe most all do) with faith and was sustained by it. And so when I turned myself over to immigration 20 years later—in order to raise up the plight of the deported—it was only adding to that faith that instructs us to “love one another as [Jesus] has loved us” (John 13:34).

Is social justice activism of this extent the province of the young? What about the middle-aged, the old, those with small children, aging parents, etc. Do the social justice teachings of Jesus require such action from these folks as well? Why/why not?

You can read the rest of my interview with Marco at Red Letter Christians. When you’re done there, check out the remarkable photography of Steve Pavey of Hope in Focus.

Don’t Shop at the Safeway!

Posted on January 22, 2015 by jamie

“Don’t shop at the Safeway!”

This is what my husband and I heard time and again when we told people where we had purchased our new home.

We heard this from bankers, realtors, doctors, nice people, smart people, goofy people and everyone-in-between people.

Why, we wondered, did everyone keep telling us this?

Our neighborhood and the immediately surrounding neighborhoods are very nice. Exceptionally nice, I might even dare to say. Children ride their bikes on the streets and freely knock on neighbors’ doors in search of playdates. Adults host block parties and on Halloween they put fire pits in their driveways for hand-warming, marshmallow roasting, and so Aaron has something to attempt jumping into.

It is also true that the only way to get to our neighborhood—which is located a little off the beaten path—is through a poor neighborhood. It is, as one person euphemistically put it, a dark neighborhood.

“Ohhhh. Is there a bad drug problem there? Like meth houses and such?”

“Er, no.”

“High crime rate?”

“Not exactly.”

“Well… it doesn’t sound bad to me. As long as it’s safe, we’re fine with it. We really love that house!”

“Yes, but it’s… dark. Oh, and you wouldn’t want to shop at the Safeway.”

“Bad produce?”

“I wouldn’t really know. I don’t go there.”

Upon first meeting my primary care doctor and giving her our address she immediately said, “Don’t shop at the Safeway!”

When signing the closing papers on our house, the facilitating broker said, “Well, you’ll just have to drive down to the Whole Foods or Trader Joe’s. You sure won’t be shopping at that Safeway!”

Well, let me tell you a secret: we shop at the Safeway.

There are armed guards, locks on the bathrooms, and only one point of entry/exit (easier to monitor). To enter the store I often walk through a plume of cigarette smoke and conversations that I, prudishly, might call inappropriate.

But I go there anyway. And I’ve never, ever, not even once, felt scared, threatened, under attack, or uncomfortable in any way, shape, or form (unless you count the fact that its Starbucks doesn’t heat its chocolate croissants before serving them. That is just not okay).

Today, though, I went to Whole Foods.

I don’t often go to Whole Foods. In fact, I haven’t been there in about a decade. Why would I buy overpriced organic health food at Whole Foods when I can get the same food at a better cost at almost every other store in the fantabulous-to-shop-for-food-in Berkeley?

But alas, those days are gone, and we are the furthest of far from the land of farmers’ markets and Alice Waters.

Because my husband and I want to eat healthy, organic, grass fed, and hormone-free food when possible (though let’s face it: most nights we just have Annie’s Mac-n-Cheese), we’ve decided to supplement our Trader Joe’s and Safeway excursions with trips to Whole Foods. Today was one such day.

No cigarette smoke greeted me as I walked through the door. Instead, I entered through a well-lit foyer with handsome displays of nice looking things that made me want to buy them.

It was overwhelming.

It was like Ikea, but without the free meatballs.

It was also a bit like a fair-trade, living wage Walmart: I couldn’t decide whether to buy coffee from the coffee bar, soup from the soup bar, bulk grains from the bulk grain bar (conveniently located by the salsa bar!), or get a facial.

The cashier had so little sense of humor I had to explain that one of my many jokes was a joke. To this she replied, in a tone slightly too defensive to call deadpan, “I was just teasing back.”

The woman behind me in line was clearly the blue-ribbon holder of the local stroller wars.

And the super-toned, Luluemon-wearing, iPhone-talking woman in the produce aisle clearly, CLEARLY, had gone shopping that day only to make me feel gross and lazy.

And that’s fine. All of this is fine. The cashier is probably overworked and tired, and I bet I’d be friends with the woman behind me in line (in fact, I bet I’d even be friends with the guilt-inducing super-fit mom from the produce aisle).

I shelled out the big bucks for my few items then headed to Safeway to get the rest.

And there they were: smokers smoking, talkers talking, and yes, even deadpan cashiers.

And you know what? I felt equally safe in the aisles of Safeway as I had in the maze of Whole Foods.

Self-segregation is self-perpetuating.

As innocent as it may seem, advising folks new to the area not to shop at the local Safeway—at the very least not at night, as some said—builds up the litany of beliefs we like to call “being safe,” rather than “being racist.”

Some of those who gave us their sage shopping advice were strangers to me. Some were people I know, and I know them to be quite nice and educated and all that good stuff. And yet… they felt inclined to warn us. To repeat what they’ve been told.

And isn’t that how it goes? Don’t shop there, it isn’t safe. And suddenly, I think shouldn’t go there, should warn others as well.

Don’t buy a home there; the neighbors a few blocks a way may not be right for you. Confused by this ambivalence, I worry about crime and safety and look elsewhere for my home. Property values begin to fall.

I have, unwittingly, become part of the cycle.

But I won’t.

I’m not saying that I’m saving the day, building up an economy, or blessing a particular store with my privileged-status self in hopes that it will become the seller of high-end organic goods and that all the doorway smokers will realize the error of their carcinogenic ways. That would be a bunch of malarky. What I am saying is that small acts of resistance are sometimes all that we can muster. I know that’s true for me right now, in these tired middle years. It’s certainly easy enough for me to say, “Hey! Look at me! I shop here and, believe it or not, you can too.”

Truth be told, I’m not even a huge fan of Safeway. I don’t feel a strong desire to put it ahead of other stores, and I won’t. I’ll go where I can get what I need when I need it. But each time I choose the Safeway by my house, I’ll give a little fist pump and nod to this, my (infinitesimally) small act of resistance. Silly, isn’t it?

Lessons from a Rocking Chair

Posted on May 8, 2013 by jamie

When my mom got back from Arkansas a few weeks ago, she brought my sister’s hand-me-downs with her. Toys, mostly (she left the box of clothes in Arkansas on accident, darn it), but she also brought a rocking chair.

We have one already—3, actually—but my mom decided we needed a better rocking chair since we are fairly infamous for our “rocking chair fiascos,” in which my husband manages to break or otherwise damage perfectly good furniture. To his credit, this is because he is a good daddy and spends a lot of time rocking his babies in the middle of the night.

The Great Rocking Chair Fiasco of 2011

Anyway, the chairs (a grand total of 4 over the last 4 years, one of which I’d had for 17 years until my husband got a hold of it) are decent-enough Target-quality chairs. Fairly comfy, NOT easily breakable despite evidence to the contrary, and they fulfill their role. But this rocking chair my mom brought back… let me tell you, it’s a whole other level of chair. It cost about 1/3 of our mortgage (remember, it’s a hand-me-down!), and it has the comfort and durability to prove it. I still hate getting up at 2am (and 3am, and 5am, etc.), but at least now I’m really comfy in my misery. Sometimes I even nod off in the chair. Aaron likes it better, too, and so the times I need to walk him endlessly across his 12 x 12 room have decreased significantly.

Yeah, baby. It may not look like much, but let me assure you: it is.

This got me thinking: How much easier is life when we have these little comforts? There is no way Andy and I would spend 1/3 of a mortgage payment on a rocking chair but we, thankfully, have been given one of this quality. And it makes our lives better.

When Collin was only a few months old, a friend who had also recently had a baby stopped by so we could compare kiddos. As I sat with her baby and began to rock, my friend shouted “Stop rocking!” She’s lucky I didn’t drop the baby, I was so surprised. She went on to explain that she didn’t have a rocking chair, couldn’t afford a rocking chair, and had no hopes of being given a rocking chair. So, she didn’t want her daughter to get used to the motion.

As poor as I was at the time (and trust me, I was) this was not a dilemma I had ever thought about and I felt really sad for my friend. When I was pregnant with my first child, my mom gave me a rocking chair. Now, having just had (who better be!) my last child, my mom gave me another rocking chair (we’ve had a couple in between, but I’m ignoring that for the sake of symmetry). This will, of course, be filed under “First World Problems,” because really? A rocking chair? There are mamas out there who don’t have food or water for themselves or their babies, let alone a fancy chair complete with foot-propping ottoman.

This led me to think about how Aaron and Rachel can’t sleep when it’s hot out (no one in the Bay Area has air conditioning), and how this is true even though they have never known the comfort of an air conditioner. All they know is that they are hot, uncomfortable, and want to scream incoherent things at us in the middle of the night. Thankfully, where we live the hot days don’t last long. But to make those few hot days more bearable, we put ceiling fans in all the bedrooms. How fortunate we are to have this ability! Nonetheless, we complain, and curse the heat, and think we’ll never sleep again.

But we have such comfort. This isn’t a new thought, or a deep one. It’s the truth of the world we live in, discussed daily by those whose hearts break for those without even basic necessities. But with Mother’s Day drawing near, and with all the blogging and talking and praying and whining I do about being a mom, and with all the strength and endurance our society attributes to moms, even comfy ones, I think: what must other moms go through? What must they whine about? What the heck am I thinking to complain that my baby can’t sleep in the heat and that I should have bought a 3-speed ceiling fan instead of a 2-speed one because it was $20 cheaper? Or that Aaron’s Pottery Barn bedding is too scratchy so we have to buy yet another bed set?

I love my rocking chair. I’m keeping it, and I highly recommend it to anyone who wants a good chair in which to spend approximately 87% of their non-sleeping hours. But while I’m sitting in it, enjoying the breeze from the fan, I better give some long, hard, thought- and prayer time to those mamas who certainly won’t be getting Hallmark cards and chocolates this weekend. And maybe when I get my rear end out of that chair and out of the chaos of this particular life season, I will actually do something to bring a little more comfort into those moms’ lives.

A few days early. You know, just in case.

Mental Health Awareness Month: Dual Diagnosis

Posted on May 3, 2013 by jamie

Author’s note: While I may some day turn this into a legal, scholarly article complete with footnotes, statistics, solutions, and multi-syllabic words, please take it for what it is today: a blog post. It is not meant to address every problem with mental health treatment within the foster care system, but it is meant to get people thinking.

During my 10 years as a foster youth advocate, and my 5 years an attorney representing children and parents in the foster care/dependency system, I became very familiar with the mental health double whammy of a dual diagnosis (also known as “co-occurring disorders”). The National Institute of Health (NIH) gives this very basic definition of dual diagnosis:

“A person with dual diagnosis has both a mental disorder and an alcohol or drug
problem.”

Based on my 15 years of professional experience with the foster care system, I feel comfortable saying that a very large percentage of parents who are involved in that system suffer from both mental illness and drug/alcohol addiction, or, in other words, are dually diagnosed.

The Problem

When social services removes children from their parents’ care and places the children into foster homes, the parents are given a case plan that outlines what the parents must do to successfully reunify—in other words, what the parents must do to get the children back in the parents’ care. For a mentally ill parent, the case plan will include a mental health evaluation, the recommendations of which the parents must follow. This typically includes counseling and appropriate medication. For a drug or alcohol addicted parent, the parent must complete drug/alcohol treatment, and prove sobriety by passing a certain number of drug tests. So we have two directives: 1) get help for your mental illness (i.e. medication) and 2) get sober.

In the case of the dually diagnosed parent, a special problem presents itself: psychiatrists will not provide psychotropic medication to a person who has drugs in his or her system. Since many mentally ill people turn to drugs and alcohol to self-medicate their illness, the requirement that a parent be completely substance free before psychotropic medications are prescribed is almost impossible to fulfill, thus creating a system of certain failure.

As the NIH explains:

“Sometimes the mental problem occurs first. This can lead people to use alcohol or
drugs that make them feel better temporarily. [self-medication] Sometimes the
substance abuse occurs first. Over time, that can lead to emotional and mental
problems.”

“Someone with a dual diagnosis must treat both conditions. For the treatment to be
effective, the person needs to stop using alcohol or drugs. Treatments may include
behavioral therapy, medicines, and support groups.”

A Hypothetical

Consider a mother who has her children removed from her home because of her rampant drug use. After beginning her case plan, which includes a mental health evaluation, it comes to light that the mother had previously been diagnosed as bi-polar, and the current evaluator agrees. The mother is ordered by the judge to comply with the recommendations of a mental health professional. The mental health professional suggests that the mother be placed on lithium to treat her bi-polar disorder. That same mental health professional, however, refuses to provide the mother with a prescription until she has at least 30-days of sobriety, as proved by random drug testing. Because the mother is self-medicating her bi-polar disorder, she cannot stay off drugs for the required amount of time. Because she is not off drugs, she cannot get the lithium, therefore she cannot get off the drugs. As is apparent: this is a Catch 22.

Difficulties in Treatment and Reduced Odds of Reunification

There are some residential drug treatment programs that can help a person obtain sobriety for long enough to receive psychotropic medication; however, the beds in these program fill up quickly, and many will not take a patient with a dual diagnosis. The residential programs that are specifically designed for those with a dual diagnosis are few and far between, and of course, funding and space are always short.

Compounding this problem is a general culture of stigmatization, especially where dual diagnosis is in play, as well as an assumption that the parent will fail. Not all judges, attorneys, and social workers buy in to this line of thinking, but I would argue that the overall culture of the foster care system is one of misunderstanding and stigmatizing the mentally ill (including mentally ill children, but that’s a topic for another post).

For instance, one thing that often bothered me about the reports social workers write to summarize their interactions with parents is the common use of the word “admit” in connection to mental illness. Example: “Mother admits she suffers from depression.” Or, “Father admits he takes Prozac for his depression.” Or, “Mother admits to often being overcome by anxiety.” One “admits” to stealing or lying. One does not “admit” to feeling depressed or anxious, or to taking necessary medication to bring a very real illness under control. When mental illness is couched in terms of a crime, it is viewed as a crime.

In such a culture, the odds of a parent successfully reunifying with his or her children is drastically reduced, if not completely obliterated.

The Solution

According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, only a small proportion of those with dual diagnosis actually receive treatment for both disorders. In 2011, it was estimated that only 12.4% of American adults with dual diagnosis were receiving both mental health and addictions treatment. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_diagnosis#Treatment) This is in part because those with dual diagnoses may not be able to receive mental health services if they admit to a substance abuse problem, and vice versa. (Id.)

The following is an excerpt from Wikipedia, discussing treatment of dual diagnosis patients:

“There are multiple approaches to treating concurrent disorders. Partial treatment involves treating only the disorder that is considered primary. Sequential treatment involves treating the primary disorder first, and then treating the secondary disorder after the primary disorder has been stabilized. Parallel treatment involves the client receiving mental health services from one provider, and addictions services from another.

Integrated treatment involves a seamless blending of interventions into a single coherent treatment package developed with a consistent philosophy and approach among care providers. With this approach, both disorders are considered primary. Integrated treatment can improve accessibility, service individualization, engagement in treatment, treatment compliance, mental health symptoms, and overall outcomes. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration in the United States describes integrated treatment as being in the best interests or clients, programs, funders, and systems. Green suggested that treatment should be integrated, and a collaborative process between the treatment team and the patient. Furthermore, recovery should to be viewed as a marathon rather than a sprint, and methods and outcome goals should be explicit.”

As you can see, there is no easy answer. The suggestions above take time, money, health insurance, and advocacy, none of which (most) parents in the foster care system have. These treatment options also require a streamlined and interconnected system, which is certainly lacking in the bureaucracy of social services. Given the short timeframe parents have in which to reunify with their children, the fact that treatment for a dual diagnosis should be a “marathon rather than a sprint,” is especially troubling.

I am not a doctor, psychiatrist, counselor, or social worker. I am an attorney, writer, mom, and wife. Unfortunately, the latter set of credentials does not qualify me to come up with a perfect solution, or even an imperfect one. I understand a doctor’s belief that mental illness cannot be treated while drugs are either masking symptoms or creating symptoms that wouldn’t otherwise exist. But perhaps greater reunification periods could be given to parents with dual diagnosis. Perhaps doctors could cross their fingers and hold their breath and hope that the medication prescribed works well enough for the parent to get sober, then doctor, parent, and therapist can see what symptoms are left, and what new ones appear.

Whatever the alternative, it can’t be worse than what these parents face now.

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Women’s Words:

Words for Thought:

Mental Health Awareness Month

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: