Deadly Mortgage Debt and Other Stupid Shit the Media Reports

We can all agree, at this point, that the economy causes men to kill their ex-girlfriends, girlfriends, ex-wives, wives, children, step-children, extended family, strangers, and even animals, right?... because that's what the media has been telling us for AT LEAST the past year.

Also, we can all agree that neighbors are the go-to people as a source for inside information on these killers. Neighbors know EVERYTHING: whether he got in arguments with people, whether he always had a smile on his face, whether he played with his kids in the yard, if he had shit stains in his drawz, what position he fucked his wife in, what his kids in Japan looked like, etc.

Finally, we can all agree that most of theses killers were fine, upstanding men, with no obvious problems in their work, family, or other lives.

So, how the hell can a woman, or any person, keep themselves safe during economically depressed times, or, during any time in which some individual man may be experiencing financial hardship? How can we keep ourselves safe from things like this:
Unspeakable, Horrific Scene: Father Sought
June 17, 2010 - 9:54 AM | by: Molly Line

Police are looking for Thomas Mortimer IV after his family was found murdered in what prosecutors are calling an "unspeakable" scene.

The bodies of 2-year-old Charlotte Mortimer, her brother 4-year-old Thomas 'Finn' Mortimer V, their mother Laura Stone Mortimer, 41, and her mother, the children's grandmother, Ellen Ragna Stone, 64, were discovered yesterday morning following a forced entry well-being check conducted at the family residence at 2 Windsong Lane in the quiet Boston suburb of Winchester, Massachusetts.

"They went to that home because they were concerned relatives. They had not been able to have conversation with the family members in that house since Monday night," said Middlesex District Attorney Gerard Leone.

Prosecutors would not say how the family was killed and investigators remained at the home this morning, yellow crime scene tape marking out a perimeter in the upscale neighborhood.

"After having been in that scene, I can tell you, after making observations of that scene, it was horrific, disturbing and unspeakable and the acts do not appear to be random," said Leone.

Police are not saying where Mortimer IV may been or where he could be headed.
Until recently the father of two had been unemployed but several weeks ago he got a job doing sales for a technology firm. He didn't show up to work on Tuesday.
Look at this comment on the updated article:
Elaine: I personally know this man....he's a kind, gentle man. Something horrible must have happened to have caused him to do this....if he did it.
Okay, Elaine. Thank Goodness you weren't married to him, huh?

And how about this:
Cops: Dad's Murder-Suicide Leaves Boy Critically Injured
Updated: 5 days 4 hours ago

Tori Richards Contributor
AOL News

ANAHEIM, Calif. (June 15) -- A 3-year-old boy is clinging to life after being shot several times, allegedly by his father, who apparently turned the gun on his wife and himself in a murder-suicide that some reports suggest could have been brought on by mortgage debt.

Though the incident occurred Sunday night, the grisly scene at the family's suburban home went undiscovered for 14 hours, as the boy cowered in a pool of blood behind a backyard trash can and his uninjured 5-year-old brother hid inside the house, police said.

"The [older] boy remained in the house hiding throughout the evening and into the morning hours," Anaheim police Sgt. Rick Martinez told AOL News. "He didn't know what to do."

After the father failed to show up for work Monday at the family's auto repair facility, a co-worker arrived at the home around 10 a.m.

"The 5-year-old answered the door and said, 'My mom and dad have been shot,' " Martinez said. "The worker was with his wife and told her to call 911."

The family's names are not being released by police because they are having difficulty locating relatives to make a death notification. The younger boy remains hospitalized in critical condition, and the older boy is in the care of social workers.

An anonymous person called 911 at 8 p.m. Sunday to report gunshots in the area, but responding patrol officers could not locate the area where it happened. The single-family home is in the vicinity of several businesses and an apartment complex.

Police theorize that the 54-year-old man shot his 39-year-old wife in the head as she sat in a chair in the backyard, fired at his 5-year-old son who stood in the doorway of their home, and then fired several shots at the younger boy, who was also in the backyard standing near a swimming pool gate, Martinez said.

The younger boy was struck in the chest, stomach and shoulder before the man shot himself in the head, Martinez said.

"I'm sure the woman never knew what was coming, she was still sitting in the chair," Martinez said.

Martinez said detectives are working on the case, "trying to determine what [the man's] true comprehension of reality was. We didn't have any previous calls that I know of relating to domestic violence."

A public records search shows a possible motive, however. The Orange County Register reported that the couple was deep in debt, borrowing against their home five times and recently taking out a $462,000 loan. They were behind in mortgage payments and faced foreclosure, and owed another $26,000 on credit cards.

KABC-TV interviewed a customer at the auto repair shop who stated the wife planned to leave her husband if he didn't stop drinking and that she feared for the safety of her children.

In the family backyard today, a beer can stood on a patio table and a dozen more were inside a plastic grocery bag leaning against a wall. A bloody stain was in the center of the patio, feet from a green plastic child's play car. Other toys were strewn about, along with old car parts and miscellaneous machinery.

Neighbor Ramon Maldonado told AOL News he wasn't aware of any problems between the couple.

"I worked for him for several years, but got laid off because business was slow," he said. "He'd pick me up every day and we'd go to work. His wife went, too, and the kids. The oldest boy didn't go to school."

Maldonado said the father "was a nice guy" and he never saw a violent temper. "I was shocked when I heard about this," he said. "I knew he had guns in the house because he told me. I didn't think anything of it -- he said the guns were there to protect his family."

Never mind the part about what the wife disclosed, the debt motive is much more interesting. Let's read it again, it was so hard to miss amidst the rest of the article:
KABC-TV interviewed a customer at the auto repair shop who stated the wife planned to leave her husband if he didn't stop drinking and that she feared for the safety of her children.
So, what are some things you can do to keep yourself and everyone else alive?:

Don't live with a man who is paying a mortgage--one day he may be in mortgage debt and he may kill everyone.

Don't buy a house, with a man--one day you may be in mortgage debt and he may kill everyone.

Don't associate with anyone who has a man with a mortgage--one day he may be in mortgage debt and he may kill everyone.

Never let the unemployed man become a primary caretaker babysit your kids--one day, he may decide to kill them.

Never let the man become unemployed--one day, he may decide that everyone no longer needs to live.

Consider managing all of your family's finances in secret. Never disclose hardship to the man--lest he decide that everyone no longer needs to live.

Should the man become unemployed, utilize all of your resources to help him become employed again, even if that means quitting your own job to help him find work. What's more important, your employment, or your life and the lives of everyone else?

Perhaps you should consider eliminating the man from the picture?

And to everyone else, a t-shirt?


Abortion is Exactly This...

I found this jewel located in the comment section of Military shifts on reproductive health:
Abortion is exactly this: The option to ignore the reproductive consequences that are inherent to sexual activity so that you can live a life free of the responsibilities of rearing a child. Secular philosophy had morphed sexual intercourse into something that should be done prior to any sort of commitment between a man and a woman. It is now just a game, that most adults are fully aware their children will participate in at an early age, and can't find it within themselves to intervene.
Couldn't we substitute a wide range of procedures in the above? Let's try one for fun:
Coronary bypass surgery is exactly this: The option to ignore the cardiac consequences that are inherent to inactivity so that you can live a life free of the responsibilities of eating healthy. Fast food philosophy had morphed eating patterns into something that should be done prior to any sort of commitment between eating right and your body. It is now just a game, that most adults are fully aware their children will participate in at an early age, and can't find it within themselves to intervene. So instead, they buy that 25 cent bag of chips instead of the 99 cent mango.
ALL activities have consequences. As we are an advanced species, we are able to control the possible outcome of a variety of things in our lives, especially as technology continues to advance. If you don't want a child, should you be forced to have one? I think not. To me, this is the highest form of being considerate and "thinking of the children." If you want to have sex, should you be limited from engaging because of the possibility of conceiving a child? Only if you want to reserve sex for the married....because sex is so special, that you should wait until you are married! (At least that is what some try to convince the youth, and themselves!) I wonder what the problem is then, that when surveyed, married persons report sex is worse than what non-married persons report? And why are men and women stepping outside of their marriages for sexual fulfillment? Oh yes, sex addiction. But how do you have sex addiction when you don't enjoy sex with your husband or wife, but you have no problems with other men or women? Selective sex addiction?

For there to be an issue with secular philosophy, one must subscribe to the notion of the nonsecular. But what if you don't participate in any religion, do these rules about limiting sex apply? I wonder why people assume that everyone has the same convictions. I can't help but to stand behind the statement--
if you don't like abortion don't have one.
But we need to add, if you are against anyone else choosing abortion for their situation, support their pregnancies with monetary funds and on-call emotional and physical support. After the pregnancy, continue to provide that support for the child and mother until age of legal maturation. Welfare isn't enough and child support just doesn't cut it. Use your resources to realize the potential of these wouldhavebeen aborted babies so that they may all become the next Barack Obama. We can virtually eliminate welfare if you will agree to use your private funds.

Until such a time, I am very impressed that women in the military, as spouses and members, have access to these services. When men and women are around each other, regardless of religious standpoint, they tend to wanna fuck. Unfortunately, not everyone uses protection or birth control...especially those damn married folks! If you haven't noticed, military families at the beginning pay grades with at least more 2 children qualify for WIC and you're already subsidizing stuff for them. These families also function (for lack of a better word) in high stress environments where there is a lot of domestic and sexual violence. Why not save the children, and let them remain unborn when they are unwanted?


Fathers Aren't Necessary: Finally Getting Off the Patriarchal Bullshit Bandwagon

Not many people will argue against the necessity of having a father in one's life. We have been so ingrained to accept this as a fact that to challenge this assertion would seem absurd. Everyone from from religious persons to psychologists will tell you how important a father is in a child's development. But they have been lying. It has been a social control mechanism. Ohh, but get ready for the don't like being told that they aren't important, and the women who support these notions, love to support these men (meaning, they, the women, will be angry, too)!

Yesterday's article on CNN entitled, Kids of lesbians have fewer behavioral problems, study suggests, is sure to have "them" screaming mad:
A nearly 25-year study concluded that children raised in lesbian households were psychologically well-adjusted and had fewer behavioral problems than their peers.

The study, published Monday in the journal Pediatrics, followed 78 lesbian couples who conceived through sperm donations and assessed their children's well-being through a series of questionnaires and interviews...

Children from lesbian families rated higher in social, academic and total competence. They also showed lower rates in social, rule-breaking, aggressive problem behavior.
Ouch! Kinda tramples on the male least those in the fathers' rights camps...the ones that think single mother households are such a nasty infection, feminism is evil, and welfare lets women birth unlimited babies while replacing/eliminating the man. *eye roll*

But as I said, there are women who will be upset as well:
Wendy Wright, president of the Concerned Women for America, a group that supports biblical values, questioned the legitimacy of the findings from a study funded by gay advocacy groups.

"That proves the prejudice and bias of the study," she said. "This study was clearly designed to come out with one outcome -- to attempt to sway people that children are not detrimentally affected in a homosexual household."

Wright questioned the objectivity of Gartrell's research, saying the author can "cherry pick people who are involved and the info they release."

"In essence, this study claims to purport that children do better when raised by lesbians," she said...

Studies have shown that children thrive having both a mother and a father, Wright said.

"You have to be a little suspicious of any study that says children being raised by same-sex couples do better or have superior outcomes to children raised with a mother and father," she said. "It just defies common sense and reality."
Well, Wendy, unfortunately, we'd have to pull a hell of a lot of studies off the market for bias related to funding. In fact, we should probably stop letting the government give out grant monies for all these "fatherhood demonstration" projects...and while we are at it, pull money from religious groups as well. To which studies are you referring, Wendy? What were their funding sources? And why shouldn't we be suspicious of studies regarding heterosexual, married persons? Not applying equal skepticism just defies commons sense and reality. If you really want to know about funding and bias, see the Let's Get Honest blog.

And we also have a recent article entitled, Are Fathers Necessary?, which begins by talking about Barack Obama, who we already know to have some serious psychological issues regarding fatherhood (see Obama and His Fathercentricism):
There’s only one problem: none of this is proven. In the February issue of the Journal of Marriage and Family, Judith Stacey, a professor of sociology at New York University, and Timothy Biblarz, a demographer from the University of Southern California, consolidated the available data on the role of gender in child rearing. As Stacey and Biblarz point out, our ideas of what dads do and provide are based primarily on contrasts between married-couple parents and single-female parents: an apples-to-oranges exercise that conflates gender, sexual orientation, marital status, and biogenetic relationships in ways that a true comparison of parent gender—one that compared married gay-male couples or married lesbian couples to married heterosexuals, or single fathers to single mothers—would not. Most of the data fail to distinguish between a father and the income a father provides, or between the presence of a father and the presence of a second parent, regardless of gender.
So, the conclusion, once again, is that gender is irrelevant. Children do well when they have the emotional and financial support of whomever raises them (which still happens to be mothers, you know. I mean, this could change if men continued to increase their roles, beginning in infancy, but with women still being the ones bearing the pregnancy, and having the lactating breasts, it can be so damn hard to break this!) Damn, is this so hard to understand? How much more money must be spent covering this same shit?

See Also: Say What, Michael Lamb?: Two Parents Not Required

Amy J. Baker and Parental Alienation: Behind the Veil of Ignorance

part two of The Ever Expanding Parental Alienation Theory: Amy J. Baker's Research Revisited

Amy J. Baker got some publicity in a March 2008 with David Van Nuys, Ph.D. The following excerpts come from the transcript from the Wise Counsel interview (emphasis mine):
Amy: We only consider PAS when there is no other reason. In other words, if a parent is abusive or neglectful or moves away or is a poor parent in some ways that results in the child saying, "You know Dad (or Mom), I really need to step back from this relationship", that's not PAS. It's only PAS when the child is being manipulated by one parent to reject the other parent in the absence of a good reason for rejecting that parent.
Wait a minute, that's not what Baker said in her study! The interviewer should have asked her how can she tell if the parent is abusive or neglectful if he/she is the target parent who is reporting the alienation. What motivation does this person have to tell the truth? On the other hand, considering PAS "when there is no other reason" or "in the absence of a good reason" is not evidence that it exists. This is not scientific. (Think of it this way: you report to the doctor with severe headaches with blurred vision and nausea. The doctor tells you that you it isn't a migraine, you don't have allergies or sinus problems, and your vision seems fine. So, you must have a brain tumor. Let's operate!)
Amy: The DSM is going through another round of revisions, I think it's due out at some time in 2012 or something and at that point, PAS may be included. It really depends on how much empirical research and the lobbying and behind the scenes sort of pressures to include it and not include it that are going on.
So, the DSM is about politics, not scientific evidence? The interviewer should have asked her what parental alienation empirical research looks like.
Amy: It's 100 percent on research and theory. I'm actually not a clinician...

I only do research and the book is based primarily on interviews, in depth interviews with 40 adults who believe that when they were children they were turned against one parent by the other parent and then I used those case studies to explicate various aspects of PAS theory that I'm interested in writing about. The book is solely based on that. I don't have a clinical practice.
Hmmm. So Baker has not seen clinical evidence of parental alienation. Her method is word of mouth. Let's do a recap of the subjects she interviewed:

40 people= 25 women, 15 men

age range 19-67, with a mode of about 40 years of age

29 people reported that their parents divorced during their childhood
Average age during said divorce= 5.76 years, with a mode of 2.

So, just in case you didn't figure this all out in the last post, the participants who volunteered for Baker's study were mostly middle aged with a majority of them reflecting on a divorce, and actions thereafter, that occurred between their parents during or before kindergarten. (And some of the parents never divorced.)

The interviewer should have asked Baker how she gets paid. (Constant self-promotion = books sales, speaking engagements. Research = grant money.) Oh, wait, the answer is below:
Amy: Well, a researcher's dream is to find a topic that is both rich and fascinating and which there is human drama and a relatively understudied area where there is a significant need to be filled so that there's a kind of "ready made" audience for your findings. The opposite of that is to do a study and you write a book or an article and it just sits on a shelf and it doesn't help anybody.
Perhaps psych researchers are bottom feeders preying on people's suffering and offering them solutions just to make a dollar. Opportunists. Where's that cash cow?
Amy: But in this other category, there were father alienators and mother alienators. Basically, rather than being narcissistic and seducing the children into their camp, so to speak, they were abusive. The parents seemed to have a more anti-social personality disorder rather than a narcissistic or borderline. They really pull the kids to them through fear of rejection, fear of abandonment and more kind of controlling, even physically and sexually abusive style.
But Amy is not a clinician. She only "saw" these things via a relayed and delayed message from her participants. And didn't she just say that this wasn't considered alienation?
Amy: So, the way in which it's like a cult is first of all, alienating parents use many of the same strategies that cult leaders use. The same youth control, they create dependency, they use the same black/white thinking. If you break it down on a point by point basis, alienating parents and cult leaders use essentially the same thought reform and emotional manipulation techniques.
Maligning motherhood or parenthood. There are probably lots of parallels that could be made between parents and cult leaders in general...or parents and military leaders...or parents and anything bad or good. Seriously, this isn't science. It is opinion. I wouldn't be surprised if Baker weren't a biological parent. As an anecdote, I've worked with research psychologists. They love to study other folks, especially people of color and women. They are very vested in their research and often have no life outside of it. On another note, from personal experience and observation, I haven't seen any single mother that purposefully created dependent children--ESPECIALLY those mothers that were once partnered with the biological father. In fact, fostering this type of relationship would be counterproductive because often times, these single mother families have less resources; and so the children are "forced" to grow up faster and become independent sooner than their intact family peers.
Amy: ...based on my research with both targeted parents and these adult children and now I've kind of provided consultations with maybe 100 targeted parents just talking to people on the phone.
But Amy isn't a clinician. Why is she doing this?

And here's the parental alienation is abuse trope that is flooding the current literature:
Amy: I do indeed because although there are many definitions of emotional abuse and I just picked one, you could take any definition and compare on a point by point basis and you would see that PAS really lines up. Even if you didn't do it on a sort of systematic basis, just intuitively, it makes sense to say, "Well, a parent who makes a child lose a relationship with the other parent is abusive in and of itself." Even if you didn't also conclude, as I do, that these very strategies that the parent uses are abusive.
Intuitively? Is that science?
Amy: Well, the people that I interviewed talked at length about self-esteem problems. They said they hated themselves and thought that they were horrible, horrible people. Part of this is the guilt they felt when they finally had the realization that they had been manipulated to treat one parent very badly.
The interviewer should have asked if the target parent later turned out to be the wonderful parent that they had so hoped for. We often hear the wonderful stories of people reuniting with their biological parents, rarely do we publicly hear of the tragedies and disappointments. No one wants to be wrong. He should have also asked how the participants came to this realization and if the self-esteem problems could have been related to other issues.
Amy: Let me just say that children who have gone through this really treat the targeted parent very shabbily. They're rude, ungrateful, nasty, hostile and cold. They really put the targeted parent through the ringer and if they ever do figure out, "Gee, I was really manipulated by Dad to treat Mom really badly." They grow up and they feel badly about themselves.
Teenagers in intact one and two parent families can act the same way and the idea of considering them mentally ill or brainwashed would be laughable. Children that have been physically abused by their parents, especially in cases of sexual abuse, often grow up to feel badly about themselves, too. How would Baker know the difference?
Amy: But they also have self-esteem problems because they've been told their whole life that one of their parents doesn't love them. They've become too dependent on the approval of the alienating parent. This is another way in which it's like a cult. Good parents aim to promote the self-efficiency and independence of their children but like cult leaders, alienating parents really want to maintain that dependency of their children on them and that in turn does lead to a low self-esteem. They don't feel they can take care of themselves and make good choices in the world.
Or maybe one of their parents didn't love them or love them in a way in which they could understand as a child. Or maybe the child wasn't an independent child, or the child was slow, or needed more time to form an attachment to one parent and that process was disrupted. Correlation doesn't equal causation. This stuff cannot be proven. It is absolute conjecture.
Amy: Yes, I have a lot of advice, and again, I'm not going to have time now. Maybe at the end, I can give my email address so people can contact me if they want.
But Amy is not a clinician. Why is she doing this?
Amy: So I advise, unless your lawyer or therapist tells you otherwise -- and always do what your lawyer or therapist tells you -- you should be having some contact with your kid every week, every month, whatever it is.
Because you can't do this without them! You cannot foster, maintain, develop, etc a relationship with your children without someone else telling you how to do it. Oh, and you must pay them. This doesn't sound healthy. It sounds like parental dependency...and I thought we were supposed to foster independent relationships!!
Amy: I invite people who reach out to me. I'm not a clinician. I can give one shot advice or direct you to maybe to a therapist or support groups or some kind of help of support groups who start in my county...
Oh yes, she is not a clinician. She'll refer you to her friends or get you to buy her book (or gift it to you, which works out really well if she gets a kickback)
Amy: Well, I do recommend a particular website. I have no vested interest in it. It's just a website I think is good. It's called Parental Alienation Awareness Organization.

1. Baker promotes the theory of PAS and so does Parental Alienation Awareness Organization (PAAO).

3. Her book is on their site

4. Her article is on their site

5. Her name is mentioned on their pamphlet that they suggest people distribute

6. She is listed on their pages of experts twice

Dr. Amy Baker

Email: [email protected]

Dr. Amy J.L. Baker

Email: [email protected]

Is this what we call a non-vested interest?

Or is this a collaboration of disease mongering (emphasis mine):
“Disease mongering” is the effort by pharmaceutical companies (or others with similar financial interests) to enlarge the market for a treatment by convincing people that they are sick and need medical intervention [2]. Typically, the disease is vague, with nonspecific symptoms spanning a broad spectrum of severity—from everyday experiences many people would not even call “symptoms,” to profound suffering. The market for treatment gets enlarged in two ways: by narrowing the definition of health so normal experiences get labeled as pathologic, and by expanding the definition of disease to include earlier, milder, and presymptomatic forms (e.g., regarding a risk factor such as high cholesterol as a disease in itself).
Do not forget what Amy J. L. Baker does for a living. Via her website,
Dr. Baker has a Ph.D. in Developmental Psychology from Teachers College of Columbia University.

Her areas of research include parental alienation, child welfare, parent involvement in their children's education, early intervention, and attachment. She is the Director of Research at the Vincent J. Fontana Center for Child Protection.

She is the author or co-author of 3 books and over 45 peer reviewed articles.

Dr. Baker is available as an expert witness and for print, radio, and television interviews.
This is about the late Vincent J. Fontana.

This is about The New York Foundling's Vincent J. Fontana
Center for Child Protection.

Also, in Amy Baker's own words (December 2009):

>> 4) I have been hired to train New York child protection workers about
>> parental alienation and to help develop the North Dakota custody
>> investigation manual.
>> 5) I have been invited to participate in a plenary panel discussion
>> about parental alienation at the upcoming Association of Family and
>> Conciliation Courts conference in Denver.

If you have ever had any question as to why children are being hurt by the system and in the system, look at the players...the organizations, the members, and the collaborations. Family violence is profitable because it is human drama ("high conflict divorce") where there is a significant need to be filled (by the perpetrators of violence and by the victims) and a ready made audience (the family court system's judges and lawyers, Child Protective Services, Court Whores, the police force). All funded by monies from the Department of Health and Human Services Administration of Children and Families DHHS/ACF.

See also:

Amy Baker and Parental Alienation Syndrome: Is This What Scientific Research Looks Like?

Psychology and Parental Alienation: Closer to Science?

The Ever Expanding Parental Alienation Theory: Amy J. Baker's Research Revisited

Parental Alienation in The Hochs' Rachel House: This is How They Get Down in Texas, Legally


Abortion in Florida

I had abortion, in Florida. I paid for it out of pocket, too. I rounded up the $300 or $400 somehow (my impregnator didn't offer a dime, or even to babysit, or even to drive me) to get one. I had insurance and I got a discount for having it but it didn't cover it. (As a side note, my friend in another state on Medicaid got her abortion covered. I was so jealous.) I didn't think twice about getting it either. I was a young, single parent, trying to finish college, but most of all, just fucking poor. If it weren't for foodstamps and food pantries, we would've starved. If it weren't for temporary assistance here and there, I would have had no electricity to cook, heat or cool, even if I did have food. And I often had to jump through hoops to get these things. Seriously, with no babysitter, you wake up at the crack of dawn to stand in line and try to beat the 30 other people so you could get seen for assistance for that day, or week. Then, if you "won," you still had to come back for other appointments. I digress. Abortion.

I knew I was getting an abortion. To me, there were no other options. This was (and is) a personal decision. No matter what anyone else says, even if you ask for their advice (which is really just their emotional support), you're going to do what you want to do (and you should do what is best for you and your situation). Honestly, I didn't (and don't) give a shit about what the embryo or "baby" looks like or what week of development it is in. I didn't (and don't) give a rat's ass about getting rid of a potential Michael Jordan or Charles Drew. Call it heartless all you want. I cared about the then and there, and how unfair it would be for my family if I had to feed another mouth and give my attention, physical and mental resources to another child. With one more kid, all those stares that you already get when you go into social services increase...eye-rollin, nasty-mouthed social workers who don't give a shit whether your poverty is situational versus generational. You're just a last name, or a social security number. Why the fuck would I want to further ruin our lives? Abortion.

When I walked into the clinic, I didn't hesitate. I wasn't scared. I was nervous, observant, and quiet. An abortion takes all of 10 minutes. 10 fucking minutes and I think 30 minutes of "recovery" and then you can get the hell on with your life. Seriously, you can even have sex sooner than you could if you had had a baby. Yeah, sex. Sex, same thing that gets you pregnant. It isn't dirty. It isn't shameful. It doesn't go away. I digress. Abortion.

I walked out a new woman. I wasn't depressed. I wasn't glad that I had to get an abortion, but I wasn't dwelling on it. I was immediately making plans for the future, which involved not getting pregnant (yes, still having sex though) and proceeding with the goals I had set before. My life would not be any more difficult than it already was. I am so thankful that I had an abortion. I am so thankful that I had the money. If Florida passes legislation that requires women who seek abortions to have an ultrasound first, that they must pay for, it is only evidence of the continued subjugation of women in the United States. If I had had to pay for an ultrasound, in addition to the abortion, I don't know where that money would have come from. Maybe, I wouldn't have had an abortion. Then I would have been stuck on welfare indefinitely....stressed the fuck out with a pregnancy that I could've given two shits about, and eventually a newborn that I didn't want. Abortion.

Crist receives abortion ultrasound bill

Published: June 7, 2010

The Republican-led state legislature has sent a controversial bill requiring women to get an ultrasound before an abortion to Gov. Charlie Crist for action.

The bill, House Bill 1143, requires women who want an abortion to get an ultrasound exam in the first trimester of their pregnancy. Women would have to view the ultrasound and receive an explanation on how fetuses develop.

Crist has 15 days -- until June 22 -- to take action on the bill, but last month, he hinted at a Tampa Tribune editorial board meeting that he might veto it.

"On two fronts it disturbs me," Crist told the editorial board. "That you would force a woman to go through this procedure . . . almost seems mean-spirited. To have your government impose on you, listen to a lecture, then on top of that, you have to pay for it."

He said at the time there is "probably not a whole lot" keeping him from saying he's against it.

"Just time," Crist said. "Trying to gain more wisdom. I've got 15 days. I'm going to use them."