although I have no bio-sis. A woman very close to me was enjoying a much wanted pregnancy. She discovered that the fetus was fatally genetically comprimised (I don't remember the details, but several chromosomes were trisomic, as well as other problems). Her OB and genetic counselors told her the fetus would not survive delivery, and probably not survive the remainder of the pregnancy.

She was faced with this "choice": wait for the pregnancy to self-terminate, or terminate the pregnancy surgically. She was 20 weeks pregnant. She and her husband agonized for days over their "choice" and finally opted for surgery. Their reasoning included the following: they wanted children, and as she was already in her late 30s, they felt time was running out. They knew there was not going to be a miracle that would give them a baby from this pregnancy, and they wanted to grieve and heal. Waiting for the pregnancy to spontaneously terminate would have been crushing.

Though I have always considered myself to be pro-choice, I never treated the issue as a litmus test with candidates. I do now. I can not imagine what my sister would have suffered had this "choice" been denied to her. I can not understand how someone not directly involved in this sad circumstance should have any right to dictate how to proceed. And frankly, the term "choice" has become troublesome to me. This was no "choice" any more than "Do you want to drown or burn to death?" is a "choice". By calling this a "choice" we are equating this terrible decision wirth ordering a combo meal or selecting colors for a manicure.

We have let conservatives shape this devate for far too long. We need to protect women who will be in my sister'sshoes some day. We need to stop calling it a "choice" and start reminding people that abortion is part of a woman's medical care. It is a necessary (though rarely used) tool in reproductive and mental health care, and it is not something women "choose" to do on a whim.

in hearing from the victims' families and the VT community, with regards to this issue. If Imus had a bad day after calling college athletes (well, sheesh, you remember), can you imagine the public hanging Malkin, Derbyshire, and their ilk should expect?

I hope enough people become activists on this issue. If they don't (perhaps being too busy planning funerals for their children to read conservative screeds), perhaps we should call a few sponsors ourselves. I know if my (hypothetically) murdered loved ones were slandered in this way, I would descend like a pack of Furies: the literal Furies of ancient Greece, with the claws and the beaks and the hellfire in my eyes.

That a senator leader would call another senator treasounos for disagreeing with the administration?

OR

That a sitting senator would need to "lookup" the definition of treason?

Either way, I think Tom DeLay is "getting very, very close to" a nervous breakdown.

Of course, the "don't ask/don't tell" policy is probably what is used in the vast majority of congregations. This may be the kindest policy to the entire community: the worshippers and the sex offender.

I would say of all of us, sex offenders are in the greatest need of grace and connection to something holy. I would hate to deny someone the chance of redemption. Certainly a place of worship should be a safe haven for imperfect beings of every stripe to commune with God and get the strength to improve. If we bar the worst sinners from even trying, will we keep raising the bar until none of us is fit to enter? A public hysteria in a place of worship is seldom productive, or pleasant. If someone genuinely trying to make a fresh start is constantly ostracized (however justified), what's the point of trying to change?

BUT I am a survivor of preadolescent sexual abuse, and I am a parent of young children who would rather let my own soul burn in hell than allow my own horrible experience be repeated in my children. I will die protecting them from sexual predators, if need be. Their safety must come before my compassion. There are some sinners I cannot love. I am human, after all.

On the third hand ... these people are out there, everywhere. If they aren't in church/temple/mosque, they're at the post office, the grocery store, the library, the mall. We can't keep them incarcerated forever, and we can't keep our kids at home behind a deadbolted door. We should assume they are among us, and teach ourselves and our kids to be on guard against them.

I think the administrators of the congregation need to conduct thorough background checks on anyone who wold come into contact with children as an authority figure. Anyone who wants to be a deacon, cantor, layvolunteer (I am assuming there are equivelant positions in mosques and synagogues), member of the choir, religious ed instructor, even the guy serving eggs at the church breakfast, needs to have a pristine background with regards to children. Anyone who doesn't make the grade should be told: you may worship here. "But you may not interact with our children. Should you break this trust with us, you will not be welcomed here." Then they must be monitored: telling jokes to shy kids is grounds for banning.

I have a feeling my response will satisfy no one. But I think this is both the kindest and the safest way. Parents need to be hypervigilant wherever they are, incluing their house of worship: just because someone is praising your god doesn't mean they are good for your kids, so check up on your kid's room volunteers and religious ed instructors yourselves.