Tuesday, January 31, 2006

stupid bumper stickers

On Sunday, I was sitting in traffic, and I saw what has to be the most asinine bumper sticker ever. It said, "If Mary had been pro-choice, there'd be no Christmas."

Where on earth do people get the ridiculous notion that being pro-choice means a woman would not choose to carry her pregnancy to term? My classmate Sarah Molina is unreservedly pro-choice - even has the "Keep Abortion Legal" bumper sticker on the back of her car - and has three children. When I asked her if I could use her name in this post, she said yes and added that I could include the fact that she "cried her eyes out" when she miscarried two wanted pregnancies.

I also had a miscarriage back when I was married. My husband and I had not been trying to have children at the time, but it wasn't something we opposed. It remains one of the most heartbreaking experiences of my life. I am also completely and utterly pro-choice.

People really need to get their facts straight sometimes.

Another topic Sarah and I often discuss is the message behind the bumper sticker that says "Smile, your Mom was pro-life!" Our birthdates are only about a week apart, late October and early November of 1973, meaning we were conceived right after Roe was decided. She refers to us as being among the first "choice babies," and we both find it comforting to know that our mothers chose to have us.

So if any of you reading this labor under the misconception that all pro-choice women would choose abortion should they become pregnant, think again. All it means is that the choice should be left up to the individual woman.

Thursday, January 26, 2006

I was having blogging troubles on Martin Luther King Day, so I didn't get to post this. But it's important enough to me to do so now.

Below is the text under Bush's picture and the words "IT STILL IS":

At the time Martin Luther King Jr. was championing the rights of all Americans, the government was violating his rights by secretly wiretapping him in the name of national security. The sorry history of the surveillance and wiretapping of dissenters - of those seen as "enemies" of the president - led to a law that specifically requires the president to seek court approval for wiretaps of Americans, even for national security investigations. George Bush believes that he is not bound by this law. An American can be under illegal surveillance by the Bush administration without any judicial check on that power. That's not the America in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream.

I feel compelled to give a hat tip to the 1L who pulled off a 4.0 first semester.

And we thought the 2L class had some serious gunners!

Wednesday, January 25, 2006

This doesn't appear to be made by the JibJab folks, but it's just as funny and clever (and, yes, over-the-top). Of course, they're preaching to the choir with me as I would sooner sign one of Bush's loyalty oaths than shop at Wal-Mart.

Thursday, January 19, 2006

The field to enter a title for my blog posts seems to have disappeared. That's somewhat bothersome. But that's not what I planned to write about.

As I know I've mentioned before, last semester I took a class which included an assignment to write my best estimation of Justice Breyer's opinion in Gonzales v. Oregon, a case challenging the validity of a directive issued by then-Attorney General John Aschroft stating that doctors who prescribed narcotics in accordance with Oregon's Death with Dignity Act would be in violation of the Federal Controlled Substances Act and risk losing their licenses to prescribe federally regulated pharmaceuticals as well as possibly face criminal prosecution.

While the numbers did not come down quite as I predicted, the decision did go the way I thought it would (and should).

As for the case I wrote my other paper about - Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights - my hopes are not high that it will come out the way I think it should. From my research, the Solomon Amendment is a clear violation of the unconstitutional conditions doctrine, but I highly doubt a majority of the Court will agree.

So far, I am excited about all my classes this semester. I have a good friend and coworker who advised me on my schedule in terms of classes I should take to prepare for the bar - he just passed over the summer(Legal Pro, which is of course required, but not Business Associations), to prepare for practice (Family Law and Trusts and Estates) and based on my interests and own personal educational fulfillment (Jurisprudence, Unions and their Members, and Topics in Civil Rights). So I'm sure that helped a lot in terms of not having any classes or professors I absolutely dread.

What I am not excited about is all the time I will be spending in my car. Two days a week I drive over here to attend classes in the morning, drive back home to work during the afternoon, drive back over here to attend classes at night, then drive back home to sleep. If I could afford to pay a decent wage, I'd hire someone to ride in the car with me and read aloud from my school books. Of course, if I had access to that kind of cash, I would be living closer to school and the whole thing would be moot.

Above all, though, I'm excited about my job. I'm still at the same agency and will continue drafting pleadings and judgments, but I'll be spending each Friday at the court house helping domestic violence victims with their requests for emergency orders of protection. Then this summer, when I'm able to obtain my "711" license (named for the Rule under which it's granted, even though we like to joke that it means it came free with a Big Gulp), I'll be trained and ready to actually represent clients who are seeking plenary orders of protection. It was in the meeting with my boss where this new assignment was given to me that the overwhelming responsibility of being a lawyer first became "real" to me. Previously it was much more theoretical and removed.

As this is a day I don't have to play blue state/red state/blue state/red state, I should probably be using my time to read rather than blather all over this webscreen. That is just what I shall do, too, as soon as I welcome a new(ish) fellow SLU Law blogger.

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

This time, I deleted my blog. Some sort of "new semester, new start" kind of thing, I guess.

At any rate, I had intended to write something soon after deleting my old stuff, but blogger was acting a bit wonky.

Despite my enthusiasm for almost all my classes, this semester just may kill me. It's only the first day and already I'm exhausted. I can only thank my lucky stars that I'm not having the same "I'm not sure I want to be a lawyer anymore" angst that seems to have befallen many of my friends.

To that end, I will now return to getting some work done.