"The only way to keep people safe is to allow people better access to their constitutional right of self defense. Gun Free Zones and lockdowns clearly don't help protect kids. Connecticut Banned assault weapons, btw." my response to Facebook comment by Edward H.:·

I know all about Conn's ban, and if assault weapons make us safer, we should be the safest country in the world, but we're not. I'm a gun owner, Edward. No one is coming for your commonly used guns (normal handguns and rifles). No one will take your M4 if you currently own one. You simply will not be allowed to purchase any more new. As gun owners, we have a DUTY to be part of the solution to prevent tragedies. It is not enough to fear-monger about 2nd Amendment rights; as gun owners, it is our duty to regulate and be safe. Law enforcement does this, the military does this, and even public gun ranges control access and shooting privileges. As should we.

Also, Edward, The right to bear arms is protected by the Second Amendment, but it is not absolute and lawmakers have introduced a series of common-sense restrictions. For instance, in the Heller case, the Supreme Court found that while a handgun ban is not constitutional, because handguns are in “common use,” a machine gun is not and therefore could be restricted. An assault weapon equipped with a clip that can shoot hundreds of rounds would likely fall into the same category. As conservative Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, “the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.”

 Also, as a gun owner, let’s put the cards on the table... not one of us keeps an assault weapon on the living room wall, or in our car, for that matter, loaded, let alone readily accessible. Many folks keep all firearms locked up or in a place that it would not be readily accessible if someone broke into our homes, So to say that we need assault weapons in our homes is pure... balderdash.

 Edward, the items that the White House is focusing on in NO WAY diminish our 2nd Amendment rights to defend ourselves:

• Require background checks for all gun sales
• Strengthen the background check system for gun sales
• Pass a new, stronger ban on assault weapons
• Limit ammunition magazines to 10 rounds
• Finish the job of getting armor-piercing bullets off the streets
• Give law enforcement additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime
• End the freeze on gun violence research
• Make our schools safer with new resource officers and counselors, better emergency response plans, and more nurturing school climates
• Ensure quality coverage of mental health treatment, particularly for young people

It's irrational to demand insane requirements to vote but not to buy firearms. It's also irrational when you realize that you must register AND insure your car to be able to drive it (and, on that note, since we've all registered our cars, the gov't has NOT come to take them away, despite traffic deaths and drunk drivers) but there are no such requirements for firearms. You can't privately buy a tank or a 50 Cal, and so have no need to buy other battlefield small arms. Like I said, the "need- the-assault-weapon-for-protection" argument doesn't hold water since NO ONE uses assault weapons for self defense. Those of us who have them, keep them locked in a secure cabinet, out of reach. Most NORMAL people use hand guns to carry for self defense. Most NORMAL people don't even keep rifles on the living room wall anymore-we keep them locked away, not quickly accessible for self defense. That's the cards-on-the-table fact.


here is more of the later conversation, with his points in small print and my responses in capital letters:

Ok Edward, here goes:

• Require background checks for all gun sales (this would require a national gun registry which would make future confiscation very easy-THERE ARE MILLIONS OF WEAPONS IN THIS COUNTRY THAT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO TAKE-NO ONE HAS TAKEN CARS WHICH KILL MILLIONS EACH YEAR-NO ONE WILL TAKE YOUR GUNS)
• Strengthen the background check system for gun sales (crazy people and criminals hsoulnd't get guns-HOW WILL YOU, AS A GUN SALESMAN, DETERMINE WHO IS SANE? IT'S NOT ALWAYS PHYSICALLY OBVIOUS)
• Pass a new, stronger ban on assault weapons (these are ineffective and all about cosmetic features, meaningless and wouldn't have stopped any of the recent mass shootings-YOU'RE RIGHT, THAT THE PAST BAN WAS PRIMARILY BASED ON COSMETIC FEATURES AND THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED IN A FUTURE BAN-BASE IT ON FUNCTIONALITY)
• Limit ammunition magazines to 10 rounds (Police and law enforecement believe they need more than 10 rounds to defend against criminals, I agree.-DITTO)
• Finish the job of getting armor-piercing bullets off the streets (zero deaths have resulted from armor peircing bullets, they are largely unavailabe and use mainly for hunting large game. AP rounds in handguns are already illegal-I'M PERSONALLY LESS CONCERNED WITH THIS ONE-DRUG CARTELS OR GANGS??)
• Give law enforcement additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime (huh? they don't even enforce the laws on the books look at David Gregory-THERE ARE LAWS THAT NEED TO BE ENFORCED, BUT THERE ARE ALSO LAWS THAT NEED TO BE REVISED OR ELIMINATED AND REWRITTEN)
• End the freeze on gun violence research (this would be great as long they actually look at how the counties with the lowest murder rates and lowest violence all have the highest levels of firearms ownership-AGREED-THERE'S A GOOD BOOK BY JOHN LOTT CALLED THE BIAS AGAINST GUNS AND HE HAS GOOD DATA AND POINTS)
• Make our schools safer with new resource officers and counselors, better emergency response plans, and more nurturing school climates (this still doesn't allow teachers to defend themselves or their students but thsi is fine.NO GUNS IN CLASSROOMS-YOU WANT TEACHERS SHOOTING OUR KIDS? GOOGLE ANDREW PHILIP KEHOE, WHO WAS A SCHOOL BOARD TREASURER IN 1927-HE IS KNOWN AS ONE OF THE FIRST MASS SCHOOL MURDERERS FOR KILLING HIS WIFE, 43 STUDENTS, AND TEACHERS.  THEN THERE'S THE DUMB@$$ IN MICHIGAN WHO LEFT HIS GUN IN A STUDENT RESTROOM RECENTLY http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/18/16590086-school-security-guard-in-michigan-leaves-gun-in-bathroom-officials-say?lite  -PUT AN OFFICER AT THE DOOR, BUT NO GUNS IN CLASS ROOMS)
• Ensure quality coverage of mental health treatment, particularly for young people (this may actually be effective and is a great idea.-)-WE CAN'T JUST CALL EVERYTHING A MENTAL HEALTH ISSUE. LETS DISCUSS HATE GROUPS-THE GUY WHO SHOT INNOCENT PEOPLE AT THE SIKH GURDWARA (TEMPLE) IN WI. SHOULD WE DENY FIRE ARMS TO ALL WHO ARE MEMBERS OF FAITH/RACE-BASED HATE GROUPS WHO ARE KNOWN TO BE AGGRESSIVE HISTORICALLY? I DON'T HEAR ANYONE SCREAMING FOR BANS ON WEAPONS TO KKK MEMBERS OR OTHER WHITE SUPREMACIST GROUP MEMBERS WHO "COULD" BEHAVE IN SUCH A DEATHLY WAY.  THE GUY WHO SHOT GABBY GIFFORDS AND 18 OTHERS-POLITICALLY MOTIVATED? HE IS BELIEVED TO BE INCOMPETENT, BUT SPECULATED TO DISLIKE ALL POLITICIANS REGARDLESS OF THEIR AFFILIATION. 
_______________
battlefield small arms are illegal. Police and law enforcement believe that A semi-automatic carbine with a 30 round magazine and a Semi-automatic handgun with 15+ rounds are the best tools we have to defend and protect us from criminals, I agree with the Police and I have a right to have the same tools to protect me and my family since the supreme court has ruled that police have ZERO duty to protect us. NOT ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT THINKS THAT-MANY LAW ENFORCEMENT IN CITIES ARE OUTNUMBERED -LOOK AT BALTIMORE AND CHICAGO-AND WANT CERTAIN ARMS TO BECOME BANNED. IN ADDITION, RET GENERAL MCCHRISTAL HAS EVEN STATED THAT ASSAULT STYLE WEAPONS ARE DESIGNED FOR THE BATTLEFIELD. HE CAN ATTEST TO THE DAMAGE THEY DO. I STILL DON'T BUY THE "WE-NEED-THEM-FOR-SELF-DEFENSE" ARGUMENT BECAUSE NO ONE IN THIS COUNTRY IS DEFENDING THEMSELVES WITH AN AR-15.
________________
Citizens should have access to the same tools CIVILIAN Law enforcement does (I DISAGREE). You are not for gun control you are for only police having scary looking guns. If these things are so bad and no one other than the military needs them then take them from the Police too. (I DISAGREE WITH THIS TOO-WE'LL AGREE TO DISAGREE)
________________
You don't get to decide for me what is necessary to defend MY family and property. Everyone is different, everyone's needs are different, also the AR-15 IS A hunting rifle and is actually a fairly low powered rifle. It is the most popular hunting rifle in the country. You arguments are based on emotion and ignore fact. Handguns kill more than any rifle, shotguns kill more than any rifle and all the places with the most gun control and the LEAST guns in this country have the highest murder rates  I AM NOT THE ONE DECIDING WHAT YOU CAN USE FOR DEFENSE. I'M TELLING YOU, AND I AM ALSO A GUN OWNER, THAT THIS DEFENSE ARGUMENT DOESN'T HOLD WATER.  I'D BET HUGE THAT ANYTHING BIGGER THAN A HANDGUN IN YOUR HOME IS LOCKED UP AND THEREFORE NOT ACCESSIBLE QUICKLY IF SOMEONE BREAKS IN. AND IF YOU CLAIM YOU NEED IT IN CASE THE GOV'T DOES SOMETHING.... YOUR AR15 IS NOTHING AGAINST THE LARGER WEAPONS AT THE GOV'T'S DISPOSAL.  I PERSONALLY LIKE THE AR15-IT'S A LOT OF FUN TO SHOOT. BUT I DON'T FEEL I NEED TO HAVE IT IF IT WILL MAKE OTHERS SAFER. I'M NOT THE ONE WHO'S EMOTIONAL ON THIS-IT IS YOU WHO ARE EMOTIONAL ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF NOT BEING ABLE TO BUY MORE ASSAULT WEAPONS. AS FAR AS HANDGUN DEATHS, THAT'S REALLY A DIFFERENT DISCUSSION, AND I'M THE FIRST PERSON TO PROMOTE THE DATA ON DEFENSIVE HAND GUN USE, WHICH IS OFTEN OVERLOOKED OR IGNORED BY THOSE WHO WANT TO DO AWAY WITH ALL GUNS. I HAVE READ THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BANS (VERY BORING READING, ACTUALLY) AND READ JOHN LOTT AND OTHER (BOOK-THE BIAS AGAINST GUNS) BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO FIND THE COMMON GROUND-WHICH IS THAT NEITHER YOU NOR I WANT INNOCENT PEOPLE TO BE HURT OR KILLED. THAT'S THE FOUNDATION. FROM THE FOUNDATION, WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? AS GUN OWNERS, YOU AND I BOTH HAVE A DUTY TO MAKE SOCIETY SAFER.

 Renee's rant after this guy's continual ignorance:

" never mind this one, Lionel-he's so stuck on his guns that he can't see past the blinders on his face. he is absolutely inflexible and tyrannical and the conspiracy theorist whose conspiracies have never, and will never come to fruition. All he cares about is his guns-nothing more. Most gun-freaks are this way. Even my own husband has gone overboard, freaking out that "OMG! I might not be able to buy assault rifles any more-never mind that we have our own armory here-it's not good enough. It's become so ingrained in our culture to oppose any regulation, despite the fact that nearly every other area of our lives are regulated in some way, that the mere possibility of regulation sends guns freaks over the edge, into a spiral, unable to see anything but what they believe to be their rights. It doesn't matter how many Gabriella Giffords are shot, how many Sikh gurdwara's or Jewish temples are shot up, or how many classes full of kids are shot, either at a K-12 school or a college or a theatre or anywhere.. All that matters to these gun freaks is their PERCEIVED rights-no one else's right to a safe life trumps their right to the extreme toys. They are the most inflexible and inconsiderate people in our country. I'm a gun owner and I'm willing to be flexible, knowing that the MAJORITY of guns types will still be available to most law abiding citizens. His view is very rigid and trumps any ones else's right to safety."

Petition submission to Planned Parenthood re: birth control and the Affordable Care Act

For millions of us (including more than 90% of Catholics) birth control is a deeply personal and serious health issue.  I use birth control, which my husband and I both agree on, not only to keep my family stable with two children, which is very important to us financially, but a specific birth control was prescribed to me to control hormone issues that my body does not control on its own. 

Single men and women are not the only people who use birth control.  The personal lives of many married couples will also suffer if they don't want more children, or if the health of wives suffers due to inability to obtain simple birth control which is known to help with many female medical issues.

It has already been determined in many recent cases that providing benefits to employees does not jeopardize the employer's religious rights, since, as an employee, I can choose to spend my salary on whatever I choose, but I can also choose which medicines I get thru my benefits, to which I contribute.
 “The burden of which plaintiffs complain is that funds, which plaintiffs will contribute to a group health plan, might, after a series of independent decisions by health care providers and patients covered by [an employer's health] plan, subsidize someone else’s participation in an activity that is condemned by plaintiffs’ religion. . . . [Federal religious freedom law] is a shield, not a sword. It protects individuals from substantial burdens on religious exercise that occur when the government coerces action one’s religion forbids, or forbids action one’s religion requires; it is not a means to force one’s religious practices upon others. [It] does not protect against the slight burden on religious exercise that arises when one’s money circuitously flows to support the conduct of other free-exercise-wielding individuals who hold religious beliefs that differ from one’s own.”

“[T]he health care plan will offend plaintiffs’ religious beliefs only if an employee (or covered family member) makes an independent decision to use the plan to cover counseling related to or the purchase of contraceptives. Already, [plaintiffs] pay salaries to their employees—money the employees may use to purchase contraceptives or to contribute to a religious organization. By comparison, the contribution to a health care plan has no more than a de minimus impact on the plaintiff’s religious beliefs than paying salaries and other benefits to employees.”

“A key insight in this opinion is that salaries and health insurance can be used to buy birth control, so if religious employers really object to enabling their employees to buy birth control, they would have to not pay them money in addition to denying them comprehensive health insurance. An employer cannot assert a religious objection to how their employees choose to use their own benefits or their own money, because religious freedom is not a license to “force one’s religious practices upon others.””
Source: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/10/01/931671/bush-appointed-judge-rejects-catholic-employers-challenge-to-birth-control-access-rules/

Employers receive income tax deductions for the contribution, so their out-of-pocket cost is less than the value of the benefit to the employee. Self-employed individuals can deduct 100 percent of their health insurance premium costs as a business expense. They can deduct 100 percent of premiums for their employees. If the business is incorporated, all costs for the owner’s own insurance as well as his/her employees' are deductible.  Therefore, the employer’s contribution to anything that specifically benefits an employee that might be against the employer’s religious beliefs is minimal, and, once again, no different than the employee using their salary to purchase contraception, or marijuana, for that matter.
Economically, families, society, and this country benefit from contraception, and this is proven. What would you do if your employer believed only in the power of prayer and refused to allow you access to ANY medical coverage? What if I, as an employer, believe ONLY in the power of sweat lodges and shamanic practice for healing?

No one is calling for an end to coverage for hysterectomies or vasectomies, both of which prevent pregnancy, but are costly and invasive, OR Viagra.... Men want Viagra, but extremists want women to "put an aspirin between their knees," as recommended by Santorum supporter Foster Friess.  The argument that Viagra promotes life doesn’t hold water, since it is marketed primarily to older men whose women are largely at the end of or beyond their child-bearing years, and for whom their sexual intimacy and ability to perform dramatically affect their wellbeing, and the wellbeing of their relationships.  Furthermore, the same men who state to “put an aspirin between our knees are the same men who desire Viagra and expect a sex life with their wives.  So this burden of controlling family status falls equally on the husbands and men in our lives, though society is not talking in those terms, focusing on the misconception that only single women use birth control.   

Here are two excerpts about Dr. John Rock, a devout Catholic who pioneered contraception:
"Another opponent of the Catholic ban was John Rock, a devout Catholic doctor who taught at Harvard Medical School and who would become one of the leading clinical researchers responsible for developing the pill. Rock held that contraception was sometimes medically necessary and often personally desirable for maintaining happy marriages and well-planned families. He also believed that birth control was essential for those who could not afford many children. Rock was by no means a radical. He was a solid Republican and didn’t approve of sex outside of marriage. But he openly defied the Catholic Church and state laws."  “Today, according to the Guttmacher Institute, more than 99 percent of sexually experienced women report having used contraception. But we are once again debating whether women should have access to birth control. Fifty years ago, John Rock, the socially conservative, Catholic, Republican doctor, insisted that birth control was consistent with church teachings. He believed that contraception was essential for women’s health and well-being, family happiness, and the good of society. The vast majority of Americans of all faiths and political parties agreed with him at the time. And they still do.”
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-the-catholic-church-almost-came-to-accept-birth-control/2012/02/21/gIQAdy1JYR_story_1.html)

“Rock had witnessed the suffering women endured from unwanted pregnancies. He had seen collapsed wombs, premature aging, and desperation caused by too many mouths to feed. The experiences of his patients had a profound impact on the man. Despite his faithful Catholicism and the church's opposition to contraceptives, Rock came to support contraception within the confines of marriage. Although he never went as far as to endorse birth control purely as a woman's right, Rock believed in the power of birth control to stem poverty and prevent medical problems associated with pregnancy.”
(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/pill/peopleevents/p_rock.html)
This extreme religious agenda is not only about women’s health rights. This agenda will not just affect what jobs women can get; it will affect all areas of our family’s life, and will even affect our families through the jobs our husbands have, if the husband’s job provides health coverage for the family.  During a time when employment and unemployment are already difficult, even distressing, the thought of introducing MORE employment problems by allowing employers to choose what health coverage we should have is directly in opposition to the best interests of families and society economically, as well as mentally and emotionally.  It is not simply a matter of finding an employer who offers the health coverage that we desire.  For those with jobs, it would be a painstaking task to try to find another job, and for those of us without jobs, this would be one more frustration, fear and obstacle to finding suitable employment.  And for the families that need two incomes, this is a critical component of their lives that no church or government has the right to interfere with. In a time when many families are in dire need of two incomes, these religious contraception issues are not as cut and dry as the Vatican would like you to believe.

Amendment 1 of the Bill of Rights:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

This also includes freedom from religion. In other words, no one gets to force their beliefs, which work for them, on others.  All peoples of all cultures, religions and races and belief systems make up this country, and no one religion or religious belief system can dominate everyone else.  The issue of contraception is a political football, and is a strong moral issue.  People get to define these things ONLY for themselves.  The government does not get to define these things, nor should an employer.  If a person chooses to live by his or her religious law, that works for him/her, but employers, government, and churches, DO NOT get to force those beliefs on others in a country that not only is a melting pot of different cultures, races, religions, belief systems, and even varying degrees of belief and observance within the established religions.  In the perception of many, using contraception for prevention IS BEING RESPONSIBLE.  That is their choice.  It is MY family's choice.  Family planning is a critical economic issue for families, society, and the country at large.
Namaste and Great Spirit Bless,
Reverend Renée Lynn Ten Eyck