A letter to my representative

In response to a new piece of legislation I wrote to my representative as a step toward opening some eyes and ears.  I hope this encourages and moves you to write to your representative if you are also concerned about this issue. For that matter you should discuss with your representative any issues that you are concerned with.

__________________________________

I am concerned with a piece of legislation in discussion, HR 669.  The general consensus from animal lovers across the united states is that this code, with its current somewhat ambiguous wording, could result in many pet owners leaving the country to protect what they consider to be family. Or worse yet, domesticated animals being euthanized or set free to fend for themselves in the wild.

The animal in particular I am concerned with, as well as many animal lovers, is ferrets.  I did read that animals that are "established" enough and in too great of number would not be a concern of this invasive species act. However, the amount of misunderstanding regarding ferrets, their great number, and lets face it the refusal too or inability to listen to the pleas of the people attempting to correct these problems could produce a horrible result.

According to the California Department of Fish and Game and a study they published (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/nuis_exo/ferret/ferret.html), though the research had varying numbers, the ferret population was as low as 5 million but as high as 10 million through the mid to late 90's. I chose this particular study as California has been one of the most vocal and known states that have made ferrets illegal as pets. The study states that while the numbers vary they did conclude that there was a significant increase in the ferret population from the mid to late nineties.

I would also like to address the supposed "violent nature" of ferrets. Many articles I have researched include the same statistics discovered in 2003, which are as follows "Dog bites make up 80-85% of all reported incidents. Cats account for about 10% of reported bites, and other animals (including hamsters, ferrets, rabbits, horses, raccoons, bats, skunks, and monkeys) make up the remaining 5-10%." If you divide the percent of bites equally among the 8 species listed here ferrets would be responsible for .4%-.8% of animal bites.

Thank you for your time and I encourage you to share this information with the other legislators involved in this process as I will be sharing it with fellow Americans.  I will also be encouraging them to contact you and their respective representatives until our voice is heard.

With Gratitude,

Brandie Hardman

Redefining Rape

So the house wants to pass a bill that would redefine rape and may ultimately force women to carry a rape pregnancy to full term.

If a rape wasn't considered "violent" or "forced" then the government will not provide financial support for an abortion, this also includes if you were drugged or a victim of incest.  So if you're insurance does not cover or in some cases you are taxes on the insurance cost and the costs are just too high you are forced to carry this pregnancy to full term.

I'm trying to avoid ranting and maintain a logical well thought out argument against this and state; this is *not* a pro-life pro-choice debate. This is not about whether or not abortion is *ok*.

So issue number one;

--Where do you define the line between "coercion" and "forced" rape?
Does she have to be beaten to a certain extent for it to be forced? And where is *that* line?  If someone holds a gun to my head but does not beat me, am I supposed to risk death to fight him? And if I don't and get pregnant the government is saying I'm on my own with the costs if my insurance won't cover it or if the tax (yes some insurance tax you on it) is too expensive.

--Incest is no longer an exception; People who are victims of incest will no longer qualify for assistance if it results in a pregnancy. It goes without saying but I'll say it anyway, children of incest are unhealthy.  Not to mention the mothers emotional instability while having to carry this pregnancy to full term-what encourages this mother to take care of herself and the growing baby inside of her?

--Increase in back alley abortions; women have a history of being hurt or dying in back alley abortions.  Women who do not want to carry these infants to full term will find a way to abort the pregnancy regardless of the side effects on their own health.  Lets remember these women are emotionally unstable due to a life altering crime and anything is possible.

--If these women do carry the child to full term; if they carry because they cannot get assistance it means they have limited or no health care.  From a logical (but somewhat cold-forgive me) position-these women will need government assistance to remain healthy during the pregnancy. Isn't this potentially more expensive than the abortion?

--If these women carry and place the child in adoption or foster or keep the child temporarily until one of these other options are available; again the cost of the pregnancy now combined with state assistance for foster parents, adoptive parents and the agencies involved in these processes.

--This also creates other social issues like; it could imply that women who did not or were incapable of fighting their attacker were somehow  "asking for it" or that they are somehow "less" of a victim.  Will this change peoples feelings about rape during trials against attackers?

B