Friday, February 28, 2014

Today Would Have Been My Due Date

For a few short weeks, this date - February 28, 2014 - contained the whole world. It was going to be the day my life started. Most people don't deliver on their due date, but the date is symbolic. It's the day you expect your baby to be born. It's the day that means everything.

For a few weeks, this date was the most anticipated date of my life. And then, for several months, it became the most dreaded.

Miscarriage is strange. To the rest of the world, you haven't lost anything except an idea. But you know, and maybe you are the only one who knows: you've lost everything.

The miracle: where once was an empty womb, there is life. The tragedy: it's gone again. A sharp pain, bright red blood on a white towel, and you know: it's over. You face the nightmare: the blood tests, the doctor saying "at least you know you can..."

The contractions, the pain, the pills, the hospital, the surgery. They tell you you won't feel anything and won't remember it, but they are wrong. You are awake the whole time. The nurse holds your hand and talks to you.

Your wheelchair is pushed straight as an arrow toward a line of people standing against the wall in Labor & Delivery, waiting for an announcement of a miracle from some beloved daughter, sister, friend. They all stare at the stranger as you approach. They look quizzically at you, your struggling husband, the sheepish nurse: because here's this haggard woman leaving in a wheelchair, but where's her baby?

In an elevator a couple days later, a woman sees your baggy clothes and hospital bracelet, your unkempt hair and pale face, and smiles broadly. "Did you just have the baby?"

You say, "No." You feel a bit guilty that you don't say something to explain, to make her feel better. But you don't have the energy.

Your husband loves you, he tries, he cares, but he doesn't understand. Your mother, your friends... unless they have been here, they don't get it. It's like a secret club to which no one wants to belong, and unless you're in it, you barely even register that it exists.

Within the club, there is a special sub-set of women who have miscarried but have no living children. We don't have anyone to look at and say "At least..." I would love to graduate from that sub-set. More than anything, I hoped I would at least be headed towards graduating before this dreadful day came around. But it wasn't to be.

I take comfort in my faith, in knowing that all suffering ends, that there is a Promise of Life. Meanwhile, I have hope.

And like my confessor Father Michael told me, I have an angel in Heaven, a holy innocent. And of all the things I could have wanted for her in her hoped-for life, nothing even comes close to what she has: an eternity in Paradise.

I couldn't save either one of us from what happened. And I'm sorry. But today is the day I have to finally say goodbye. Not forever, but for a while. And I don't really know how. And I'm fighting despair. And I have nothing magical to say. Nothing will make it better. I just have to keep going.

Goodbye, baby. Know that for your little life, your mother cherished you more than any creature on earth.

My Sunshine, my only Sunshine... You'll never know, dear, how much I love you.

Why I Won't Stop Swearing

An alert reader on Twitter named @PaulTurnerNV tweeted the following at me the other day in response to my blog post about guns.

"Great post, but disappointed by the unnecessary profanity. Leave that to the lefties, please."

This dorked me out so hard. You don't even know. My response was, "Ugh give me a break."

In reply, he decided to make shit up: "Because profanity always improves an argument. Got it."

I pointed out that he just attributed something to me which I never said or even implied. "I choose to swear. I like to swear. If you don't like it, don't read it. Easy." That was my last tweet to him.

This morning he wrote: "You choose to be unprofessional? I choose to unfollow. Bye."

Naturally, I had a good, long cry over this. What will I do without Paul, you guys? Somehow I have to go on.

But I'd like to take a minute to explain why Paul's tweet about profanity was unnecessary, stupid, and rude. Yes, rude.

Some humans use what we call swear words, which are words that mean the same thing as other, inexplicably acceptable words, but which society has deemed less appropriate. "Shit" means the same thing as "poop," but poop is okay to say in front of your mom and shit isn't. Why? Beats the shit out of me. Humans are weird.

Asking someone not to swear in your home or your classroom is one thing. Asking an artist not to swear in their art is prudish and rude.

"Hey, Kurt Vonnegut. Hey, J.D. Salinger. I like your books and stuff, but what's with the wordy dirds?"

Only a fucking yokel would say that. That's because they are ARTISTS, and the words they use to express what they're saying are a part of their ART.

"I wasn't a fan of the book" is a fine thing to say. "I thought it was awful" is also fine. But "here's how you SHOULD do it: cut the first chapter and move the scene with the rabid dog to the denouement" is not something you say to an artist unless they specifically ask you. Same goes with "use different words." If you want to do it differently, go make your own damn art.

"Mr. Louis C.K., sir. I enjoyed your standup, but gosh-darn it at the four-letter words! Maybe leave 'em out, see how that goes!"

Does it sound stupid, the idea of asking a writer or stand-up comic to leave out profanity? Does it seem ridiculous, the thought of telling Michelangelo he should have sculpted David without a weiner?

That's because it is fucking stupid.

I don't care how "the lefties" talk, Paul. (Also, that term bums me out. The same people who say "lefties" say "Moo-chelle" and "O'Bummer." And those people just need to go.)

I don't care how "the lefties" talk because I am not a "rightie." I am not a mouthpiece for any party, and what I do is not "rightie" propaganda. It is art, be it ever so fucking humble.

Why I swear and whether or not I should swear is another matter, and similarly none of your concern. Would I swear in front of Jesus? No. Would you point out other people's sins in front of Jesus? Hopefully no.

The words I use are how I grew up, how I learned to express myself, and have made themselves a part of my art. They are the words I choose, for specific reasons, to convey a particular mood, tone, and sense of humor. They are how I say what I want to say.

If you wouldn't go up to Piet Mondrian and ask him to paint more curves and maybe throw in some pastels, then you shouldn't walk up to a writer and ask her to use different words. And that's exactly what you did on Twitter, @PaulTurnerNV, and that shit is rude, stupid, and unappreciated.

In closing, I would just like to say, in all seriousness, shit fuck damn bitch hell.

Tuesday, February 25, 2014


Let's talk about another verboten topic, shall we?

One of my favorite things about living in Dallas again is hearing Mark Davis on 660 AM The Answer. Actually, I rarely hear him because I work in live music and therefore go to work late as hell. But when I do catch the last part of his show, it's always a treat.

Mark Davis is like buttah. When I was in high school my stepdad would drive me to school and he would listen to Mark Davis and I'd be like ugggggghhhhhh. Because I was a teenager and therefore uninformed and therefore a Democrat.

Now I totally love Mark. He's awesome and brilliant. But sometimes I disagree with him. Case in point: drugs.

He wrote a column in The Dallas Morning News last week about marijuana and why it should not be legalized. He sounds like me a year ago, before I came around on this issue.

I love you, Mark, but you're wrong. Here is why:

Your argument is that legalizing marijuana will not make society any better, will not uplift us in any way. I disagree. Not on the grounds you're expecting, probably. I'm not a NORML member. I don't even smoke pot. I used to, for about three and a half years in college, and I deeply regret it.

See, marijuana wrecked my brain. I don't have any proof that pot is the reason why I have struggled with a crippling anxiety disorder for the past ten years, but I know for a fact it was the trigger. Pot gave me panic attacks, and my panic disorder morphed over time into health anxiety, or what we call hypochondria.

In movies, hypochondria is usually hilarious. In real life it fucking sucks. What About Bob? is a super funny movie, but if Bob were real he would need help, you guys. Seriously.

A psychiatrist told me it's possible I never would have been stricken with this affliction if I hadn't had the trigger - the weed. Or maybe I would have. I'll never know.

But even knowing what I know about pot - that it is not the innocuous little peace-inspiring plant potheads claim it is - I still think it should be legal.

Legalizing pot will benefit society in this way: it will make us more free.

In your column, you said "the freedom to get high is nowhere in the Constitution." Well, neither is the freedom to jump on a trampoline, drink a soda pop, or go bowling. I don't have a right to things because they are in the Constitution. I have a right because I'm a free human being.

As a libertarian (like you), I believe in the Non-Aggression Principle. Like you, I part ways with most libertarians on isolationist foreign policy. But unlike you, I believe as long as you are not initiating force against someone, no law should prevent you from doing whatever it is you're doing. And that includes smoking pot.

I loathe prostitution, pornography, and the sex trades with all my soul and one of my goals is to convince women to refuse to involve themselves with those things. (See: New Wave Feminists.) But should they be illegal? No.

I think casinos are grody and gambling is a terrible idea. But should it be illegal? No.

I think doing drugs like marijuana, cocaine, meth, and heroin is a really stupid life choice that could lead to either your ruin and death or spending your whole life watching "Bones" reruns. (And really, which is worse?) But should they be illegal? No.

You keep repeating that "a more stoned society is good for no one." You're probably right, but that doesn't matter. What matters is that telling people they can't get stoned under penalty of law is immoral.

A weaker society is good for no one. But we still get to sit around eating Doritos. A dumber society is good for no one. But the law can't force us to read. A lazier society is good for no one. But the government can't come into your home and make you turn off "Breaking Bad" and go chop wood.

Where does it end? If they can tell me I can't smoke pot because it makes everyone less safe, why can't they tell me I can't drink beer, spin around really fast over and over, drink too much coffee, or get so fat I have to get a disability check because I can't fit on the scooters at Wal-Mart?

If you think a weak, dumb, lazy populace isn't dangerous, think again.

"Obama gave me a phone!"

In your column, you reminded readers that the Constitution gives us the right to "aggregately pass laws to allow or disallow whatever we wish toward the goal of a better nation." I'm not sure what the actual wording is in the Constitution but the way it's worded here is... well, scary. It sounds Democrat-ish. Because a lot of things could be outlawed that might make us a better nation. Getting scary Courtney Cox plastic surgery on your face, for instance. Eating at Taco Bell. I could go on...

Sure, we can outlaw whatever we wish. But should we?

On your show you kept saying to the chick from NORML: "But it's illegal!" And I got annoyed with you, Mark, because we're not discussing whether or not it's illegal. Yeah, it's illegal. Duh. We're discussing whether or not it should be. Once it was illegal for black people to eat in certain restaurants. Today it's legal for women to have their unborn children sucked out of them for any reason whatsoever.

Legal does not always mean right, and illegal does not always mean wrong.

Let's break out our Summa Theologica. In the section on human law, St. Thomas Aquinas wrote that criminal punishment "belongs to those sins chiefly whereby ones neighbor is injured." This saint disagreed that our human law should mirror the moral law of the church. As Randy England wrote in Free is Beautiful: Why Catholics Should Be Libertarian:
He [St. Thomas] never endorses (and consistently opposes) the criminalization of vices beyond those whereby one's neighbor is injured, that is, "murder, theft and such like." 
St. Thomas also cites God's own unwillingness to prevent earthly evils, often times because the cure would be worse than the disease.
Here is the passage from the Summa which England references:
Human government is derived from the Divine government, and should imitate it. Now although God is all-powerful and supremely good, nevertheless He allows certain evils to take place in the universe, which He might prevent, lest, without them, greater goods might be forfeited, or greater evils ensue. Accordingly in human government also, those who are in authority, rightly tolerate certain evils, lest certain goods be lost, or certain greater evils be incurred: thus Augstine says (De Ordine ii, 4): "If you do away with harlots, the world will be convulsed with lust."
Convulsed with lust, indeed. Look at alcohol prohibition in the U.S. Alcohol consumption rose under prohibition, despite the fact that it became much more expensive. The market for it (and make no mistake, outlaw whatever you want, but there will always be a market for an intoxicant) was controlled by the mob. Violence, alcoholism, and death were the chief results. Nobody benefited but big crime and big government. (But I repeat myself.)

If God Himself, who is omnipotent and omniscient, recognizes the necessity of free will to humans, who are we to say we know better?

"Well said, My child." - God

A major argument against legalizing hard drugs is that it will make more people do them.

"Honey, did you hear? They legalized cocaine!"

"Oh Roger, that's wonderful! I'll go out right now and purchase some rock!"


Honestly, I can see more people smoking pot because it's legal. And honestly, I don't really think that's a good thing. But I think the relative evil of more stoned people walking around pales in comparison to the great moral evil of putting human beings in cages for rolling up a plant and smoking it.

Right now, conservative commentators are pointing to a rise in truancy in Colorado following marijuana legalization as proof that pot makes people more irresponsible. Well, no shit. I watched nothing but Oliver Stone movies and listened to nothing but The Doors for like three years when I was smoking pot. Talk about irresponsible.

Those kids in Colorado have parents, right? Make their little asses put down the ganja and go to school.

"But legalizing pot makes parenting so much haaaarder!" whine parents. Boo frickity hoo. So do video games, cars, and Internet porn. They're all still legal, as they should be. Be a parent. Odds are you dope your kids up with Ritalin or some other drug that is probably far more harmful to their brains and overall health than the occasional toke.

And before you point to my anxiety issue, please understand how rare it is. Ask a thousand potheads, and you might find a few who had a marijuana-induced panic attack, but most likely zero who had long-lasting effects like mine.

St. Thomas was not the only saint who would agree with me. Augustine got in on the action, too. England wrote of him,
Not only does he reject the notion that criminal punishment removes an interior disposition to evil, he goes on to assert the opposite. He writes that "prohibition increases the desire of illicit action." 
England also quotes Linda C. Raeder's article "Augustine and the Case for Limited Government:"
The idea that coercion can generate virtuous behavior has only the most tenuous justification in that being compelled to behave properly may habituate the unruly to more appropriate behavior. Such only becomes necessary, however, if persons have not previously absorbed the rules of civilized society throughout the process of enculturation. The need to resort to coercive means thus represents the breakdown and not the flowering of civilization.

I roll my eyes when Americans say things like, "Well, at least in Muslim countries the women dress modestly and the men don't ogle naked women all the time." No. No no no. It's not virtue if you don't have a choice.

So forcing people not to do bad things doesn't make them virtuous. But will forcing people not to do drugs make society safer?

First of all, they're doing drugs anyway. So let's get that out of the way. If alcohol prohibition, which happened about a hundred years ago right here in our very country, is any indicator, drug use may go down if we decriminalize it. How much of the allure of drug use comes from rebellion, from knowing you're doing a bad, bad thing that only bad-asses do?

If instead of viewing drug users as devil-may-care outlaws, children were taught to see them as sick people with a gross problem, they might be less inclined to try it.

As for driving, I heard that poor girl on your show the other day try to shrug this off, but let me just say: um, duh. Of course intoxicated people should not drive.

This idea that legalizing drugs is some kind of nod to drug use is preposterous. No one is saying drug use is a good idea. What we are saying is that criminalizing victimless crimes is immoral. It is not the way a free society should be governed.

I'll end with this passage from Free Is Beautiful, which everyone - but especially Catholics - should read:
The Catechism teaches that illegal drug use, fornication, prostitution, use of pornography, and homosexual acts are all morally wrongful, but it does not call on government to criminalize these acts...
In promoting the common good, the Church sanctions the use of violence to "ensure by morally acceptable means the security of society and its members. It is the basis of the right to legitimate personal and collective defense." This teaching is but another restatement of the non-aggression principle: No one may initiate violent force against another.
If these teachings of the Church were reflected in our criminal justice system, many good things would flow from it... In a libertarian justice system, most vices would remain moral and social problems, but they would not be crimes.

Mark Davis, you wonderful man, you: in your column you said, "Ask any advocate to name one societal benefit of the legalization of drugs. They cannot."

Well, here's the thing: maybe we would be safer, maybe not. Maybe we would be more prosperous, maybe not. Maybe crime rates would fall as the criminal drug trade went out of business, maybe not.

But one thing would definitely happen: we would have taken a major step toward liberty in this country. And that, my friend, is a very good thing indeed.

Friday, February 21, 2014


Guns have been on my mind a lot lately.

Not in a "lovingly stroking my Glock while rocking back and forth" way, but in a "why the fuck is everybody so freaked out about guns?" way.

I made some lovely new Facebook friends from other countries recently, and upon gleaning from my social media presence that I am pro-gun, they demanded to know WHY we feel like we need guns in America? WHY do we have a gun culture? Don't we understand that VIOLENCE is BAAAAD?

It's hard to be eloquent in a Facebook comment because you're usually in a hurry, on your phone, and/or doing other stuff.

So I thought I would write a post, for those of you who care, about why I feel the way I do about guns.
Let's start with defining what my position is vis a vis firearms.

Everyone knows black guns are more dangerous. It's science!

I believe in open carry and what's called "constitutional carry." Now please understand, I don't believe the Constitution is my concealed handgun license; I believe I don't need a concealed handgun license, whether it's the Constitution or the laminated card I have in my wallet right now, which I paid lots of money and got fingerprinted and background checked by the FBI to get, and in which my hair is sticking straight up in front and I have crazy eyes and look like a radicalized white jihadist.

I believe the only "license" I need to carry a gun is the fact that I am a free human being.

Self-defense is not a right granted by a document. It is a natural right, a moral right that we are born with simply because we are born. Whether you think it's a good idea or not is immaterial to me.

There is no argument for allowing the government to own weapons that does not apply to me and you as well.

People who fear gun owners are either misguided or just stupid. And the people of countries where owning a weapon is a crime are not free people, but subjects. They have allowed their government to strip them of their liberty. A people denied the right to self-defense is not a free people.

If you think gun control is good for citizens, you don't read history.

In my experience, Australians and New Zealanders seem the most dismayed by American gun ownership, with those from the UK a close second. They like to point out that they live in a gun-free country (not true) where violence barely ever happens (also not true).

Even if it were true, it wouldn't matter to me in the slightest.

Let me explain why.

America is a gun culture in part because our war for independence was fought with guns. Why? Well, because our foes had guns. So we used guns. We would have been dipshits if we'd marched to battle against King George's men with sticks and stones.

The whole point of the existence of this country was liberty, religious and otherwise. Now was it perfect? No, nor is it today. Slavery existed, as did a lack of freedom for women, and more. But these things were not unique to America. They were (and still are) universal problems.

So they didn't get it exactly right, but they got it more right than anybody had ever gotten it before. Ever. I think they deserve a little bit of fucking credit for that.

The Second Amendment exists because the framers knew firsthand the danger faced by a populace that must defend itself against tyranny. And they were right.

We are seeing today what happens when a powerful, centralized federal government has wrested power from the states and decided to do what it pleases. Our president just declared in his State of the Union address that he would act without legislation where he sees fit. Did the people boo and hiss and call for impeachment? Of course not. They applauded. Thunderously.

Do most people agree with President Obama's agenda? Probably not. But even if they did, the tyranny of a majority is still tyranny.

Over the past several years we have seen the federal government spying on and even killing American citizens without due process. And although we were somehow able to fly safely for decades without it, we now have the TSA, who actually X-rays us and looks at our naked bodies before we fly.

I am treated like a convicted heroin smuggler for the "crime" of attempting to get on an airplane.

The TSA has stolen many thousands of dollars worth of money and property that we know of, but to date, they have not yet caught a single terrorist.

The TSA: keeping your junk free of terrorism since 2001.

And it's the same problem with the anti-gun mentality. We are treated like criminals because we want to own a gun. Owning a gun is not a crime, nor is getting on an airplane. So why must I be treated like a convict before doing these things? Fingerprinted, X-rayed, background checked, my belongings pawed through, my life scrutinized, a waiting period?


Let me try one more time to explain why gun laws are completely pointless. (Deep breath.)

Murder, attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, armed robbery, and other crimes that can be committed with a gun are already illegal. The criminal who intends to commit them is not deterred by illegality. It is ridiculous to assume that an extra (and comparatively minor) illegality - possessing the weapon - will act as a deterrent.

"Well, but anything that makes guns harder to get is a good thing! Then they won't have the opportunity!"


All you do when you make guns "harder to get" is make them harder to get legally. They are just as easy to get any other way. (And by the by, "any other way" is probably the preferred method for people who intend to shoot someone.) The only people you're punishing are people like me, who sincerely hope to never shoot anybody, ever.

"Guns are used in homicides more than every other type of weapon!" you are screeching at your monitor. And you are right - which is exactly why I carry a gun every day, and not a rape whistle or a strongly worded pamphlet.

If f you could press a magic button and make every gun on earth disappear, you still wouldn't have a point. Because my husband or somebody else's husband (but probably my husband) would be in the garage reinventing the gun that night.

You can't uninvent the gun. And because you can't, criminals will always - always, always, always, no matter what you do - get guns.

And because criminals will always have them, I will always have them. Cold dead hands and all that.

Welcome to New York City, Chicago, Washington D.C., and your local public schools.

Your fear of guns is not my problem. I know you really want me to feel like it is, but it just isn't. Your fear is misguided. You have far more to fear from a government that wants to disarm you than from people like me.

Rationally, now, who should you trust more: someone handing you a gun, or someone taking it away from you? In that scenario, who is your friend and who is your enemy?

I am encouraging you to be armed. The government wants to disarm you. And you idiots trust the government and not me.

Then there's the thing I probably hear most often, especially from women:

"But what about the chiiiiildreeeen?"

Stop. Just stop. Stop propping up your irrational and hysterical attempt to deprive me of my God-given liberty on the bodies of dead children. It's disgusting and I'm fucking sick of it.

You people think you can shut down argument and make me stammer and blush and hate myself deep inside with the magic words of "Sandy Hook."

Give me a fucking break.

Guess what? Sandy Hook did not happen because people like me own guns. It happened because idiots like you believe that SIGNS are MAGIC! You have pawned off the grave responsibility of protecting children onto a fucking SIGN.

Did Gandalf cast a spell on your "Gun-Free Zone" poster making it impossible to carry a gun past it? No? Then guess what? IT'S FUCKING USELESS.

"We send our children to school and expect them to be safe!" whine idiotic women everywhere. To which I reply:

WHY?! WHY do you expect them to be safe? Because of the SIGNS? Are you out of your fucking mind? Do you really think the words "Gun-Free Zone" create a magical force field around your children? Stop watching "The View" for a second and fucking THINK.

The only thing that stops a human being with a gun is a better-trained human being with a gun. (And sometimes Jackie Chan, but that's another blog.) Stop putting your children in the care of unarmed, untrained people surrounded by non-magical signs. Allowing faculty (and, on college campuses, students) with concealed handgun licenses to carry on school property is probably an excellent idea.

(An even better idea is to keep your kids at home with you and actually teach them shit they need to know, as opposed to the indoctrination they get in public schools.)

It is already illegal for someone to go into a school and shoot children. Trust me: someone who has no problem shooting children is not going to be put off by a sign. But you know what they MIGHT be put off by? Knowing that inside that school, the children are being guarded by men and women with guns.

Shootings happen in "Gun-Free Zones" for a reason. Think about it for thirty seconds and you'll figure it out.

"Look, children! Victims!" 

The stigma against gun owners is prejudicial and based on sheer bigotry and hysteria. I was told on Facebook recently that gun owners are "trigger happy and dangerous." I asked the poster how many gun owners she knew personally, and of course, got no answer.

So, anti-gun people find me distasteful. I am "creepy." I am "dangerous." So be it.

I promise to overlook that if we're ever in an active shooter situation together. I'm no crackerjack shot or tactical guru, but I do try. And if we're shopping at Old Navy and some asshole opens fire, I will go ahead and risk my life to save yours even though you think I am off-putting and weird and potentially violent.

Because the truth is: I am potentially violent. I have the potential right here to end a human life with a single pull of my finger. I have the ovaries to accept that HUGE responsibility. I don't skip out my door in the morning going "fiddle-dee-dee" and expecting the police (pause for laugh) or some imaginary "other" to protect me.

I'm an adult, and I walk out the door with a weapon, knowing my life is my own responsibility, and knowing that I might at any time be called upon to defend it, or defend the lives of people who can't be bothered - or are too frightened - to defend themselves.

The difference between gun control advocates and people like me is: I am not asking them for anything. Own a gun, don't own a gun. I couldn't care less.

What they ask from me is nothing less than surrendering my liberty.

And to that I say:

Cold, dead hands, motherfuckers. Cold, dead hands.

Tuesday, February 18, 2014

So Maybe I'm Not Totally 100% Leaving The Pro-Life Movement

Hey, guys. So. It's been a while.

I don't really feel like posting a long "catching up" paragraph, so let's just hit the high points:

1. We live in Texas now. It's pretty kickass.

2. I work in live music again, for the same company, sitting at the same desk in my old office with my old boss and co-workers, which is both weird and awesome.

3. I've officially been cast in a play. It's a comedy, it opens in May, and I play a conniving harlot of a washed-up actress. I sincerely cannot wait to start rehearsing and performing.

4. Still no baby, unfortunately, but we have some irons in the fire. (That's a weird metaphor to use when discussing babies, but I'm gonna stand by it. No babies were burned during the making of that sentence.)

5. I have a dog. His name in George. He makes me insane 78% of the time but I love him a lot.

Okay so now let me say what I was going to say.

There's nothing in my last blog post that I would like to take back. I still feel very deeply like I don't belong in the pro-life movement. 

And that's why I'm kinda/sorta getting back into it.

It all started not long after I posted that last blog, when someone - and I'm sorry I don't remember who you are - commented that she wished instead of leaving (in part) because I felt like I was having to censor myself, I would instead just stop censoring myself and let the movement adjust.

That made me think. It never really left my mind.

I've also remained semi-involved with New Wave Feminists through my good friend Destiny Herndon-De La Rosa, and watching what they do has reinforced what I said before: they are the future of pro-life.

I don't want to minimize what other good people do for the cause. Live Action's undercover videos, Stand True's youth outreach, Feminists for Life's work with college students... all these things are great.

But New Wave Feminists are vital because they meet women where they live: in their language, with their concerns, and providing an alternative to pro-choice culture that is intelligent, funny, conversational, and familiar. 

NWF eschews tactics that make us look like assholes, among them graphic images, an aggressive sidewalk presence, and being creepy about religion.

(Don't ask me what "being creepy about religion" means. If you don't know what it means, you are probably creepy about religion. Okay, one example. Standing on a sidewalk outside a clinic is not creepy. Praying is not creepy. Carrying a Bible is not creepy. But standing on a sidewalk outside a clinic praying really loud with your eyes tightly closed and a Bible waving around above your head is creepy.)

Instead, New Wave Feminists use humor and reason as their primary tools in converting and educating people. And that's what is going to win. We have an argument. We have an excellent argument. But it's a different argument for everyone.

The Biblical argument is not going to convince every person. The argument from the Non-Aggression Principle is not going to convince every person. 

Because abortion is absolutely, morally wrong, you don't diminish your argument by tailoring it to the person. It remains wrong. But how you explain it must change depending on to whom you are speaking. 

New Wave Feminists understand that. They do not have a one-size-fits-all approach to converting hearts. Sometimes it's the Bible, sometimes it's a hilarious meme featuring douchebags from Jersey Shore.

If Truth lives in every human heart, somewhere deep down - and I have to believe it does - there is a way to convince everyone. But only if we're flexible. Only if we look at each person we approach as a human being with their own beliefs and ideas.

Do you remember Al Pacino in The Godfather III? The really shitty final sequel with Sofia Coppola? "Just when I think I'm out they pull me back in," Don Corleone said of the damned dirty Mafia.

The pro-life movement is my Mafia, and I mean that in the nicest possible way. Just when I thought I was leaving it all behind, God sent this assault of people questioning my beliefs, forcing me to defend the pro-life position. And as I was doing so - over and over again, in a variety of different ways, in person and in writing - I realized this has to be a part of my life.

Not because I want it. I don't. I really don't. But apparently God wants it.

So here's the thing: I'm going to be involved. But I'm going to do it as me. God called me, not a watered-down, false version of me who doesn't want to piss anyone off. 

Since humor is what I know and where I come from, I'm going to use it. I'll offend some people, probably, and I'll bum some people out because "oh lawdy look what the pro-life movement has becoooome!"

More than anybody else, I want to reach out to my fellow libertarians, because of all people who should be pro-life, it's them. And women. God, yes. Women. We have to stop ruining shit for ourselves.

But if I'm going to do this, if I'm going to invest the emotional and mental and spiritual energy in the pro-life cause, I'm going to be myself. 

I'm going to fly my freak flag. 

I'm going to use my sense of humor, my turn of phrase, my propensity to say "shit" a lot, and all you see here. Because watering the Kristen down only tells women like me - women who have tattoos and watch "South Park" and yell ''FUCKING SHIT FUCK FUCK!" in traffic - that they don't belong in the world of pro-life.

And they do. 

Everyone does.

So if someone says to you, "Wow, that Kristen Hatten person is really making the pro-life movement look bad," you can respond:

 "No, she's making it look like reality, which - incidentally - is where abortions happen."