Commentary
Concern for the unborn, not so much for the born but homeless
by Shannon DruryI don't fret over my children's learning waning over spring break — sometimes it seems Elliott and Miriam are too smart for their own good — but I do try to keep them busy, especially in activities that don't require the Wii. Yet our spring break has provided us with an education all the same, though not on academic subjects. Instead my children learned a painful lesson about current Minnesota values.
Early on the first Sunday of break, our family found ourselves inside the quiet St. Paul skyway system, eagerly awaiting the 9 a.m. opening of the Minnesota Children's Museum. Elliott and I left Miriam and their dad to wait in line while we wandered in search of an open coffee shop.
Not far from the museum, another line was forming outside the skyway McDonald's. These adults were accompanied by rolling suitcases or plastic bags, not small children, and all bore weary expressions of bone-deep exhaustion.
"Why are they carrying all that stuff?" Elliott asked. "Are they traveling?"
"Not exactly," I replied. I hoped I could delay a discussion of homelessness until I had a latte in my hand, but then we came to a skyway that was not only closed, it was the napping spot of a dirt-smudged man, his head resting on a stuffed Target bag. Elliott stopped and asked what on earth the man was doing there.
"He's there," I said, "because it's too cold to sleep outside."
And so began a discussion of homelessness in Minnesota, tailored to the understanding of an 11-year-old. I told him that for a complex tangle of reasons, including entrenched poverty and a frayed social net, there were hundreds of people in the Twin Cities without homes. I didn't know until I did my own research that the actual number of homeless Minnesotans is closer to 9,000, according to the Wilder Research Center. I mentioned that many of the homeless in our community were children, like him — but I didn't know Wilder had found that children make up nearly half our state's homeless population.
Though Elliott is now a tween, already mimicking the studied carelessness of his adolescent idols, he still has a child's sense of injustice. "That is SO WRONG," he observed, once out of the sleeping man's earshot. I told him I agreed.
The next day, I received word from my colleagues in the reproductive rights community about a hearing on HF 936, the so-called Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. I packed a bag of snacks and dragged my kids on another St. Paul field trip. They were the only children present as legislators argued over the bill's actual purpose: to define a person, for reasons for protection under Minnesota law.
While Miriam chomped a stick of gum and read a comic book, members of the House Civil Law Committee bickered with the witnesses and each other over whether life begins at conception, whether the truth can be decided by majority vote, and whether Soul Asylum should be summoned to testify. I'm kidding about the last bit, though Rep. John Lesch, DFL-St. Paul, did offer up one of the band's lyrics to make a point about opinion vs. fact: "The right thing changes from state to state."
Elliott usually asks to play Angry Birds on my phone as soon as he's placed in a room full of grown-ups, but to my surprise he watched attentively as a representative of the Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life testified that fetuses were "part of our human family," and that their vulnerability obligated the state to protect them. The committee chair, Rep. Torrey Westrom, R-Elbow Lake, insisted upon referring to a fetus that could not survive outside a woman's womb as an "infant," a "baby" or a "child," whether at 20 weeks' gestation or two, as though it were interchangeable with my comics-reading daughter or my fascinated son.
I leaned over to Elliott and whispered: "Do you think the people we saw in the skyway yesterday are part of our human family, too?"
He looked at me like I had just lost my mind. "Duh," he said. 'Of course they are."
"So why aren't these important people talking about THEM, do you think?"
Elliott cracked his gum. "Because they smell bad?" I nodded. "Because they are ugly and no one wants to look at them?" I nodded again. Elliott shook his head and muttered, "That is SO WRONG."
Lesson learned.
----
Shannon Drury, president of Minnesota NOW, is a writer, at-home parent and community activist. She writes a regular column for the Minnesota Women's Press, with additional work appearing in HipMama, Literary Mama and Skirt magazines. She blogs at www.theradicalhousewife.com and is a source in MPR's Public Insight Network.
Comments (8)
I think it's important to remember that both groups of children, be they unborn or homeless, deserve our protection. It isn't one or the other. And just because legislators at a given moment are discussing protecting one of these groups does not automatically mean they do not believe in helping the other. But I agree that both the homeless and the unborn are groups who it is all too easy to forget their humanity.
Jim, you are choosing to define the unborn as children, and that is at the very most just an opinion. The issue here is not that the legislators are talking only about unborn fetuses at this moment and the homeless children at another. It is that the living, breathing homeless children - living by anyone's definition - are not on the agenda of these legislators at all, ever. And that the mothers in both cases are absent from the agenda all the time, in all the discussions.
Why do the pro-aborts always try to smear the pro-lifers as not concerned with the homeless? This article blatantly indicates it is better to be dead than homeless.
Nina from Nashville: it is NOT opinion, prior to 1973 ALL biology books stated life begins at conception. What changed? Science or politics? It is not opinion that the Child in the womb has a unique DNA, a beating heart, brainwaves and can feel pain. This is SCIENTIFIC FACT, it is not opinion.
Jim suggests that choosing to help the vulnerable shouldn't be an either/or proposition, and I agree. But even my 11-year-old knows that concern for everyone is not practiced in our society today, particularly not by members of our legislature who claim moral authority on abortion, yet fail to apply the same compassion to the vulnerable adults who require state funding too.
Excellent informative article Shannon, thank you. Seems as though the so-called pro-lifers can only relate to the abortion issue from "conception to birth" The anti-choicers evidently continue to believe that only a fetus can feel pain, never realizing the pain the born life goes thru. Planned Parenthood's wisdom in trying to help men and women to wisely plan their parenting to when they are capable to commit to the responsiblity of being a parent, physically, mentally and financially. Sincerely, Alice Cowley
Thank you for writing this spot on article, Shannon. Many "pro-life" folks seem to be very concerned about fetuses that have not even been born yet and much less concerned about the children after they are born. Guess what? Poor people, people of color, immigrants, GLBT folks and undocumented folks are part of our human family too. If conservative pro-life folks were really concerned about our human family, they wouldn't hate, stigmatize and cut services to people who really need them.
Legislation to protect the unborn and legislation to provide for services for the homeless are two very important concerns. It is unfair to say that "those legislators" who are actively pursuing one issue aren't concerned for others. Statutes and financial allocations on these two distinct issues are drafted and determined in separate committee meetings, apply to different state departments and often vary in application and impact (public policy vs. fiscal impact). Your overly broad generalizations and criticisms of those legislators that are concerned for the unborn are unfair and have no factual basis. Frankly, it appears you are sincerely misinformed about the process and work of legislative activity.
I had genuinely mixed feelings about this article. I agree with the author that at times the legislature and in particular republicans ignore the issues of the neediest once they are born. But I also feel that the author is making an over generalization when it comes to those who firmly believe life begins at conception.
I am a staunch advocate for those in our society who remain unprotected and need advocates. That includes the homeless and the unborn. Please be careful about how you categorize people!
Post a comment
Please be civil, brief and relevant.
E-mail addresses are never displayed but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. MPR reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air with attribution. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to Minnesota Public Radio. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited e-mail and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Most Shared
- Sheriff's deputy pleads guilty, will register as sex offender
- South Minneapolis congregation rallies after its church burns down
- Canada pledges $17.5M to fight Asian carp
- Investigation finds emotional abuse, neglect at Duluth group homes
- Some Minn. priests differ with Catholic church over marriage amendment
Latest News & Features
News Cut
with Bob CollinsIn The Spotlight
-
Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web. -
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.
- Become a Member
- Member Connect Accounts
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock