Texas Abortion Laws, Part II: The Specifics

Before I get into the specifics of Texas' new abortion laws, I submit this for your consideration.  Texan Carolyn Jones discovered, about 2 weeks after these laws took effect, that her unborn son, if he made it to term, would suffer greatly from congenital defects.  She and her husband decided that the most loving thing to do for him was to have an abortion.  And these laws made that process so much harder than it already was. 

----------------------------------------------- 

Here’s what Texas’ new abortion laws require:

• The provider must inform the woman of the medical risks of abortion; of the probable gestational age of the embryo/fetus; of the medical risks associated with carrying it to term; that she may be able to get assistance for pregnancy, birth, and neonatal care; that the father is liable for child support; and that public and private agencies provide pregnancy prevention counseling and referrals for getting birth control.
• The provider must give the woman “printed materials,” and a web address for the same, as described by section 171.014; the materials describe the “unborn child,” list agencies offering abortion alternatives, and list agencies that offer free sonogram services.
• At least 24 hours before the abortion, she must get a sonogram.  The sonographer must display images that she may view, explain the sonogram (including a “medical description of the dimensions of the embryo or fetus, the presence of cardiac activity, and the presence of external members and internal organs”), and make the heartbeat (if present) audible to her while simultaneously explaining the heartbeat.
• Before the sonogram, the woman must sign an election form (see pages 5-6 of the bill for the text of the form).  This will stay in her file for seven years.
• The woman may choose not to view the sonogram images or listen to the heartbeat.  She may choose not to hear the explanation of the sonogram if she’s pregnant as the result of rape or incest, if she’s a minor, or if “the fetus has an irreversible medical condition or abnormality.” 
• There’s no penalty for her or the provider if she chooses not to view or listen to the above.
• If she chooses not to abort, the provider must give her paternity and child support information.
• The provider may perform an emergency abortion without informed consent, but he/she has to document/certify the medical emergency in a few different ways. 
• While fulfilling all these requirements, the woman may not make payments or financial agreements for abortion or related services, except for the services required above. 

And that’s about it.  Bear with me whilst I rant about some of the absurdities: 

The very first thing the woman must be informed of, after the provider’s name, is the medical risks she faces with her abortion.  The amendment specifies 3 risks: possible infection and hemorrhage, potential infertility or danger to future pregnancies, and the possibility of increased risk of breast cancer.  Then, a couple of items down the list, she must also be informed of “the medical risks associated with carrying the child to term.”  That’s all they wrote—no particular risks or health problems are specified, as with the abortion risks.

Some simple searches provided some interesting information here.  The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), in their “Pregnancy Options” fact sheet (part of the Tool Kit for Teen Care), says: “An abortion is considered to be a low-risk procedure.  It is less risky than having a baby.”  Texas lawmakers don’t seem to agree with that medical assessment.  The document does confirm, however, that “Complications may include bleeding or infection.” 

As for infertility and future complications, an obstetrician on the Mayo Clinic's site writes that “Generally, abortion isn’t thought to cause fertility issues or complications in subsequent pregnancies.”  He says some research suggests a possible link between abortion and increased risk of some complications, but points out that complications caused by surgical abortion are rare.  Furthermore, an FAQ document on induced abortion from ACOG says, “Most experts agree that one abortion does not affect future pregnancies.”

As for breast cancer, that same document says, “There is no evidence that having an abortion increases the risk of getting breast cancer.”  Another document—the ACOG’s official opinion, from the Committee on Gynecologic Practice—expands on that unequivocal assertion: “Early studies of the relationship between prior induced abortion and breast cancer risk were methodologically flawed.  More rigorous recent studies demonstrate no causal relationship between induced abortion and a subsequent increase in breast cancer risk.” 

It sounds to me that Texas is trying to scare women out of abortions by mandating they be informed about risks that aren’t verified by rigorous studies.  Furthermore, they don’t specify any risks of pregnancy at all that women must be informed of, so I thought I’d see what some of those risks are.  I’m not even going to try to list them here, because this post is too long already.  But take a look at these links: the National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health provide a brief overview of risks, and there you can scroll down…and down…and down to read a few very long lists of specific conditions.  The US Department of Health and Human Services Office on Women’s Health provides long lists of prior health problems that can affect pregnancy, pregnancy-related complications, possible infections during pregnancy, and links to other resources on these complications (again, a lot of scrolling down here).  In short: pregnancy has a LOT of complications and risks that doctors are pretty certain about.  It’s interesting that not even some of the major risks are mandated to be part of the information forced on abortion-seekers. 

The amendments also repeatedly referred to “printed materials described by Section 171.014” that had to be provided to women.  This section wasn’t amended, so it didn’t appear in HB 15.  I went to the completelaw, and felt like I ‘d been sent on a wild goose chase.  This section simply describes the languages, typeface, website, etc. of these materials.  (It also says they must use ACOG as one of the sources for these materials—HA!)  It directs us to 171.015 and 171.016 for the contents of the materials.

171.015 is “Information Relating to Public and Private Agencies,” which includes lists of public and private adoption agencies, organizations that offer free sonogram services, agencies that do not provide or make referrals to providers of abortions, and agencies that are not affiliated with abortion providers or those who make referrals to such.  I find that to be very vague, and possibly very dangerous for the women who end up at agencies that harass and berate them even more than the law does.

171.016 is “Information Relating to Characteristics of Unborn Child.”  This includes “materials designed to inform the woman of the probable anatomical and physiological characteristics of the unborn child at two-week gestational increments from the time when a woman can be known to be pregnant to full term, including any relevant information on the possibility of the unborn child's survival.”  These must include color pictures of fetuses at “two-week gestational increments,” and “must be realistic.”  And here’s the kicker: “The materials provided under this section must be objective and nonjudgmental and be designed to convey only accurate scientific information about the unborn child at the various gestational ages.”

BULLSHIT!  I CALL BULLSHIT!  This is not AT ALL objective and nonjudgmental!  It’s not like information on gestation is secret and elusive and therefore must be included to ensure a woman’s “informed consent.”  You can walk into any bookstore or library and find plenty of books on pregnancy that thoroughly describe the development of the fetus with realistic, colorful pictures.  You can find it on the internet in your own home or at the public library.  Furthermore, if Texas didn’t have “some of the weakest sex-education programs in the nation,” as Kristof wrote in the NYT, all of its citizens would already be well-informed about pregnancy and fetal development! 

I’ll end with that rant, as this post is outrageously long.  Next post: various and sundry other issues, including the invasive ultrasound.

Dear Pregnant Woman: You Are a Murderer. Love, Texas

The other day I came across the NYT op-ed “When States Abuse Women.”  In it, writer Nicholas D. Kristof describes the new abortion laws that came into effect in Texas about three weeks ago.  You should read his article, because it’s excellently written and gives an overview of similar laws in other states.  He links to Texas House Bill 15, which details the amendments to the abortion laws right down to the deletion of a comma.  So, I decided to read it and see for myself what it mandates.

And…wow.  These 14 pages are among the stupidest and most insulting text I’ve ever read.  Basically, it’s a collection of amendments and additions to their previous abortion laws—which were already disrespectful toward women seeking abortions—adding more degrading hoops for these women to jump through.  This legislation is blatantly and unabashedly attempting to berate and embarrass abortion-seekers, in order to cause them to feel like monsters and decide not to abort.

The nefarious purpose of these laws is encapsulated near the end of HB 15, in a brief description of why it exists: 

The purposes of this Act include, but are not limited to,

(1) protecting the physical and psychological health and well-being of pregnant women

If these legislators really think they’re protecting the “physical and psychological health” of abortion-seekers, then based on the biased information they’re shoving on these women, they’re operating on the premise that abortion is a horrible, horrible thing that is highly likely to cause physical harm and psychological devastation. 

The truth is, if they really want to protect women’s physical and psychological health, they would start by respecting them as autonomous people with the right to choose.  Then they would focus on a) putting regulations in place to make sure that providers are properly certified to care for these women, that the facilities are clean and up-to-date, that the procedures used are safe, and that the aftercare ensures their continued health and use of contraceptives; and b) that the women have access to unbiased, public counseling if they need/desire it, to help them cope with negative feelings they may have related to their abortions and to help them consider and choose the best options for them.  (I say unbiased because a counselor who tries to force her/his views on abortion would do much more harm than good, and I say public because it’s much more likely that private counselors would be biased.)

Instead, these laws misinform women about the possible risks of abortion, giving them much more attention than the more numerous and possible/probable risks of pregnancy; direct them to private agencies that, as Kristof points out, “are often set up to ensnare pregnant women and shame them or hound them if they are considering abortions”; invade their bodies with an unnecessary and invasive ultrasound; use multiple means to humanize the embryo/fetus as an innocent little son or daughter they’re about to torture and murder; and berate and humiliate them for considering such an atrocity.  These laws will prove to be incredibly psychologically damaging, and will also be physically damaging as women and girls choose to carry their unintended pregnancies to term even when the risk to their health and lives will be great.

(2) providing pregnant women access to information that would allow her to consider the impact an abortion would have on her unborn child

See?  They truly aren’t protecting pregnant women from anything; they’re psychologically abusing them by casting them as the mortal enemies of innocent little children.  They are inundated with descriptions of their “unborn child” (not “embryo” or “fetus”) and pictures of what it looks like, with an invasive and privacy-violating ultrasound, and with a pile of literature urging her to do anything besides have an abortion.

And there’s also the laughable (3) protecting the integrity and ethical standards of the medical profession.  The legislators actually claim they’re protecting the doctors’ integrity and ethics by making them force inaccurate propaganda on these often vulnerable women and perform procedures that—as the doctors say—are medically unnecessary.  And, if they don’t do it, they can be fined up to $10,000 (section 171.018) and could lose their license (section 164.005 (a)). 

I’d like to go into more detail, but in the interest of avoiding a giganti-post, I’ll break it up.  Next time: I’ll look at the details of the full laws and how absurd and stupid they are.

Religion should not trump bodily health and well-being.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

From Amendment I to the U.S. Constitution 

Recently, an amendment to a Senate transportation bill was voted—by an uncomfortably narrow margin—to be tabled.  This amendment, sponsored by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), would have allowed any employer to deny health insurance coverage for any procedure or medication they object to for religious or moral reasons.  Again, this amendment has been tabled (killed, effectively), but Blunt swears he won’t give up on the idea. 

There’s also a Senate bill sponsored by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) that would allow any employer to deny insurance coverage specifically and only for contraception.  This bill is in committee; it’s still “alive.”  I don’t think it’s just me—both of these proposals definitely sound like a law respecting an establishment of religion.  The First Amendment is about not only preventing the oppression of religion but also preventing oppression by religion.

Thus, it’s frightening that our country is even having this conversation.  Religious beliefs should not trump someone’s bodily health and well-being, should not prevent someone from getting the care they need, should not threaten someone’s life.  If Rubio and his cosponsors succeed, or if Blunt tries again, all of these things will happen.

Furthermore, their platform is just completely wrong.  One person’s choices and/or prescriptions for their personal health and well-being do not infringe on anyone else’s religious beliefs or morals.  If you have religious beliefs regarding health, medication, and medical procedures, you may certainly apply them to yourself, and more power to you.  But just as “your rights end where another person’s begin,” so do your religious beliefs end where another person begins.  You may not like what another person is doing, but their personal choices for their personal health and life do not affect your beliefs. 

If you’re an employer who provides insurance, that still holds true.  You are under obligation—social, governmental, and moral—to provide health insurance to your employees.  As with the salaries you pay your employees, you don’t get to choose how this money is spent.  This is a personal decision between your employee and her/his doctor.

Would it be right if an employer who was a Jehovah’s Witness refused to cover blood transfusions?  No.   Would it be right if an employer who was a Christian Scientist refused to cover…well, everything?  No.  Would it be right if an employer refused to cover contraception because of his/her religious or moral beliefs?  No.    

This is an attempt to stop people from getting the treatment they need.  I’m sure Blunt, Rubio, et al. are well aware that if an expensive medication or procedure isn’t covered by someone’s insurance, that person won’t be able to afford it and could get very sick or die.  It’s outrageous that they respect the rights of their workers so little that they would let them sicken and die over their religious beliefs. 

Now I’d like to address the more specific anti-contraception bill:  the current debate over not just contraception but also abortion, forced ultrasounds before abortions, the banning of prenatal testing, and the criminalization of miscarriages shows that there is an unfortunately large (or just very loud) segment of the population that believes women to be little more than baby factories.  They have shown that they believe women have less value than the eggs, zygotes, embryos, and fetuses they carry or could potentially carry inside of them. 

I’d think they’d embrace contraception as a means to prevent more abortions, but instead it seems they’re simply trying to force women to live according to their beliefs and completely refrain from non-procreative sex, especially if it’s premarital. 

(An aside: it’s absurd to try to force such values on this society, and they will ultimately fail.  However, I’d like to see them admit defeat on that front sooner rather than later.  Look at our books, movies, television, music.  Look at your family and friends and neighbors, classmates and coworkers.  It’s easy to see that “no premarital sex” is not a value held dear by the majority of our country.  So, even putting aside the innate wrongness of forcing your beliefs on other people, it’s [hopefully] a losing battle to even try in this case.)

I say that they’re trying to force women, not all people in general, to refrain from non-procreative premarital partly for this reason:  not once in all this debate have I heard mention of vasectomies.  This procedure achieves the element of birth control pills that the religious despise:  the prevention of pregnancy, and therefore the promotion of non-procreative, consequence-free sex.  Contraception is extremely important in treating a wide range of health problems in women, in addition to preventing pregnancy; so, since vasectomies really only prevent pregnancy, you’d think they’d be an even bigger target for the religious conservatives.  But as I said, I haven’t heard even one mention of them.

This is indicative of a broader cultural problem in America:  the only people who are allowed to have and enjoy sex are heterosexual males.  They are praised for making conquests, for adding notches to the bedpost, for being virile and having large, potent genitalia.  Women, however, are expected to be virginal and shun sex.  When a woman is seen as sexually active, she is insulted and degraded as a slut, whore, hooker, loose woman, etc.  Can you think of a similar insult for a heterosexual man who sleeps around?  I can’t.

(Another aside:  these demands conflict painfully with our culture’s demand that a woman be beautiful and sexy at all times, and if they aren’t, they’re derided and shunned.  It's very confusing to be female.)

This unrealistic demand for virginal women stepped into the blinding spotlight of Rush Limbaugh’s big stupid mouth last week.  As pretty much everyone has heard by now, he spoke very, very ill of Sandra Fluke, who attempted to testify at a hearing discussing Obama’s rule in our new health care laws that religious organizations must cover contraception in their health insurance (he has since caved and said these organizations have one year to find an insurance company that will cover all of the contraception themselves; thanks a lot, Mr. President).  (By the way, read that link about the hearing.  It was a total farce.  Get outraged with me!)  

Limbaugh called Fluke a slut and said her parents should be ashamed of her.  Displaying a shocking and willful ignorance of how birth control pills work, he said Fluke has so much sex that she can’t afford all the birth control she needs and requires the government’s help.  He also said that she should disseminate sex tapes of herself so others can benefit from her subsidized contraceptives.

First, someone ought to tell that moron this isn’t about his money going to contraception, it’s about employers providing private insurance coverage, so Limbaugh’s argument that he must benefit from paying for her birth control is idiotic.

Second—and far worse—this is incredibly horrible sexism, sexual harassment, and hate speech.  I am absolutely appalled that he said these things, and I’m even more appalled that his punishment and public censure has been so minimal and impotent.  (And I’m appalled that his obviously forced apology only addressed his “poor word choice” and was completely insufficient.) 

I hate what the lack of reaction to his comments says about our culture.  I hate that women have so little value.  I hate that women are not allowed to have sex unless they’re married to a man and trying to have a baby—and even then, there’s still something wrong with them if they enjoy it. 

I also hate that Limbaugh’s words have very directly hurt at least one young woman (besides Fluke, that is).  This 16-year-old girl left school weeping on Friday because some classmates, who had heard Limbaugh’s comments and somehow found out this girl is on birth control, bullied and antagonized her mercilessly, calling her a slut and whore out to f*** all the boys in school.  They were also reinforced by a clueless teacher saying Limbaugh is an icon who isn’t afraid to tell the truth.  I started to cry on the subway this morning reading about how all her mother could do was hold her and cry with her, and share this atrocity in hopes that someday this will never happen again.

This should not be happening.  It’s 2012, not the 1800s or even the 1950s.  We women shouldn’t have to fear losing insurance coverage for our birth control.  (I’ve been on it for 5 years, and for nearly 3 years I didn’t have insurance.  This made my chosen medication cost over $80 a month, so I switched to a $25 generic that still strained my meager paycheck.  I found it was too hard on my body to go without.)  We shouldn’t have to fear losing all contraception entirely, and being jailed for contraband condoms found in a police search of our bedrooms—which will happen if President Santorum (who doesn’t believe we have a right to privacy) gets his way.  We shouldn’t have to fear being unable to have an abortion if we get raped, because we can’t cut through the growing forest of red tape.  We shouldn’t have to fear getting raped again by a state-mandated intravaginal ultrasound.  We shouldn’t have to fear our tragic miscarriages being criminally investigated, and getting jailed or executed if it’s determined that we somehow caused the miscarriage.  We shouldn't have to fear being bullied, condemned, and publicly ostracized for our healthcare needs. 

We shouldn’t have to fear being a woman.  Please, if the choice ever falls to you, choose to protect and uphold the personhood, the autonomy, and the equality of women. 

Return of the blog

In the past few months, I've started paying attention to what's going on in the world.  I've found that this has given me a lot of opinions and a lot of things to say.  This blog is probably the best platform for me to do that.  And maybe I'll keep it going for longer than 3 posts this time around. :)

Please feel free to comment, even if you have a differing opinion.  I'm still learning and would love to discuss it all with you. 

Roses! Eeeee!

Today when I walked past Convent Garden, I noticed that there are at least FIVE rosebushes suddenly in bloom!

I sincerely apologize for the crappy pictures.  It was about 8 when I got home from work and the sun was already behind the buildings, so there wasn't much light.  Trust me, this rose is beautiful.

Aren't they beautiful!!!  The garden was open today, but I took pictures from outside as I walked by, because I was in a hurry to get home.  A little boy in the garden came up and asked, "What you doing to the flowers?"  He was adorable!  I told him I was taking pictures, and he pointed to one of the faded irises and asked if I'd gotten it.  I assured him I did last week.

And here's some of the columbine, because I love it too.

And guess what else!  I'm up to 8,661 words today!  Thanks are due to Brent's encouragement and Brent's making dinner.  He is wonderful.

Also I reeeeeeeeeally want to see the Babies documentary.  I dare you to watch this trailer and not say "Awww!"  If I don't get to see it, I am going to cry.  And if I do get to see it, I'll probably cry.  They are just so very adorable.

Blogging Fail

Well, this has been a rather successful exercise of fail! A month ago, I enthusiastically started this blog with a post about chairs…and that was it. Oh, I had plans for posts. For example, the very next day I was going to post about the banana bread I had said I was about to make. Then I was going to post pictures from around the city. Then I was going to post about a book I’d read. And so on. But I’ve been too busy with life to post about my life!

The main reason for starting this blog was to describe life here in NYC to family and friends back home.  So I suppose that if I recap everything that’s happened this past month right now, then that will almost count as posting about it as it happened and I can consider this blog Not A Fail.  So:

I spent some time after the last blog posting cleaning around the apartment, because from April 12-15 my best friend Jerilyn came to visit!  It was super awesome.  We walked and subwayed all over the city and took pictures of lots of things.  It was exceedingly wonderful to see her again, and it was a very lonely bus ride back from LaGuardia after she disappeared into the depths of the Delta terminal.  I keep wishing that my family and friends would all decide to move here tomorrow.

Please enjoy some pictures of Jerilyn and me having fun:

I have spent a lot of the past month at work.  Around the time I started this blog, I went back to a full five days a week at Borders, and it is exhausting.  I love having a job, and I love having this job in particular!  But it is exhausting and time-consuming.  I feel like I spend all of my time either working or sleeping (I try to get a full night’s sleep because I had an awful migraine about a month ago, and would like to avoid ever having one ever again ever).  However, I repeat:  I love having this job in particular.  It's almost as cool as working in a library, and in some ways, cooler.  I get to work with books and with people (except for perhaps a few customers) who love books.  I get to see the occasional celebrity who comes in for a book/CD/DVD signing (Ken Burns, Brandi Carlile, Ozzy Osbourne, RuPaul, Jesse Ventura, Steven Pressfield, certain housewives of NYC or New Jersey, Her Majesty Queen Rania of Jordan [which was how, and only how, we booksellers were allowed to refer to her], and...well, I know there are more, I just can't remember them all right now.  I've been there for almost 6 months!), but have somehow missed all the ones who come just to buy books (Jon Stewart and Goldie Hawn, among others--bummer!).  And it's just plain fun, because my coworkers and supervisors and managers are so awesome and fun to work with.  I got really, really, really lucky back in November when they decided to hire me.  (I also got my rent paid.  That's important.)

Though I spend most of my life at Borders, I do try to get some things done on my days off.  This month I have cleaned the bathroom.  I have cooked (I figured out chicken pot pie a couple weeks ago, to mine and Brent’s mutual delight [and amusement; I put way too much biscuit on top, so the cross section of the final product revealed about half an inch of pot pie and about two inches of biscuit.]).  Brent and I finished the fourth season of Supernatural, and we have also watched Howl’s Moving Castle and Princess MononokeDeadwood.  I have read a few books, which I hope to post about soon because they were all good.  I’ve been following a lot of blogs (see the list at the right!).  I found an even quicker route between apartment and subway, and it leads us right past Convent Garden!  Last week it was aflame, Calcifer-like, with blue irises.  They have faded, but now the columbine is blooming, and I am delighted. and have just started in on the second season of

 Look, Dad, cobblestones!  Aww, it reminds me of home. :)

I’ve been writing—yesterday, my ms reached 7,639 words.  Not a lot, but perhaps slow and steady does win the race.  I’m at a point in the ms where I don’t feel like I can get much good work done by writing in little pieces every day, on the subway or lunch break or wherever.  At this point I want to give it large, uninterrupted chunks of time—and I just don’t have those right now, except for maybe once a week.  So, I’m writing in smaller chunks anyway, but I’m not really thrilled with it.  But as long as my word count keeps increasing, I’m satisfied.

Last Wednesday was Brent’s play reading at Eastern Mountain Sports, and it was a considerable success.  This man is amazing.  Here’s what he did:  he hiked the entire 2,176 (or so) miles of the Appalachian trail; then he spent 6 months writing a two-act, two-and-a-half hour play about it; then he set up a reading of it at EMS; then he set about accumulating seven sponsors for his play; then he got together all the actors he needed to participate in the reading; then he got out the cattle prod to make sure all of these sponsors did what they were supposed to do when they were supposed to do it; then he collected donations at the event to send to the Appalachian Trail Conservancy and the Dramatists Guild.  And those are only the major details.  Next week we are heading down to the Trail Days festival in Damascus, VA, for another reading of North to Maine, and it’s going to be pretty awesome.  Please go to Brent’s website and become a fan of like his play on facebook (apparently you can't become a fan anymore?); it will be worth your time!

Also Brent is writing his fourth full-length play, is trying to get a certain band interested in working with him on his third full-length play, is training to run the Chicago marathon in October (simultaneously raising money for Active:Water; let me know if you want to give!), and has just gotten promoted to a managerial position in his company.  Isn’t he impressive?  Yes, he is!

And that about wraps up life in apartment 3E since my last post.  I will apologize now, since I’ve probably left something out.  And now, please enjoy a picture of and recipe for that banana bread I’d intended to post about almost a whole month ago.

 while the bread was still cooling, i pressed a heart-shaped cookie cutter into the top.  adorable, no?

Melanie's Banana Bread

Ingredients:

• 2 ripe bananas
• 1/3 cup melted butter
• 1/2 cup white sugar
• 1/2 cup brown sugar
• 1 egg
• 1 teaspoon vanilla
• 1 teaspoon baking powder
• Pinch of salt
• 1/2 tsp cinnamon
• 1/2 tsp nutmeg
• 1 1/2 cups all-purpose flour
• 1 to 2 tablespoons of vegetable oil

Directions:

Preheat the oven to 350°F (175°C), and place 9x9 glass baking dish in oven to heat slightly. Mash peeled bananas with a fork in a large mixing bowl, then add in the melted butter. Add in the sugars, egg, and vanilla. Sprinkle the baking powder, salt, cinnamon, and nutmeg over the mixture and mix in. Add the flour last.

Remove the slightly heated baking dish from oven and pour in the vegetable oil.  As the oil heats, tilt the pan so the oil coats the top and sides.  Pour in the batter and smooth the top.  Lightly dust the top with white sugar.  Bake for 25 minutes, and allow to cool before serving.

In the near future:

• I want to go to BookExpo America!  As a bookseller, I will have to shell out $99 for all three days.  I think it's totally worth it, and I better take advantage of it now while I'm here.  And thank goodness for tax returns, because that means I have $99!
• Sometime after the Trail Days reading, Brent is going to have to go fly far away to train for his new manager job for five whole long awful days.  Guess where he's going?  Louisville.  The irony just kills me.  
• I'm going to go do laundry.  It's four blocks away.  Pity me.
  (I don't go to the one that's two blocks away because they're kind of jerks.  Please keep pitying me.)

Making Easter!

Holidays are good excuses to make stuff.  In preparation for Easter dinner, I fixed up a couple of chairs.  I am so proud!  Brent and I found them on the sidewalk waiting for the garbage a few weeks ago, and I finally got around to purtying them up.  Here's the before:

The seats had been haphazardly encased in clear plastic at some point, which had yellowed a bit and was really disgusting.  Brent and I cut the plastic off, and now the seats are haphazardly encased in lovely fabric!

Yay for His 'n' Hers chairs!  Mine's the one with the strawberry pattern. :)  (Hey, Mom--thanks for the manual staplegun!)


I also baked some really cute Easter cookies--sugar cookies, with lemon icing in pastel colors and sprinkles--but forgot to take pictures before my coworkers, Brent, and I ate them all.  Bummer!


Brent made a beer can chicken (along with the ham his parents sent us--thaaank yooou!), because he had so much fun with the beer can turkey back at Thanksgiving.  It was really, really delicious, but so hard to carve up because...

...it's sitting up.  (And it looks rather angry that we shoved a beer can up its rear end, no?)


I also gave myself a headache and a cheekache by blowing out the contents of two eggshells.  I only got around to painting one, but it still looked so cute in our little Easter basket!

There it is, front and center!  I also made Easter grass by cutting plain old computer paper painted with green watercolor paint (which had been intended for a Christmas project I didn't get around to) into long strips, rolling it up with a quill, and pulling it out to make a spiral.  Prettier than the shredded plastic kind!


Now off to pick up some holds at the library and bake some banana bread.  It may be Tuesday for you, but it's Saturday for me--hooray for my day off!