Today, the Supreme Court struck down nearly 50 years of precedent, finding (correctly) that there is no right to abortion in the Constitution. Finding it there was incorrect in 1973 and proved to be even more incorrect as medical science advanced. To say I am ecstatic would be underselling it; I have advocated against it for decades, and even wrote publicly about it as far back as 19 years ago. This is a wonderful day!
To be sure, this court case does nothing for the generation lost to this barbaric practice, nor does it eliminate it on a nationwide basis; the rescinding of the Roe v. Wade decision returns the issue to the states. I am a big believer in an incremental approach because, in large part, any absolutist effort is doomed to failure. Every prenatal murder we can avoid is a cause for celebration. The states that have laws that go into effect will have the effect of outlawing 12.8% of abortions(subscription-only link) - just over a literaldecimation of this abhorrent practice.
I won't rehash my posts from the past nearly-two decades; if you want to read those, just peruse the “Prenatal Murder” category linked at the bottom of this post. Rather, I want to reflect on various aspects of this decision, what led up to it, and what is next for those of us who value the sanctity of human life from conception through natural death.
Roe Was Bad Law
The Roe decision only made sense by stretching the logic of a 1965 decision that had also stretched to reach its conclusion - Griswold v. Connecticut. Griswold centered around a law that prohibited the dispensing of birth control advice or devices. The majority opinion in this case found a previously-undiscovered “right to privacy” in the Constitution (as amended) that “emanated” from prior case law's “penumbras” (shadows). Calling this innovative thinking is probably too kind; it set precedents in all sorts of bad ways.
Just eight years later, Roe took a hop from Griswold's stretch, equating the act of abortion with any other form of birth control. This was also innovative, but not in the way you may expect. You likely grew up hearing about “trimesters,” those three 3-month periods of fetal development prior to birth. That did not come from current medical thinking; it came from renowned biologist Justice Harry Blackmun, via his majority opinion in this case. (Maybe justices do need to have a good working knowledge of biology, eh Justice-in-Waiting Jackson?) Justice Blackmun used this “trimester” framework to literally "split the baby", finding that the state had no interest in the first, some interest in the second, and the near-prevailing interest in the third. It also provided prohibitions on laws that did not allow abortions to preserve the “life and health” of the mother.
At the time, its companion case (Doe v. Bolton) defined “health” to include “mental health,” which was the key for the abortion free-for-all that followed. Parenting has profound effects on your mental health, whether you set out to be parents or are surprised, and doctors were all too willing to use this as cover to grant abortion for any reason (or no reason at all).
In 1973, the decision was not great; however, in the intervening years, medical science and our understanding of fetal development increased greatly. In 1992's Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision, the Supreme Court replaced the trimester framework with a “viability” standard. Sadly, they left the “mental health” definition from Doe intact, so the effect was the same. Medical science continued advancing, and as those who were pro-abortion rights continued to ignore it, their “rights” platitudes rang more hollow. In 2009, they thought they had finally won, but in reality…
The ACA's Overreach Accelerated This Decision
The Affordable Care Act (ACA, also known as “Obamacare”) mandated, among other things, what type of health care coverage employers must provide their employees (whether they want/need it or not). Reproductive health care was part of that package, and within that were some “birth control” measures that prevent implantation of a fertilized egg or induce spontaneous abortions (“abortofacients”). There were also very limited exceptions to this policy; in short, if you were not a church, you had to provide this.
This took the debate from the public square and into the courts. In 2014, the Supreme Court's decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby found that this lack of exception for religious beliefs for for-profit businesses violated 1993's Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). That was a good ruling, but it only applied to abortofacients and for-profit businesses. Catholic Charities' Little Sisters of the Poor were not as fortunate. The Roman Catholic religion views any birth control as sin, and even if the Hobby Lobby exception applied, they were still mandated to provide something against which they have long-standing, well-documented, sincerely held beliefs. It took until 2020 – 11 years after the ACA became law – to win their exemption via Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania.
While businesses were fighting in court, state legislatures were passing laws. Some states passed laws ensuring that this travesty could occur right up until the moment of delivery, but many states passed further restrictions on abortion. These restrictions varied from those thought to comply with Casey, to near or complete bans that were deferred until Roe and Casey were struck down, to some innovative thinking the other way (which isn't a compliment; Texas gets their own section under “What's Next” below). These laws codified, within each state, where they wished to draw the line on their compelling state interest. Among the ones that took effect, some held, some were struck down (like 2020's moderately surprising decision in June Medical v. Russo), and the Mississippi law challenged in Dobbs v. Jackson is what led to today's majority opinion.
A draft of that opinion was leaked in early May. Not only did this allow me to write large portions of this post ahead of time (hooray), it also led to some really revealing arguments from the side who felt that they were about to lose. Despite their claims to the contrary…
Abortion Is Not Health Care
The most egregious and disingenuous of these claims is that the reversal of Roe will lead to doctors being prohibited from taking care of troublesome pregnancies, such as ectopic pregnancies (where the egg implants in the fallopian tube) and miscarriages where the fetus has already died (but the woman's body is not eliminating it properly). It is true that, particularly with the miscarriage, the medical procedure itself is similar. However, no one is saying ectopic pregnancies should remain (except some knuckleheads in Missouri - again, addressed below), and removing an already-perished pre-born baby is also not abortion. These are health care procedures, and will remain legal in all 50 states, even if it takes a court challenge. (Again - maybe we do want our judges up on their biology, no? Maybe the legislature, too?)
Strawmen out of the way, this leaves us with four general scenarios to consider.
The first scenario goes something like “I just missed my period; uh oh - ain't nobody got time for that!” While I would love for this to be outlawed, the reality is that these will likely be legal - or at least accessible - forever. The Mississippi law challenged in Dobbs mandated no abortions after 15 weeks, which would have no effect on this abortion scenario. All that said, though, this is no more health care than elective breast augmentation.
The second scenario is selective termination after genetic testing. In these cases, there is absolutely no difference in the health of the mother who is carrying a baby with genetic deformities. All her systems still work the same; failing to give these children the opportunity for the life they have been given is something which should be prohibited by law. Again - not health care, just early murder.
The third scenario is a woman who changes her mind well into her pregnancy, and her baby is fully viable outside the womb. In this case, there is no prevailing health care concern that requires the baby to die; a delivery eliminates the pregnancy and gives the baby the opportunity it deserves. “Not health care” is an easy call here; all three cases thus far show that something being a “medical procedure” does not mean that the procedure is “health care.”
The final scenario is pregnancies resulting from rape (which includes incestuous statutory rape; I am not considering consenting related adults' children here). Here, I will probably part ways with some of the more ardent pro-lifers; while I do not believe abortion is the right decision in these cases, girls and women in this situation are already in a non-ideal situation. I believe it should be legal to counsel them to keep these pregnancies, but you will not find me pushing an absolutist position here. That being said, this is the only case where mental health should play any sort of consideration at all; outside of that, this is not health care either.
I mentioned the revealing arguments in the wake of the leak. The health care argument was one, but again, contrary to their claims, this is…
No Slippery Slope
(At this point, I would love to divert and discuss the difference between a “slippery slope” argument and an “argument of progression.” However, this is already essay-length; maybe that will be a post for another day.)
The claim goes something like “If they take this right away, what's to stop them from taking away birth control totally? Or gay marriage?” Well - in two words, “the Constitution.” Eliminating a stretch from the emanating penumbras doesn't eliminate the penumbras themselves, so birth control's legality remains covered under Griswold – just not the murder-your-baby kind. A better parallel for gay marriage would be 1967's Loving v. Virginia case, decided on equal protection grounds rather than right-to-privacy; these same equal protection claims were central to 2015's Obergfell v. Hodges case. There is also no nationwide movement against either of these decisions. There may be local overreach on these laws, and there may be lawsuits where the plaintiff's rights under RFRA were found to be violated – but these (contrary, again, to the hyperbolic claims of the losers) do not remove the laws from the books; they recognize religious freedom in our pluralistic society.
So, all that being said…
What's Next? (AKA “Fix Your Law, Texas”)
The fight for the legal rights of the unborn now has 50 fronts. This is not necessarily a new development; as I mentioned above, there has been legislative action in several states. There will likely be vociferous screeds about abolishing filibusters, expanding courts, and other harebrained schemes, all in hopes of getting a quick nationwide reversal of Dobbs. The conversation around the 2024 election will be hysterical and insufferable – not that the outlook there was all that reasoned and sufferable to begin with…
Some ways I would like to see the issue progress (and things I would support) include:
Continued Vigilance
There will be, no doubt, efforts to reverse today's decision, both in the courts and in Congress. While many of us see today's decision as the natural consequence of the way culture, science, and jurisprudence have been moving for the past generation, we should assume absolutely zero momentum. There will be a reaction, and it will be covered favorably by the legacy media; stand on principle, and do not concede the phrasing or the terms of debate. Culture has changed because pro-life advocates have publicized both the amazing miracle of life in the womb and the horrors of abortion; keep doing that.
No Overreach
We no longer need “bold” laws to “challenge” the unconstitutional Roe; it's done, and the states have the power. “With great power comes great responsibility,” though, so any future laws restricting abortion must be free of some of the sloppiness contained in prior abortion laws (and some current “anti-woke” laws). (No, you may not criminalize treatment of ectopic pregnancies.) These laws must be specific, measurable, enforceable, and medically sound. I like heartbeat bills, I'm OK with 15-week bans; I'm not OK with jailing abortive mothers.
Texas, I promised you some special attention. If your law had been passed contingent upon today's ruling, or passed in the future, it would not have the same baggage that it currently does. I'm quite surprised that the Supreme Court did not issue an injunction; my only guess is that they had an inkling that today was coming and wanted to give you a head start. Working around the Constitution is not the way to accomplish this. Revisit this law; if you want to be the only state in the Union to have a civil penalty for abortion, so be it, but surely you can do better by the children of Texas than outsourcing their protection to (possibly out-of-state) profiteers.
Don't Be “Pro-Life in Name Only”
You know what's tough? Being a mom through pregnancy, birth, and early childhood. (It doesn't get a lot easier, but at least you start getting sleep – until the teenage years, anyway.) Not engaging in an activity that will create life until one is ready to take responsibility for the life created is quite pro-life; this is the “hearts and minds” aspect, which wasn't ever part of Roe. Until that happens, though, we need to be prepared to support those who have created life and don't know what to do. Crisis pregnancy centers will be even more vital in the years to come, and they will need both counselors/volunteers and funding to help their clients.
While Roe v. Wade will exist as reversed Supreme Court precedent, I look forward to the day when “row” and “wade” are just two ways to cross a stream.
Saturday, January 3, 2015
1:54 pm
Daniel J. Summers
I missed this in 2013, and this is not a 3-post series as usual. Instead of writing a lot about each topic, I'll give a short reason I categorized it where I did. Please make no assumptions or conclusions about what I don't say; the fact that people are so apt to do that should probably make the “Bad” list, but not this year. Since this is a single post, we'll lead with…
The Good
No Terrorism at World Stage Events - 2014 saw the Winter Olympics in Russia and the World Cup in Brazil. Neither were marred by terrorism.
16 Out of 20 Ain't Bad - Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood did not want to provide coverage for 4 of the 20 forms of “birth control” mandated by the Affordable Care Act (ACA), as they work post-conception (an “abortofacient”). The Supreme Court agreed, in a rare victory for religious freedom.
Plummeting Oil Prices - In spite of the current administration's best efforts, our economy overcame them. The “Drill, Baby, Drill” crowd was vindicated, as an explosion in US oil production caused prices to drop substantially. Fracking has enabled this boom while preserving the environment, and the drop in prices has hit hostile-to-us oil-based economies hard. It's a big win-win that progressives still can't thoroughly grasp.
Republicans Win Control of Congress - This is a qualified “good” entry, assuming that they'll govern as they ran. Hey, there's a first time for everything, right?
Tennessee Football Rises - Playing an SEC schedule and non-gimme out-of-conference games with the youngest team in FBS is a recipe for a 3-9 season; the Vols made it 6-6 (and, since this is written after their bowl, 7-6) and have great momentum for 2015.
The Bad
The Deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner - Neither the Brown nor Garner families had loved ones with them this Christmas that they had last Christmas. There may be speculation as to the incidents surrounding their deaths (and neither are going to trial, so we'll likely never fully know), but even the public knowing every little detail of what happened will not bring these young men back to their families.
Colorado Going to Pot - The first year's experiment with legalized marijuana has not gone well. Assurances that children will not be able to easily get it have evaporated, and nearly all the tax money it's generated has gone to enforcement. Their governor caught some heat for saying that the citizens acted foolishly, but the facts certainly indicate he was correct in his assessment.
Ebola - 2014 was the year Ebola came to America. While there were some ridiculous things with how it was handled, the bad was limited, with some who contracted the disease surviving, and a new set of medical protocols helping to protect those who care for people.
ISIS - Nearly 10 years after being freed, Iraq fell back into enslavement thanks to a group coming in to make a hostile takeover, combined with an army that was not willing to fight for what it had won. Islamic law marches on, while Christians die, in a place where thousands of Americans gave their lives to win freedom.
Russian Aggression Versus Ukraine - Russia invaded and took over part of another sovereign nation. They do not appear to be done yet.
The Ridiculous
The Handling of the Death of Michael Brown / The Reaction to the Brown Grand Jury Verdict / The Reaction to the Garner Grand Jury Verdict - Ferguson and Missouri police handled the initial aftermath of Brown's shooting about as poorly as you could. The riots once the grand jury failed to indict Darren Wilson were unnecessary and unhelpful (and unwanted by Michael Brown's family), and the “Hands Up Don't Shoot” gesture would have been impactful had it been based in verified fact (which it was not). This was also the case where “unarmed teen” is supposed to imply harmless, peaceful, law-abiding child, but video showed a certain store owner who would dispute that characterization. Once the Garner verdict came out, there were die-ins all across the country, proving nothing, but inconveniencing people who had nothing to do with anything surrounding the case. Two dead New York policemen and one in Florida, at last reports, still hadn't brought Michael Brown or Eric Garner back to their families. (If I have a chance, there will be much more on this in my MLK post.)
p.s. ALL lives matter.
Encyclopedia Brown and the Case of the Missing E-mails - Under oath, and subpoena from Congress, IRS chief Lois Lerner claimed to have lost her e-mail. This was after other e-mails came out that pretty much confirmed their deliberate targeting of conservative groups leading up to the 2012 election. While those e-mails were “found” toward the end of the year, this Watergate-esque dodge was pathetic. IT does not work that way, and if it does, those people need to be fired.
Computer Security - This was a bad year for computer security. “HeartBleed,” “Shell Shock,” and “Poodle” were names given to long-existing exploits that were discovered in the software that runs much of the Internet. Target fessed up about how large their breach was, and Home Depot let a lot of customer information get away as well. Finally, targeted attacks released iCloud data from celebrities, while an (internal? North Korean? We don't know yet…) attack on Sony Pictures Entertainment released salaries, movies, even e-mails among leaders and actors. (Maybe we should sic the Guardians of Peace on the IRS!) Hopefully some good will come of this; if nothing else, it will make people think about security before they trust a “cloud” service with their information.
Kaci Hickox - Kaci is a nurse who was exposed to Ebola. She defied quarantine, though, and created a lot of concern. While she ultimately was not found to have the disease, her foolish, selfish actions stirred up a lot of concern in her community. As a medical professional, she should have known better. But, of course, if she had, then her name wouldn't be on some random guy's blog in a year-in-review post, would it?
Tuesday, January 2, 2007
10:30 pm
Daniel J. Summers
Here's part 2 of the 3-part series “2006 Year in Review: The Good, the Bad, and the Ridiculous.” While part 1 dealt with items that are bad on a ridiculous level, there is nothing humorous about these happenings during 2006.
I covered this in depth with my post “Why the Republicans Lost” earlier in the year. Now, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are going to be in control of the legislative branch. While our nation can survive, this does signal the end of many meaningful reforms. Immigration enforcement, strict-constructionist judicial nominees, and meaningful energy reforms are all distant memories. In their place we'll get amnesty for illegal aliens, judicial activists, and economy-crushing minimum wage increases.
The majority of Americans don't seem to understand that the latter is a ploy by union workers, who want raises but are contractually tied to a level above minimum wage. When it goes up, their pay goes up. However, businesses only have money as they collect it from their customers - increased payroll expense will only drive prices higher, at which point the buying power of the new minimum wage is about the same as the buying power of the old. Higher minimum wage levels also reduce the number of entry-level jobs held by students and retirees - I'm really surprised that the same party who panders to seniors and says that everything they want to do is “for the children” is in favor of such a move.
The Supreme Court decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld established that military tribunals could not be used to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This ruling, in effect, gave unlawful combatants official status, and required that they be given access to our justice system. President Bush asked Congress to clarify rules for detainee treatment, leading to what some have dubbed the “Terrorist Bill of Rights.” During debate on this and other bills throughout the year, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and others were adamant about adding “no torture” language into bills. Techniques such as water-boarding (where a person feels like they're drowning, but they really aren't), which had been used to extract intelligence that prevented attacks, were now no longer allowed.
This is a trend that I hope and pray does not continue into 2007. We Americans are gracious to our enemies, sometimes to a fault. But, there comes a point when we need to realize that they are our enemies. When they take up arms against us, when they align themselves with organizations that have, as their stated goals, the destruction of our nation - if we capture you, expect to be made to talk.
Eight Marines have been charged with murder and other charges relating to an incident in the Iraqi town of Haditha. These men were part of a patrol in this city, when their patrol was attacked with an IED (improvised explosive device). After the IED went off, they were also receiving hostile fire from both sides of the street. As their training taught them, they laid down suppressive fire to remove the casualties that they had taken, then launched a counter-offensive to kill the insurgents that had inflicted this attack on them.
Once the shooting had stopped, some of the Iraqis in that town began complaining about the counter-offensive, saying that the people who had been killed were innocent civilians who had nothing to do with the attack. These stories were often contradictory, but that didn't matter to the folks here who never miss a chance to broadcast bad news. The link above is very lengthy (and the other information it links are also lengthy), but it is a detailed analysis as to what happened that day, and how it is being prosecuted. Even an embedded CNN reporter does not believe these allegations.
This is disgraceful, and I hope that the court-martial comes out in favor of these dedicated Marines. “War is hell” isn't just a quip - it's reality.
With current concerns over terrorism, and nukes that Russia can't find, two nations hostile to the United States declared their nuclear capabilities this year. North Korea has been testing missiles (although these tests were, by all accounts, an abject failure) and nuclear warheads. Iran claims that their nuclear capability is only to be used for power. Why do I not trust Iran? Let me count the ways… They are the primary supplier of personnel and weapons for the insurgency in Iraq. They teamed up with Syria to support Hezbollah in their attacks on Israel earlier this year. They hosted a holocaust denial conference. And that was all this year!
All nations have a right to defend themselves. However, when these nations have proved themselves hostile to us and friendly to our enemies, we must demand that they pursue their defense using conventional weapons.
That is certainly not all of the bad things that happened this year, but I believe they are some that will have the most enduring impression on our world and our nation. Next up - the good!
Monday, January 16, 2006
9:38 pm
Daniel J. Summers
Again this year, I'm combining my thoughts on these two days into one column. (If you'd like, you can review 2005's combined entry and 2004's entries for MLK's birthday and the sanctity of human life.) Much has happened over the past year in the realm of life issues and race relations, and I'd like to take a look back to see what we can learn from these recent happenings.
Recently, discussion on abortion has come to the forefront, thanks to the hearings for Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito. The people on the left like to pitch this as a case of women's rights, but the issue before the Supreme Court is even more basic than that. That question is, “Is there a right to ‘privacy’ in the Constitution?” In the 1965 case Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court “found” this previously unrecognized right deep within a “penumbra” in our nearly 200-year-old Constitution. In this specific case, we learn that the Constitution prohibits states from having laws prohibiting the sale of contraceptives. (I'm curious as to whether any people have appealed laws against other types of drugs, citing this precedent.) Based on the faulty logic of Griswold, the 1973 case Roe v. Wade struck down all restrictions on abortion, viewing it as just another contraceptive method.
In last year's entry, I dealt with the medical advances over the intervening 30 years since Roe was decided. I will, though, give you a link to one of the best abortion information resources I've seen - Abortion Facts. This site has links and information on almost every aspect of reproductive health, from a worldview that values life and realizes the negative effect that abortion has had not only on the babies that die each day, but on our society's view of life, women, and appropriate sexual behavior. Also, a startling statistic from the New York Daily News - for every 100 births in NYC last year, 74 abortions were performed. That's 42.5%!
Back in March 2005, we had another fight regarding life, this time on the other side with Terri Schiavo, a lady who had been diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state for several years, but who had not recorded her wishes before she died. Her husband Michael claims that she had said that she would not have wanted heroic measures used to prolong her life, and that her current nature of medical care constituted “heroic” measures. He petitioned the court to order her nursing home to remove the feeding tube that was giving her food and water. On the other side, Terri's parents did not feel that their daughter would want to starve to death; rather, they wanted Michael to divorce Terri, at which point they would become the ones responsible for continuing her care. (Of course, had he divorced her, he wouldn't get any insurance money… Hmmm…) Astoundingly, Michael won, and Terri was starved to death, passing away on March 31st. He claims that it was what she would have wanted - but, sadly, she's not here to present her side. (Here's a link to the entry I wrote at the time about Terri and her case.)
This is the case where the “pro-choice” movement morphed into the “pro-death” movement. Their true beliefs about their opinion of human life was on display for all to see. Terri Schiavo had made her choice. Choosing not to have a living will means that her care would fall back to normal medical processes - every attempt to save her life would be made. The “pro-choice” crowd, though, ignoring her choice, sided with her adulterous husband in his quest for her death. I guess they're pro-choice, as long as the choice is death.
On January 28th, 2005, Condoleezza Rice was sworn in as only the second black (and first black female) Secretary of State. It is interesting that, for all the lip service the Democrats give to people of color, it was a Republican President who has appointed both black Secretaries of State our nation has had. Throughout this past year, she has been quite busy, working hard to act as this country's face to the rest of the world. She is presiding over the difficult diplomatic processes with North Korea and Iran, two rogue countries that are dangerously close to developing nuclear weapons.
Once September rolled around, though, we saw something much less inspiring. Hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast, destroying Gulfport and Biloxi, Mississippi and, though it only hit New Orleans, Louisiana with a glancing blow, the water broke some of the levees around the city, and it flooded. We heard reports of stacks of bodies, rapes, and rampant looting. (Thankfully, all but the looting seems to have been vastly overreported.) Then, we have the ridiculous outburst from Kanye West during a Katrina fundraising special, claiming that our President doesn't care about black people. Preposterous! And, during a time of national disaster, an irresponsible and disrespectful thing to do. Seems it was all a publicity stunt - his album came out a few weeks later, and his name was fresh on people's minds. So, he basically exploited the same people he claimed President Bush didn't care about. Definitely not a high point…
To wrap up our mini year-in-review, let's come back to the recently completed Alito hearings. Aspersions were cast on Judge Alito's character because he had been a member of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP), and that group had written that it opposed allowing minorities and women into Princeton. The only problem is that those lines came from a parody that was published in the Princeton student newspaper. (Look for the quotes from Dinesh D'Souza in that article.) Turns out, CAP was also concerned about the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) program being banished from Princeton, and that is why Justice-to-Be Alito had joined the group. The group did oppose quotas of minority/female admissions, and they also opposed lowered admissions standards for minority/female admissions - but, they were not opposed to minorities or women based on their race or gender. (And, this insinuation from the left is getting more than a little insulting!) Also, during the hearings, one of the committee members said that they couldn't think of a single decision that Judge Alito had made that was beneficial to minorities. However, this article, written in November of 2005, shows his belief that all people are equal under the law, no matter what their skin color.
Our nation misses Dr. King's guidance. He believed that, just as God sees us all as people, men should look at men with color-blind eyes as well. I hope that, over the next few years, less focus will be placed on divisive things. And, I hope that minorities realize that while one group emphasizes our differences, there is another group that has accepted those of whatever color, and encourage them to do the things that will improve their lives.
Karl Rove – Allegations are flying about Karl Rove revealing a CIA agent's name to a reporter. As is standard procedure for the left, facts don't particularly matter. Rove did not reveal a name, only that Joe Wilson's wife was an employee at the CIA. Even if he had, she is not a covert agent, so laws against naming her identity do not apply. However, none of these facts are keeping the Democrats (and their more-than-willing accomplices in the press) from mounting what can only be described as a feeding frenzy, calling for Karl Rove to be fired.
The media is behaving particularly despicably in this. Check out the transcript of a recent press briefing at the White House. This is nothing short of desperation, and they know it. If Karl Rove were guilty, they would just be quiet and wait for the indictment - the longer Rove is around, the better for them. Of course, this is the way Democrats work. Remember, when George W. Bush (R) was certified as the winner of Florida's Presidential election, it was the Supreme Court enforcing existing law; when Christine Gregoire (D) was declared governor of Washington, the Washington Supreme Court invented new law.
Iraq - If the Democrats had to donate $1 to the Federal government every time they said something like “everyone knows there's no link between Iraq and Al-qaeda,” we wouldn't have a budget deficit. This technique is called the “Big Lie” - repeat it often enough, and people start to believe it. However, saying it three times does not make it so (unlike certain TV shows). The Weekly Standard published an article this past week called "The Mother of All Connections," that details the links between the administration of Saddam Hussein and the terror network of Osama bin Laden. It's quite lengthy, but well-researched, and demonstrates conclusively that Iraq was the next stop in the war on terror, and not just for the benefits of introducing freedom to the Middle East.
“Support the Troops” - This is another fave from the anti-Bush left. Even John Kerry got in on this when he was running for president. The logic is basically summed up like this - “Support the troops - bring them home.” This sounds good, all nice and touchy-feely (once again, the left's preference for feelings over facts is evident), but would actually be the worst possible thing to do at this point. Our nation's troops have worked hard to get Iraq and Afghanistan free, and we're still working to get them trained on maintaining their freedom. Pulling out now would be very disrespectful to the over 1,000 folks who have died in this war to date. (Again, why should that surprise me?) Think about it this way [ when a player on a sports team becomes injured, do they tell the other players "Hey man, we just need to quit - this is too dangerous!"? Of course not. We've seen, time and time again, these guys saying “You guys stay in it!” Seeing this through to its successful completion is the only way to honor and, yes, support, our troops.
I'll wrap this one up with a link to an excellent Dennis Prager column entitled, quite bluntly, "The Left Doesn't Support the Troops and Should Admit It." He puts the issue in quite plain terms that anyone should be able to understand.
Wednesday, January 26, 2005
9:15 pm
Daniel J. Summers
Ran across this quote today in the Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web Today (January 26th, 4th item down), written by an editor of a leftward-leaning magazine…
“And if a new Supreme Court overturns affirmative-action laws, Democrats will need to pursue equality in ways that avoid treating whites and blacks differently.”
Ya think? (Maybe that's what they should have pursued to begin with…)
Sunday, December 28, 2003
4:40 pm
Daniel J. Summers
I received an interesting piece of mail the other day, and I thought I'd comment about it here. The mail was from AAA Women's Services (now known as Choices Chattanooga) in Chattanooga, TN. They were talking about a new clinic they've set up. The history of this organization is pretty impressive - they opened up across the street from the only walk-in abortion clinic in town, began ministering to hurting women in a way that most didn't expect, and over time, were able to raise enough money to buy out the clinic across the street. That clinic now houses the National Memorial for the Unborn, a site that allows the parents of aborted children a place to memorialize them.
But that brings me back to the new clinic, which is yet another very creative ministry that this organization has put together. For years, AAA's biggest tool in convincing mothers to keep their children has been the ultrasound - the numbers are in the 90% range of women who, once they see that precious life moving and breathing inside them, decide to keep their child alive. AAA has now opened this clinic in the downtown area, and offer not only “crisis pregnancy” counseling services, but prenatal care as well, along with more ultrasound equipment. In the first month of operation, 5 of the 6 women who came there seeking an abortion left with a changed mind.
As an aside, one great thing AAA does is that they don't abandon the mothers they help - they provide maternity clothes and baby clothes, can help with transportation to prenatal and well-baby checks, and are there to help train the new mothers or support them as they allow an adoptive family to love their child.
I've felt for years that abortion was wrong on all kinds of levels, and this belief was reinforced as I watched my two precious children grow in my wife. There's also a growing trend of young women who are keeping children rather than killing them. I heard one person say “you can't kill an entire generation of folks, and expect to have them grow up to be pro-choice.”
I'm wondering, though, if Roe v. Wade didn't miss the boat. 30 years or so ago when it was decided by the Supreme Court, there was nowhere near the body of medical research and history that we now have on the process. Moral obligations aside for the moment, consider the trauma to the woman's reproductive organs, the complications from these “routine procedures,” and the mental anguish many, many mothers of aborted children feel. Are abortions too dangerous to be performed?
Bringing morality back into the discussion - what about all we now know about “viability” and stages of development? Using technology we didn't have back then, we can see a heart beat begin before most women even know they're expecting. We can detect brain waves far earlier than anyone back in the early 1970's would have ever dreamed. If this is, in fact, a life (as those with common sense have been saying for years), is it right to allow the taking of this human life by another human?
Kathleen Parker wrote back in August about the two plaintiffs in the Supreme Court decision to legalize abortion, and their attempts to get those decisions vacated. This article, along with the various links off the other sites I've linked here, should give you plenty of reading on how abortion hurts not only the unborn children, but the women who kill them as well; and that, given our new awareness of the medical facts, this barbaric practice should be banned altogether.
Thursday, August 14, 2003
8:30 pm
Daniel J. Summers
As a resident of Montgomery, AL, I'm privy to the much to-do being made over the granite Ten Commandments monument that duly-elected Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court had placed in the capitol. A Federal judge has ordered it be removed, and Justice Moore is refusing. The stage is set for a pretty large showdown very soon. As you can probably tell from my links and my previous entries, I'm a pretty religious person. However, I'm going to approach this from a purely humanistic viewpoint.
The Ten Commandments were the foundation for Jewish law. These commandments are recorded today in our Holy Bible, and the first four reference God or holiness (no other gods, no graven images, God's name in vain, and keeping the Sabbath holy). The remaining six are good precepts even for those who do not subscribe to any form of religion. These are no different from other historical laws, such as the Code of Hammurabi, and other collections of laws.
Several of our founding documents reference concepts found in the religious commandments. The Constitution, Article I, Section 7, recognizes Sundays as a day apart (much like commandment 4). The Declaration of Independence, in the first paragraph, recognizes Nature's God, and in the second, recognize the Creator - both are capitalized and singular, in line with the 1st commandment. Furthermore, The Magna Carta, a body of English law upon which our Constitution was based (and, coincidentally, predates the 1611 KJV by nearly 400 years), contain references to the one and only God in the Preamble and section 1.
We have also been told as of late that we should accept all religions, including the ever-peaceful Muslims. The prevailing world view of many people is that there is good in everything - and, judging from recent rulings by various courts and the politically correct culture that has pervaded our country, this is the way the government should look at things.
Given that references to most of the overtly religious commandments are in our country's founding documents, and the fact that we are supposed to find the good in everything, I see no reason for this marker to be removed. Justice Moore's personal beliefs should not be brought into this argument. With the 1st Amendment to our Constitution (in the Bill of Rights) prohibiting government from preventing free exercise of religion, the Federal judge's ruling that it must be removed is un-Constitutional, and will be found as such if it is appealed.