Tag: abortion

Posted on

The Implications

Today it was revealed that the Supreme Court is likely to rule to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

Everyone is hopefully clear on the fact that overturning “Roe vs Wade” does not make abortion illegal.  It throws the problem back to the states which now may either ban it, partially ban it, or allow it, depending on the whims of state legislators.

States will now be allowed to compel women to carry a pregnancy to full term whether they wish to or not, even in the case of incest or rape.

If this indeed is going to be the ruling (which will be handed down in June), there are some enormous implications.  Off hand, I can think of these:

  • The Democratic base will be energized going into the fall congressional elections.  This is Mitch McConnell’s nightmare.  Mid-term elections generally favor the opposition party at least partly because the government doesn’t have a burning issue to run against– it is the government many people like to vote against no matter what stripe.  But overturning Roe vs Wade may light a fire under the Democrats.
  • The issue should play well for the Democrats.  About 60-65% of Americans support the general right to abortion, though they also think limits should apply.  Democrats can cite the government telling women what they may or may not do with their bodies.  Republican state governments are going to “compel” women to carry pregnancies to term which can be spun as intrusive or egregious or over-reach or patriarchal.  Republicans cannot really run on “life begins at conception”– at least, I’ll believe it when I see it.
  • Further to that — evangelical Christians will not be satisfied with overturning Roe vs. Wade.  They want the Supreme Court to go further and ban all abortions.  Life, to them, begins at conception.  They may begin to demand that their Republican trolls reflect that in their legislation, which may be a bridge too far for independents and moderate Republican women.
  • Why stop at Roe vs Wade?  There are host of privacy rights implied in the principle that the Constitution does not protect them.  Strip searches?  Infrared scans of homes?  Drones?  Cell phone messages?  Library records?  Who says we (the FBI, Homeland Security) can’t look?   Who says those records are private (unless the police have a warrant)?
  • So when really does life begin?  If state governments begin debating this issue, and pass legislation, and this legislation is appealed to the Supreme Court, we will have an even bigger can of worms.
  • State Senate races in close states could swing.  Susan Collins is safe for now– she has five years left in her term.  Lisa Murkowski– lucky for her– voted against Kavanaugh, so she is probably safe.  But many other Republicans running in purple states will have to answer the question of who they would confirm to Supreme Court given that they might make another really stupid decision.  (Is “stupid” a blunt instrument?  I mean, Alito and Thomas are obviously not fools, but I stand by my conclusion of the fundamental soundness of their reasoning behind their votes on Roe vs Wade.  In the totality of their disregard for history, culture, justice, and just plain common sense: stupid.  Just plain stupid.  It can stand with the Dred Scott decision– that negroes are not “persons”.)

As you would think is obvious, the ruling is at odds with conservative ideals about government being restrained from intruding into areas of personal freedom.  The government should not be able to require you to wear a mask  around vulnerable people even if you could be infected with Covid 19, but it should be allowed to compel you to carry a pregnancy to full term.

 

Posted on

Newt Gangrene: America, America, America

“In America, religious belief is being challenged by a cultural elite trying to create a secularized America, in which God is driven out of public life.”

Never imagine that any kind of scurrilous, scumbag, divisive politics is beneath a Republican. Newt Gingrich has found Jesus. Just in time for 2012. Do even fellow Republicans buy this? Does anyone in the Republican Party ever acknowledge that the movement itself would be better off if it sounded a little less cynical and opportunistic?

Is there anything more that anyone needs to know about Newt Gingrich than that he is willing to stand in front of a crowd of Republicans and make the statement he made above, (at a gathering of the Ohio Right to Life) February 28, 2011?

Nobody can seriously believe that Newt actually believes this. If he does, America is far worse off than even I imagined. But it does magnify something that has become more apparent since 9/11: he doesn’t even care if you believe he believes it or not. It doesn’t matter.

How does one avoid being rude when observing what should be obvious but obviously isn’t? That New Gingrich, ready to make another run at the presidency, studied the polls and decided that Americans– actually, Republicans who vote in the primaries– want a leader with genuine religious convictions so, all right, we can do that. Here’s how: you say “In America, religious belief is being challenged by a cultural elite trying to create a secularized America, in which God is driven out of public life.” You say this in front of “Ohio Right to Life”. Just drink in the applause. Ahhhh. Feels good. It’s so easy. And the money keeps rolling in. And James Dobson is already behind you, on his knees, lips puckered.

It’s like “fiscal responsibility” and “no new taxes” and “strong military” and anything with “America” in the title, on a book– not that anyone will actually read it. They just need to know that you, like Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee and everyone else out there on the right, has not only read at least one book in your life but has also written one. Something like “Fighting for America”. Or “Finding the Real America”. Or, “America– the America of Americas”. Or “God and America”. Or “How Immigration is Ruining America” by Nancy McDougal and Sid Hofstetter.

Not that you could actually have ever been bothered to actually write the book. Gosh, that’s not time well-spent for God’s appointed leaders– that’s hack work, for what’s-his-name– the elite intellectual snob we hired just for this kind of work.

But conservatives don’t give a flying leap about whether you actually wrote a book you “authored”. That’s for those effeminate, liberal, snobbish eastern elites. People like Al Gore and Barack Obama. No, by God, a real leader just puts his name on it. Nor do they seem to give a damn about the rankest hypocrisy imaginable (see sidebar).

I suppose people should be reassured that Gingrich has discovered, thrillingly, if belatedly, that 2+2=4. We all look forward to the next miracle: how he will balance the budget, cut taxes for the rich, and increase military spending, without cutting any programs.

Aside from all that, isn’t Gingrich more or less openly saying that America should become a Christian Theocracy? If not, then what is he saying?

It’s really the Christians who have fallen down on this. Where are the church leaders who have any real religion? They would be standing up now, declaring that Christianity should not be exploited and tricked out in this way, and that politicians like Gingrich do more harm than good to real spirituality.

A lot of harm

Do Republicans ever hold any of themselves accountable for anything:

He [Newt Gingrich] also acknowledged having an extramarital affair with Callista Bisek, then a House staff member, while leading impeachment proceedings against Mr. Clinton for lying about his own sexual transgressions. NY Times, 2011-02-28

I don’t think they do hold themselves accountable. I think they believe they are special, touched by god, with wisdom so sublime and transcendent that mortal men cannot even begin to apprehend the audaciousness of their wisdom.

When you think you are so right that those who disagree with you are not mere political opponents but enemies of the state– nay, enemies of God!– foreigners, and subversives, consistency is truly the hobgoblin of little minds.

Posted on

Capitalism and Abortion

Why are so many capitalists opposed to abortion? It’s really rather bizarre. They construct this massive edifice of rationality and logic to justify a system that rewards capital and entrepreneurship, and brutally punishes the poor, and then they declare that the unborn are entitled to massive government interventions on their behalf. The government must intrude on the mommy market, insinuate it’s authority, seize control of the very bodies of a class of citizens– fertile women– and dictate the outcome.

A real capitalist would tell you that if it isn’t profitable to have babies, the government shouldn’t interfere. But then, there are few real capitalists. People who claim to believe in small government actively support the government seizing bandwidth and giving it to the telecoms, or seizing new copyrights that never existed before, or taking oil from the ground beneath wildlife refuges, or taking trees from national parks and hauling them out on roads built by taxpayers.

Free market capitalism is mostly a fraud intended to attack government programs that benefit working class citizens at the expense of owners. When government intervention benefits the wealthy, they’re all for it.

Posted on

The Palindrome

Enough already! I thought the end of the election would bring an end to the incessant fascination with the least fascinating politician out there: Sarah Palin. Get over it, horny Republicans! She’s not that interesting.

I didn’t think she was all that interesting from the start. As far as young, photogenic, female Republicans go, Condoleezza Rice, you could argue, is more interesting, because she is fairly smart, and even though she is the most over-rated politician in the U.S. Or was the most over-rated politician in the U.S. until Sarah Palin came along. Wait. All right, maybe Condoleezza Rice really isn’t that interesting.

So you think Sarah Palin is so hot? Why? Come on. What special qualities does she have that make her unique and interesting? Interesting ideas about the economy? Interesting ideas about the arts? Interesting ideas about leadership? Interesting ideas about energy? Interesting ideas about a single bloody thing on the entire planet? I didn’t think so. Interesting personality? In what way?

So all there is, we admit, sigh, are the looks. She is a relatively hot 43-year-old hockey mom. Bravo. There is a clip on Youtube of her in a red bathing suit competing in a beauty pageant. This, evangelical Americans tell us, is an asset.

So what it comes down to, really, is that she has become “interesting” because she received so much media coverage that people became curious about this person who was receiving so much media coverage. In other words, she became a celebrity: someone who is well-known for being well-known.

So McCain made the biggest strategic blunder of any recent political campaign and she hurt his candidacy and hurt his credibility and completely annihilated his argument that only people with the proper experience should run for high office and she ran a smarmy campaign about “real” Americans who could be white or gun-owners or embittered, clinging to their religion of Opieism (that the real America is Andy of Mayberry’s homogenous rural Aunt Bea-America), afraid of them, afraid of change, and lost.

The million dollar question is– why is she still here! Why is she still in the news? Who cares about her views on anything? She is a proven loser, and a proven dingbat who never belonged on the world stage.

And that’s why I hope she stays there, in the spotlight, the darling of the pro-life evangelical right. If the Democrats are really, really lucky– if God really blesses them, as I think he will– Sarah Palin will be the Republican nominee for 2012. And the Dobsonites and the other “values voters” will be ecstatic, and maybe we will finally have an election about those so-called “values”, and just maybe a resounding message about small-minded bigotry will be delivered at last.

Incidentally, in Colorado, a pro-life ballot initiative– a real measure of just how “mainstream” these values voters are– failed with 73% of voters rejecting it. Astonishingly, the organizers plan to take the same strategy– redefining “personhood”– national.

On Values Voters – Colorado’s Pro-Life Amendment 48
Kind of a weird site on the Colorado initiative… [down]

The site suggests that this is a scientific debate, not a “political” debate, and that science absolutely “proves” that life begins at conception. Of course, science also “proves” that the world is billions of years old, the earth is warming, vaccines work, and man descended from monkeys, and I would guess that most of the supporters of the Amendment 48 might have a problem with that science… and probably have a problem with science, period.

In spite of Kristi Burton’s attempts to secularize the debate and disguise it’s religious origins, the song playing in the background of the first video contains the lines, “Let it be said of us/that our hearts belong to Jesus”.

What would probably help these initiatives more than anything else? If the Republican Party became pro-choice. That’s the only way you could even begin to persuade mainstream America that abortion is something other than a wedge issue to attract gullible evangelicals to support tax cuts for the rich and subsidies for corporations and deregulation of toxic industries.

 

Posted on

After John Paul Stevens retired from the Supreme Court and George Bush appointed Priscilla Owens in his place, the Supreme Court struck down Roe vs. Wade. …

Be careful what you wish for. I have to credit an article in the Atlantic Monthly from May 2006 for this insight: a Supreme Court ruling striking down Roe vs. Wade means that every State will then be able to write its own legislation on abortion, which means that the Republicans, while proclaiming their wholesale devotion to the right to life position, will suddenly actually be in a position to impose their views on the country. Is this something the smart Republican really wants?

The core of the Republican coalition is the Christian Right. Have you ever heard these people discuss abortion? Have you ever heard them discuss possible exemptions for rape or incest? This is a very uncompromising bunch. They will not be happy to vote for a Republican who promises to allow those exemptions. But if a Republican proposes a law without those exemptions, he will risk the wrath of up to 70% of the electorate who believe there should be reasonable limits– but not a wholesale ban– on abortion. In that sense, the true-believer Republicans will suddenly fall into the category of “extremist”.

Any Republican who realizes this and decides to take a moderate position risks being turfed by his own party in the primaries, which are dominated by the true believers.

It is quite possible that, in many states, a Republican candidate for state government, or even for congress, could not get nominated without support from the die-hard Christian right.

The Democrats might or might not be wise enough to propose “moderate” legislation, either limiting abortion to the first three months, or even to cases of incest or rape.

It is possible that such developments could alter the political landscape in the U.S. for a good 20 years.

Posted on

Alito’s Joke

The Judicial Committee Hearings on Judge Alito are the funniest in years. The Democrats ask him what his view on abortion is and he says he has no views and even if he did, it would be unethical for the Senate to approve of a candidate to the Supreme Court who could actually explain what he thinks about the law.

The Republicans crawl on the floor and kiss his wounded knee. His wife bursts into tears and flees the room. Oh, those nasty, nasty, vicious, oppressing, liberals!

George Bush admits that he nominated a man with no views at all. He would like Alito to approach each case that comes before the Supreme Court the way a good chef approaches brain surgery.

Is anybody really confused? The Bush Administration knows that it could never nominate the candidate it really wants– James Dobson– to the Supreme Court, so they find a low-profile candidate and tell him to hide his views and then try to pass him off as a moderate and attack the Democrats for being obstructionist and for supporting “activist” judges.

It’s not an activist judge that locks up people without trial? Or has evidence destroyed so DNA testing can’t prove innocent people have been executed?

If abortion ever comes before the Supreme Court, Justice Alito promises to approach the issue with an open mind. I repeat: with an open mind. George Bush did not put him on the Supreme Court to please the Christian Right. How could he have, when clearly Alito has no beliefs about the issue of abortion. None at all. If you have a book on abortion that you could send him, he would appreciate it, because he has never, ever given the slightest thought to the issue of abortion. In fact, if you could send him a doctor who could, in plain English, explain to Judge Alito what abortion is, that would be wonderful and he would be ever so grateful.

I can just imagine him jumping out of his chair after a presentation, “by golly– I was wrong! I think a woman does have the right to terminate a pregnancy.”

That, at least, is the possibility he asks us to imagine. Is this a lie? Would Jesus lie?

Posted on

“Constructionist” Judges

Some opponents of our permissive abortion laws like to point to “activist” judges who read “new” rights into the constitution, and thereby helped cause the moral decline of America.

I just realized that one problem with this argument is that abortion was not illegal in 1776. It wasn’t. Britain passed some of first anti-abortion laws in 1803, and the U.S. followed, but abortion was a widespread practice of midwives and doctors until the late 19th century, when, as part of a backlash against suffrage, and partly as a humanitarian movement, it was steadily restricted.

Let’s hold the word “widespread” with caution: nobody can know with certainty just how common the practice was.  But we do know the other thing: it was not in any criminal code anywhere until after the Constitution was written.

So if a nominee to the Supreme Court was determined to divest the court of rulings that were not faithful to the vision of constitutional government held by the founding fathers, he might just come to the conclusion that, as in 1776, the state has no business intruding into women’s bodies.

[added May 2008] I suppose Mr. Alito or Mr. Roberts or– God help us– Clarence Thomas– might respond that advances in science and medicine since 1776 have enlarged our understanding of life inside the womb and so on, and therefore justifies a more restrictive ruling on the issue. Well, well, well– isn’t that exactly the argument of those non strict contructionalist judges who believe the Constitution is a living document that needs to be understood in the light of history and science. Maybe, given today’s realities, the 2nd amendment doesn’t make any sense any more.

And maybe now I understand why the Supreme Court hasn’t done anything to stop the use of torture by the U.S. government: in 1776, Trial by Ordeal was not so far removed from normal judicial practice.

[2022-05]

The argument here stands in need of clarification and refinement.  The Supreme Court in Roe vs Wade ruled that no state may infringe upon a right of “privacy” that it held was implicit in the Constitution.  In 2022, the Supreme Court seems ready to say it was incorrect about that: there is no implicit right to privacy.  That’s the actual Constitutional issue.   It’s just clear that many evangelical Christians are under the mistaken belief that abortion was not legal in “the good old days”, before the nation was swept by a tide of immorality and sensualism, drug use, long-haired hippies, and Al Gore.