Friday, February 24, 2006
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban & The Fact the Libs are Leaving Out: The Truth
It did get me thinking.
Though I am as pro-life as they come, it did seem odd – the way that Slate framed the debate - that Congress could make a finding that partial-birth abortion was NEVER necessary to “preserve the mother’s health,” if only because of the questions it raises about an incident where it actually was. (e.g. Would a woman about to die have time to reach the Supreme Court regarding whether or not the procedure is necessary?) This is not to say that I don’t believe the science that it is not ever necessary, but Slate – for a moment – made me question my certainty.
Slate - for those of you who aren’t familiar with it - is a webmag (web-rag?) I now believe I read only to aggravate myself once daily. Its analysis is often entertaining and sometimes a bit convincing – until you hold it up to the truth.
After reading numerous articles – all in liberal rags – that take issue with the language in the Act Congress passed against partial-birth abortion, I decided it was time to do what no journalist had seemingly done before: read the Act.
CHAPTER 74 -- PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS
§1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited
(a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. This subsection takes effect 1 day after the date of enactment of this chapter.
Now, a cold reading of any article in today’s newspaper, webmag, web-rag or what-have-you, would have you believe that the libs really don’t like partial-birth abortion either, that this is just about saving the life of the mother. The argument that they are REALLY hiding behind is not the life of the mother, per se, but – more broadly – “woman’s health” – meaning, if it is better for her health to have this kind of abortion it should be permissible. If it makes her more comfortable, why not deliver all but the head of a fully developed child that is able to feel pain and puncture it’s skull with scissors and suck its brain out with a vacuum?! This isn’t an issue over an innocent child – Slate is right! It has nothing to do whatsoever with whether or not you oppose abortion – this is an issue of WOMEN’S HEALTH.
This is just another attempt to rally women who fear the government “controlling their bodies” and create unmerited hysteria. The problem isn’t that women are too well-informed of these so-called rights.
It’s that they don’t read enough.
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
What will they GUT Next?
The greens have adopted a label that seems to be helping them frame the debate. Whenever anyone attempts to question or suggest reform of either bill, they are said to be GUTTING the Act. When Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA) introduced the Threatened and Endangered Species Reform Act, green groups sent a barrage of email messages labeled “Stop Pombo from Gutting the Endangered Species Act.” Rather than considering the argument that the bill makes: that involving property owners in conservation is intrinsic to recovering species, it saw the Act as nothing short of an attack on it’s most sacred text.
Today, Slate has borrowed the term as well: "Alito and Roberts Gut the Clean Water Act.” In its article about the current cases before the Supreme Court regarding CWA - an article that fails to so much as reference why Alito - or Roberts, for that matter – are “gutting” anything - the arguments on both sides are briefly detailed. It draws little conclusion except that the Court is bound for certain changes now that Alito and Roberts are on the bench. So how exactly did either Justice advocate gutting CWA? Don't expect this article to tell you.
The arguments that were made – or at least suggested by the Chief and Associate Justice's questioning, as well as Justice Scalia’s – was that the government is claiming sweeping authority by saying it has the right to regulate even non-navigable tributaries (areas that may collect water from wetlands and possibly drain into navigable waters).
But what does this mean? Let’s use an example. Let’s say you have a ditch in your garden that fills with rain water, and that ditch drains off of the sidewalk and into the gutter and the gutter eventually drains into a river. According the government, you can be held culpable under CWA because – by some stretch of the imagination - that can be seen as a tributary to a navigable body of water. But – as the Justices in question rightly asked – where does a navigable body of water begin? Does it begin in your garden? Does it begin in the gutter? Is a puddle a "water of the United States"? What about a storm drain? Are they trying to give polluters the opportunity to go farther upstream to avoid being punished (as Justice Stephens suggests) or are they merely asking the right questions? How far does the government's regulatory power go?
Rather than hide behind the argument that even asking these questions is a veiled attempt to GUT CWA, why not consider the questions that are raised? I guess it’s easier to criticize the questioners than it is to answer the questions– as Slate, once again, so eloquently illustrates.
Thursday, February 09, 2006
The Blame Game...
By now, images of the riots, death and destruction caused by the publication of cartoons depicting Muhammad as a terrorist have spread all over the Internet. Newspaper headlines decry that it's a "Global Crisis." Flags burning, signs calling for the "slaying" of those who insult Islam, children holding posters calling for beheadings of "infidels" are everywhere, depicting a culture that is far different from our own.
How many images or cartoons have expressed opposition, hatred, intolerance or distate towards Christianity or other world religions or cultures? How many riots can you recall in this country? How many flags have you burned because you were offended? How many beheadings have you called for? If the riots have taught us anything it is that we are dealing with a very different and very dangerous people.
But not according to The Nation.
No, this is just another excuse for the media to spread it's evil lies about the dangers of radical Islam. These people have a "right to be offended" that excuses all of this. One columnist writes, "But whether or not the publishing of the cartoons was a reckless provocation, and whether or not the violent response was manipulated by Islamists, we must come to terms with the conditions that created the tinderbox." In other words: America is somehow at the bottom of this. We've brought this on ourselves. President Bush and FOX News are behind it all. When all else fails, blame America (and if you can get in a jab at Bill O'Rielly, even better). Even though the cartoons were published in a Danish newspaper... America and our "irresponsible conservative" media (yeah right) must be at the root of all this evil.
While I agree with the Nation (hell may have just frozen over) that people have the right to be offended, we should ask ourselves what is too much. (If this isn't, what is?) We should learn something from what we are seeing.
I'd say it's taught me a thing or two.