The aftermath of last week’s California Supreme Court decision to uphold proposition 8, barring homosexual marriages in the state of California has been widespread. It has been a blow to the homosexual agenda across the country, possibly going so far as to shift support away from a bill in the New York state senate that would have allowed homosexual marriages in the Empire State.
The outcry against the ruling has centered on the idea that homosexuals’ rights are being taken away. This is, frankly, wrong. The idea of equal rights is not enumerated anywhere in our nations governing documents. It is an imagined concept, intended to weaken the rule of law, in general, and to force an abandonment of societal standards and mores.
The closest representation in the Constitution is the equal protections clause of the fourteenth amendment, which mandates that no state “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The intent, and, in general, the application, has been to guarantee that the laws apply equally to everyone, regardless of the original factor of race, but later applied to gender, as well.
The inaptly named Center for Constitutional Rights argues that “rights to dignity and family are inherent.” While the right to family is a natural right, the right to marriage is a legal right. The difference is that natural rights cannot be infringed by legal limitations. Family is family, and enjoys family relationships regardless of whether the law recognizes them. Marriage, on the other hand, is primarily a legal status. As a legal right, the government, by the power of the people, is within its constraints when it limits who may marry, as long as the standards apply equally to everyone.
The argument that we should be able to marry whomever we like, or else we are being denied equal rights is a dangerous argument. If it becomes the standard for marriage that liberals want it to become, then it invalidates laws barring marital practices such as polygamy or incest.
The right to marry potentially exists for everyone, gay or straight. There are requirements for the exercise of that right, however. Among those are the requirements that you be mentally fit to marry (i.e. mentally handicapped people are generally not allowed to marry), you must be of legal age, some states require a blood test, and most states require you to be sober when you get married (as illustrated in What Happens in Vegas, Nevada is an exception to that rule…).
If you meet the requirements, then you can marry, within certain limits. All of the states limit who may marry to non-relatives (or people separated by a sufficient amount to be considered non-relatives). They all ban multiple spouses, and marriage to (or between) children. So, it seems, statutes prohibiting same-sex marriages would follow as an acceptable limitation. They do not bar homosexuals from marriage; they simply do not permit them to marry each other.
This leads to a rather obvious conclusion that their “rights” are not being taken away, because they didn’t exist in the first place. They had as much right to marry each other as they had the right to marry their mother. Was that right taken away too?
Oh, another natural right, unassailable by any law ever written, is the right to stupidity, which some people seem so insistent on exercising in public…
Vos postulo scio verum, veritas vos liberat!
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Monday, May 11, 2009
Building on the Foundation of Rightwing Extremism...
As discussed a couple of weeks ago, the government is building on the reports broadly defining radical extremists. Now, those rightwing abortion opponents, returning veterans, and conservative leaders who focus on single issues are being targeted with the first of many potential bills seeking to remove their constitutional rights-without a trial, or any other form of due process.
H.R. 2159, introduced by crazed Republican Peter King, of New York's 3rd Congressional District, would allow the Attorney General to bar any known (or reasonably suspected-whatever that means...) terrorist from purchasing a firearm, or revoke any gun licenses that may already be granted. The bill provides for the Attorney General to bear the sole discretion in whether to bar the purchase.
If an individual who the A.G. chooses to prevent from buying a gun appeals the denial, the attorney general is under no obligation to provide information supporting the ban if "the Attorney General determines that disclosure of the information would likely compromise national security." This would effectively prevent any real appeal of the decision, as the petitioner's attorney would be unable to form a legal challenge without knowing what basis was used to prevent the purchase.
The bill applies so broadly that the Attorney General could bar individuals from buying guns if they have engaged in any activity to prepare for a terrorist attack. Without a definition, the Attorney General would be able to argue that stockpiling food or building a safe room in one's house is an indication that they are aware of terrorist activity, and that they are preparing for a terrorist act. Those individuals would not be allowed to buy guns. Further, it includes the the incredibly broad "related to terrorism" in the activities that would allow the A.G. to bar the purchase. As such, first responders who engage in rescue activities related to terrorism could be barred from purchasing a firearm.
In essence, this bill would allow the Attorney General to sidestep the second amendment at his sole discretion, and blame it all on the war on terror. With this administration's boldness in identifying a broad class of people and organizations as public threats in its first four months, it is frightening to see that they are pushing for the right to begin punishing those people before any criminal activity is exhibited. Apparently, Eric Holder is (or employs) a pre-cog, a la "Minority Report," that allows him to know whether an individual is going to engage in activity related to terrorism, even if the activity is otherwise legal.
This is a dangerous, not to mention unconstitutional, precedent that would inflict incredible damage on the 14th amendment right to due process under the law if allowed to stand. Sadly, four of the seven co-sponsors are Republicans, who are supposed to work from a platform which protects the second amendment rights of Americans. One of them, Mark Kirk, is considering a run for Senate against Roland Burris, to fill President Obama's former seat.
A note on Representative Peter King: this is the same Republican who proposed the bill that would require a phone camera to make a loud sound every time a picture was snapped-an effort to prevent people from taking pictures of people without their knowledge, and disrupt weddings, graduations, tours, museums, and so forth, with cameras that cannot be silenced...
And... a note on gun control legislation: when owning guns is outlawed, only outlaws own guns...
Vos postulo scio verum, veritas vos liberat!
H.R. 2159, introduced by crazed Republican Peter King, of New York's 3rd Congressional District, would allow the Attorney General to bar any known (or reasonably suspected-whatever that means...) terrorist from purchasing a firearm, or revoke any gun licenses that may already be granted. The bill provides for the Attorney General to bear the sole discretion in whether to bar the purchase.
If an individual who the A.G. chooses to prevent from buying a gun appeals the denial, the attorney general is under no obligation to provide information supporting the ban if "the Attorney General determines that disclosure of the information would likely compromise national security." This would effectively prevent any real appeal of the decision, as the petitioner's attorney would be unable to form a legal challenge without knowing what basis was used to prevent the purchase.
The bill applies so broadly that the Attorney General could bar individuals from buying guns if they have engaged in any activity to prepare for a terrorist attack. Without a definition, the Attorney General would be able to argue that stockpiling food or building a safe room in one's house is an indication that they are aware of terrorist activity, and that they are preparing for a terrorist act. Those individuals would not be allowed to buy guns. Further, it includes the the incredibly broad "related to terrorism" in the activities that would allow the A.G. to bar the purchase. As such, first responders who engage in rescue activities related to terrorism could be barred from purchasing a firearm.
In essence, this bill would allow the Attorney General to sidestep the second amendment at his sole discretion, and blame it all on the war on terror. With this administration's boldness in identifying a broad class of people and organizations as public threats in its first four months, it is frightening to see that they are pushing for the right to begin punishing those people before any criminal activity is exhibited. Apparently, Eric Holder is (or employs) a pre-cog, a la "Minority Report," that allows him to know whether an individual is going to engage in activity related to terrorism, even if the activity is otherwise legal.
This is a dangerous, not to mention unconstitutional, precedent that would inflict incredible damage on the 14th amendment right to due process under the law if allowed to stand. Sadly, four of the seven co-sponsors are Republicans, who are supposed to work from a platform which protects the second amendment rights of Americans. One of them, Mark Kirk, is considering a run for Senate against Roland Burris, to fill President Obama's former seat.
A note on Representative Peter King: this is the same Republican who proposed the bill that would require a phone camera to make a loud sound every time a picture was snapped-an effort to prevent people from taking pictures of people without their knowledge, and disrupt weddings, graduations, tours, museums, and so forth, with cameras that cannot be silenced...
And... a note on gun control legislation: when owning guns is outlawed, only outlaws own guns...
Vos postulo scio verum, veritas vos liberat!
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
The Specter of a Turncoat
Today, five-term Republican Senator Arlen Specter, the longest serving Senator in Pennsylvania's history announced that he will be seeking reelection . . . as a Democrat. In one fell swoop, he threw off his bonds, and threw the 2010 Senate race wide open. Oh wait, it already was wide open.
As the latest Liberal Republican Senator to leave the GOP, Specter finally acknowledged that he is, as he has been called for several years now, a RINO (Republican-In-Name-Only). Citing the Republican Party's shift towards conservatism, and the fact that 200,000 Pennsylvania voters switched to the Democrat Party last year, Specter said that his philosophy was no longer in line with the GOP (which the rest of the GOP has known for a while).
Apparently, Specter forgot that many of those thousands of voters were part of the movement to stop Hillary from getting elected (though it seems to be to our detriment), not to become Democrats.
Regardless, now that he is running as a Democrat, the odds of other Democrats staying in the race may drop, since he already has support from Harry Reid and Barack Obama. The 2010 Pennsylvania race was already being billed as the most likely GOP seat to switch parties, and it is still up in the air. Pat Toomey is popular with Republicans, but whether he will pick up independent support will determine whether the GOP regains the seat.
As the latest Liberal Republican Senator to leave the GOP, Specter finally acknowledged that he is, as he has been called for several years now, a RINO (Republican-In-Name-Only). Citing the Republican Party's shift towards conservatism, and the fact that 200,000 Pennsylvania voters switched to the Democrat Party last year, Specter said that his philosophy was no longer in line with the GOP (which the rest of the GOP has known for a while).
Apparently, Specter forgot that many of those thousands of voters were part of the movement to stop Hillary from getting elected (though it seems to be to our detriment), not to become Democrats.
Regardless, now that he is running as a Democrat, the odds of other Democrats staying in the race may drop, since he already has support from Harry Reid and Barack Obama. The 2010 Pennsylvania race was already being billed as the most likely GOP seat to switch parties, and it is still up in the air. Pat Toomey is popular with Republicans, but whether he will pick up independent support will determine whether the GOP regains the seat.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
A New Political War?
Perhaps there is something to the popular allegations that the Obama administration is building concentration camps for conservatives, after all...
A report issued by the Department of Homeland Security on April 7th may just lend some credibility to the internet speculations that FEMA camps were being constructed that could be used to house Republicans, Anti-abortion activists, or even the protesters who gathered yesterday to decry the insane pace of government spending under the liberals in Washington.
The nine page report, entitled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," was distributed to local and state law enforcement agencies across the country last week. In it, the Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division of DHS and the FBI conclude that "rightwing extremist" groups are capitalizing on the economic downturn and the election of the first african american president to recruit new members.
Reading through the report could lead the reader to believe that organizations like the Minutemen (who volunteer to patrol the U.S.-Mexican border to prevent illegal immigration) are rightwing extremist organizations. It implies that groups that advocate for the right to bear arms (the NRA, for example) are on the verge of being dangerous threats to the federal government, as well. Also targeted in the report are groups that view communism or the U.N. as a threat to U.S. sovereignty (They neglected to mention, interestingly,.groups that view the rising threat of radical Islam, however).
DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano defended the report, which also opines that returning veterans may be a terrorist threat, by claiming the DHS would not engage in any ideological profiling. That seems to contradict the report which based its analysis of threatening organizations on the ideological beliefs of the organizations.
A footnote on page 2 of the report states that "Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups . . . that are primarily hate-oriented . . . and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups or individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."
By that notion, National Right to Life could even be a rightwing extremist organization. Any individual who is outspoken on a single issue may be viewed as a security threat. Equally concerning is that grouips that advocate states-rights could easily be construed as rejecting federal authority.
In short, this report seems to hold the authority of the federal government as absolute, and the tone seems much more centered on preservation of the federal government than on protecting the rights of American citizens. Yesterday, top Democrats even joined the outcry, raising the spectre that the ideas discussed in the report could pose a threat to civil liberties.
Even traditional left-wing powerhouse organizations, such as the ACLU, have expressed concerns about the report. One of their attorneys said that "the right-wing report is focused far too much on rhetoric and things people say and things people think rather than on criminal activity and the people involved in criminal activity . . . [Law enforcement doesn't] need to invent threats that they have no factual basis for supporting."
The purpose of the report is not inherently clear, and one can easily read into it a political purpose, which would give backing to government action against conservative activists and organizations. It could also be aimed at ginning up support for the latest gun control legislation being floated in Congress, which would require registration for all firearms, in spite of the fact that registration rarely, if ever, prevents or helps solve a crime (but that is for another post).
For their part, Republicans have spoken out against the negative characterization of veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, calling on the administration and other members of Congress to refute the stereotyping as unfair.
For my part, I'm probably on some rightwing extremist watch list now, because I've questioned an agency of the federal government . . . Oh, and I wrote a letter to the White House questioning the President's judgment on doctors' rights of conscience . . . I should know better . . .
Vos postulo scio verum, veritas vos liberat!
A report issued by the Department of Homeland Security on April 7th may just lend some credibility to the internet speculations that FEMA camps were being constructed that could be used to house Republicans, Anti-abortion activists, or even the protesters who gathered yesterday to decry the insane pace of government spending under the liberals in Washington.
The nine page report, entitled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," was distributed to local and state law enforcement agencies across the country last week. In it, the Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division of DHS and the FBI conclude that "rightwing extremist" groups are capitalizing on the economic downturn and the election of the first african american president to recruit new members.
Reading through the report could lead the reader to believe that organizations like the Minutemen (who volunteer to patrol the U.S.-Mexican border to prevent illegal immigration) are rightwing extremist organizations. It implies that groups that advocate for the right to bear arms (the NRA, for example) are on the verge of being dangerous threats to the federal government, as well. Also targeted in the report are groups that view communism or the U.N. as a threat to U.S. sovereignty (They neglected to mention, interestingly,.groups that view the rising threat of radical Islam, however).
DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano defended the report, which also opines that returning veterans may be a terrorist threat, by claiming the DHS would not engage in any ideological profiling. That seems to contradict the report which based its analysis of threatening organizations on the ideological beliefs of the organizations.
A footnote on page 2 of the report states that "Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups . . . that are primarily hate-oriented . . . and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups or individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."
By that notion, National Right to Life could even be a rightwing extremist organization. Any individual who is outspoken on a single issue may be viewed as a security threat. Equally concerning is that grouips that advocate states-rights could easily be construed as rejecting federal authority.
In short, this report seems to hold the authority of the federal government as absolute, and the tone seems much more centered on preservation of the federal government than on protecting the rights of American citizens. Yesterday, top Democrats even joined the outcry, raising the spectre that the ideas discussed in the report could pose a threat to civil liberties.
Even traditional left-wing powerhouse organizations, such as the ACLU, have expressed concerns about the report. One of their attorneys said that "the right-wing report is focused far too much on rhetoric and things people say and things people think rather than on criminal activity and the people involved in criminal activity . . . [Law enforcement doesn't] need to invent threats that they have no factual basis for supporting."
The purpose of the report is not inherently clear, and one can easily read into it a political purpose, which would give backing to government action against conservative activists and organizations. It could also be aimed at ginning up support for the latest gun control legislation being floated in Congress, which would require registration for all firearms, in spite of the fact that registration rarely, if ever, prevents or helps solve a crime (but that is for another post).
For their part, Republicans have spoken out against the negative characterization of veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, calling on the administration and other members of Congress to refute the stereotyping as unfair.
For my part, I'm probably on some rightwing extremist watch list now, because I've questioned an agency of the federal government . . . Oh, and I wrote a letter to the White House questioning the President's judgment on doctors' rights of conscience . . . I should know better . . .
Vos postulo scio verum, veritas vos liberat!
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
An Unpatriotic Administration?
"It is easy for the other side to advocate for higher taxes because, you know what? They don't pay them." --House GOP Whip Eric Cantor
I don't know if you recall, but during the campaign, Vice President Joe Biden was quoted as saying paying taxes is our patriotic duty... However, now that they Obama/Biden administration is doing business, they are trying to fill the halls of government with people who have evaded their taxes. Should we assume, then, that they view Daschle and Treasury Secretary Geithner as un-American for not paying their taxes? Perhaps, it is understood that many Democrats are categorically unpatriotic.
No, it is just amazing that Obama has brought crooked Chicago politics with him to the White House. His cabinet nominations have included several individuals of questionable judgment. Here is a brief list of the problems that should alarm us:
- Attorney General Eric Holder, while serving as acting A.G. in the final days of the Clinton Administration, where he served as a Deputy A.G., advised President Clinton that he should pardon Marc Rich, who had been charged with tax evasion, as well as illegal trading with Iran.
- Tom Daschle, who just removed himself from consideration for Secretary of Health and Human Services, owed the government $128,000 in taxes, which he only paid after he realized that people just might have a problem with that.
- Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who is now in charge of the Internal Revenue Service, dodged his taxes for four years while working for the I.M.F., in spite of their annual trainings explaining exactly how to file payroll taxes, since they were not automatically deducted.
The most disturbing, of course, is Timothy Geithner, who was confirmed by the Senate, even though it seems like you wouldn't want someone running the IRS who spent four years not paying significant portions of his taxes.
Two weeks ago, with the first full day of the Obama administration underway, I was cautiously optimistic about the next four years. Unfortunately, the caution appears to be well justified, as it seems that Obama is choosing to surround himself with several advisors of questionable character.
So far, there are only two picks that I really like, Defense Secretary Gates, and his new Commerce pick, Judd Gregg. The cabinet posts that I think are good or excellent are:
- Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood
- Secretary of Defense Robert Gates
- Energy Secretary Steven Chu
- Interior Secretary Ken Salazar
- Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki
- Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack
- Commerce Secretary nominee Senator Judd Gregg, who is a fan of reducing the size of government, and will undoubtedly be a vocal small-government advocate in an otherwise very big government administration.
The rest of his picks are either mediocre, or, in the cases of Hilda Solis (Labor), Geithner (Treasury), Holder (Attorney General), very poor choices. Hopefully, the more sensible voices will lead the Obama administration, but his track record is to trend with the liberals.
More later...
Vos postulo scio verum, veritas vos liberat!
I don't know if you recall, but during the campaign, Vice President Joe Biden was quoted as saying paying taxes is our patriotic duty... However, now that they Obama/Biden administration is doing business, they are trying to fill the halls of government with people who have evaded their taxes. Should we assume, then, that they view Daschle and Treasury Secretary Geithner as un-American for not paying their taxes? Perhaps, it is understood that many Democrats are categorically unpatriotic.
No, it is just amazing that Obama has brought crooked Chicago politics with him to the White House. His cabinet nominations have included several individuals of questionable judgment. Here is a brief list of the problems that should alarm us:
- Attorney General Eric Holder, while serving as acting A.G. in the final days of the Clinton Administration, where he served as a Deputy A.G., advised President Clinton that he should pardon Marc Rich, who had been charged with tax evasion, as well as illegal trading with Iran.
- Tom Daschle, who just removed himself from consideration for Secretary of Health and Human Services, owed the government $128,000 in taxes, which he only paid after he realized that people just might have a problem with that.
- Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who is now in charge of the Internal Revenue Service, dodged his taxes for four years while working for the I.M.F., in spite of their annual trainings explaining exactly how to file payroll taxes, since they were not automatically deducted.
The most disturbing, of course, is Timothy Geithner, who was confirmed by the Senate, even though it seems like you wouldn't want someone running the IRS who spent four years not paying significant portions of his taxes.
Two weeks ago, with the first full day of the Obama administration underway, I was cautiously optimistic about the next four years. Unfortunately, the caution appears to be well justified, as it seems that Obama is choosing to surround himself with several advisors of questionable character.
So far, there are only two picks that I really like, Defense Secretary Gates, and his new Commerce pick, Judd Gregg. The cabinet posts that I think are good or excellent are:
- Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood
- Secretary of Defense Robert Gates
- Energy Secretary Steven Chu
- Interior Secretary Ken Salazar
- Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki
- Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack
- Commerce Secretary nominee Senator Judd Gregg, who is a fan of reducing the size of government, and will undoubtedly be a vocal small-government advocate in an otherwise very big government administration.
The rest of his picks are either mediocre, or, in the cases of Hilda Solis (Labor), Geithner (Treasury), Holder (Attorney General), very poor choices. Hopefully, the more sensible voices will lead the Obama administration, but his track record is to trend with the liberals.
More later...
Vos postulo scio verum, veritas vos liberat!
Sunday, February 1, 2009
That's the Problem, Doofus...
President Obama and the Democrats in Washington don't understand economic stimulus. They think that by throwing a lot of money around and calling it stimulus, they will somehow magically revive our economy. Oh, and it would be perfect if it is timed to happen really close to the mid-term elections... Right?
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is trying to pressure Senate Republicans not to stand up to this big government spending atrocity by saying that “If we don’t [pass the bill], it’s not our fault, we’re trying." He says it like it's a bad thing if they don't pass the bill.
I'd like to remind you that the other half of the "emergency" recovery money was only released this month, and has yet to have been spent. President Obama and his Obamites are screaming that we need this economic stimulus now! We can't afford to wait. But, over the next two years, only about $250 billion of the $820 billion package will be spent on economic recovery. They still have $300 billion in TARP funds to spend to stimulate the economy.
Doesn't it make sense to use that first, and then see where we need to go from there?
So, my hope is that the Senate Republicans (and hopefully a few Democrats) will have the sense to follow the lead of their colleagues in the House in opposing this ill-timed and grossly inadequate piece of legislation.
Senator Reid should be begging the GOP to help him save the Democrats from the mess that they're trying to jump into by passing this bill, not threatening them with some make-believe reason to be ashamed if the bill doesn't pass. Of course, he could be heard as saying that if this debacle is avoided, the Republicans' should get the credit, because the Democrats sure aren't trying to dodge it.
By the way, I'm writing to my Congressman to thank him for having the sense to oppose H.R. 1 last week. He was one of 11 Democrats who had the audacity to oppose the bill. Please consider doing the same if your representative opposed it, as well. And, contact your Senators to ask them to oppose this massive government growth plan when it comes to the floor, and to a vote, later this week.
Vos postulo scio verum, veritas vos liberat!
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is trying to pressure Senate Republicans not to stand up to this big government spending atrocity by saying that “If we don’t [pass the bill], it’s not our fault, we’re trying." He says it like it's a bad thing if they don't pass the bill.
I'd like to remind you that the other half of the "emergency" recovery money was only released this month, and has yet to have been spent. President Obama and his Obamites are screaming that we need this economic stimulus now! We can't afford to wait. But, over the next two years, only about $250 billion of the $820 billion package will be spent on economic recovery. They still have $300 billion in TARP funds to spend to stimulate the economy.
Doesn't it make sense to use that first, and then see where we need to go from there?
So, my hope is that the Senate Republicans (and hopefully a few Democrats) will have the sense to follow the lead of their colleagues in the House in opposing this ill-timed and grossly inadequate piece of legislation.
Senator Reid should be begging the GOP to help him save the Democrats from the mess that they're trying to jump into by passing this bill, not threatening them with some make-believe reason to be ashamed if the bill doesn't pass. Of course, he could be heard as saying that if this debacle is avoided, the Republicans' should get the credit, because the Democrats sure aren't trying to dodge it.
By the way, I'm writing to my Congressman to thank him for having the sense to oppose H.R. 1 last week. He was one of 11 Democrats who had the audacity to oppose the bill. Please consider doing the same if your representative opposed it, as well. And, contact your Senators to ask them to oppose this massive government growth plan when it comes to the floor, and to a vote, later this week.
Vos postulo scio verum, veritas vos liberat!
Thursday, January 29, 2009
The Freedom of Choice Act
Among the first official administration positions set by President Obama was his support for the Freedom of Choice Act. He has been focusing heavily on the $825 bn. economic recovery plan, and lost in the media coverage of that debate is his only other legislation, to date, the Freedom of Choice Act. This legislation, if passed, would be the biggest power grab by the federal government since the 1960s Not-so-Great Society legislation produced by Lyndon Johnson. It would federalize abortion laws and standards, forcing a far-left abortion standard on the entire country. Among the specifics, the FOCA would:
- Bar states from enacting parental notification laws, so that minors can get abortions without parental consent.
- Repeal the Partial Birth Abortion Ban of 2003 (at the federal level)
- Disallow partial birth abortion bans at the state level
- Provide federal funding for abortions in the United States
- Kill any informed consent laws
and
- Strip legal protections from any health care providers, or institutions, who refuse to perform abortion procedures, including Catholic or other religious-based hospitals.
Sadly, the new president's history has shown that of the very few things we can confidently say we know about him, his disdain for human life is undeniable. He has always voted in favor of abortion, and when the Born Alive Act, which mandates that a doctor try to save any babies that survive an abortion attempt, came up for votes in the Illinois Senate, he voted either "present" or "no" each time. So, it comes as no surprise that he wasted no time before announcing his support of this legislation.
The FOCA will, in one fell swoop, undo all of the legislative work that the pro-life movement has spent decades accomplishing. Further, it is almost certainly indicative of the standards that he will apply to any judges that he appoints during his administration. It is important that we voice our opposition to the Freedom of Choice Act. Call, write, e-mail, and/or visit your Representatives and Senators and ask them to actively oppose this potential legislation.
When contacting them, here is some direction in what you may want to say. Cite the 14th amendment rights of states to enact legislation regarding issues not falling under the Constitution (abortion doesnot, contrary to what the president is trying to argue). Second, cite the sanctity of human life at all levels. As far as the informed consent and parental notification portions, cite the dangers of allowing a minor to obtain a potentially dangerous medical procedure without the knowledge of her parents (it would be among the few, if not the only, medical procedures that could be performed on minors without guardian consent), and cite the danger of obtaining an elective surgery without being informed of the potential risks involved. Finally, cite the 1st amendment protection for the free exercise of religion, and that it would be a violation of first amendment rights to punish an organization or individual for not condoning or performing a procedure that would violate deeply held religious beliefs.
Your voice makes a difference. Feel free to contact me if you need any guidance in finding your representatives or senators, or would like help drafting your communications.
Vos postulo scio verum, veritas vos liberat!
- Bar states from enacting parental notification laws, so that minors can get abortions without parental consent.
- Repeal the Partial Birth Abortion Ban of 2003 (at the federal level)
- Disallow partial birth abortion bans at the state level
- Provide federal funding for abortions in the United States
- Kill any informed consent laws
and
- Strip legal protections from any health care providers, or institutions, who refuse to perform abortion procedures, including Catholic or other religious-based hospitals.
Sadly, the new president's history has shown that of the very few things we can confidently say we know about him, his disdain for human life is undeniable. He has always voted in favor of abortion, and when the Born Alive Act, which mandates that a doctor try to save any babies that survive an abortion attempt, came up for votes in the Illinois Senate, he voted either "present" or "no" each time. So, it comes as no surprise that he wasted no time before announcing his support of this legislation.
The FOCA will, in one fell swoop, undo all of the legislative work that the pro-life movement has spent decades accomplishing. Further, it is almost certainly indicative of the standards that he will apply to any judges that he appoints during his administration. It is important that we voice our opposition to the Freedom of Choice Act. Call, write, e-mail, and/or visit your Representatives and Senators and ask them to actively oppose this potential legislation.
When contacting them, here is some direction in what you may want to say. Cite the 14th amendment rights of states to enact legislation regarding issues not falling under the Constitution (abortion doesnot, contrary to what the president is trying to argue). Second, cite the sanctity of human life at all levels. As far as the informed consent and parental notification portions, cite the dangers of allowing a minor to obtain a potentially dangerous medical procedure without the knowledge of her parents (it would be among the few, if not the only, medical procedures that could be performed on minors without guardian consent), and cite the danger of obtaining an elective surgery without being informed of the potential risks involved. Finally, cite the 1st amendment protection for the free exercise of religion, and that it would be a violation of first amendment rights to punish an organization or individual for not condoning or performing a procedure that would violate deeply held religious beliefs.
Your voice makes a difference. Feel free to contact me if you need any guidance in finding your representatives or senators, or would like help drafting your communications.
Vos postulo scio verum, veritas vos liberat!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
