Posts Tagged ‘Abortion’

The “Susan G. Komen for the Cure” Flip-Flop Flap

Friday, February 3rd, 2012

Drawing a Dotted Line?

I’ve been watching the latest uproar over the Susan G. Komen for the Cure and Planned Parenthood flap, and I’ve been wondering how long it would be until the Komen group back-tracked and started to retrace its steps back to the left.  You see, I’ve known about this group for many years, and once had some involvement with it when a dear friend of mine, a fellow college student, was stricken with breast cancer and all that comes after.  She was the wife of a soldier, and the mother of three children, and in her mid-thirties, she was diagnosed with stage four breast cancer.  She underwent surgery and chemotherapy, and went through all the trauma in her life and with her family associated with the disease, but ultimately, five years after she had first screened clear of cancer following her treatment, the cancer was back with a vengeance and in the space of two years, she was gone.

It was in this context that I first became aware of the Komen foundation, and it was not long after that my friend became aware of their ties to Planned Parenthood. Like many Christians, she was appalled, and she decided to look for other ways to help the cause to which she was now tied.  It’s a dilemma many Christians have faced, as they wish to contribute to the search for a cure to breast cancer, but like so many good causes, there are often back-side politics not viewable by the public.  This week, when the Komen outfit announced that it would no longer give money to Planned Parenthood, they said they were doing so because that organization is under investigation, but I knew when they said that they would soon backtrack as the abortion profiteers at Planned Parenthood wouldn’t be able to let it go easily.

The problem is this, and I think it’s no more difficult than this: The Komen outfit needs to disentangle itself from Planned Parenthood.  There are too many other paths available to mammogram screenings without relying on Planned Parenthood, an organization which now turns out, contrary to what was said in the press earlier Friday, does not provide mammography at any of their facilities, but merely refers women to places that do. Part of the controversy arises because the Susan G Komen folks have not been forthcoming all along.  I remember when my friend discovered that Komen was sending some money to Planned Parenthood, and she was disappointed to say the least.  Her question to me at the time had been: “Why would they drag this ugly political issue with such profound moral implications into what should be a straight-forward pursuit of a cure for Breast Cancer?”

It’s true, and I think it’s a good question that Komen for the Cure should be asked.  After all, Planned Parenthood is not specialist in breast cancer, whatever they may claim, and it’s outlandish and foolish for Komen to maintain this relationship.  When they first announced their withdrawal of financial grants to Planned Parenthood, their donations soared.  This should give you some idea of how many people have withheld their support due to the politicization of the Foundation by virtue of the inclusion of funds to Planned Parenthood.  Too many people have sincere questions of conscience with the divisive issue that is  abortion to simply ignore the funding of Planned Parenthood.  If Komen was institutionally smart, they’d run from Planned Parenthood, but of course, they will not, and now they are clearly going back on the issue.

They point to three clinics at which mammograms are done, but as the story at demonstrates, there are no mammography facilities at those clinics, and they simply refer women on to other facilities.  Surely, Komen could do this without the abortion provider as a middle-man.  This entire episode will wind up causing more trouble for Komen, and it’s sad, because they do some tremendous work, but they should take greater care not to cause some to abstain from involvement.  This entire episode does more to ultimately hurt their cause than to help it, and knowing the suffering so many women face as a result of this horrendous disease, I can’t imagine why they would continue to do anything that would hinder their pursuit of a cure, but now it seems rather than serving the interests of their noble cause, they are instead buckling to the radical Planned Parenthood.  People of faith who care deeply about the search for a cure to breast cancer are right to wonder about their organizational priorities.

Why Is John Boehner Sabotaging the Conservatives[Again]?

Thursday, December 1st, 2011

Embracing Obama: John Boehner Sells Out

It’s become more and more difficult to believe that John Boehner isn’t representative of some sort of progressive fifth column in the Republican party. The longer this goes on, the more obvious it becomes that Boehner and his lackeys in the House Republican leadership are simply giving away anything and everything, while sabotaging their conservative members and their legislative goals.  This time, they’ve tucked some anti-abortion provisions into the spending bill in order to push conservatives to join in approving the bill.  The basic idea is cynical DC-insider garbage: Bring in the pro-life lobby to harangue conservative members on behalf of this bill in order to get their votes, and thus pass the spending bill to which they are otherwise opposed.  Yes, it’s a damnable dirty trick, and it is brought to you by John Boehner.  This is the sort of cynical ploy common to DC politics, and it’s precisely the sort of thing to which so many of us are fervently opposed.  This is one more reason John Boehner must go.

Rather than unite his party by affirmative measures they can all support, he instead weasels his way out of that by putting this off on members, leaving them to choose between support of the anti-abortion lobby and the anti-spending lobby. In short, it’s another sick attempt to split conservatives and Tea Party types.  Why would John Boehner do this?  Why would he set his own party up for defeat and electoral disaster?  The answer is either that he is the most incompetent Speaker of the House in my lifetime, or he is intentionally sabotaging the conservatives in his party.  Why would he do that?  What would motivate him in this way?  I have only one answer:  John Boehner is an establishment sell-out whose political career consists of more crying than legislating, and more surrendering than victory.

It really doesn’t matter what his intentions may be, but if you don’t understand anything else about what he’s doing here, you must understand this:  What John Boehner is now doing will ultimately guarantee that we will not win the elections, we will lose control of the House, and have no prayer of retaking the Senate.  Obamacare will become a done deal if this happens, and you must know that there will be no repeal, no overturning, and no recovery. Ever.  You may wonder how this would be, and the answer is quite simple: Conservatives in his party promised to cut spending, and to cut the growth of government.  They promised it. Loudly. Often. Regularly.  In 2010, they appealed to the Tea Party on this basis.  The Tea Party showed up to support them, by and large.  Now, having secured their votes, and the majority in the House, the leadership is leading those conservatives to sell out their promises, or squeeze them into so doing as with this latest ploy.  What will happen to the Tea Party folk who supported them in 2010?  In November 2012, just as in 2008, and 2006, they will stay home in perfect disgust.  Who could blame them?

When the people who you place in power turn on you, and undercut you, you’re hardly to be blamed if you decide no longer to lend your support to such people.  Call a dog to you, with a firm “Come,” and then whack his nose with a rolled-up newspaper, and you’ll quickly see the dog learn to cringe and balk at your call.  This is what the Republican leadership is doing to the Tea Party and conservatives, but worse, the leadership is setting them one against the other.  That’s why Boehner’s tawdry ploy is destined to lead the GOP to defeat in 2012.  Obama is weak, but Boehner continues to improve his position by compromising endlessly with the Democrats.  How does this win support for victory?

It cannot.  If we’re to see Barack Obama replaced, and Obamacare repealed, we must discharge John Boehner and those like him from leadership.  They are a walking advertisement for the statists, because they don’t really care about the direction of the country, but only maintaining power, and lately, one would be right to wonder if they care even for that. The burdens of leadership are many, and John Boehner is incapable of or unwilling to bear them.  It is my recommendation that in the name of the Republic, never mind the Republican party, that we send him home, or at least to the back benches with all due dispatch.

The Question of Federalism and Abortion

Saturday, October 22nd, 2011

Are These Truths Self-Evident?

On Friday, I brought you the story of Herman Cain’s confusing stance on abortion.  Some of you disagreed with my position on this, citing the notion of federalism as the “out.”  I’m sorry to say that I can’t help but disagree with anybody who tries to evade this issue by pointing to federalism as their escape mechanism.  Federalism is certainly an important principle in our constitutional republic that has been denigrated and dismissed too easily by statists, but in this instance, it’s a concept out of place by virtue of the question at hand.  By the application of federalism that some of you have advanced, I’m confused as to how you see any federal role anywhere in safeguarding any liberty of any American at any time under any circumstances.  Frankly, it’s an absurd claim, and it’s time we debunk it right here, and right now.

Our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, sets forth the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of its citizens as the great pursuit and ultimate object of our government.  Our framers were so concerned that they decided to enshrine certain rights within the Constitution in specific language in what was ultimately adopted as our Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to our federal constitution.  I would like it very much if one of the advocates of federalism would explain to me how it is that our federal government protects the freedom of speech, the press, religion, the right to keep and bear arms, and the right to individual due process if the rights in question are subjected to any level of government outside the federal sphere.  Explain to me why it is that we have need of a federal murder statute, if murder is a crime to be handled by the states.  Explain why we have any protections of any sort, including voters’ rights, that supersede local or state laws in many, many instances.

The argument of federalism really has no place in this argument if you believe there is a right to life, and that life begins at conception.  If there is a right to life, that life gets all the same protections of law from the federal all the way down to the individual, otherwise, why bother with the concept of rights at the federal level at all?  Do not suggest to me that you do not want rights enforced at the local level of government by federal observance of these fundamental rights, else how do you support the rulings of the court that have held that the gun laws of Chicago are too restrictive of the right to keep and bear arms, and are a de facto prohibition.  In this case, most of you cry out for the protection of your rights by the federal establishment.  How do you now suggest that federal authority has no effective reach, in the case of abortion?  This is a preposterous dichotomy that does not withstand even momentary consideration.

There were a few who rightly suggested that this is about when “person-hood” begins, and this is the more effective argument.  If one becomes a “person” under the law only at birth, then no form of abortion can be restricted on any grounds.  To effect this discontinuity, however, you would have to define the legal standard of “person-hood” as beginning at conception.  My point to you is that whether you agree with abortion or not, it’s perfectly useless for the debate to focus on any other object but this one.  If abortion is to be illegal, it must be specified that rights commence not at birth, but at conception.  To obfuscate the matter by putting it off to an issue of federalism has already failed miserably: How many state laws restricting abortion have been overturned by the federal judiciary on the basis that a woman’s right to abort falls under the federal protection of some elusive and illusory right to privacy not mentioned in the constitution?

If the question of abortion is to be attacked in a sincere way, it must be confronted on the issue of when rights commence.  Our constitution is silent on the matter, however, our Declaration of Independence speaks to the matter:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Now, armed with that piece, again consider this one:

“…the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…”

Once more, if the laws of nature are the point of reference, what does nature tell us about when life commences? A human being becomes an individual at conception, with his own unique genetic code, and from that moment forth, it’s dictated by nature.

You can argue about this indefinitely, but my point to you is that our founders understood that nature dictates the rights of all mankind, and that government exists only to guarantee those rights. They held that God was the author of nature, and in that sense, all rights are therefore God-given, but in any case, as a matter of pure logic, the rights of individuals must be an a priori prerequisite to existence as a person.  If that is the case, the only argument to have is this one.  What I’m saying to you is that this business about Federalism with respect to individual rights negates the entire purpose of the federal government.  If the federal government has no place in the matter of the guarantee of individual rights, then there can be no legitimate purpose to the federal government in any sense.  Again, referencing the Declaration of Independence:

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men…”

In this single line is the sole legitimate purpose of our federal government, and indeed any government.  Those of you who would suppose yourselves conservative or libertarian ought to know this well.  To then argue that the abortion debate can be dispensed with by simply passing it off to a lower level of government under the aegis of federalism is to ignore what is the entire purpose of any government, and I simply won’t hear of it.  Not on this site.