A Moment of Reason

One of the problems with public discourse these days is that many people can't bring themselves to state their cases without engaging in wild histrionics.  How many times have you read something described as the most shocking, the most outrageous, the most ridiculous, etc.?  Not everything can be the most outrageous -- only one thing can be.  And yet, that doesn't stop people from launching into ludicrous hyperbole or, just as bad, cobbling together lists that supposedly divine some pattern of thought or action.

This is the case currently with a list floating around the internet, first finding publication on a noted left-wing site, titled "Top 10 Shocking Attacks from the GOP's War on Women."  The site reports, "The Republicans are on a rampage attacking women's health and rights this year."  Really?  A rampage?  Do all of the Republican legislators who happen to be women know about this?

Let's take a look at a couple of these items.  Here's the first one:

"Republicans not only want to reduce women's access to abortion care, they're actually trying to redefine rape. After a major backlash, they promised to stop. But they haven't yet. Shocker."

Of course, Republicans are not redefining rape (when did we start using that word again, anyway?  Isn't it supposed to be "criminal sexual conduct"?).  Rather, in those instances in which federal funding is available for abortion, the range of circumstances in which abortions are covered is being narrowed.  Also, there are 10 Democrat and 18 women cosponsors of this bill -- are they engaged in a war on women?

Here's another one:

"In South Dakota, Republicans proposed a bill that could make it legal to murder a doctor who provides abortion care. (Yep, for real.)"

For real?  Really?  No, not really.  Here's the language of HB 1171, the South Dakota bill in question, in its entirety:

Section 1. That § 22-16-34 be amended to read as follows:

22-16-34. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to harm the unborn child of such person in a manner and to a degree likely to result in the death of the unborn child, or to commit any felony upon him or her, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is.
Section 2. That § 22-16-35 be amended to read as follows:
22-16-35. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person in the lawful defense of such person, or of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant, or the unborn child of any such enumerated person, if there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished.

Let's put aside the fact that this legislation has been tabled, and ignore the fact that nine of the sponsors are women.  What does this legislation actually do?  It acknowledges the protections afforded by South Dakota law to a fetal human being and plugs a hole in the state law, allowing a person to come to the aid of a pregnant woman where the object of the attack is specifically the unborn child she is carrying.  While the wording could be clearer, the bill's sponsor has clarified that the bill is unrelated to abortion:

"It would if abortion was illegal," he told me. "This code only deals with illegal acts. Abortion is legal in this country. This has nothing to do with abortion."

You can see what kind of problems this list causes.  People who read only the headline think there really is a "war on women," and people who read the blurbs in this list are told these issues are "for real."  To figure out why these are lies takes time and effort and knowing where to find and how to interpret the source documents.  Relatively few people have the time or know where to look, with the end result being that the lies are accepted at face value, a result upon which the left depends. 

The left cannot long survive in a thinking, rational society, so we need to keep up our efforts to educate our families, our friends, and our children.  And, when we're confronted with the kind of prevarication that teaches there is a "war on women," we can defeat it with a simple, logical, moment of reason.

I Do Solemnly Swear To Protect And Defend The What?

The First Amendment prohibits any law abridging freedom of speech or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Religious freedom is further enshrined in Article I, Section 4 of Michigan’s constitution, and Article I, Section 5 states:

Every person may freely speak, write, express and publish his views on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of such right; and no law shall be enacted to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press.

When people think about freedom of speech, they may not realize that the freedom to speak includes the freedom not to speak. When people gather to discuss important (or even not-so-important) issues, they cannot be made to voice certain opinions or viewpoints, nor can they be required to adopt the views or religious beliefs of others.

Unfortunately, Sen. Gretchen Whitmer (D-East Lansing) and certain of her colleagues do not share this perspective on freedom. They are attempting not only to tell certain non-profit organizations what they can and cannot say, but they want to force these organizations to share information promulgated by certain, selected professional associations. In so doing, they are circumventing the will of the people of the State of Michigan.

On June 25, 2009, Whitmer as principal sponsor introduced Senate Bill No. 668. This bill seeks to regulate non-governmental, non-profit “crisis pregnancy organizations” by requiring them to give pregnant women, “orally and in writing,” a “medically accurate and objective explanation of the full range of options available . . . including abortion, parenting, and adoption,” and “medically accurate and objective information on the range and medical risks associated with abortion, pregnancy, and childbirth.” If requested, the organization must give women “geographically indexed, printed materials that contain a comprehensive list of the medical clinics and hospitals that provide abortion services.”

The term “crisis pregnancy organization” was not chosen by accident. CPOs are typically pro-life centers, often affiliated with Christian organizations such as Care Net and Heartbeat International. Heartbeat International, for example, describes itself as a “nonprofit, interdenominational Christian association of faith-based pregnancy resource centers, medical clinics, maternity homes, and nonprofit adoption agencies endorsed by Christian leaders nationwide. Heartbeat's Life-Saving Vision is to help create a world where every new life is welcomed and children are nurtured within strong families, according to God’s Plan, so that abortion is unthinkable.”

Obviously, such radical organizations must be stopped, and Gretchen Whitmer is determined to do so.

SB 668 will require these Christian CPOs to distribute “medically accurate and objective” information about abortion, to provide “comprehensive” lists of abortion providers, and, in so doing, to violate their own beliefs and principles.

And how do CPOs know if the information they are required to provide is “medically accurate and objective”? Simple – Whitmer outsources this responsibility in section 1(b) of her bill:

“Medically accurate” means verified or supported by research conducted in compliance with scientific methods and published in peer-reviewed journals, where appropriate, and recognized as accurate and objective by professional organizations and agencies with relevant expertise in the field, such as the American college of obstetricians and gynecologists or the American gynecological and obstetrical society.

So CPO volunteers will not be able to share their own experiences or opinions unless they have been published in peer-reviewed journals and stamped “approved” by an OB/GYN society. Do their views on religion and morality have to be approved also? Does the Bible have to be published in a peer-reviewed journal to be persuasive? Yes, according to SB 668.

This is America?

Here’s another problem: in 1987, Michigan voters approved, 54% to 46%, a new provision of state law that prohibits public funds from being used to provide abortions unless necessary to save the life of the mother. SB 668 circumvents this prohibition, not by using public funds, but by using the force of law and the threat of prosecution or private litigation to strong-arm private organizations into providing abortion-related information and, specifically, giving women comprehensive lists of abortion providers. This is completely inconsistent with the will of the voters, who determined that tax dollars should not be used to promote abortions.

Abortion is a divisive issue, obviously, but SB 668 does not seek peace or propose a solution – it seeks to use the brute force of government to impair the freedom of speech currently enjoyed by crisis pregnancy organizations and, in turn, to attack religious liberty by outlawing Christian-based opposition to abortion.

Gretchen Whitmer wants to be attorney general. Does she think she can get there on a platform of attacking our most dearly held rights?

The Appeasement Years, Day 4; and An Interesting Video

It's day 4 of the Appeasement years, and we're already closing Gitmo and any CIA prisons abroad. If you are asking what we received in return for these decisions, you don't understand the nature of appeasement. According to the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, "appease" is defined as: "to yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles."

Don't expect anything good, now that we have displayed such weakness.

*****************************************

My friend Sean sent me the following link to an interesting video: http://www.catholicvote.com/.

It won't persuade anyone who favors abortion, but it should.

Have a great weekend!