pro-life

SCOTUS weighs the limits of the First Amendment

The Supreme Court heard the case of Hobby Lobby, et.al. on the HHS mandate that requires most businesses that employ over 50 individuals to provide coverage for 21 forms of birth control. The businesses that are parties to the suit, while they are private for-profit companies, have incorporated or otherwise stated in their mission statements, that their businesses are owned and operated by individuals that include their religious practices in their work.

Due to their religious beliefs, that are freely stated to potential employees before they consent to work for these companies, they object to providing some or all of the contraceptives in the HHS mandate on moral grounds. The government presented the case that since they are not religious organizations per se, they do not have the freedom to run their businesses with religious overtones, at least not when it interferes with governmental mandates.

That is a thumbnail sketch of the case, and in spite of the fact that SCOTUS will not hand down a ruling until June, there are plenty of pundits offering opinions on exactly how that will end up. It’s interesting to attempt to guess what a given Justice will say on this issue, based on the questions presented during the case yesterday, however, it probably isn’t going to serve anyone to do that. Let’s not forget the ruling that the ObamaCare penalties were actually taxes by Chief Justice John Roberts, that got us to this point in the first place.

While it seems that quite a few of the commentators out there seem to think that this will fall in favor of Hobby Lobby, and the other corporations involved, perhaps at this point it would be better to think about “what comes next?” if that isn’t the case.

Media Bias Over Mass Murder

Editor’s note: United Liberty recognizes the divide amongst libertarians over the abortion issue and that there are strong, but thoughtful feelings coming from both sides. This piece covers an important issue that has been neglected by the mainstream media. It does not necessarily reflect the views of United Liberty or every contributor.

Murder. Exploitation. Blood money. Intrigue. The story of Kermit Gosnell has all of this and more, a story which is filled with horrifying and sensational details, a story of such heartless depravity and gory death that it could have been a George Romero film. So why it that you are almost guaranteed to have never heard of Gosnell? That is an excellent question, and one that anyone who believes in a strong and independent free press should be demanding answers to. If there was ever a case of clear-cut media bias and cover-up, this is it.

I first learned about Gosnell in January 2011 from a link to an article in Philly.com, reporting on his arrest and formal indictment on eight counts of murder and related charges. The trial of Gosnell began last month, and other than conservative websites and news sources, it is almost impossible to find a story in the mainstream print press until a few days ago, and as of the time of this writing, there has been ZERO coverage of the story by the major broadcast networks (ABC, NBC, CBS). The travesty of the media black-out was captured in an article in Investors Business Daily, which wrote:

Can the GOP ignore social conservatives?

For years it has been conventional wisdom that the GOP needs the votes of social conservatives to win elections.  Defined loosely, a “social conservative” is someone who has very traditional, restrictionist views on so-called “social issues” like abortion and same-sex marriage.  These voters are mostly white and evangelical Christians.  They support strong restrictions on abortion and oppose any recognition of gay couples.  In short, they are basically anti-libertarians.  As such, the moderate wing of the party has always them as a necessary but disliked coalition partner.

In recent years, though, the tide has started to turn against this strategy.  The portion of the electorate that votes strictly on social issues is shrinking.  Attitudes are changing on gay rights and, while the country tends to lean pro-life, it’s fairly clear that most voters are repulsed by the extreme views held by some pro-life polticians.  It’s clear, then, that the GOP can’t rely on anti-gay rhetoric and severe positions on abortion to win.

The call, then, naturally is coming from those who never even liked social conservatives to push this portion of the voting population to the wayside.  Some, like my colleague Jeremy Kolassa, argue that the GOP should entirely ignore social conservatives.  The thinking goes that moderating on abortion and gay rights will gather enough new votes to make it possible to live without hardline social cons.

In defense of Richard Mourdock

mourdock

It seems that GOP candidates still have not learned that they are better off not speaking about rape and abortion.  Just weeks after Todd Akin’s infamous “legitimate rape” comment, another conservative has stated his views on the issue - this time Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock:

“I know there are some who disagree and I respect their point of view but I believe that life begins at conception. The only exception I have to have an abortion is in that case of the life of the mother. I just struggled with it myself for a long time but I came to realize: “Life is that gift from God that I think even if life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”

Now, I should get one thing out the way here.  I personally find Mourdock’s comments to be callous, and as someone who does not personally believe in a deity, I could never imagine telling a woman who was impregnated by a rapist that it was “God’s will” to carry to term a baby fathered by a vicious attacker and forced on her through the most violent of means.  It seems remarkably insensitive and lacking compassion.

But it’s not at all inconsistent or illogical given the thinking of pro-lifers.  If you’re someone who genuinely believes that life begins at the moment of conception, it doesn’t matter to you the circumstances.  I’ve always thought it to be very dishonest for “pro-life” candidates to be against abortion, but leave exceptions for rape and incest.  If you believe that unborn fetuses have full human rights, then the only possible time you could be okay with ending that life is if another life is at stake or if you believe it is compassionate due to severe birth defects.  And even then, that’s debatable.

Todd Akin and the “War On Women”

I’m sick and tired of this “War on Women” meme. It portrays women as nothing more than helpless vaginas that need subsidized abortion, free birth control, subsidized daycare, special loans in order to start a business, special laws to negotiate a decent wage, and all sorts of things only sugar daddy government can provide. It is dehumanizing and insulting to the millions of strong, independent women everywhere and the millions of men who love them. If you want to see what a real “War on Women” looks like, here it is. Finally, just because someone opposes abortion and wants to cut government spending does not make them a misogynist. In fact, many feminists believe that women can and should stand on their own without the help of the government.

No, Let’s Keep Todd Akin

Unlike many on the political right (arguably) in America, I’m not going to argue for Todd Akin to drop out. In fact, I am going to argue that he should stay in his Missouri Senate race, as a sort of painful yet absolutely necessary medication for the Republican Party.

Akin, as I’m sure you are aware, is the bozo who went on the radio and said that in cases of “legitimate” rape, a woman’s body would shut down the pregnancy, thus abortion should be illegal. It has got to be the dumbest thing said in politics over the past ten years, if not the past fifty. Nevermind that there is no way for a woman’s body to know that it is being raped, and then determine it must abort on its own (I don’t even think a woman’s body can abort pregnancies like that), you just don’t put “legitimate” and “rape” in the same sentence, period, unless there is a “not” between them.

In any case, despite the national party disavowing the fool, and numerous calls from conservative leaders and conservative media outlets, Akin has decided to remain in the race. (He’s even attacked Mitt Romney for calling for him to step down.) Despite this monumental tomfoolery, I believe it would be good for the GOP to have Akin remain in the race…

…and then lose disastrously in November.

Some thoughts on the looming government shutdown

It looks like we’re only 10 to 12 hours away from a shut down of the federal government. Neither side has come to an agreement on what the final budget bill would look like, though it looks like another Continuing Resolution – a measure that would carry over spending from the previous year for a specified amount of time – will be taken up in the Senate. It passed the House yesterday with some Democratic members support it (Georgia Dems John Barrow and Sanford Bishop were among the affirmative votes).

Here are some thoughts and observations on the possible shutdown:

- If Republicans make this about social issues, as it is being suggested they are, they will take a hit. Republicans are right to object to taxpayer funding of abortion. However, social issues are not on the mind of the electorate. This angle, as principled as it may be, is a political loser. The focus should be on how Democrats and President Barack Obama cannot find any program worth cutting at a time when we are running a $1.6 trillion deficit.

- Republicans holding out for $31 billion in spending cuts is like putting a band-aid on a gunshot wound. As my good friend Doug Mataconis said today, wasting political capital on a short-term budget solution is pretty dumb. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) just presented an ambitious, though intriguing, budget plan that is going to take an enormous amount of political will and capital to push through, even if there are compromises along the way. Not to mention that the current budget fix only takes us through the end of the current fiscal year. The 2012 budget battle is next up and the ground work is just being laid into place.

This is sickening: Planned Parenthood affiliate gives award to clinic that increased the number of abortions it performed

In the final season of The West Wing, Matt Santos, the fictional Democratic Party presidential nominee, got into a contentious discussion about abortion with the spokesperson for the Women’s Choice Alliance, a pro-choice special interest group.

“‘Pro-choice,’” the spokesperson said, “means anyone can do what they want.”

“Yeah, but it shouldn’t mean that we’re proud of whatever they choose,” Santos replied. “Maybe all this chest-beating is the reason the Right can get away with [a negative ad on abortion], the reason why a leader of my church can exile me for not trying to impose my religion on the rest of the country.”

“And we’re surprised that there are people out there who think we’re for unlimited abortion. That there are actually voters, who are pro-choice, that think that we’re too extreme,” he added.

Seems reasonable, right? Even though abortion is legal, no one should be proud the controversial practice, which often involves women who are placed in a difficult situations where they feel they have to make such a life-changing decision.

Unfortunately, Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains is allegedly handing out awards to local affiliates that exceed the number of abortions they performed compared to the previous year. Here’s a photo of the award provided by And Then There Were None via LifeSiteNews.com.

Wow. Just wow.

Colorado Senate Democrats Want to Protect Reproductive Choice From Future Regulations

The Colorado Senate has just delayed S.B. 175; a bill that is being sold as a  measure that would not only prevent cities, counties, and other legal jurisdictions within Colorado from restricting reproductive choice (up to and including abortion) but also prevent future legislatures from doing so.

This current state legislature is to determine this issue once and for all. The only reason the bill wasn’t put up for a vote to decide this issue once and for all was because one Democrat senator was absent on the day of the vote (Democrats have a 1 seat majority in the Colorado Senate).

Though I am personally pro-choice and am quite wary of all the attempts from the anti-choice side to pass “personhood” bills, the idea that one state legislature could decide any political issue for all time is troubling. It’s even more troubling to think that such a law could be passed by a one vote majority. Is it even possible to write such a law that can never, ever be changed?

If these people were really serious, they would take the steps necessary to amend the state’s constitution (of course doing so requires much more than a simple majority in the Legislature; not something that is likely to happen in such a purple state). An amendment to the constitution is really the closest to a permanent, unchangeable law there is.

Church-Burning Thugs and other Liberal Intolerance

For all their demands for tolerance, no group in America is more intolerant than the political left. It is not enough to simply debate issues on the merits; no, statist liberals use every weapon at their disposal to crush dissenting voices, including political correctness orthodoxy, badgering by the media, outright bullying by leftist mobs, and of course, government force.

This is not tolerance, this is tyranny.

At a time when leftist Democrats have had near-total control of government for half a decade, with trillions and trillions of deficit dollars spent on their core policies and programs, Democrats are panicked because the American people are seeing clearly the epic failure of the liberal agenda. Add to that the disastrous health care law which gets worse with each passing day, and Obama’s approval ratings are dropping faster than Bill Clinton’s pants in a roomful of interns.

So what to do when you’ve had total control, with nothing but a long line of failures in your wake? Why, you attack your opposition as racists, hate-mongers, xenophobes, and in general, as people who are so evil that it is a moral offense even to listen to anything they have to say. Why debate the message when you can destroy the messenger?

To those who don’t keep up with current events (outside of which Kardashian sister is sleeping with whom, or the depths of skankification to which Miley Cyrus has descended) this might sound hyperbolic and overblown. However, there are myriad examples from which to peruse, and these are just a few.

Few places in America can claim to be more liberal than the campuses of the various institutions of the University of California system. Here “diversity” is considered among the highest virtues unless, of course, you are a pro-life conservative.


The views and opinions expressed by individual authors are not necessarily those of other authors, advertisers, developers or editors at United Liberty.