In these hard times, people are looking for practical gifts for Christmas, and gift certificates are a popular choice. Here in Indianapolis, there is a wider range of choices in gift certificates than average- "choice" being the operative word, as Planed Parenthood now offers gift certificates for all services, including abortion. (See IndyStar Gift certificate covering abortion stirs controversy ).
Yeah, yeah, I know 95% of what they do is unrelated to abortion. But for a large percentage of those for whom "Christmas" means more than Rudolf and candy canes, that other 5% is hardly compatible with the concept of a Christmas present. "Dan Gangler, communication director for the Indiana conference of the United Methodist Church, said he supports the certificates to help needs such as Glaspie's, but because they can be used for abortions, he called them "in poor taste."" Gee, ya think?
Others use stronger words. "The certificates' holiday launch suggests they're intended as an attack on those Christians who oppose abortion, (Right to Life of Indianapolis President Marc) Tuttle said.
"It's offensive that they would be highlighting Christmas to push their services," Tuttle said. "Christmas is a time when Christians are celebrating the birth of a savior to Mary, an unwed mother.""
Kate Shepherd, a Planned Parenthood of Indiana spokeswoman, disagrees. ""This program has nothing to do with abortion," Shepherd said of the gift certificates. "This is about basic reproductive health care."" I'm sure it is- even though they don't offer a certificate that doesn't include abortion. I don't believe the holiday launch of this program was intended as an attack on Christians... but I do think it was as clueless as the auto execs flying private jets to Washington for the bailout talks.
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Friday, December 05, 2008
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Wanting explicit sex education for kindergarteners
was the charge made against then-Senator Obama during the election. The charge was refuted... but it might have been better if it had been true. The British are about to do exactly that. Why? Because the Dutch have already tried it- and now have the lowest teen pregnancy and abortion rates in Europe. "Sex is everywhere in the Netherlands, yet the country has the lowest teenage pregnancy rate in the West and the lowest rates of sexually transmitted diseases among young people. Now Britain, with almost the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in Europe - five times higher than the Netherlands - wants to emulate its success. ... The Government has chosen the Dutch model rather than the Nordic way of tackling the subject of sex because the Netherlands, unlike Scandinavian nations, also manages to have one of the lowest abortion rates in Europe. In Britain, the number of abortions performed on under-16s rose by 10 per cent last year to 4,376." Read more in the TimesOnline .
Friday, September 05, 2008
Non-issue issues #3 Abortion
There are a lot of single issue voters both pro and con Roe V. Wade, but as a practical matter, this is a non-issue. Roe V. Wade isn't going anywhere.
How can I say that? Obviously, if a Democrat is elected, Roe V. Wade is the litmus test for the selection of a Supreme Court justice. But how about if a Republican is elected? Won't a Republican President choose a conservative judge?
Certainly, but "conservative" means something a bit different in describing a judge- the opposite of "conservative" in this sense would be activist, not liberal. Both types of judges may be conservative or liberal in the political sense. I'm sure CC could do a better job of describing judges, but here is a simple explanation. An activist judge does what he thinks is right, and then tries to find a legal justification for it. In a real life example, a Justice said that the death penalty was unconstitutional because the emerging public sensibilities of the public have deemed it to be cruel and unusual punishment. A conservative judge would say that's crazy; the death penalty is in the Constitution, right there, in black and white- to say anything else is tantamount to amending the Constitution without due process. Republicans like that "original intent" kind of judge.
But what if the issue being discussed isn't in the Constitution? Like Roe V. Wade, for instance? A conservative judge tends to say things like "stare decisis", which means "We've already ruled on that once, and I don't see anything new here that wasn't argued before", and "jurisprudence constante", which means "don't rule on a whim". ( no lawyer can understand a concept until it's been translated into Latin) Don't upset the applecart is the conservative frame of mind. That is why despite most of the Supreme Court having been appointed by Republicans, they've never re-heard Roe V. Wade.
Of course, a Republican President could appoint a right wing activist judge... get him past the Bar rating committee, get them through committee hearings in the Senate, then get him confirmed. Riiiight. Bush couldn't even get mild-mannered Harriet Myers past step 1. And given the court make up, he'd have to do that at least three times, probably four, and possibly five times to overturn Roe V. Wade. I guess it could happen. Bob Barr could pull an upset and become the first Libertarian President. As Henry II said in The Lion In Winter, "In a world where carpenters are resurrected, anything is possible."
Folks, Roe V. Wade isn't going anywhere. Both parties know it. The only reason they even bring it up is because it keeps the contributions pouring in from the activists on both sides. Presidential candidates sigh in relief whenever the question is brought up in a debate, because they know they can waste five minutes without answering a real question and fire up the base at the same time- a real twofer. Don't feed this troll.
How can I say that? Obviously, if a Democrat is elected, Roe V. Wade is the litmus test for the selection of a Supreme Court justice. But how about if a Republican is elected? Won't a Republican President choose a conservative judge?
Certainly, but "conservative" means something a bit different in describing a judge- the opposite of "conservative" in this sense would be activist, not liberal. Both types of judges may be conservative or liberal in the political sense. I'm sure CC could do a better job of describing judges, but here is a simple explanation. An activist judge does what he thinks is right, and then tries to find a legal justification for it. In a real life example, a Justice said that the death penalty was unconstitutional because the emerging public sensibilities of the public have deemed it to be cruel and unusual punishment. A conservative judge would say that's crazy; the death penalty is in the Constitution, right there, in black and white- to say anything else is tantamount to amending the Constitution without due process. Republicans like that "original intent" kind of judge.
But what if the issue being discussed isn't in the Constitution? Like Roe V. Wade, for instance? A conservative judge tends to say things like "stare decisis", which means "We've already ruled on that once, and I don't see anything new here that wasn't argued before", and "jurisprudence constante", which means "don't rule on a whim". ( no lawyer can understand a concept until it's been translated into Latin) Don't upset the applecart is the conservative frame of mind. That is why despite most of the Supreme Court having been appointed by Republicans, they've never re-heard Roe V. Wade.
Of course, a Republican President could appoint a right wing activist judge... get him past the Bar rating committee, get them through committee hearings in the Senate, then get him confirmed. Riiiight. Bush couldn't even get mild-mannered Harriet Myers past step 1. And given the court make up, he'd have to do that at least three times, probably four, and possibly five times to overturn Roe V. Wade. I guess it could happen. Bob Barr could pull an upset and become the first Libertarian President. As Henry II said in The Lion In Winter, "In a world where carpenters are resurrected, anything is possible."
Folks, Roe V. Wade isn't going anywhere. Both parties know it. The only reason they even bring it up is because it keeps the contributions pouring in from the activists on both sides. Presidential candidates sigh in relief whenever the question is brought up in a debate, because they know they can waste five minutes without answering a real question and fire up the base at the same time- a real twofer. Don't feed this troll.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)