Birthday Recognition and Honoring Our Veterans

Today is my father-in-law’s 91st birthday. In recognition of that, I thought I’d step aside from my usual political and social commentary (at least for a few minutes) and highlight something special. If you visit to the Indiana War Memorial and tour the museum (and if you haven’t, you should), toward the end of the World War II exhibit, you’ll see a fairly new display.

That’s my father-in-law. The display describes how he was awarded the Bronze Star for bravery in 1945 but didn’t learn about it or receive his medal until 2007. He doesn’t really like to talk about the events that led to the award. In fact, for a long time he was worried that if he talked about that day he’d get in trouble because, by taking the actions that he did, he’d actually disobeyed an order, though in doing so he was able to alert his unit to the location of German forces. For 60 years he worried about getting in trouble for doing something for which he was actually awarded a medal for bravery.

In case the text is too difficult to read:

Arthur Schiller was born in Elkhart, Indiana, and enlisted in the US Army on March 22, 1943, at the age of 21. Assigned to the 3rd Division, he departed for Europe on March 23, 1945, arriving on April 4. After fighting in North Africa, Sicily, and Italy, the 3rd had joined the invasion of France, smashed through the Siegfried Line, and crossed the Rhine into Germany itself just before Schiller arrived. In April, Schiller took part in the fighting as the 3rd took Nuremberg, Augsburg, and Munich in Bavaria, Germany, and was in the vicinity of Salzburg, Austria, when the war ended in May.

During the fighting in Southern Germany and Austria, Schiller earned the Bronze Star for bravery in combat. His most vivid memory of the war was of the day Germany surrendered, May 8, 1945. Schiller had taken off his helmet and put down his rifle to take a nap, but heard loud noises that sounded like bombs exploding. When he charged outside to investigate, he was met by another soldier who asked, “Hey Schiller, what the hell is wrong with you? The war is over.”

Schiller was discharged on April 11, 1946, and eager to put the war behind him, tucked away his discharge papers which listed the Bronze Star and other honors he earned during the war. He then pursued a career as a salesman, got married, had five children and three [now four] grandchildren, and eventually retired. Then, three years ago, he and his wife rediscovered the papers and noticed the Bronze Star which he had never received. With the help of Senator Richard Lugar, the 86 year old Hoosier her was finally awarded the Bronze Star he’d earned on the battlefields of Germany more than 60 years earlier, during a Veteran’s Day 2007 convocation at Carmel High School.

I want to mention one anecdote to go along with this story. At that 2007 convocation at Carmel High School where my father-in-law was formally awarded his Bronze Star, there were quite a few active duty service members present. The respect that they showed my father-in-law and the interest that they expressed in his experience was truly something to behold. I don’t know if they were all sincere (though I suspect that most were); but the appreciation and honor that they showed to my father-in-law made a memorable day that much more special for him. Those men and women are a true credit to our military, to themselves, and to our country. And watching that ceremony, watching my father-in-law receive his award, and watching the way those other soldiers reacted, was also a special moment for his grandchildren (my children) who were there to share the day with him.

There aren’t too many World War II veterans still with us; and too many of those who are suffer from ailments, both physical and mental. But they, like soldiers who’ve served after them, continue to deserve our appreciation and recognition. We must all remember to thank them for what they’ve done, what they’ve given of themselves, and the sacrifices that they’ve made.

Thanks, Art. Happy Birthday.

A Closer Look at Personhood Legislation

As many have no doubt heard by now, Rep. Paul Ryan was a co-sponsor of the Sanctity of Life Act in the House of Representatives. For those who haven’t been paying attention, the Sanctity of Life Act is a so-called “personhood” law that would codify into law the notion that human life begins at conception (as opposed to viability or birth) and that an embryo or fetus is a “person” under the law. I want to take a closer look at just what that Sanctity of Life Act really proposes and what it might mean if enacted into law.

First the text of the bill (and don’t worry if a lot of this reads like lawyer mumbo jumbo; you only really need to pay close attention to Section 2):

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Sanctity of Life Act of 2011’.

SEC. 2. FINDING AND DECLARATION.

(a) Finding- The Congress finds that present day scientific evidence indicates a significant likelihood that actual human life exists from conception.

(b) Declaration- Upon the basis of this finding, and in the exercise of the powers of the Congress--

(1) the Congress declares that--

(A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and

(B) the term ‘person’ shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and

(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.

SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

(a) In General- Chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

Sec. 1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation

‘Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1253, 1254, 1257, and 1258, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any case arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, or any part thereof, or arising out of any act interpreting, applying, enforcing, or effecting any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, on the grounds that such statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, act, or part thereof--

‘(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or

‘(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates--

‘(A) the performance of abortions; or

‘(B) the provision of public expense of funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for the performance of abortions.’.

(b) Conforming Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

‘1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation.’.

SEC. 4. LIMITATION ON DISTRICT COURT JURISDICTION.

(a) In General- Chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

'Sec. 1370. Limitation on jurisdiction

‘Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the district courts shall not have jurisdiction of any case or question which the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to review under section 1260 of this title.’.

(b) Conforming Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

‘1370. Limitation on jurisdiction.’.

SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to any case pending on, or commenced on or after, such date of enactment.

SEC. 6. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Act or the amendments made by this Act, or the application of this Act or such amendments to any person or circumstance is determined by a court to be invalid, the validity of the remainder of this Act and the amendments made by this Act and the application of such provision to other persons and circumstances shall not be affected by such determination.

Like I said above, I recognize that to the non-lawyers reading this, a lot of that may look like mumbo jumbo. And some of it is (the parts about “conforming amendments” and such). But there is one important aspect of the bill that I want to point out before I get into the real substance. Note Section 3 and Section 4. Essentially, what those sections do is to say that neither the Supreme Court nor any other Federal court has any jurisdiction to hear a case about a statute that “protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth” or prohibits, limits, or regulates abortions. What does this mean, practically speaking? It means that if this law were passed, someone could not challenge the law (or a new law restricting abortion) as being unconstitutional or depriving a woman of any rights because no Federal court would have jurisdiction to hear the case. And a Federal court couldn’t even hear a case brought to challenge the constitutionality of the law that deprived the court of jurisdiction.

This is a favorite tactic of the right; try to pass a bill limiting some people’s rights and, at the same time, try to prohibit courts from hearing any challenges to the law. As a thought experiment, let’s pretend the issue isn’t abortion at all. Instead, just imagine Congress passing a law that says that people arrested for criticizing their Congressman can be tortured and sentenced to life in prison … and courts don’t have jurisdiction to hear cases arising out of that law. Or maybe the new law says that Muslims can’t vote unless they renounce Islam … and courts can’t hear challenges to that law. Or perhaps Congress might just declare Christianity the official religion of the United States and decree that laws must be premised on the New Testament … and prohibit courts from hearing constitutional challenges. See the problem? Well, it’s no different here.

Oh, just in case you’re a conservative and have no problems with any of those examples, how about this one instead: What if Congress passed a law outlawing any guns other than single-shot muzzle loaders available in 1791 … and deprived courts of the jurisdiction to hear cases claiming that the law violated the 2nd Amendment. Feel any different now? OK, then.

We can’t allow Congress to get away with passing potentially unconstitutional laws and then preventing the courts from determining whether Congress acted within its constitutional authority in passing that law. Doing so completely breaks the separation of powers upon which our system is premised.

OK. Deep breath.

And now on to the “meat” of the bill: Section 2.

First, I want to make a relatively brief comment about Section 2(a):

The Congress finds that present day scientific evidence indicates a significant likelihood that actual human life exists from conception.

I find it interesting that House Republicans are so willing to follow science when it comes to abortion (more on this in a second) but so unwilling to even believe science on things like evolution and global warming. As to the “science” on the issue of the beginning of human life, is that really something that science can tell us with any certainty? And even if science can tell us this, does the “present day scientific evidence” really do so? I mean, what does “human life” really mean? Isn’t that something that religion and philosophy have struggled with since … well, the beginning of human civilization (if not earlier)? Are these House Republicans also willing to adopt a bill (and deprive courts from hearing cases about it) that says that scientific evidence indicates that the earth is billions of years old and that human life evolved from more primitive organisms? No, I didn’t think so. But I suspect that if you talked to scientists, you’d find a much broader consensus for those propositions than you would for the proposition that science tells us that human life exists from conception.

So now, let’s look at the real core of the bill, Section 2(b) (which I’ve reformatted for easier reading):

(1) Congress declares that (A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and (B) the term ‘person’ shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and (2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.

What would this mean, practically speaking?

Obviously, the bill would give states (or Congress) the right to ban abortions. But I’m not even going to talk about that; after all, that’s clearly the goal of the bill. If you want abortions to be illegal, this may be a great thing. And while I’d love to convince you otherwise, this post isn’t the place for me to do so (but feel free to read any of the multitude of posts I’ve written on abortion and reproductive rights).

But the scope of this bill goes much, much further than just permitting states to ban abortions. Let me explain via some examples.

If this bill were to go into effect, and a “person” was a “human life” that exists “from conception”, then wouldn’t any abortion automatically be a murder? Think about it. The abortion would, by definition be the intentional ending of a “human life” or “person”. Isn’t that what murder statutes prohibit?* I’m not sure whether the “murderer” would be the doctor or the woman, though.

Even if a state were to pass legislation specifically permitting abortion, wouldn’t the embryo person still have some sort of equal protection or discrimination claim? Maybe a wrongful death claim against the mother or pharmacist?

But it’s worse even than that. Let’s say that a woman is taking birth control pills. How do those work? In many cases by preventing a fertilized human embryo — oops, excuse me — a “person” from being implanted in the uterine wall. Wouldn’t the act of preventing the embryo person from implanting in the uterine wall (thus causing that embryo person to be expelled from the woman’s body) also be a form of murder (or maybe just manslaughter or some “lesser” crime)? Discussion of the “morning after pill” seems pointless. In other words, not only would abortion be illegal, but so too would many (most?) forms of birth control, including preventive birth control.

And we’re not done yet.

What about in vitro fertilization. In most cases, eggs are removed from a woman, fertilized, and then some of the eggs are implanted in the woman’s uterus. So far, so good (probably…). But what happens to the embryos that are not implanted? Is it legal to freeze a embryo person with the hope of possibly thawing the embryo person for implantation later? And in the case where the family decides to forego future implantation, can the embryo person be destroyed? I’d presume not. I mean, how can you destroy a “person” without committing murder? So I suppose that in vitro fertilization might still be legal, but only so long as every single embryo (viable, or otherwise) was implanted in the woman. You couldn’t leave any out without fear of committing murder or being forced to store that embryo, essentially, forever. And just imagine the liability if your freezer fails…

Thought that probably isn’t the end of the story. Because remember, according to the bill, that embryo person has rights just like any other person, doesn’t it? I mean, the bill doesn’t make a distinction between an unborn and born person; after all, that’s the whole point. But now let’s think about that frozen embryo person. What rights does it have? Does it have a right to be implanted in its mother’s uterus? In the uterus of another woman? Does it have a right to be born (or at least to have the chance)?

When children are not being properly cared for the state (or sometimes a private third party) can become that child’s guardian ad litem with the charge of caring for that child. Usually, the state can appoint someone to act as guardian ad litem via statutory authority and there is also usually a process by which a court can appoint someone to act as a guardian ad litem for an at-risk child (or adult, for that matter). So could someone come forward and ask to be appointed the guardian ad litem for a embryo person that had been frozen following in vitro fertilization? Could the guardian ad litem, acting in the best interests of that embryo person petition a court to demand the implantation of that embryo person so that it could have the chance to be born? Um, why not? I mean, remember, according to this bill, that embryo person is a person just like you and me and things like the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution don’t say that only some people have rights. That’s the whole point.

We also need to look at other issues surrounding pregnancy, too.

And what about a embryo person that is growing away in its mother’s host’s uterus? What rights does it have? Does it have the right to a healthy diet? What if the host drinks alcohol or smokes? We know from science that a fetus exposed to alcohol or tobacco can suffer developmental problems. So shouldn’t that embryo person have the right to stop its host from drinking or smoking? More importantly, what about pre-natal care? Is that embryo person entitled to healthcare, especially if its host either can’t or won’t provide it? What do we do about a pregnant woman who simply has an unhealthy diet? Can we lock that woman up and force her to eat healthy for the benefit of that embryo person depending entirely upon her diet for its development? Can we, in the name of protecting embryos people, prohibit pregnant women (or even potentially pregnant women) from all behaviors that might jeopardize the health, well-being, or proper development of the embryo person? Perhaps pregnant women ought not to be allowed out of their bedrooms for fear of causing harm to a embryo person.

We can’t forget some of the more silly things, too. How will this law affect census counts? How about maximum occupancy in a restaurant? Does the host have to pay for the embryo person to go to a movie or fly on an airplane? Does the host get any tax credits for the extra family member(s)? What if a couple uses in vitro fertilization to get a whole bunch of “people” that they keep frozen in their refrigerator? Do they get standard dependent deductions for each of those “people” in their household? I can see that as a booming new cottage industry! Why, yes, Mr. IRS Man, our family consists of Mom and Dad and Billy and Sally and 197 embryonic persons. And how should we decide who is eligible to be an American President? Is the issue natural born citizen or natural conceived citizen? And can a woman, in the days following sex and until her next period begins, demand “child support” to help her care for the embryo person (you know, just in case…)?

Finally (and back to being serious), what happens when the life of the mother really is in jeopardy? How does a doctor choose between murdering the embryo person or letting the woman die? I guess it becomes murder vs. negligence? What do we do when continuing a pregnancy could result in the woman’s death (or even injury)? Does her mental state have any bearing on the decisions to be made? Given that we’d be talking about ending the “human life” of a “person” then probably not. Don’t ask yourself about that mentally disabled 10-year-old who was incestuously raped…

Or, consider what would happen if a state were to try to permit abortions in cases of rape or incest. Shouldn’t the embryo person still have a “right” to prevent the abortion? And wouldn’t the rapist or incestuous father be able to argue that the embryo person should not be “murdered”?

Look, I get that some people are really, really opposed to abortion. And I get that their view completely discounts the notion that those who support reproductive rights and a woman’s right to choose come to the issue in good faith and after their own deep and careful thought. But in their zeal to ban all abortions they step so far over the line as to be … well … scary. I mean, think about it. Even the voters of Mississippi voted overwhelmingly against a personhood amendment to their Constitution. If the voters in Mississippi recognize just how misguided this sort of legislation is, then, well, that should tell the rest of us something. Shouldn’t it?

But the co-sponsor of this bill is now the GOP’s candidate for Vice President. Let that sink in for a while.

---

*Indiana’s murder statute (Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1) provides that “A person who: (1) knowingly or intentionally kills another human being; … or (4) knowingly or intentionally kills a fetus that has attained viability (as defined in IC 16-18-2-365); commits murder, a felony.” Interestingly, Ind. Code § 35-42-1-0.5 specifically exempts “an abortion performed in compliance with: (1) IC 16-34…”.

Why Paul Ryan?

So why did Mitt Romney choose Paul Ryan to be his running mate? It’s a pretty simple question. The answer, on the other hand … um … well, let’s see.

First, I want to take a brief moment to look at Paul Ryan. I suspect that I’ll be coming back to and addressing these points in more detail in the weeks to come, but a quick summary seems appropriate when looking at why Ryan was chosen.

I guess it probably doesn’t need to be articulated, but Ryan is clearly smarter than Sarah Palin. Of course, my kids are smarter than Palin and both seem to know as much about the Constitution and American history as she does, so I’m not sure that Palin is the proper standard against which to measure Ryan. But she was the last GOP candidate for Vice President, so… And so far, I haven’t seen any information tying Ryan to a Wisconsin separatist party or to African witch doctors. So that’s a plus, I guess. But, if anything, Ryan is probably more conservative than Palin. Yes, really. For example, when Katie Couric pressed Palin on the issue of an exception to her anti-abortion position for cases of rape or incest, Palin said that she was personally opposed and would not choose to have an abortion; but despite continued questioning from Couric, Palin never said in that interview that abortion should be illegal in cases of rape or incest. Paul Ryan, by contrast, was a co-sponsor of a federal personhood bill that would likely outlaw abortion in cases of rape and incest, potentially limit access to birth control (in particular, the “morning after pill”), and most likely even outlaw such things as in vitro fertilization.

As to other social issues, Ryan opposed the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, opposes same-sex marriage, voted against the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, is a big supporter of gun rights (one of the two bills he’s passed in Congress had to do with the excise tax on hunting arrows … seriously), and doesn’t believe in global warming (he has, apparently a “Biblical understanding” of man’s relationship to the environment).

Of course, he’s most well known as author of the Republican budget plan that calls for converting Medicare into a voucher system, privatizing Social Security, drastically reducing Medicaid and Pell Grants, and exploding the deficit in order to give tax breaks to the wealthiest. I read an article over the weekend that applied Ryan’s budget plan to Mitt Romney’s 2010 tax returns (the only tax return that Romney has released) and found that, under Ryan’s plan, Romney would have paid, on his income of approximately $25 million, a tax rate of … I hope you’re sitting down … a whopping 0.82%. Again, seriously.

Oh, Ryan did support TARP and was one of the leading Republican voices advocating that bailout.

But let’s presume for a moment that Romney didn’t pick Ryan simply because Romney wants to adopt a plan that would virtually eliminate his own taxes. Instead, let’s look for another reason that Romney chose Ryan; or, perhaps, let’s look at why Romney didn’t pick some of the other possibilities.

Why does any candidate choose any particular running mate? Usually the calculus is to choose a running mate that either helps shore up a perceived weakness of the Presidential candidate (thus, for example, Barack Obama choosing Joe Biden to shore up Obama’s perceived lack of experience), to gain the support of a particular demographic (thus, at least in part, John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin to try to win the women’s vote), or to help gain support in a particular state or region (thus, for example, John Kerry choosing John Edwards to help Kerry in the South).

But picking Ryan doesn’t really seem to fit into any of those categories. Ryan may help Romney in Wisconsin, which is a toss-up state. But remember that Ryan has never run for statewide office in Wisconsin; he’s only been elected to Congress from a single district. Thus, it’s not clear that Ryan will necessarily even deliver Wisconsin to Romney in November. But if the choice were made on the basis of picking up an important swing state, then it seems that Romney would have chosen either Rob Portman of Ohio, Marco Rubio of Florida, or even Bob McDonnell of Virginia. All of those are, like Wisconsin, swing states, but all have more (and in the case of Florida and Ohio, many more) electoral votes than does Wisconsin.

I suppose the pick of Ryan could be aimed at appealing to Catholic voters, but it seems that choice would only “cancel out” Joe Biden who is also Catholic. I don’t really think that many Catholic voters will be swayed to vote for Mitt Romney because of a Catholic Vice President; rather, I think that Catholics who vote on abortion were already predisposed to vote for Romney while those who vote social justice were already predisposed to vote for President Obama. If Romney was choosing a candidate on the basis of religion, then Marco Rubio, who is also a Catholic might have been a wiser choice (given that he might also bring Florida and, perhaps, a larger share of the Latino vote). Or maybe Romney would have gone with someone from the evangelical community (Bob McDonnell again comes to mind). Given the unease that some may have with Romney’s Mormonism, I wouldn’t have been surprised with a pick clearly aimed at shoring up Romney’s support with evangelical Christians, but the choice of a Catholic doesn’t necessarily seem to have been aimed in that particular direction, especially when we consider the sometimes harsh rhetoric often directed at Catholics from certain segments of the evangelical community (anyone remember Pastor John Hagee, for example?).

I’m not going to insult women by suggesting that Ryan was chosen to help with the women’s vote because he’s handsome (is he?), but who knows just how cynical Romney really is. But given Ryan’s positions on issues like abortion and fair pay, it seems doubtful that he women’s vote was the target. If Romney had been looking to close the gender gap, he might have tapped South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez (who is also Catholic), or even tried to further his “businessman, not politician” argument by choosing someone like Meg Whitman or Carly Fiorina. I suppose that a certain argument could even have been made toward nominating former Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle (female, Jewish, moderate).

Clearly the choice of Ryan was not aimed at shoring up support among any particular ethnic group; after all, the one group that Romney probably needs the least help with is white men. Had Romney felt that he needed to increase his support with ethnic groups, he would most likely have chosen Marco Rubio (or perhaps Susana Martinez or even Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval) in the hopes of closing the gap with Latino voters. I could even understand the choice of Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal (ethnic Indian [as in India, not Native American]) or South Carolina Nikki Haley (also an ethnic Indian, though in her case from a Sikh background) just to be able to say, “Nope, not just white guys.”

I suppose that the choice of Ryan could be Romney’s attempt to capture the youth vote (or at least narrow the gap). But I don’t really think that Ryan, just because he’s young, addresses that particular voting cohort. Maybe I’m wrong here, but it seems that to really make a play for the youth vote, Romney would have needed someone much better known to pop culture and who shares views on issues that are important to youth (gay rights, global warming, and so forth). I’m sure that there are Republicans who fit this particular bill, but off hand no names come to mind.

Which leads me to the two biggest electoral groups that I haven’t yet mentioned. And it seems to me that the Ryan pick is clearly designed to shore up base among one of these groups. If I’m right, then this spells trouble for Romney (and good things for the rest of us!). Which groups am I talking about? Independents/Moderates and the Tea Party.

Maybe I’m missing something, but I just don’t see how Paul Ryan appeals to moderate or independent voters. He’s a far-right ideologue, further to the right than even Mitt Romney. Had Romney really wanted to try to move to the center, then there are certainly some Republicans closer to the political center that Romney could have chosen. But that’s not the direction that Romney chose, either.

Nope. He chose Paul Ryan.

And to me, that means only one thing. Mitt Romney made the choice that he felt necessary to shore up the most important part of his own electoral base: The Tea Party.

Ryan is a darling of the Tea Party. They love his budget. They love his desire to eliminate entitlements, shrink the deficit (even though his plan doesn’t really do that), and shrink government down to the size that a wingnut with a handgun really can stand up and refresh the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrants. I suspect that Ryan will help Romney consolidate support among the Tea Party (whether Romney can control or even co-opt the Tea Party is a different question…). But what does it say about the internal Romney view of the coming election that Romney chose a vice presidential running mate to help shore up the most reliable, most energized part of the GOP’s base and not the political center, a particular region, or a particular demographic?

It tells me that Romney and his advisors have realized that the billionaires funding the Romney campaign each get only one vote and that Romney needs to be sure that the core GOP base remains energized and turns out in November. It tells me that Romney is worried about winning the votes that he should have already locked down and has to spend his energy securing those votes before he can spend time worrying about independents and moderates. And it’s going to be fun to watch Romney try to sell the Tea Party on his agreement with Ryan’s budget plan at the same time that he tries to convince independents and moderates that he’s not running on Ryan’s budget plan. He’ll be flip-flop-flipping almost constantly; of course, Romney’s probably used to that by now.

Anyway, the choice of Paul Ryan tells me that Romney is in trouble.

Good.

Should a 10-Year-Old Mentally Disabled Victim of Incestuous Rape Be Required to Carry a Fetus to Term?

When I talk to candidates who hold or express views opposed to women’s reproductive rights, one question that I almost always try to ask is whether the politician would require a woman who is raped to carry the fetus to term. It is surprising just how many will answer “yes”. Many, on the other hand, try to avoid the question by responding that the hypothetical is a red herring that never really happens.

Well, then, to those candidates, and to others who may be on the fence on certain aspects of the reproductive rights debate, I offer the following story from Saudi Arabia’s Al Riyadh Newspaper and I ask whether this is what you think America should look like:

The Saudi Royal Council of Healing Arts, the governing body that regulates the practice of medicine in the Kingdom, stripped the medical license of a doctor who refused to force a mentally-ill 10 year old to give birth.

The Kingdom’s sharia police filed a complaint against Dr. Mohammed al-Nusbari alleging that his exams were not thorough enough to support his medical conclusions and his follow-up care was inadequate because he did not recommend counseling or hospitalization after each procedure.

When hearing the case against Dr. al-Nusbari, the Council offered up their own expert to determine if any breach of the standard of care occurred. The witness insisted that in no cases is abortion a treatment that could be seen as beneficial to a patient’s mental health.

Dr. al-Nusbari will appeal the ruling. If he loses he will have his license permanently revoked.

Could you imagine if the type of anti-abortion worldview demonstrated in that article held sway here in America? Even if you’re against abortion in most cases, would a situation like this leave you uncomfortable?

Now, I’m going to let you in on a little secret. I lied to you earlier in this post. The story that I’ve reprinted (in fairly heavily edited form, though I haven’t changed the substance at all) wasn’t from Al Riyadh Newspaper. Nope. And these events didn’t take place in Saudi Arabia, either. Nope. The story comes from Kansas. You remember Kansas, don’t you? Dorothy and Toto? Right. That Kansas. I changed all of the names so that the article would be more believable.* Why? Because I wanted to lull you into a sense of the understandable. You’d probably expect repressive Saudi Arabia to treat people like this. That’s what governments run by religious extremists do, right? And I wanted you to think about how horrible this story was without putting up any sort of mental defenses first. After all, I suspect the anti-abortion folks are also pretty anti-anything when it comes to Saudi Arabia, Muslim society, or sharia law. But Americans … in Kansas?

So take a deep breath and think about this for a minute. In Kansas — not Saudi Arabia, mind you, but Kansas — a doctor may lose her license for allowing a mentally-ill 10-year old girl who was raped by her uncle to get an abortion. What kind of world — what kind of person — thinks that a mentally-ill 10-year old girl who was the victim of incestuous rape should be required to carry a fetus to term? Seriously.

If we continue to elect far-right, anti-abortion crusaders to our state legislatures, Indiana, like Kansas, may soon look like the Saudi Arabia or other religious societies that we hold in such contempt.

Oh, here is Dr. Neuhaus’ actual rebuttal to the charges against her:

“To even claim that isn’t medically necessary qualifies as gross incompetence,” said Neuhaus.  “Someone’s 10 years old, and they were raped by their uncle and they understand that they’ve got a baby growing in their stomach and they don’t want that. You’re going to send this girl for a brain scan and some blood work and put her in a hospital?”

For more, please see the original story.

---

*The Saudi Royal Council of Healing Arts is, in reality, the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts. Dr. al-Nusbari was actually a woman, Dr. Ann Neuhaus. The “sharia police” are actually the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue.

NPR Airs Story About David Barton, the Right’s Favorite Teller of Historical Lies and Peddler of Bull

Last night, NPR’s All Things Considered aired an important story about one of the most dangerous people you’ve probably never heard of. His name is David Barton and he pretends to be a historian. In reality, he is an evangelical Christian activist and charlatan who has made a living out of trying to reinvent American history to “prove” that America is a “Christian nation”.

While you have most likely never heard of Barton, on the right and in certain segments of the evangelical community, he is a virtual rock star. Why do I say that Barton is dangerous? Because people believe the lies that he tells (for example, please see my post Cognitive Dissonance in Action) and, more importantly, they have been using those lies to shape our laws and society. Case in point is the recent textbook adoption process in Texas in which Barton was a star witness for those who sought to make drastic changes to the Texas history curriculum in a way makes the history of America far, far different both from what you learned in school and from what virtually all true historians will tell you. Or, as you can see if you watch one of the videos below, my own Congressman, Dan Burton (R-IN) has even quoted Barton’s falsehoods from the podium in the House of Representatives.

But Barton is an activist on a mission, so inconvenient facts don’t deter him at all.

Anyway, have a listen to the NPR story.

Also, at NPR’s site, there is an expanded text version of the story (well worth the read).

I want to make a few points that I’m not sure were made completely clear in the NPR story. First, though it is mentioned, I want to reiterate that the authors of the book Getting Jefferson Right (the takedown of Barton’s pseudo-history of Thomas Jefferson) are not far left liberals or Christian-hating atheists; rather, they are themselves conservative evangelical Christians.

The other point that I want to make is that, though Barton may have gathered 100,000 documents, he’s been caught, time and time again, either lying about what is in those documents, taking them wildly out of context, manipulating the quotations (a word change here or a sentence omitted there), changing dates, or simply making things up. His form of “history” seems to be simply holding up a piece of paper and saying, “Gee, this piece of paper proves what I’m saying,” without bothering to, you know, read and understand that piece of paper or show the actual document to those he’s trying to convince. Or, if he does show the document, he does so in a way that nobody can actually read the content of the document to compare what he claims is being said to what is, in fact, contained in the document.

Need an example? Watch Chris Rodda’s brilliant and detailed examination of one of Barton’s document-based lies:

How did Barton respond to Rodda’s takedown? Watch:

What? Did you think he’d admit that he’d lied or say, “Damn, you caught me?” Of course not. He’s not a real historian, but rather a charlatan and activist. So he doubles down (or worse)! He talks about “thousands of documents” failing to note, as Rodda did, that the documents he was describing were merely pre-printed forms that had specific language required by treaty. But the people who watch and love Glenn Beck and David Barton are not, I suspect, also watching and reading Chris Rodda (whose name, you’ll note, neither Beck nor Barton reference). And so people continue to believe Barton. Of course, those who do so seem to be the same people who don’t believe real science either (you know, like evolution and global warming). On the far right, facts don’t matter and lies win the day.

If you’re interested in more of this sort of thing, I highly recommend Rodda’s book Liars for Jesus, her website where she includes several more videos in which she takes on David Barton, and her Talk to Action blog. Or just watch a few more of them below:

Next time you hear someone talking about the United States being a “Christian nation” you will be a bit better armed to know truth from David Barton’s fiction.

Mitt Romney Will Apparently Lie About Anything (Again)

So shortly after finishing Mitt Romney Will Lie About Anything, I came across the newest case of Mitt Lies™. This crap is so … well, disgusting is the only word that comes to mind. First, let’s look at Romney’s newest campaign ad:

Wow! I didn’t know President Obama had the power to just change the law like that!

Oh, wait. What? He didn’t change the law? He didn’t “gut welfare reform by dropping work requirements”? Um, no. He didn’t. Not even close.

Actually, in July, the United States Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children & Families, issued a policy memo. Go ahead. Take a few minutes and read the memo (pay particular attention to the letter portion at the bottom of the memo). It’s not very long. Or, read the following highlights (but as you do, be sure to keep in mind Romney’s charge that President Obama “gut[ted] welfare reform by dropping work requirements”):

[M]any jurisdictions expressed a strong interest in greater flexibility in TANF and indicated that greater flexibility could be used by states to improve program effectiveness. We also heard concerns that some TANF rules stifle innovation and focus attention on paperwork rather than helping parents find jobs.  States offered a range of suggestions for ways in which expanded flexibility could lead to more effective employment outcomes for families.  Two states – Utah and Nevada – submitted written comments that specifically identified waivers as one mechanism for testing new approaches to promoting employment and self-sufficiency, and a number of others states – including California, Connecticut, and Minnesota - have asked about the potential for waivers.

As described in more detail in the Information Memorandum, the Social Security Act provides the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services with the authority to grant states waivers of certain TANF provisions for the purpose of testing new approaches to meeting the goals of the TANF statute.  The Secretary is interested in using her authority to allow states to test alternative and innovative strategies, policies, and procedures that are designed to improve employment outcomes for needy families.  The statute does not permit tribes to receive waivers under Section 1115, however we are committed to using the underlying flexibility in federal law to help tribes innovate in their programs.

TANF Waiver demonstration projects under Section 1115 must be accompanied by a high quality evaluation plan, which is critical to ensuring that the pilots result in rigorous evidence about what works and what doesn’t in order to inform future decisions made by policymakers at the federal, state, tribal, territorial, and local levels.  In addition, states that apply for a waiver must identify interim performance targets that will be used to hold states accountable for improving outcomes for families.  We will work with states interested in developing waiver demonstration projects to design these performance measures and targets.

The Information Memorandum outlines the types of waivers that will and will not be considered.  The Secretary is only interested in approving waivers if the state can explain in a compelling fashion why the proposed approach may be a more efficient or effective means to promote employment entry, retention, advancement, or access to jobs that offer opportunities for earnings and advancement that will allow participants to avoid dependence on government benefits. 

See any differences between Romney’s charge and the actual actions taken by the Obama administration? And it’s worth noting that the two states whose actions prompted the request — Nevada and Utah — have Republican governors. I always thought Republicans just loved “states rights”.

And it’s worth noting that in 2005, several Republican Governors wrote a letter to the Department of Health & Human Services asking for just the sort of waivers the Obama administration has now said it will consider. Here’s the signature page of that letter (look in the upper right corner…):

Right. This is something Romney wanted … until President Obama did it. And now it’s evil. Or something. (And, should you be interested, here is a letter from HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to Rep. Dave Camp, Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, further describing the current action and relating it to the request made by Romney and other governors in 2005.)

I could probably say more, dive deeper into the issue of the waivers or what the 1996 welfare reform law really says, but that would just be belaboring the simple point: Mitt Romney will apparently lie about anything to be elected President. The man has absolutely no scruples or moral fiber. He is a serial liar.

It’s getting to the point that if Romney says the sky is blue, we better all look outside and trust our own observations rather than the drivel that comes out of his mouth.

Mitt Romney Will Apparently Lie About Anything

I understand that politicians tell lies. It’s part of the game. But there are lies and then there are lies. Some lies are merely exaggerations or focus on semantics. Other lies are merely “little white lies” that don’t really hurt anyone But some lies … well, some lies are lies and a politician who is willing to go that far is someone about whom we should have real character concerns.

Which brings me to Mitt Romney.

Here is a man who has lied and lied and lied. He even lied about his name during a Republican debate. Seriously. (His name is Willard Mitt Romney but trying to emulate CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, Romney claimed that his first name is Mitt.)

But the newest lie cuts much closer to the political core and is so egregious that it is worth highlighting.

First, some facts.

Ohio used to have limited early voting opportunities. But after long lines and other problems in prior elections (2004 in particular), Ohio decided to expand early voting opportunities. And then they changed their minds and decided to reduce early voting again. But then the citizens of Ohio decided to put the new voting requirements to a public referendum. In order to head that off, the Ohio legislature changed the law again in such a way that treated Ohio service members differently than Ohio’s other citizens.

With me so far?

Now, knowing what you do about Republicans and Democrats, can you guess which party was responsible for expanding the early voting window? And which party was responsible for shortening the early voting window? Go ahead. Guess.

So anyway, a lawsuit has been filed in Ohio by the Obama campaign. Do you think, knowing nothing more than the basic policy positions of the campaigns and parties, that the lawsuit wants to:

(a) Reduce the amount of time that US service members have to vote early; or

(b) Increase the amount of time that non-service members have to vote early?</P?>

Or perhaps I’ll ask the question slightly differently. Again, knowing nothing more than the basic policy positions of the campaigns and parties, do you think that the lawsuit wants to:

(a) Treat all citizens of Ohio the same; or

(b) Treat one class of Ohio citizens differently?

In other words, is the Obama campaign seeking to restrict and shorten the time available for early voting or expand and lengthen the time available? Knowing nothing else, what would you guess?

Well, Mitt Romney doesn’t think you’re that smart. He’s willing to offer a bald-faced lie to convince you (and more importantly Ohio voters) that the Obama administration wants to take away voting rights. You know, just like the Obama administration helped pass restrictive voter ID laws and other restrictive voting laws in many states. Oh, wait. That’s right. Neither President Obama nor Democrats have done that. Nope. Efforts to restrict and limit voting rights have been a Republican movement that the Obama Justice Department has challenged.

Obviously, there is no reason for you to trust me over Mitt Romney. I mean, he “saved” the 2002 Olympics and is a former Governor, for Pete’s sake. So how about this? First, let’s look at what Romney has said and then I’ll quote from a part of the actual lawsuit filed by the Obama campaign. See if Romney’s claim matches the relief that the complaint seeks.

First, Mitt Romney’s statement (published on his campaign website):

President Obama's lawsuit claiming it is unconstitutional for Ohio to allow servicemen and women extended early voting privileges during the state’s early voting period is an outrage. The brave men and women of our military make tremendous sacrifices to protect and defend our freedoms, and we should do everything we can to protect their fundamental right to vote. I stand with the fifteen military groups that are defending the rights of military voters, and if I'm entrusted to be the commander-in-chief, I'll work to protect the voting rights of our military, not undermine them.

OK. So in Romney’s view, President Obama has claimed it is unconstitutional for Ohio “to allow servicemen and women extended early voting privileges” and has implicitly “undermined” the voting rights of the military. So now let’s see what the Obama campaign’s lawsuit really says (and feel free to go read the whole complaint):

1. Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit to restore in-person early voting for all Ohioans during the three days prior to Election Day – a right exercised by an estimated 93,000 Ohioans in the last presidential election. Ohio election law, as currently enacted by the State of Ohio and administered by Defendant Ohio Secretary of State, arbitrarily eliminates early voting during the three days prior to Election Day for most Ohio voters, a right previously available to all Ohio voters. This disparate treatment violates 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and can be rectified by the Court enjoining enforcement of statutory changes that eliminate early in-person voting for most Ohioans during the three days before an election.
2. Specifically, taken together, Amended Substitute House Bill Number 194 (“HB 194”), Amended Substitute House Bill Number 224 (“HB 224”) and Substitute Senate Bill Number 295 (“SB 295”), all enacted by the 129th Ohio General Assembly, impose different deadlines for in-person voting prior to Election Day (“early voting”) on similarly situated voters. Prior to the enactment of these laws, there was a single uniform deadline of the Monday before Election Day for in-person early voting. After the enactment of these laws, voters using the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voter Act (“UOCAVA”) may vote early in-person at a board of elections office up through the Monday before Election Day, while non-UOCAVA voters can vote early in-person at a board of elections office (or designated alternate site) only up until 6 p.m. on the Friday before Election Day.
3. The differential treatment of UOCAVA and non-UOCAVA voters with respect to early voting appears to be the result of a confused legislative process initiated by the Ohio General Assembly after citizens of the State commenced the process to subject HB 194 to a referendum. HB 194 was a 300-page bill passed by a Republican dominated legislature that limited voting rights in a number of respects, including by shortening the time period for early voting – an option more likely to be used by groups of voters that tend to support Democratic candidates. While the referendum petitions on HB 194 were circulating, the Ohio General Assembly passed HB 224 with “technical corrections” to the early in person voting laws. Then, after Ohio citizens exercised their right to hold a referendum vote on HB 194 by qualifying for the general election ballot, the Ohio General Assembly passed SB 295 to repeal HB 194, but failed to also repeal the corresponding “technical corrections” made by HB 224 in the interim. Whether caused by legislative error or partisan motivation, the result of this legislative process is arbitrary and inequitable treatment of similarly situated Ohio voters with respect to in-person early voting.
4. The Ohio General Assembly has failed to articulate any justification for this differential treatment of UOCAVA and non-UOCAVA voters, and no justification can be discerned. Indeed, these different deadlines exist despite the fact that, for purposes of in-person early voting, both UOCAVA and non-UOCAVA voters are identically situated, i.e., they are qualified electors who are physically present in their home county when they desire to vote in-person at their county board of elections office prior to Election Day.
5. This inequitable approach to early voting will have a significant impact on voters. Between 2005 and 2011, Ohio successfully administered an early-voting system that included in-person voting in the three days prior to Election Day. This early voting system increased participation among voters, including those for whom work or family obligations make it difficult to vote on Election Day, and reduced the congestion that caused such severe waits during the 2004 presidential election in Ohio that some citizens were effectively denied the right to vote. Indeed, as noted above, approximately 93,000 Ohioans voted in the three days prior to the 2008 presidential election. Now, as a result of HB 224 and SB 295, most Ohio voters will not be permitted to vote in the three days prior to Election Day for no apparent reason. Without early voting in these last three days before Election Day, tens of thousands of citizens who would have otherwise exercised their right to vote during this time period, including Plaintiffs’ members and supporters, may not be able to participate in future elections at all.
6. This unequal burden on the fundamental right to vote violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs have no plain, adequate, or complete remedy at law other than the relief requested in this Complaint. Unless the changes made to Ohio Rev. Code § 3509.03 by HB 224 and SB 295 are enjoined by this Court, Plaintiffs and the voters they represent will be directly and irreparably harmed in upcoming elections.
7. For these reasons and those specifically alleged herein, Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from implementing or enforcing the HB 224 and SB 295 changes to Ohio Rev. Code § 3509.03, thereby restoring in-person absentee voting on the three days immediately preceding Election Day for all Ohio voters.

Whew. I know that some of that is a mouthful. So let me go back and repeat a key sentence — the very first sentence of the Complaint (emphasis added):

Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit to restore in-person early voting for all Ohioans during the three days prior to Election Day – a right exercised by an estimated 93,000 Ohioans in the last presidential election.

Now go back and re-read Romney’s claim that the Obama administration is undermining the voting rights of members of the military or is claiming that it is unconstitutional to allow service members to have extended early voting. See what I mean?

The Obama campaign has not sought to restrict early voting by service members. The Obama campaign hasn’t sought to restrict voting rights for anyone. Instead, the Obama campaign seeks to expand access to early voting to all Ohioans. And Romney calls that an “outrage”?

So here’s the question. I know that Romney wants to be President. I get that. I can appreciate that. And I understand that he wants/needs to highlight policy differences between himself and President Obama. It certainly seems to me that there are plenty of policy distinctions that Romney could try to draw (you know, like Romneycare … oh, wait … no, never mind that one). So why tell this kind of lie? Perhaps more importantly, what does it say about a man who would tell this kind of lie in the first place? What does it say about his judgment and moral character? What does it say about his fitness to hold office? If he’s so willing to lie on subjects like this now, then what should we expect from him if elected to the Presidency?

If you’re curious to see just how often Romney lies, fibs, exaggerates, and so forth, it’s worth checking out Steve Benen’s occasional series Chronicling Mitt’s Mendacity (up to Vol. XXVIII as of last Friday). And for more of my own thoughts on lies in politics, please take a few minutes to read my post Responding to Political Lies or some of the other posts that I’ve linked to in that post.

The First Amendment Does Not Protect Your Stupid, Bigoted Idea from Being Criticized

I want to return to a subject that I’ve discussed before (see Freedom of Speech Just Isn’t That Complicated (and other notes about Hank Williams Jr.) and What the First Amendment Doesn’t Mean). Due to current events, the issue is once again relevant. The flap over the comments by Dan Cathy, the president of Chick-fil-A have led to people expressing their reactions with grave misunderstandings of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. So, before getting into what people are getting wrong, let’s start by reminding ourselves what the First Amendment actually says (I’ve highlighted the relevant portions in red):

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It’s really rather simple. But far too many people either don’t understand or do understand but intentionally try to mislead others.

One type of confusion that has been around for a long time, but which is somewhat understandable (I guess), is the failure to understand that an individual or business cannot violate someone else’s First Amendment rights; only the government can.

But the more pernicious (and seemingly recent) form of “confusion” has to do with the notion that the First Amendment not only protects your right to speech but also somehow requires others to listen and/or protects the speaker from criticism. Wrong on both counts.

I don’t recall ever having heard this sort of misunderstanding of the First Amendment (or lack thereof) until — who else? — Sarah Palin (emphasis added):

If they convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning [claiming that Obama “palled around with terrorists”], for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations, then I don’t know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media.

Somehow, Palin thought that her First Amendment rights were in jeopardy if the media was allowed to “attack” her.

Similar claims were made by Hank Williams, Jr. when he was fired by ESPN:

After reading hundreds of e-mails, I have made MY decision. By pulling my opening Oct 3rd, You (ESPN) stepped on the Toes of The First Amendment Freedom of Speech, so therefore Me, My Song, and All My Rowdy Friends are OUT OF HERE. It’s been a great run.

To Williams, ESPN stepped on his First Amendment rights.

Some people made similar arguments that Rush Limbaugh’s First Amendment rights were being infringed upon when advertisers began to jump ship after Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a “slut” and “prostitute”. Because, you know, the First Amendment requires that people be given $400 million radio programs and that advertisers must continue to advertise no matter the content of the show. And these examples are but the tip of the proverbial iceberg for this sort of misunderstanding.

And now with the Chick-fil-A fiasco, this sort of argument can be seen plastered all over the Internet and Facebook. I can’t begin to count how many posts and tweets I’ve seen that say something like “criticizing Chick-fil-A is taking away their First Amendment rights”. I think that the “best” formulation of the argument I’ve seen so far came courtesy of an editorial (please don’t click on the link and give them any more hits) on the far-right, conspiracy site World Nut Net Daily by former baseball player John Rocker (yes, the same John Rocker who got suspended for racist and homophobic comments and who admitted to steroid use):

Over recent years, it seems the term “free speech” has become more of an oxymoron than an absolute in our society. Technically, as our Founding Fathers intended, we are all given the undeniable right to voice our thoughts and opinions freely without fear of scorn and/or ridicule derived from non-agreement. I supposedly have the same right to express myself as you do. In a perfect world, my rights should be no different from yours. I’m quite certain that given the current stage of the world’s social climate, however, anyone ascribing to the ridiculous notion that our world is perfect is kidding himself. Our “perfect” world was replaced many moons ago by the defective reality in which we are all forced to reside — and one of the most blatant areas to view the erosion of perfection is seen in the lack of ability many in this great country have to speak freely without fear of chastisement.

(Emphasis added.)

Somebody needs to explain to me where the notion that the First Amendment protects ideas from scorn or ridicule comes from. After all, that notion is completely antithetical to the very purpose of the First Amendment. The Founding Fathers understood that for our system of government to be successful, there had to be an open interchange of thoughts (the so-called “marketplace of ideas”) and that the government shouldn’t be able to silence dissenting voices or unpopular opinions.

Key to all of this, of course, is the simple fact that criticism is itself speech that is protected by the First Amendment. In other words, the First Amendment protects whatever stupid idiotic thing you want to say. But it also protects me from telling you that your opinion is bigoted, hurtful, and asinine.

And many people are suggesting, somehow, that someone is trying to “disallow” Chick-fil-A’s point of view. For example, on Twitter the other night, someone jumped into a conversation that I was having with a friend to say (in part, emphasis added):

Isn’t it bigoted to disallow Cathy’s point of view?

Um, who is trying to disallow that point of view? I’ll defend to my last breath his right to say whatever stupid, bigoted, hateful thing he wants. That is the what the First Amendment protects. But I will also use those breaths to criticize his ideas and to shout out better ideas. And I won’t give the restaurant money that it can use to support groups that advocate for things with which I disagree. I will, instead, spend my fast food chicken dollars at a restaurant that supports equality. Or is it least silent.

And for those who think that boycotting Chick-fil-A is somehow infringing on Cathy’s First Amendment right, can you please show me where the First Amendment requires me to buy a chicken sandwich from a particular store? You know, it’s interesting that the right has no problem organizing boycotts of JC Penny for using gay couples in advertisements or in boycotting certain television programs because of their subject matter or getting radio stations to stop playing the Dixie Chicks because they criticized President Bush. But turn that around into a boycott of an issue near and dear to the right and suddenly, whoa Nelly, you’ve violated the Constitution. And isn’t it interesting to hear the right complain about violations of their rights when the point at issue is the fact that the viewpoint being criticized is the idea that other Americans shouldn’t have certain rights? I’m having a hard time wrapping my brain around the argument that by criticizing your view that others shouldn’t have rights, I’m somehow violating your rights.

I also want to note that I think that it is completely false equivalency between advocating for discrimination and advocating for equality. Those points may both be protected by the First Amendment, but they aren’t equivalent.

Now I will agree that when mayors step in and say that they won’t allow a Chick-fil-A in their town because of the views expressed by the restaurant, then we have gone too far. Probably. I think it’s a bad idea for mayors (or governments) to decide whether a certain business can operate based on its owner’s political views. But I’m not sure it’s necessarily that easy. For example, if the owner of the business wasn’t a homophobe but rather a racist who claimed that blacks were sub-human or that Jews really did drink the blood of Christian babies, might your reaction be different? Would you expect your mayor to work to prevent a business from locating in your community if the owner of that business expressed his support for pedophilia or loudly called for the end of American democracy?

And can I presume that everyone who has been critical of the mayors stepping in (um, aren’t you violating their First Amendment rights … at least according to your warped logic?) has been equally critical of efforts to stop Muslims from erecting mosques in New York or Murfreesboro, Tennessee? After all, the First Amendment does protect freedom of religion; it does not protect freedom to sell chicken sandwiches.

Finally, while this may not be entirely fair, it does make one pause and think:

So You Want to “Influence” an Election

So you want to “influence” the results of an election so that your candidate of choice is elected. First, let’s ask a rhetorical question that often goes unasked. Why? Why do you want your candidate of choice to be elected? I would presume that in almost all cases, the reason that someone wants a particular candidate to win is because of that candidate’s proposed policies. The person wanting the candidate to succeed most likely believes that candidate will do something (or, perhaps, do nothing, as the case may be) that the person believes will be good for … well, something. Maybe good for the person or good for the person’s business or good for the country or the economy or some other nebulous beneficiary.

OK. Fair enough. But I think that it’s important when we think about why someone wants to influence an election to be sure we understand the influencer’s motivation. If someone is going to work very hard, commit a crime, or expend enormous amounts of money, then there must be a really compelling reason to do so.

Now, with that in mind, let’s say that you really do want to influence an election. You think that if candidate X is elected you or something important to you will be better. So how might you influence the election? Obviously, you could work for a campaign, but that’s not the type of influence I’m talking about.

Well, if we listen to the right, one of the most dastardly ways to influence an election is voter fraud. Before getting too deep into the weeds of voter fraud itself, there is one important distinction to draw: Voter fraud that would influence an election is not the same as vote fraud in registering to vote. The act of registering, fraudulently or otherwise, has absolutely no impact on the results of the election. It doesn’t add a vote to any candidate’s column. If I go to the appropriate county office and somehow manage to register to vote under a fictitious name, not only have I committed a felony, but it’s a felony that, so far at least, has done me no good whatsoever. For my felonious behavior to matter, I still have to cast a ballot.

And therein lies the problem with the specter of vote fraud.

Unless we’re talking about something like a local township election, the number of votes necessary to win almost any election is enormous. Sure there are always a handful of elections that turn out to be very close, but those are, by far, the exception rather than the rule. So consider the real question: Just how many people are going to have to be willing to commit a felony in order to get their particular candidate elected? Or, perhaps, how many people will be willing to commit that felony frequently enough on election day for their repeated felonious conduct to have an impact? Remember that this isn’t like robbing a bank where the perceived financial benefit will be near instantaneous. To fraudulently cast a ballot means that you believe that, in the long term, the politician elected will be able to do some good for you. And that is only if the politician wins. If he loses? Well, you’ve committed the felony for no good whatsoever (almost like robbing a bank but not knowing ahead of time if the bank will have any money and, if they do, relying on them sending you a check several years down the road).

It seems to me that the difficulty in actually committing vote fraud, compounded with the very limited possibility for personal gain, explains why proponents of voter ID laws have had so little success in pointing to any real examples of in person vote fraud. It just doesn’t happen. But it makes a good bogeyman. (Note that just law week, officials in Pennsylvania stipulated to a court that there is is no known example of in person vote fraud in Pennsylvania; Indiana’s Secretary of State made the same stipulation to the Federal Court hearing the case about Indiana’s voter ID law several years ago. Note further that a Republican candidate in Arizona has recently been caught [or at least alleged] to have been voting via absentee ballot on behalf of his deceased wife for five years, a crime that voter ID laws don’t protect against.)

So let’s shift to the other type of influence: Money. While a fraudulent vote doesn’t count for very much, the influx of enormous sums of money into the political process certainly does. And note that the only people who can, on their own, make an enormous influence via money are those with lots of money to spend. People living paycheck-to-paycheck can’t afford more than a handful of dollars (if that) to help politicians. The idea of paying tens of thousands or even millions to attend black tie dinners or to support a Super PAC is simply out of reach and alien to the experience and means of all but a tiny portion of the population. Hey, I’m a big supporter of Israel, but it’s not within my means to just jet off to Israel for a weekend in order to have breakfast with a candidate for President of the US, let alone pay $60,000 for the ticket to that breakfast; I suspect that there aren’t too many Americans who can pony up that kind of cash … for that kind of access.

But do we really think that those with the money to burn would spend that money if they didn’t think that there would be some kind of return on their “investment”? I’m going to presume that at least a decent percentage of those folks didn’t get rich by accident which leads me to also presume that they are carefully considering the net benefit of making an enormous campaign contribution. Take, for example, a billionaire. Might it be worth spending a few million or even tens of millions if your expected “return” on that investment was a tax cut that might be worth even more? Of course.

Consider further the degree of harm that the unfettered application of money to a campaign can cause. First, those who can’t contribute hundreds of thousands may feel alienated from the system and may decide that their $25 contribution is of no value or that their voice won’t matter. And thus they essentially opt out of participation. Of course, that may be the goal of one side of the political spectrum. Then we have to consider the fact that the money is largely fungible and so, despite claims to the contrary, it is highly probably that money from foreign sources (perhaps even foreign governments) is, indeed, making its way into our political debate. And as to the nature of that political debate, there are now essentially no rules as to what can and can’t be said. Thus, those with money to burn can more or less get away with disseminating all sorts of misinformation if not outright lies. Furthermore, much of the money now flowing into the system and the messages paid for by that money are largely anonymous. And of course that money helps to buy candidates who may support laws that will keep that anonymity in place or who will support judges who will continue to allow the unfettered influence of money on our electoral process.

Moreover, we shouldn’t forget that, unlike vote fraud, it is the money that may help determine who the candidates are in the first place. If you can’t raise money, you’re not going to even get on many ballots or generate any sort of name recognition.

Vote fraud may be an easy scapegoat, but it’s nothing more than a bogeyman. The real danger to our electoral system is money.

And consider this: Why is it that politicians are willing to impose ID requirements upon people who want to vote but not put requirements to simply disclose identity upon those who give money? If I hand a politician a pile of cash and ask him to vote for bill X, then I’ve committed bribery; but if I hand him a pile of cash and say, “Gee, I hope you get elected so that you can vote for bill X,” then I’ve just exercised my First Amendment rights. And I’ve done it without having to show my ID.

Or query this: If you’re an individual, especially one who lives paycheck-to-paycheck or is of relatively modest means, who lobbies on your behalf? Who pays to take legislators to expensive lunches, golf outings, or trips to Aruba on your behalf? Isn’t it an odd system that we’ve designed where corporations have lobbyists but people (well, other than a very limited subset) don’t? Sorry, but that seems a bit backwards to me.

One final point on all of this: Besides spending money to buy adds or simply support candidates, there is another use for the money by those who want to influence elections: They can “buy” new laws (through organizations like ALEC) to help suppress the votes of those with whom they might disagree. For example, they might choose to spend money to support candidates who will pass laws that require those who are most likely to vote for the “other guy” to … oh, I don’t know … maybe, get photo IDs?

There is the real tragedy in all of this. Those with money to spend and who desire to have elections (and the country go their way) have created the bogeyman of vote fraud and then used their money to help pass new laws to suppress the votes of those who support their political opponents. In other words, money is being used to buy politicians, it is being used to buy laws, it is being used to suppress voting, it is being used to tell lies, spread fear, and generate hate, and it is being used to buy a government and country. We are a democratic republic that is in danger of becoming a faux-democratic oligarchy.

Votes and Guns

I find it interesting to compare and contrast the approaches that we’ve taken with regard to two very important issues, both of which are core constitutional issues. In one case, we’ve begun enacting legislation that has a material adverse impact upon the core constitutional rights of potentially millions of people in order to prevent a crime that doesn’t seem to exist. On the other hand, we’ve refused to enact laws or take real measures designed to prevent (or reduce the impact of) real crimes that are being committed daily and have become a plague upon our society.

What am I talking about about? You know. Votes and guns.

The absolute core of our democratic republic is the notion that people elect their representatives. Take away the right to vote and you are limiting our democracy. Despite the fact that there is little or no evidence of actual in person voter fraud (of the type that would be prevented by voter ID laws), state after state has adopted laws that have the net effect of making it more difficult for large numbers of people to exercise their constitutional right to vote. We’ve enacted laws that impose burdens on the exercise of rights in order to prevent a non-existent crime.

The Constitution also protects the right to bear arms (though I still contend that the “militia clause” must have some meaning). Many people (especially the NRA) seem to read the Second Amendment to prevent any sort of restrictions upon guns or gun ownership. Sure, we require a background check (sometimes) before someone can purchase a gun. But we don’t require background checks to purchase 100-round magazines, armor piercing bullets, tear gas canisters, body armor, or any of a host of similar items. And we know, all too well, that there is an epidemic of crime being committed with guns. Real crimes with real victims, often children.

In other words, when it comes to imposing burdens upon voting, we tend to look at Constitutional rights through a very narrow lens. We don’t seem to mind that we might disenfranchise some voters if it will protect “the system” from the “threat” of a crime — even if that crime doesn’t really exist. But when it comes to the Second Amendment, we look at Constitutional rights through a very expansive lens and believe that almost anything goes and we dare not tread upon gun rights even if it is to stop a scourge of violence that kills literally thousands each year (9,146 in 2009, according to GunPolicy.org). I have no idea how many people are wounded by gunfire; nor do I have any idea the extent to which people change their behavior due to the fear of gun violence.

The history of our country has been to expand voting rights and voting access. From being very limited (landowning males only in some cases), voting rights have expanded to include most men, then blacks, then women, then those 18 and older. We’ve gotten rid of poll taxes and reading tests and other sorts of barriers to voting. Until recently. And now, many of our politicians seem set upon creating new barriers to voting. But when it comes to guns, we can’t even seem to get support for a ban on assault weapons and cop-killer bullets. We can’t get support for the notion that if you’re on the government’s “no fly list” you shouldn’t be able to buy a gun. We can’t get support for closing loopholes that allow people to buy guns at gun shows without background checks. In fact, many of our legislators are pushing for more liberal gun laws, including allowing people to carry guns in bars, stadiums, schools, and courthouses, and requiring a concealed carry license issued by one state to be recognized by other states (and isn’t it odd that the people pushing for that are largely the same who don’t want states to be forced to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state… but I digress…).

Over and over, we’re told that “guns don’t kill people; people do”. That may be true. But votes don’t kill people either. And yet we’re willing to restrict voting rights but not gun rights. That makes no sense to me. I simply cannot understand how fair-minded people can be willing to restrict rights to prevent a crime for which there is no evidence that it has or is being committed and, at the same time, not restrict rights to prevent crimes that are killing our fellow citizens and making our society less safe.

Votes and guns. Guns and votes. We’re making it too hard to do one; too easy to obtain the other. We’ve got our priorities seriously backward.

More Children Die for the “Crime” of Being Israeli

While details are still sketchy, it appears that at least 3 and perhaps 7 (or even more) Israeli teenagers have been killed in a bus bombing (perhaps a suicide bombing) in a resort town in Bulgaria. My heartfelt sympathies go out to the families of those killed and wounded.

I’m sure in the next few days, as we learn more about what happened, we’re going to hear phrases like “cycle of violence” or “retaliation”. But don’t fall into that linguistic trap. Because the murder of vacationing teenagers is not the same — not even close — to casualties inflicted upon those who seek to inflict harm.

Look, I have compassion for Palestinian families who have lost loved ones in the conflict with Israel. I really do. That said, those sympathies do not extend to the families of Palestinians who have strapped explosives to their bodies and detonated them in discotheques, in pizza parlors, at Passover Seders, or on buses in order to kill Israelis (and often children). My sympathy does not extend to the families of Palestinians jailed for breaking into the home of an Israeli family and then slaughtering that family, including infants. My sympathy does not extend to those Palestinians who would use their own children as human shields or who allow rocket-wielding terrorists to take refuge in or about their homes.

And I ask again, precisely how many buses has Israel blown up? How many jetliners have Israeli terrorists hijacked or bombed? How many cruise ships have Israeli terrorists commandeered? How many Muslim community centers in places like Argentina have been blown up by Israelis? How many Olympic athletes have been taken hostage and murdered by Israelis?

There is a difference between an Israeli teenager killed in a random bombing in a pizza parlor and a Palestinian teenager killed while throwing rocks at an Israeli soldier. There is a difference between an Israeli woman killed by a bomb while attending a Passover Seder and a Palestinian killed in the act of launching a missile against a target is Israel. There is a difference between an Israeli family murdered in their beds by knife-wielding Palestinians and a Palestinian family killed when a Hamas-fabricated bomb explodes prematurely. There is a difference between an Israeli killed while vacationing in Bulgaria and a terrorist arranging an arms shipment in Dubai or a nuclear scientist helping Iran obtain nuclear weapon. A life is a life, but there is a qualitative difference between the reasons for the respective loss of life.

The point bears repeating: If the Palestinians (and Arab/Muslim states) put down their weapons and came to the negotiating table, there would be peace. If Israel puts down its weapons, there won’t be an Israel.

You know, we haven’t heard about many bus bombings in Israel in recent years. Why not? Because the security barrier built to keep terrorists based in the West Bank from infiltrating into Israel worked. Israel didn’t build the fence just to spite the Palestinians or out of a sense of superiority; it built the fence to defend its citizens from ongoing, repeated terrorist attacks emanating from the West Bank. So now that the fence is doing the job, it appears that those who hate Israelis are taking their campaign of violence outside of Israel.

What do you think that the United States (or Britain, France, or even Russia) would do if a busload of its teenagers, on holiday in some distant land, were murdered simply for being Americans (or British, French, or Russian)?

Two further points that I want to make briefly. It is worth noting that today is the 18th anniversary of the bombing of a Jewish community center in Argentina. 87 people were killed. Eventually, evidence surfaced that the bombing was orchestrated by Iran and its proxy Hezbollah.

And next week, the Olympics begin. This will be the 40th anniversary of the terrorist attack on Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics, in which 11 Israelis and a West German policeman were murdered. The families of some of those slain, as well as Israel, the US, and a number of other countries, pressed the International Olympic Committee and the London Organizing Committee to include a moment of silence at the opening ceremonies of the London games. One minute. To honor athletes who were killed during the Olympics. But the IOC and the London Organizing Committee said no. One member has apparently acknowledged that the refusal to allow that moment of silence was due to pressure from the Arab and Muslim countries. Deobrah E. Lipstadt, author of History on Trial, and Professor of Modern Jewish History and Holocaust Studies at Emory University, wrote about this refusal in Tablet Magazine. Her article, Jewish Blood Is Cheap, is worth reading. Sadly, I have to agree with her conclusion. It will be interesting to see if the world’s reaction to today’s bombing does anything other than reinforce her premise.

Irresponsible Rhetoric

Emotions run high in politics. I get that. Politicians sometimes try to make their points with hyperbole. I get that too. And I understand that too great a devotion to political correctness can leave unsaid things that should, in fact, be said, or keep out of the discussion issues which really do merit an open debate. However, there are some things that our elected leaders (or those seeking elected office or their respective surrogates) say that are just so far beyond the pale, so irresponsible, and so dangerous to the civic discourse upon which our political system is based, that those comments must be called out and those who make such statements be held to account.

A few months ago I wrote about a statement by Mississippi’s Governor Phil Bryant (emphasis added):

Even if you believe in abortion, the hypocrisy of the left that now tried to kill this bill, that says that I should have never signed it, the true hypocrisy is that their one mission in life is to abort children, is to kill children in the womb. And it doesn’t really matter, they don’t care if the mother’s life is in jeopardy, that if something goes wrong that a doctor can’t admit them to a local hospital, that he’s not even board certified.

I don’t mind if Gov. Bryant expresses his view that abortion is wrong. I don’t even mind if he says that those who support women’s reproductive rights and choice have a different moral understanding of the nature of life. That’s fair. But when he claims that people, like me, who support a woman’s right to choose have, as our “one mission in life” the desire to “abort children … to kill children in the womb,” then he’s gone too far. Besides the fact that his statement is objectively false, the real problem is the danger that a statement like this presents because not everyone who hears it will understand hyperbole for what it is. How many abortion clinics have been attacked? How many abortion providers have been attacked or even killed? It’s bad enough if some idiot crackpot on the Internet makes a claim like “liberals want to kill children,” but in this case, the claim comes from an elected official, and not just any elected official, but rather, the governor of a state. And if the Governor says things like this, should we be surprised if some people believe him? Should we surprised if some people act on that belief?

And the totally irresponsible use of this sort of over-the-top rhetoric that portrays someone or something with which you disagree as not just a ideological opponent, but a murderer or something less than human is getting more and more frequent. Consider, for example, the recent statements by the Republican Governor of Maine Paul LePage. First, in his July 7, 2012, radio address Gov. LePage said:

You must buy health insurance or pay the new Gestapo – the I.R.S.

Yes, you read that correctly. Gov. LePage compared the Internal Revenue Service to the Gestapo. For those who don’t remember their history of World War II:

The Geheime Staatspolizei (German for Secret State Police, abbreviated “Gestapo”) was the secret police of Nazi Germany, and its main tool of oppression and destruction, which persecuted Germans, opponents of the regime, and Jews. It later played a central role in helping carry out the Nazi’s “Final Solution.”

(From Jewish Virtual Library’s article The Gestapo [internal links omitted]; see also this article on the Gestapo, also hosted by the Jewish Virtual Library.) Should you need any more context, here is a photo of German Einsatzgruppen soldiers under the command of the Gestapo killing Jews and dumping them into a ravine at Babi Yar.

I could have used much more shocking imagery. I chose not to.

I don’t care how aggressive the IRS may be at collecting taxes, a comparison to the Gestapo is beyond wrong. It is evil.

But Gov. LePage wasn’t done.

First, when questioned by a reporter about his statement, Gov. LePage first refused to answer the question and then went on the offensive:

Reporter: Will you apologize?

LePage: To who?

Reporter: The people who are upset.

LePage: Well, who’s upset?

Reporter: The Anti-Defamation League is Upset. There’s a group of Jewish people down in southern Maine…

LePage: It was never intended to offend anyone and if someone’s offended then they ought to be God damned mad at the federal government.

Reporter: Was that an apology?

LePage: [no response; he walks out a door]

(I can’t embed this video of the interview.) But then Gov. LePage did offer a sorta, kinda, not really apology (not in person, but via a press release):

It was not my intent to insult anyone, especially the Jewish Community, or minimize the fact that millions of people were murdered.

Clearly, what has happened is that the use of the word Gestapo has clouded my message. Obamacare is forcing the American people to buy health insurance or else pay a tax. Our health care system is moving toward one that rations care and negatively impact millions of Americans.

We no longer are a free people. With every step that Obamacare moves forward, our individual freedoms are being stripped away by the Federal Government. This should anger all Americans.

To me, this is yet another example of a politician that simply doesn’t know how to apologize. Gov. LePage should have said, “my reference to the Gestapo was wrong and I apologize”. Instead, his only apology is for not making his point well enough and for minimizing the fact that millions of people were murdered. But note that he does not say anything like, “no, the IRS is not like the Gestapo”.

One would think that after this, the issue would have died down. But guess what? Gov. LePage really isn’t actually sorry and he really does believe what he said originally. Just a few days after issuing his apology, while speaking at a fundraiser for the GOP candidate for Governor of Vermont, Gov. LePage addressed his Gestapo comment again:

[T]he Maine governor said, “What I am trying to say is the Holocaust was a horrific crime against humanity and, frankly, I would never want to see that repeated. Maybe the IRS is not quite as bad — yet.”

LePage then said, “They’re headed in that direction.”

Asked if he had a sense of what the Gestapo did during the second world war, LePage said, “Yeah, they killed a lot of people.” Asked whether the IRS “was headed in the direction of killing a lot of people,” LePage answered: “Yeah.”

So the sitting Governor of Maine believes that the IRS is headed in the direction of killing a lot of people. Really? Really? Oh, and Gov. LePage also offered yet another non-apology, apology:

Well, let’s put it this way. I apologize to Jewish Americans if they feel offended. But I also apologize to Japanese Americans that were put in prison during World War II, and I also apologize to those people that were accused of being communists during McCarthyism, because that’s not the American way.

Again, the “apology” is not for saying horrible, offensive things. Nope. The apology is to Jews “if they feel offended.” And what does that have to do with Japanese internment or McCarthyism?

I have all sorts of other examples of politicians (or their surrogates) making completely unjustifiable, horrible, irresponsible comments. Just this morning, for example, Romney surrogate (and former Republican Governor of New Hampshire) John Sununu said:

I wish this president would learn to be an American.

Seriously. “Learn to be an American.” Because, of course, we know that President Obama is really a Kenyan. Or an Indonesian. And a Muslim. Or whatever.

This continued demeaning of political discourse, of casting political opponents as enemies or now, with statements by Gov. Bryant and Gov. LePage, as murderers, is a true danger to our form of government. I mean let’s not forget that in addition to attacks on abortion providers, we’ve also seen attacks on the IRS and upon government institutions. Is that the society that Gov. Bryant and Gov. LePage are advocating for? Because that’s certainly the tenor of their remarks. If Gov. LePage doesn’t like the IRS or the Affordable Care Act, he’s free to say so and to make his argument. But rhetoric like his is just another step down the slippery slope toward political violence and anarchy.

We, as a people proud of our civil society, owe it to ourselves, to one another, and most importantly to our children and their children, to work to put a stop to this sort of irresponsible, thoughtless, dangerous trend in political discourse. We have to tell politicians, we have tell everyone, that this sort of rhetoric crosses a line that we, as a society, will not accept. And then we must shame or shun those who use that sort of rhetoric so that nobody will be swayed by it or led down the dangerous path it promotes.